rt]
^ 7^''U
^
^
2l S-y-'
A, "iOl
Pamphlets
"r
0/
\%\
Accession No. ±.^S':,..2:.Zr^^..
Added :../^fyi.....S...,
Catalogued by
Revised by.
Memoranda.
i«2J.
-y^
CfOuu,
A LETTER
REV. NOAH PORTER, D. D
PASTOK OF THE CONG. CHURCH, FARMINGTON, CON.
STATEMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN SPECTATOR,
IN REFERENCE TO
DR. BELLAMY'S DOCTRINES.
FROM No. XV. OF VIEWS IN THEOLOGY,
FOR NOV. 1834.
NEW-YORK:
JOHN P. HAVEN, 148 NASSAU-STREET,
AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY'S HOUSE.
1834.
A LETTER TO
REV. NOAH PORTER, D.D.
ON THE STATEMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN SPECTATOR
IN REFERENCE TO DR. BELLAMY'S DOCTRINES.
SIH,
Report, authorized, if I am not misinformed, by the
Editor of the Christian Spectator, represents you to be the
author of the article in the October number of that work,
on *' the Life and Character of Rev. Luther Hart," in
which the following passages occur.
"For the June number of 1830, he prepared the review on the
early history of the Congregational churches of New England" —
" The review of Bellamy appeared in the succeeding number."
p. 488,
" As to the origin of evil, Mr. Hart fully concedes that Bellamy
and Strong reason chiefly and avowedly on the theory, that sin is the
necessary means of the greatest good ; or that the moral system
includes more good than it could have done, had there been no sin
and punishment, and was therefore preferred by the Creator to any
other system possible or conceivable. This of course must be admit-
ted to be the doctrine which these great men held. Yet this subject
does not appear to have come before them in the form in which it is
now presented, as a^listinct subject of contemplation and argument.
They assumed the common theory of the day, as it had come down
to them, without distinctly inquiring, whether there was any alter-
native consistent with the Calvinistic faith, or following this out in
its bearings on other known and admitted truths. Hence it is not
wonderful, if when they met with difficulties of which this theory
- 4
did not afford a satisfactory solution, they unconsciously gave their
arguments a shape which involved the assumption of the other.
This is the less surprising, when it is considered that hoth theories
occupy so much common ground — the doctrines of God's eternal
purpose — of his permission of sin, in order to the greatest good — of
his universal providence overruling it for good — and in short, all the
essential attributes of his nature, and all the revealed principles of
his government. This Mr. Hart thought was the fact, and referred
to the passages in their writings which induced this belief. This
was not claiming them as having adopted the theory attributed to the
New Haven theology. It was claiming only, that this is a theory, to
which those powerful minds, contrary to_ ' the tradition received from
the fathers,' unconsciously resorted in explaining and vindicating
certain revealed truths; and the only inference is, that it is a.
theory which commends itself to the mind, in view of the revealed
character and government of God." Christian Spectator for 1834.
p. 491.
It is a satisfaction, sir, when one meets with serious
difficulties in the perusal of a work, to be able to resort im-
mediately to the author, and solicit from him such recon-
ciliations or corrections, as his inconsistencies and errors
may require. I notice that in a late letter given to the pub-
lic, yoa made professions of strong attachment to truth,
and expressed ardent wishes for the prevalence of just views
respecting the New Haven theologians and their theology.
It is reasonable to expect that one who is so ready, without
solicitation, to step forth for the maintenance of right in the
cause of others, will exhibit at least an equal promptness in
furnishing such light as may be necessary for the vindica-
tion of his own representations and doctrines. I take leave
therefore, to invite your notice to several statements and im-
plications in the above cited passages, which 1 find myself
unable to reconcile with truth.
I. The first topic to which I solicit your attention is, the
view which you give of the representation put forth in that
" review of Bellamy," of his theory respecting "the origin
of evil."
Your statement Is, that " as to the origin of evil, Mr
Hart fully concedes that Bellamy and Strong reason chiefly
and avowedly on the theory, that sin is the necessary
means of the greatest good; or that the moral system in-
cludes more good than it could have done, had there
been no sin and punishment, and was therefore preferred
by the Creator to any other system possible or conceiva-
ble;" and that he only represented that "they uncon-
sciously gave their arguments a shape which involved the
assumption of the other" " theory attributed to the New
Haven theology ;" — not that he claimed that they " avow-
edly" adopted that theory.
This statement, I regret, sir, to be obliged to say — so far
as the review of Bellamy, to which I shall cOnfine my re-
marks, is concerned — is directly the reverse of fact. The
open, the bold, the unqualified representation of that re-
view is, that the theory on which Dr. Bellamy constructed
his main reasonings, and chiefly proceeded throughout his
discussion, is the theory which Dr. Ta3'lor has advanced ;
and that it was only by ''inadvertence," and from "the
pressure of difficulties of which this theory did not afford a
satisfactory solution," that he was driven to adopt the hypo-
thesis that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good.
He begins his remarks on the subject with the following
declaration.
" Dr. Bellatn}', in accounting for God's permission of sin, has not
adhered thronghoutto any one hypothesis. On the contrary, he has
at diiferent times, reasoned on at least two different hypotheses, ac-
cording to the nature of the difficulties which were presented to his
view. These are .
1. That sin is the necessary means of the greatest good.
2. That the system or plan which God adopted, (not the sin which
was incidental to it, as a certain consequence) is the necessary means
of the greatest good.
"This latter hypothesis, we need hardly sny, is the one of which
we have afHrnied.in common with Dr. Taylor in his sermon on the
6
nature of sin — not that it is true, or can be supported by absolutely
decisive evidence — but that it may be true, and that it has never yet
heenproved tobe false." — Christian Spectator, for 1830, pp. 529-530.
He here simply affirms that Dr. Bellamy "reasoned on
at least two different hypotheses, according to the nature of
the difficulties which were presented to his view;" without
stating which it is that he professedly maintained. After
endeavouring to account for Dr. Bellamy's reasoning " in
different parts of his treatise on different and inconsistent
hypotheses" — an endeavour that for injustice and absurdity
has scarce a parallel, except on Dr. Taylor's pages — he
presents, in the following language, his concession that
Dr. Bellamy reasoned at times on the theory that sin is the
necessary means of the greatest good.
" In ascribing to Dr. Bellamy the theory that sin is the necessary
means of the greatest good, it is but just to remark, that he proposes
it often in the form of a mere hypothesis, or as what may be true."
" In other instances, however, he adopts the form of positive asser-
tion. He states too, that 'if God had pleased, he could have hin-
dered the existence of sin.' And this he supposes might have been
done in perfect consistency with free agency. It is obvious, there-
fore, that Dr. Bellamy in a po/rt of his reasoning proceeds on the sup-
position that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good. And
we are perfectly willing' that such statements, on his part, should
have all the weight to which they are entitled on a full view of the
facts." p. 531.
Such is the obscure and stifled concession, which he
makes, that Bellamy sometimes reasoned on the hypothesis
that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good — not as
truth required, that that was the theory which he openly
and formally advanced and maintained, to the utter I'ejec-
tion and condemnation, not only of that which Dr. Taylor
holds, but of every other. To this reluctant and smothered
admission, he adds : —
" Should it appear, however, that these statements are not more
irreconcilable with the views which we have expressed, than with
many things advanced by himself — that he was led to adopt this the-
ory through the inadvertence we have already specified — that in stating
the question at issue, in many of his reasonings, and especially in
answering objections to the perfection of the divine character and
government, he has virtually adopted the position that sin (in respect
to the divine prevention) is incidental to the best system ;" then may
his authority be appealed to with equal or even greater propriety in
support of the principles which we have advocated on this subject."
p. 531—532.
Here, sir, is no such full concession as you ascribe to Mr.
Hart, that Bellamy reasons " chiefly and avovv^edly on the
theory that sin is the necessary means of the greatest
good" : and that when he deviated from it, he did it '* un-
consciously," and by becoming inconsistent with himself.
There is no concession indeed whatever to that effect. In
place of that, it is claimed, that in ascribing that theory to
Dr. Bellamy, justice requires that it should be stated that he
proposes it often in the form of a mere hypothesis, or merely
as what may possibly be true : and in the admission that he
sometimes adopts the form of positive assertion, and proceeds
on the supposition that sin is the necessary means of the
greatest good, it is intimated that it is only in " instan-
ces," and " a part of his reasoning ;" whilst, on the other
hand, it is represented that " he was led to adopt this the-
ory through the inadvertence'^ to which the reviewer had
before referred it ; and that so far was he from chiefly and
avowedly reasoning on it throughout his discussion; that
" in stating the question at issue ; in many of his reason-
ings ; and especially in answering objections to the perfec-
tion of the divine character and government ; he virtually
adopted" Dr. Taylor's hypothesis ; and that " his autho-
rity," therefore, " may be appealed to with equal, or even
greater propriety, in support of the principles'^ of that the-
8
ory. The reviewer according-ly, after offering some expla-
nation of the meaning of his terms, employs the remainder
of the article in endeavoring to verify that representation,
by laboring to show that Dr. Bellamy " introduces the
subject of his discussion to his readers on the basis of this
theory ;" that his exhibition of sin as taking place by God's
permission, " renders the inference unavoidable," that he re-
garded this as the true theory ; that he " most explicitly
concedes that sin is no part of God^s scheme or plan ;" that
he teaches that the existence of moral evil is not a necessary
means to the highest glory of God ; that he sanctions this
theory in his statements in regard to the tendency of sin ;
that " he resorts to it" in '* answering some principal ob-
jections ;" that " all that" he " says respecting holy beings,
as moral agents, is full in proof ^ of the same " point ;" and
at length, that " it is manifest, from the manner in which
Dr. Bellamy generally/ speaks of the results of the system,
that he did not regard sin as the necessary means of the
greatest good f^ and finally, in closing the review, he says
he " takes leave of the treatise with mingled feelings of
pleasure and regret ; — pleasure to find Dr. Bellamy meet-
ing the enemies of divine sovereignty on that vantage
ground," assumed by Dr. Taylor — which he thinks ought
" never to be relinquished ; — regret that in any instance he
should yield it to his opponent, and be thus driven to adopt
a theory which made him inconsistent with himself^ p. 539.
The statement you give of the representation of the re-
view, you thus perceive, sir, is directly the opposite of fact.
The writer of that article, instead of fully conceding that
Dr. Bellamy reasons chiefly and avowedly on the theory
that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good ; or that
the moral system includes more good than it could have
done, had there been no sin and punishment ; and repre-
senting that it was only through inadvertence, and by be-
coming inconsistent with his avowed principles, that he de-
viates from that theory : makes it his specific object to de-
monstrate the direct reverse : that Dr. Bellamy encountered
the enemies with whom he was contending on the vantage
ground of Dr. Taylor's hypothesis; that he introduced his
discussion, conducted his reasonings, and met the principal
objections, which he attempted to obviate, on that theory :
and that he abandoned it, and slid into the other, only by
inadvertence, and becoming wholly self-inconsistent.
Such being the fact — too clearly to admit of disputation,
- — I take leave to ask of you, sir, how it happened that you
put forth such a representation of it ? By what theory is
it that this blank and startling falsification is to be ex-
plained ? Is it, that you are ignorant of the import of that
review ? You thought proper, in your letter to the editor
of the Vermont Chronicle, to exhibit yourself as enjoying
a very intimate acquaintance with the New Haven contro-
versies and doctrines. Is this then to be taken as an ex-
emplification of the accuracy of your knowledge, and the
trust to which your testimony is entitled ? Ignorant of the
import of the review ? How is it then, that you have
undertaken to testify respecting its representations ? Was
it " thi'ough inadvertence" that you fell into this glaring
misrepresentation ? You must possess a singular tact at
blundering, to commit such an error unconsciously, when
fulfilling the solemn office of biographer and eulogist over
the ashes of a cherished friend ! Your co-labourers at New
Haven must also be equal adepts in the art, to allow it to
pass through their hands without detection ! What a guile-
less, thoughtless set of beings! How forgetful of the con-
troversies in which they have been engaged ; of the means
by which they have endeavoured to vindicate their peculiar
doctrines ; and of the aids in their efforts that have been
rendered them by their friends ! Yet there is, you cannot
2
10
but be aware, besides these, but one other hypothesis on
which your falling into this extraordinary error can be ac-
counted for. The nature of that, however, it cannot be
necessary that I should hint to you. If, unhappily, it co-
incides with fact, you will need but to search with the
aids of conscience to find it graven on the tablets of your
memory.
Let the reason of the mis-statement, however, have been
what it may, I trust you will feel the necessity, not only of
correcting it with promptitude and frankness, but also of
making a full explanation of its origin. As to allow it to
remain unrectified, will be to exhibit an open disregard to
the claims of truth ; so, to retract it, without satisfactorily
accounting for its occurrence, will be, at best, to leave your
reader without such evidences as your vindication needs,
that you have not attempted deliberately to mislead him.
II. But whatever maj^ be the proper solution of the incor-
rect statement which you have thus put forth; gross as it is,
it is not more glaring than the utter erroneousness of the
view which the reviewer gives in that article of Dr. Bel-
lamy's t.heory.
The next favour accordingly, which I have to ask of you
is, that you will explain to me how it happened that he put
forth such a misrepresentation of that writer's doctrines.
That the view which he gives of Dr. Bellamy's theory is
totally and palpably false, I have already made manifest,
by showing that the hypothesis which he imputes to him is
directly the reverse of that which you represent Mr. Hart
as conceding that he avowedly teaches, and which you
grant it must be admitted to be indisputable that he held.
You say, " Mr. Hart fully concedes that Bellamy and
Strong reason chiefly and avowedly on the theory that sin
is the necessary means of the greatest good ; or that the
moral system includes more good than it could have done
11
had there been no sin and punishment ; and was therefore
preferred by the Creator to any other system possible or
conceivable. This," you add, ^^ of course, must he ad-
mitted to he the doctrine ivJdch these great men heUV You
here, in effect, pronounce the reviewer to be guilty of to-
tally misrepresenting Dr. Bellamy, in exhibiting him, on
the one hand, as openly and generally denying that doc-
trine, and never teaching it except through inadvertence ;
and on the other, as professedly maintaining the hypothesis
advocated by Dr.Taylor, and never deviating from it but by
unconsciously becoming inconsistent with himself. How
consummate his injustice to Dr. Bellamy is, may be more
fully seen, by adverting to the nature of the hypothesis
which he represents him as maintaining.
1. That hypothesis is, that "the system or plan which
God adopted," includes none of the actions which his
creatures exert, but only embraces his own agency. This
theory he represents Dr. Bellamy as formally teaching. His
language is : " This plan, according to Dr. Bellamy, does
not include sin as an integral part of it, but consists only
of what God does.'''' If it " consists only of what God
does", — it obviously not onl}^ wholly excludes sin, but every
portion likewise of the agency of creatures, good as well as
evil, "Dr. Bellamy most explicitly concedes that sin is
no part of God's scheme or plan ; and affirms that if God's
conduct in permitting sin be approved of, even without re-
garding sin as any part of God's scheme or plan, his point
is gained." pp. 535—536.
2. The theory teaches that the sin that takes place, is not
only not included in God's plan, but likewise that it is to him
an unavoidable consequence of Iiis creating and upholding
such a system of moral agents : that it takes place not by
his permission, but in spite of Jiis utmost eflbrts to prevent
it. " Dr. Bellamj', if language cnn do it, vindicates the
12
government of God in view of existing evil, on the theory
that ' the evil (in respect to divine pi'evention) is incidental
to,' that is, a necessary attendant of "the best plan."
3. This alleged impossibility to God of preventing his
creatures from sinning, is constituted, the theory represents,
by their nature as moral agents. It exhibits the power of
volition as a power of exerting choices, wholly indepen-
dently of influences : as a power, therefore, that by its very
nature is incapable of being controlled or restrained.
" What finite being then, we ask," says the reviewer, " can know
that a universe of free-agents, who possess of course (he power of sin-
ning, could have been held back from the exercise of that power in
every possible conjuncture of circumstances, even by all the influ-
ences to obedience, which God could exert upon them, without de-
stroying their freedom ? These influences must of necessity be sub-
jected to one limitation; viz:, the nature of that on which they are
called to act ; — and in acting upon mind, omnipotence must operate
according to the laws of moral agencyj or there is an end, at once,
both to sin and holiness." — Christian Spectator, for 1830, p. 533.
" As free agents have power to sin, notwithstanding all the influ-
ences to obedience which God can exert upon them, they may use
that power, and therefore on this hypothesis, sin, as to God's pre-
venting it, is necessarily incidental to a moral system." — Christian
Spectator for 1830,— p. 5S0.
Such are the main elements of the hypothesis which the
reviewer imputes to Dr. Bellamy; — an hypothesis which, first
contemplating the power of exerting volitions as a power of
acting from mere self-determination, or putting forth choices
wholly independently and irrespectively of influences and
reasons; thence, on the one hand, denies to God the possibi-
lity of exerting a controlling influence on moral agents;
and then, on the other, exhibits him in accordance with
such an inability, as wholly excluding the events of their
agency from his designs.
13
Tliat the reviewer produced nothing whatever to sustain
his ascription of this theory to Dr. Bellamy, I need not ap-
prise you. Neither you-^ nor any one who has read the Ser-
mons and Vindication, can have failed to see that the at-
tempt to make out that he held or sanctioned it, is a sheer
misrepresentation : — as causeless and daring a libel, as
recklessness and mendacity ever fabricated.
There is not a shadow of truth in the pretence that Dr.
Bellamy attempted to vindicate God in the permission of the
sin that exists, on the ground that he is unable to prevent
it. In place of that, he everywhere throughout his discus-
sion, contemplates God as perfectly able to withhold his
creatures from it, without destroj^ing their freedom, and
makes it his avowed and sole aim to demonstrate his wisdom
in thus intentionally permitting when he might prevent it.
Nor is there a shadow of truth in the pretence that he
mrtually founded his attempts to vindicate the divine admi-
nistration on that theory. Not an argument nor a proposi-
tion exists in his discussion, that either lends that pretence
any support, or can save it from the "infamy of deliberate
falsehood.
In place of openly advocating in any instance, or virtually
sanctioning that hypothesis, he in the most explicit and de-
cisive terms, denounced it as utterly contradictory to the
plainest representations of the scriptures, and dictates of
reason ; and unequivocally asserted the perfect power of
God, if he chose, to prevent his creatures from sin, and
confirm them universally in holiness. The most ample
proofs of these facts will occur in the progress of this dis-
cussion.
It is an utter absurdity indeed to represent Dr. Taylor's
theory, as a theory of the permission of sin ; and the intima-
tion that Dr. Bellamy attempted to account for its permis-
sion on that hypothesis, is as grossly insulting to his sense,
14
as it is unjust to his piety. Account for God's voluntarily
permitting the existence of sin, by denying that he volun-
tarily permits it ! Could any but an idiot or a madman be
guilty of such a solecism f
But even supposing Dr. Taylor's theory respecting the
divine inability to be true ; it can furnish no vindication
whatever of the Most High in respect to the existence of
sin : the pretence that it does, is ridiculous : for while it
proceeds on the assumption that it is requisite in order to
his vindication, that he should pursue that agency which
is necessary on his part to the production or existence of the
greatest good ; and that that good consists of the holiness
and happiness of his moral creatures ; its representation
is, that his agency, plan and power, in fact, extend only to
the creation and support of his works ; not in the slightest
degree to the actions of his intelligent creatures : that the
whole of their agency ; their holiness and happiness therefore,
and consequently the greatest good ; alike lie wholly without
the circle of his plan, and the sphere of his influences !
The proof which the theory pretends to furnish, that God
exerts all the agency within his ability that can contribute
to the production of the greatest good, thus turns out to
be an express and solemn asseveration that he has neither
any power or design to produce that good — that it is not
among the ends at which he aims !
Such is the complication of Ignorance and Impiety which
the reviewer attributes to Dr. Bellamy ; and not only
without a shadow of authority, but against the most palpa-
ble, the most abundant, the most unmixed and resistless
demonstration, that the views of that writer were the direct
reverse of those which he ascribes to him. An instance of
misrepresentation surpassing It in enormity cannot be point-
ed out, in the whole annals of even unprincipled polemics.
I now ask you, sir, how it is to be accounted for, that the
15
reviewer put forth this misrepresentation ? 1 do not inquire
of you how it is to be apologized for. It does not admit of
excuse or palliation. But I ask you to make known the
reasons of his perpetrating it. How was it, sir, that the au-
thor of that article, after having carefully perused Dr. Bel-
lamy's Sermons and Vindication, sat down and deliberately
penned this stupendous misrepresentation ; not only with-
out one solitary proof, or consideration to support him ;
but against a glare of evidence, which no eye, however dull,
could fail to see ; against the clear and unpervertible testi-
mony of every page, of every proposition, of every sentence
in the volume ? Unveil to us, I pray you, sir, the reasons
of this extraordinary act; — that its author, if a thoughtless
trifler, may at least be disarmed of his influence ; or if a de-
liberate falsifier, may meet the infamy that his depravity
deserves.
III. When you have fulfilled this office, be good enough
to allow me to call your attention to some further statements
which you thought proper to make in the passage quoted
fx'om you at the commencement of this article.
After affirming that Mr. Hart fully concedes that Bella-
my and Strong reason chiefly and avowedly on the theory
that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good; or that
the moral system includes more good than it could have
done, had there been no sin and punishment, and was there-
fore preferred by the Creator to any other system, possible
or conceivable ;" and granting that " this must be admit-
ted to be the doctrine which these great men held ;" — you
add :
" Yet this subject does not appear to have come before them in the
form in which it is now presented, as a distinct subject of contempla-
tion and argument."
A flat denial that Dr. Bellamy made the theory that sin
is the necessary means of the greatest good, a distinct sub-
16
ject of contemplation and argument ! And this after you
have not only afSrmed, that it must be admitted that he
lield that doctrine; but stated also, that Mr. Hart fully con-
cedes that he chiefly and avowedly reasons on it through-
out his Sermons and Vindication ! A bold unqualified de-
nial that there is any appearance that Dr. Bellamy, in his
voluminous discussions on these identical themes, ever made
the question a distinct subject of contemplation and argu-
ment, whether sin is the necessary means of the greatest
good — ^whether the moral system includes more good than
it could, had there been no sin and punishment — and
whether it was therefore preferred by the Creator to any
other system possible or conceivable ! If such flagrant
self-contradictions — such startling and unheard of misre-
presentations, do not give the coup de grace to your testi-
mony., the trust of the public must be made of sterner stuflT,
than I have hitherto suspected. Pray, sir, have you ever
read the volume on the permission of sin, of whose con-
tents you venture to give such a representation ? How then
is it, that you can have formed such a judgment of the pas-
sages like the following, that are to be found on almost
every one of its pages f
" Doctrine. A sight of the wisdom of God in the permission of sin,
is very useful to promote holiness of heart and life. It has a great
tendency to make us feel right, and behave well.
" The truth of the doctrine being plain and evident, I shall only
attempt to show, .
I. What we are to understand by God's permitting sin. And,
II. The wisdom of God in the permission of sin. And then,
III. Conclude with a practical improvement.
I. What are we to understand by God's permitting sin?
" 1. Not that he loves sin, or that there is any thing in the nature of
sin that he approves of, for it is the abominable thing which his soul
hateth.
" 2. Much less are we to imagine that God, in permitting sin, de-
prives the sinner of the freedom of his will.
" 3. God's permitting sin, consists merely in not hindering of it. He
17
saw that Joseph's brethren would certainly kill him, unless he inter-
posed to hinder it; and he could have hindered their selling, as ea-
sily as he hindered their murdering him. But he did not. He let
thern take their course.
4. And yet it is self-evident, God never permits sin in the charac-
ter of an unconcerned spectator, as not caring how affairs go ; but
as having weighed all circumstances and consequences : Therefore,
5. God never permits sin, but only when, on the whole, all things
considered, he judges it best not to hinder it : and therefore,
6. At whatever time God forbears to interpose to hinder the com-
mission of any act of sin, he is not only justifiable in his conduct, but
even commendable and praiseworthy; because he has chosen to act
in the wisest and best manner. But this leads me,
II. To show the wisdom of God in the permission of sin : and I vfWX,
in the first place, begin with some instances that are more plain and
easy, and afterwards proceed to what is more intricate and difficult.
1st. Instance. And to begin with the affair of Joseph, there needs
little to be said to show the manifold wisdom of God in it.
2d. Instance. When the king in Egypt, to enrich himself, attempt-
ed to bring the Israelites into a perpetual bondage.
3d. Instance. When Pharaoh resolved never to let Israel go.
4th. Other instances of the wisdom of God in the permission of
sin,'' in his providence over the Israelites. Bellamy's Works, vol. II,
p. 10-20.
The object of his argument in respect to each of these
instances is, to show that God exhibited infinite wisdom in
permitting the Israelites and Egyptians to sin as they did,
in place of preventing them.
" Nothing," he says, " impresses the heart of a human creature
like/ac^5. Nor could any series of facts have been better contrived
than these, to reach their hearts, and make them feel what they were
in the sight of infinite holiness, and to bring them to fear the glorious
and fearful name of theLord theirjGod.
" It was most for the honour of God, and most for the interest of
religion ; and so really for the best good of the Israelites, that they
should be thus tried ; left to act out their hearts, and then punished,
subdued, humbled, and brought into subjection to the divine autho-
rity, before they entered into possession of the promised land , although
it cost them six hundred thousand lives, and many a dreadful day," —
pp. 24—26.
3
18
He closes his argument on these heads with the following
remarks.
"1. That in all these instances of God's permitting sin, he had a
view to the manifestation of himself. They gave him opportunities
to act out his heart ; and so to show what he was, and how he stood
affected: and he intended, by his conduct, to set himself, i. e. all his
perfections, in a full, clear, strong point of light : that it might be
known that he was the Lord, and that the whole earth might be
filled with his glory.
2. And he intended to let his ci-eatures give a true specimen of
themselves, that it might be known what was in their hearts.
But,
3. The advantages of acquaintance with God and ourselves are
innumerable. We can be neither humble, holy, nor happy without
It : so that,
4. It may easily be seen how that God, in the permission of sin,
may design to advance his own glory and the good of his creatures.
And that this was really God's design in the instances which have been
under consideration, is manifest from the five books of Moses in which
the history of these things is recorded at large," pp. 27, 28.
Before proceeding to other quotations, I beg leave to
call your notice to several facts that are settled by these
passages.
1. That it was the professed and sole object of Dr. Bel-
lamy's discussion, to demonstrate the wisdom of God in the
permission of sin : — a pretty satisfactory proof, I venture
to suggest, that he made it " a distinct subject of contem-
plation and argument," notwithstanding your assertion to
the contrary.
2. That the sin of which he treats, is the sin that ac-
tually exists in the universe, and especially in this world.
3. That the permission which he ascribes to the Most
High of this sin, is a voluntary permission of it by his
moral and providential administration : — the direct reverse
fo Dr. Taylor's theory, who exhibits his permission of sin
as comprised wholly in the act of creating intelligent agents.
19
by the gift to them of a nature which Is incapable of being
controlled in volition : — and of upholding them in ex-
istence.
4. That he in the most open and explicit manner asserts
God's perfect ability to hinder them by his providence and
Spirit both from the sins which they commit, and from all
others — exhibits him as forbearing to withhold them from
transgression, from moral reasons solely: — not from a want
of ability to prevent them from it, without destroying their
freedom : — the exact opposite of the theory, which the re-
viewer ascribes to him, and that is held by Dr. Taylor.
Of these facts, equally decisive proofs are seen in the
following passages.
" After having viewed the wisdom of God in the permission of sin
in various plain instances," I " proceed humbly to search into the
wisdom of God in ever permitting sin and misery to enter the world:
And,
1. " As all God's works are uniform, so we may justly argue, from
the wisdom and beauty of particular parts, to the wisdom and beauty
of the whole. As God's nature is always the same, and as he always
acts like himself, so therefore his works are always harmonious and
consistent : so that if we can see the wisdom of God in the permission
of sin in some instances, we may justly argue to his wisdom in his
whole grand scheme.
" 2. Tea, were there no particular instance in which we could see
the wisdom of God in the permission of sin, yet, from the perfections
of the divine nature alone, we have such full evidence that he must
always act in the wisest and best manner, as that we ought not in
the least to doubt it. In the days of eternity, long before the foun-
dation of the world, this system, now in existence, and this plan which
now takes plaCe, and all other possible systems, and all other possi-
ble plana, more in number perhaps than the very sands on the sea-
shore, all equally lay open to the divine view, and one as easy to AI-
mightiness as another. He had hia choice. He had none to please but
himself: besides him there was no being. He had a perfectly good
taste, and nothing to bias his judgment, and was infinite in wisdom :
this he chose ; and this, of all possible systems, therefore, was the
best, infinite wisdom and perfect rectitude being judges. If, there-
fore, the whole were as absolutely incomprehensible by us as it is by
20
children of four years old, yet we ought firmly to believe the whole
to be perfect in wisdom, glory, and beauty.
" 3. But if all God's works are uniform, as has been said, we may
not only argue from the wisdom of particular parts to the wisdom of
the whole, but also from the special nature of particular parts to the
special nature of the whole: and so from a right idea of particular
parts which we are able to comprehend, we may have some right
conceptions of the whole, although the whole is too great for our
conceptions : and so here is a cine which will lead us to a right view
of the true nature of the whole moral system, and help us, at least
to some partial view of the wisdom, glory, and beauty of the whole.
"4. And indeed it seems to have been God's design, in this state
of instruction and discipline, where we first come into existence, and
from small beginninnjs are to grow up to a more full knowledge of God
and insight into his moral government, — to suit things to the present
weakness of our capacities, by representing the general nature of
the whole moral system, in some select parts of it, giving us a kind
of a PICTURE of the whole in miniature, to lead us to some right
notions of the nature of the whole.
" It is certain, that as all God's works are uniform, amidst all their
infinite variety, so it has been his method, in his lesser works in the
moral world, designedly to give a faint image of his greater, and
hereby prepare the way for their being more easily understood.
" 5. Yea, we may venture to affirm, that of necessity it must be
the case, that the nature of the parts will certainly show the nature
of the whole in a moral system, under the government of hiqp who is
the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. For while he constantly
acts like himself, his whole conduct will be of a piece, always like it-
self;— and so one part of it will illustrate the nature of another ; and
so, from the knowledge of the nature of various parts, we may cer-
tainly argue to the nature of the whole.
" Show me, therefore, his views and design in suflfering Joseph to
be sold; Israel to be oppressed ; Pharaoh to harden his heart; Is-
rael to murmur and rebel, and fall in the wilderness ; and let me into
the wisdom of his conduct in these particular parts of his grand
scheme, and then assure me that the whole system is governed by
the same infinitely wise being: and how can I doubt the wisdom of
the whole, while I behold the wisdom of the particular parts? Or how
can I be at a loss for the general nature of the whole, while I behold
the nature of the particular parts, and firmly believe that God always
acts like himself, and keeps up a constant uniformity throug-h all the
infinite varieties of cases and circumstances that ever occur in his
moral government of the world ?
21
"6. If therefore, the plan which infinite wisdom contrived, to bring
Jacob's family into Egypt, and from thence through the Red sea and
wilderness into Canaan, in which so much sin was permitted, and so
much misery endured, was, all things considered, the wisest and best,
as being so exactly suited to set all the perfections of God in the ful-
lest and strongest point of light, and at the same time to unmask their
hearts, and set their absolute dependence^ on God, and great obliga- •
tions to him, and the infinite evil of sin, in such a light, as had the
most powerful tendency to induce them with penitent, humble,
broken hearts, in an entire self-difSdence to put their trust only in
God, and be wholly devoted to him; to fear him and love him, and
walk in his ways, and keep all his commands, seeking his glory ; I
say, if that plan was the wisest that could have been contrived to an-
swer these ends, and so the best suited to promote the glory of God,
and the best good of the Israelites, and to answer many noble ends in
that age and in all succeeding generations : such no doubt must be
the whole of God's moral government of the world ; in which im-
mensely great plan so much sin is permitted, and so much misery en-
dured ; i. e. it must be the best contrived scheme possible, to ad-
vance the glory of God, and the best good of the moral system.
" I am sensible there are many objections which will be apt to arise
in the reader's mind, and which are capable of being put into a very
plausible dress, and which atfirst sight may seem to appear quite un-
answerable. Nor am I unwilling they should be set in their strongest
light. It is best to look on ail sides, and that with the utmost care
and impartiality.
'' The objections are as follows:
" 1. How could it be for the honor of the Supreme Lord and Gov-
ernor of the universe, to suffer Satan, his enemy, by his lies, to de-
ceive, seduce and persuade innocent man to rebel agajnst his sacred
Majesty, and subject himself and all his race to death and ruin ?
" 2. How could it be to the best good of the moral system that
this lower world, instead of being inhabited by a race of incarnate an-
gels, ever celebrating the praises of their great Creator, perfectly
happy in his image and favor, should sink down into so near a resem-
blance to hell, in wickedness and wo ? O how infinitely better would
it have been, if instead of sin and misery here, and eternal pains of
hell hereafter, to be suffered by such innumerable multitudes, all had
been for ever holy and happy !
" 3. How can it be made to appear that sin and misery were at all
needful, much less absolutely necessary, in a system originally holy and
happy, to answer any valuable ends ? Would it not be to limit the
Holy One of Israel, to say that he could find out no other way so
22
good as this to exalt God, and render the system holj' and happy
Besides,
" 4. If God wills sin, then it seems sin is agreeable to his will.
And if from all eternity he; decreed the misery of his creatures, then
it seems their misery suits him. Both which, as is granted on all
hands, are directly contrary to reason and to scripture.
" Before we attempt a direct answer to these objections, let three
or four things be premised.
" I. Be it so, that God's permitting sin and misery to enter into
the world, appears to us ever so dark, yet this is no argument at all
against the wisdom, glory, and beauty of the divine conduct, in this
affair, for there have been instances of the divine conduct in all ap-
pearafice dark to perfection, which in the result have proved perfect
in wisdom and beauty.
" 2. That it is not at all strange that God's conduct in the permis-
sion of sin, should appear exceeding dark to us, how wise, glorious,
and beautiful soever it is in itself, and in the eyes of God.(l) Be-
cause our views of God's grand plan are so very imperfect ;(2) consid-
ering how ill a taste we have.
"3. When I think over former dispensations of providence; Joseph's
affair, and how dark it appeared to Jacob : the case of the Israelites
and how dark it appeared to Moses : and that this Jacob and this
Moses were the best of men, and the favorites of heaven; and yet
the divine conduct to them was absolutely unaccountable: and as I
look along through the bible, T can think of other instances of the
like nature, one after another till I come to the crucifixion of Christ ;
the most horrid sin that ever was committed ; an affair exceedingdark
to the disciples, the best of men then in the world : I say when I con-
sider-these, I cannot but conclude that if the most holy and knowing
men on earth were entirely unable to solve the forementioned diffi-
culties relative to the permission of sin, yet it would be no just induce-
ment to doubt of*'the divine wisdom. Yea,
" 4. However dark the affair appears, or however unanswerable
the objections may seem to be, yet we have strict demonstration
that of all possible plans this is the best ; for before the foundation of
the world, it was at God's election to create; or not to create; and of
all possible systems he had his choice , nor was there any thing to bias
his judgment; nor was it possible he should make a mistake; all
things were open and naked before him ; he knew which was the best,
and he chose this ; and therefore this to him appeared preferable to any
other : and therefore it was really the best.
" And what then if we are not able fully to solve the difficulties'*
23
Is it not altogether reasonable to conclude, that it is owing to our
not seeing the whole plan, or to our want of a good taste, or both ?
" Some of the heathen philosophers, who knew no better, imagined
there were two gods; a good god, the author ofaU good in the sys-
tem ; and an evil god, the author of all evil in the system.
" Some who profess to adhere to divine revelation, in order to solve
the difficulties relative to God's permission ofsin, affirm it came to pass
unexpectedly to the divine Being : as he was not capable of foresee-
ing what would be the conduct of free agents. But it is enough for
us to confute this hypothesis, that we have hundreds of instances in
scripture of God's foreknowledge of the conduct of free agents ; and
that it is a doctrine constantly taught and inculcated in the bible.
" Others, to solve the difficulties, have asserted, that it was not in
the power of God to prevent the fall of free agents, without destroy-
ing their free agency, and turning them into intelligent machines, in-
capable of virtue as well as of vice. But it is enough for us to con-
fute this hypothesis, that it is contrary to plain scripture representa-
tions ; which teach us, that the man Christ Jesus, our second Adam,.
was a free agent, capable of the highest virtue, and yet in a confirm-
ed state, so that he could not sin ; as are also all the saints and an-
gels now in heaven. , From whence it appears that it was in God's
power to have confirmed all intelligences at first, and left them mo-
ral agents notwithstanding.
Others to solve the difficulties still more fully, have not only asser-
ted as above, but also denied the eternity of hell torments, and af-
firmed the universal salvation of men and devils. But it is enough
for us to confute this hypothesis, tliat instead of its being taught in
scripture, it is, contrary to what those infallible writings affirm in
language as plain and express and repeated, as could have been ex-
pected, if God had intended to establish us ever so fully in the
belief of the eternity of hell tonnents. p. 34 — 50
Let me pause again for a moment and call your attention
to the evidences which these passages furnish ;
First, That Dr. Bellamy regarded the divine "plan" as
including not only what God does, but all the actions
likewise of his creatures, sinful as well as holy. No fact
respecting his sentiments is more wholly incontrovertible
than this. It is the explicit, the uniform representation
of his pages ; affirmed in his doctrine ; asserted in his rea-
sonings ; proceeded on in all his answers to objections.
24
Secondly, That he not only regarded the existence of evil,
at least to some extent, as necessary to the accomplishment
of the greatest good, but held that the identical sin that is in
fact permitted, is indispensable to the highest display of
God's glory, and advancement of the holiness and happiness
of his empire. It is this position that it is his express object
to demonstrate ; to which all his reasonings are directed ;
and without which they are destitute of any intelligent
object. This, sir, is not only the fact, but is too palpably
so, I take leave to tell you, to be controverted or overlooked
with innocence. What then is it, but at once to set truth
and decency at open defiance, to deny that he formally
treated of this theme ? No proposition could have been "em-
bodied by you in language carrying with it a more flagrant
andunpardonable contradiction to fact, than 3'our assertion
that there is no appearance that he ever made this a distinct
subject of contemplation and argument.
Thirdly, That Dr. Taylor's theory " that it was not in the
power of God to prevent the fall of free agents, without de-
stroying their free agency, and turning them into intelligent
machines, incapable of virtue as well of vice ;" was not
only made by him " a distinct subject of contemplation and
argument," but was formally and indignantly rejected by
him as "contrary to plain scripture representations" both in
regard to " the man Christ Jesus," " and all the saints and
angels now in heaven," which demonstrate " that it was in
God's power to have confirmed all intelligences at first, and
left them moral agents, notwithstanding."
What now, sir, I take the liberty to inquire of you again,
am I to think of the author of the review who, with these
facts before him, solemnly asserted and labored to make it
appear, that Dr. Bellamy conducted the main part of his
reasonings on the theory held by Dr. Taylor '* that it was
not in the power of God to prevent the fall of free agents ;"
25
claimed that it is ''manifest from the manner in which hegen-
erally speaks of the results of the system, that he did not
regard sin as the necessary means of the greatest good ;"
and affirmed that it was only by inadvertence and the gi-oss-
est self-inconsistency that he in any instance slid into the
latter hypothesis ! What am I to think of your equally
confident declaration that " this subject does not appear to
have come before him in the form in which it is now pre-
sented, as a distinct subject of contemplaiion and argument T^
That your representations have any pretensions to accu-
racy— that they are not totally and most flagrantly false — •
no one, I suspect, will have the courage to claim. How
came it to pass, I call upon you to make known, that he
and you penned and sent them forth to the churches f — ■
Where lay the causes ? What were your reasons ?
Dr. Bellamy's third Sermon abounds with additional evi-
dences of the total error and injustice both of the reviewer's
and your statements. His object in it is to unfold the reasons
that the Most High did not immediately on their creation,
confirm all intelligences in holiness; but in place of it sub-
jected them to trial, and permitted them to sin as they have ;
and to show that they were wholly of a moral nature ; rea-
sons of wisdom and benevolence ; not at all a want of
power to prevent his'creatures from sinning. It will be suf-
ficient to verify this, to transcribe a few passages. He
says :
1. " God knew that it belonged to the nature of all finite beings
to be mutable and peccable ; and that the best might degenerate
so far as to become the worst ; no being in the system being by na-
ture immutable but God alone." That "how much soever of the
honor of God and to the good of the system, and how desirable soever
in these two respects it might appear in the sight of God, that the
intelligent system should unanimously adhere and cleave forever to
the Lord, yet in the nature of things there could be no certain secu-
4
26
rity for this, unless he huiiself, the only immutable br innr, should
undertake and become surety for all his creatures. There could be
no certain dependence upon creatures, left to themselves, how great
and excellent soever their original powers, because, after all, they
were finite ; and therefore must have new views, and so were liable
to wrong determinations.
" 2. However, innocent holy beings, who as yet never felt the
least inclination to swerve from God, but on the contrary were en-
tirely wrapt up in him, could not easily perceive hovv it should be
possible for them to turn away from the Deity, and become apostate.
Yea, such a thing would naturally appear to be impossible, as they
felt no inclination that way, nor had in view any thing which seemed
to be of the nature of a temptation to it. Therefore,
" 3. If God in a sense of their mutability, out of his own mere
goodness and sovereign grace, to prevent their apostacy, and the in-
finitely dreadful consequences which in a government so perfectly
holy as his, sin must expose them to, all which lay open to his view :
I say, if God had become surety for. all intelligences, if the only immu-
lable Being had in such circumstances undertaken by his ever watch-
ful eye, and the constant influences of his spirit, to have rendered all
intelligences immutably good : although the kindness done them in
God's account, had been full infinitely great, yet not so in theirs;
for they would not have been in the capacity to have discerned the
kindness scarce at all, much less to have been so thoroughly sensible
of their absolute dependence on God, and infinite obligations to him,
as now, according to the present plan, the saved will forever be.
" In a word, God would not have been exalted so highly, nor
would these intelligences have looked on themselves so infinitely be-
neath him : so dependent ; so much obliged; nor would divine sove-
reign grace have stood in such a clear and striking point of light, as
was really desirable. The truth would have lain in a measure con-
cealed beyond the reach of finite capacities, there being in nature no
means provided, whereby they could have come to the clear and full
knowledge of it. Therefore,
" 4. They were not fit to be confirmed ; nor would it have been to
the honor of God, to have confirmed them as things stood. They
were not prepared to feel that they stood in need of this super-crea-
tion-gra.ce, (if I may so call it) not as yet knowing, nor for aught ap-
pears, so much as suspecting that they were in any danger.
" 5. It was but paying, proper honor to the Deity, for God as moral
governor of the world — in the sight of all created intelligences, to
seat himself upon his throne and proclaim his own infinite supremacy,
and let all know their infinite obligations to love, and honor and obey
.27
hirn, on pain of his everlasting displeasure, and their evei'lasting ban-
ishment from iiis glorious presence. To have concerned himself only
for his creatures' good, unsolicitous for the riglits of the Godhead, in
the very beginning of his reign, and when the first foundations of his
everlasting kingdom were laying, had been to counteract his own
nature, and his chief maxims of government. And indeed, as he is
the Great Being, and in a sense the onlybeing all the creation being
nothing compared with him, — so it was fit all intelligences should
early be taught to view him in that light. And what method could
be better suited to this end, than to let all the intelligent system know
that their everlasting welfare was suspended on the condition of their
paying supreme honor and yielding constant obedience to this glori-
ous Monarch of the Universe ; in the meantime leaving them to their
own reflections and to their own choice ; as being conscious to him-
self of thair infinite obligations to yield everlasting obedience to
his law ?" p, 57 — 64.
Here, sir, you will be good enough to notice, the doc-
trine he advances is, that there is a limit, beyond which the
rights and perfections of the Deity do not permit him to
carry his efforts to excite his creatures to obedience ; that
in place of being — as Dr. Taylor teaches — imperiously
obliged by justice and benevolence to employ every means
within his power to withhold them from sin ; neither their
claims on him, nor the due assertion of his rights over them,
and maintenance of his dignity, require or allow him to
employ a larger sum of influence than that which he in fact
exerts to secure them in obedience. He proceeds, \
" And if, in this state of things, any of his creatures should venture
to rise in rebellion against his glorious Majesty, the way would be
open for him to take such steps as would have the most effectual ten-
dency to discountenance sin ; to exalt God, to humble the sinner, and
glorify grace ; and to prepare the way for the confirmation of innumer-
able multitudes of intelligences in holiness and happiness to the best
advantage.
" 6. The state of things in the moral system was not such immedi-
ately after the creation, as was suitable to the confirmation of intel-
ligences in a way agreeable to the ends of moral government. God
must have done all immediately, and ivithoui their so much as discern-
28
tng then- need of U : for there were as yet, coiriparatively speaking, tio
means of confirmation. They had not had opportunity in any instance
to see the infinitely evil nature and dreadful consequences of sin; nor
did it yet appear what infinite abhorrence the Almighty had of ini-
quity, by any thing he had done. Nor did they so much as know
their danger, and their need of the divine interposition. Things
therefore were by no means ripe for a general, confirmation.
" Indeed God could have confirmed created intelligences then ; but
not in a way so agreeable to the ends of moral government as after-
wards; i, e. not so much to the honour of the moral governor and to
the spiritual advantage of hia creatures. When Satan, a glorious
archangel, revolted, and drew off a third part (perhaps) of the in-
habitants of heaven; and when, for their sin, they were driven out
from the presence of God, dow^n to an eternal hell, and when the
elect angels had stood by, and with a perfect astonishment beheld
this unexpected revolt of their companions, and with sacred dread
seen divine wrath blaze out from the eternal throne of heaven's
Almighty Monarch, driving the rebel host from those celestial re-
gions down to darkness and endless woes ; and when the elect
angels soon after saw our first parents turn away from God, and
for their sin driven out of -Paradise, and all this lower world
doomed to death ; and when they had stood by three or four thou-
sand years, and been spectators of the judgments inflicted by God on
a wicked world ; — I say, when the elect angels had seen all these
things, and had full time for consideration, their thoughts of God, of
themselves, of sin, would be almost infinitely different from what they
were immediately after their creation. And now, if God should see
cause to confirm them, that they might never fall, it would appear to
them a kindness infinitely great and infinitely free. Their absolute
dependence on God, and infinite obligations to him, and the infinite
malignity of sin, would naturally be so deeply impressed on their
hearts by an attentive view of all these things, as would greatly tend
to their everlasting confirmation, and prepare them to receive, with
suitable gratitude, a kindness of such infinite value at the hands of
God.
" The angels who stood, being no where, in scripture, denominated
elect, until after the exaltation of Chi-ist, some have thought they
were held in a state of trial till then ; when, by their confirmation,
God's eternal designs of love toward them were manifested. And it
is certain that when they had been spectators of all God's works in
heaven, earth, and hell, through so long a period, they must have
been in almost an infinitely better capacity to receive confirmation
than immediately after their creation ; and their confirmation now
29
would be infinitely more to (jiod's honour, than it' it had been granted
at their first existence ; and their own humility, holiness, and happi-
ness, be increased an hundred or a thousand, or perhaps ten thousand
fold. Therefore,
" 7. On supposition that a third part were fallen and lost, yet it is
easy to see how there may be eternally more holiness and happiness
in the angelic world, than if sin and misery had been for ever un-
known." p. 64 — 67.
What now, sir, in view of these passages, have you to
say of the reviewer's declaration, that " it is manifest, from
the manner in which Dr. BeWamy generally speaks of the
results of the system, that he did not regard sin as the ne-
cessary means of the greatest good .^" Is it true .'' Is it cre-
dible that he can have believed it to be true ? Is it possible
that he could, by any process, have so bewildered himself,
as not to have known that it was utterly and inexcusably
false .'*
What have you to say of your declaration, that " this
subject does not appear to have come before him in the form
in which it is now presented, as a distinct subject of con-
templation and argument .f"' Is it true, that there is no ap-
pearance that he ever made the question, whether sin is the
necessary means of the greatest good, a distinct subject of
consideration and reasoning f Is it true, that there is no.
appearance that he ever made the question, whether " it
was in the power of God to prevent the fall of free agents,
without destroying their free agency," and to have con-
firmed all created intelligences immediately after their cre-
ation in immutable holiness, " a distinct subject of contem-
plation and argument .^" Will you be good enough to fa-
vour me with a direct and full reply to these interrogatories ?
I might add a multitude of other passages, from the
fourth Sermon and the Vindication, presenting the fullest
confutation of your declaration and the pretences of the
30
reviewer; but I content myself with the following. After
endeavouring to show the necessity of sin, to the produc-
tion of the greatest good, on the ground that " nothing
can be known of God by created intelligences, be their ca-
pacities ever so great, any farther than he manifests him-
self;" and that " the apostacy of angels and men has given"
him " an opportunity to set all his perfections in the clear-
est and most striking point of light, and, as it were, to open
all his heart to the view of finite intelligences ;" — he pro-
ceeds to notice, among others, the following objections.
" Objection. But was there no other way in which God could
have made angels and men as lioly and happy, without the permis-
sion of sin ?
"Answer. No I Not if there were no other way in which he could
so clearly and fully manifest, and so advantageously communicate
himself to his creatures as this. Now if I am not able to prove there
was no way, yet the objector cannot possibly contrive a way in which
God could have given such clear and full manifestations of himself,
and communicate good to his creatures in every respect so advan-
tageously, sin and misery being forever unknown, as he has and will,
upon the present plan ; so that, for aught the objector or I know,
this of all possible plans may be the best contrived to give a full and
clear manifestation of the Deity, and raise intelligences to the high-
est pitch of moral perfection and happiness ; and its being chosen by
infinile wisdom before all others, demonstrates that this is actually the
.case.
" As for those who leave the honor of God, the infinitely great and
glorious God, the Author, Proprietor, and King of the whole system,
absolutely out of the account, — and imagine that the good of
God's creatures and subjects is the only thing to be attended unto in
all the divine conduct as moral governor of the world ; it is impossi-
ble to reconcile any part of God's plan to their fundamental maxim ;
for if nothing was of importance but the creature's good, why was
not that solely attended to.'' Why were all put on trial .-* And why
eternal destruction threatened for the first offence .'' or ever threat-
ened at all? or the sinning angels expelled the heavenly world, and
the human race all doomed to death for the^r*^ transgression'! And
if our good is all that God now has in view, why have not more pains
been taken for our recovery from age to age from the beginning of
31
'the world? Yea, why are not infinite wisdom and almighty power,
effectually exerted to render all eternally happy ?
" Strange are the positions which the Chevalier Ramsay has laid
down in order to reconcile the divine conduct to this notion. He
maintains that God did not certainly know that his creatures would
fall ; and if he had known it, he could not have hindered it consistently
with their free agency. He has been trying ever since to reclaim them.
But if God meant to use the most powerful means witli a fallen world
he possibly could, and that in every age, as upon that hypothesis it
must be supposed, why did he send but one Noah to the old world ?
Why not two or three thousand ? Why did he raise up but one
Moses, and but one Elijah, and send them only to the Israelites ? Why
did he not raise up thousands in every age and nation under heaven,
and make thorough work? And why does he not take more pains
with us of this age? Raise up thousands as well qualified to preach
as St. Paul ? And pour out iiis spirit on all flesh, as he did on the
three thousand on the day of Pentecost ?" p. 97 — 106.
How unfortunate, that in your conscientious and dili-
gent examination of Bellamy's pages, for the purpose of
enabling the churches to form a just view of his doctrine,
neither you nor the reviewer, happened to meet with
either of these passages ; nor any of the hundreds and
thousands of similar import that are to be found in his dis-
cussion ! Since, however, they are now fairly presented to
your notice, what, allow me to ask, do you think of his
meaning in them ? Do you see in them any indication that
he held, that the reason that sin is admitted into the uni-
verse, is, that God is unable to exclude it, without giving up
the system ^ that it is impossible to prove that God can
prevent moral agents from sinning, without destroying their
freedom f Do you discover any evidences that he did not
regard sin as the necessary means of the greatest good ?
Or find any authority for the assertion, that " this subject
does not appear to have come before him in the form in
which it is now presented as a distinct subject of contem-
plation and argument?" ,
32
In enumerating in, bis Vindication, the various points in
which he and his opponent agreed, he makes the following
statements :
" We agree, that if God had pleased, he could have hindered the
existence of sin, and caused misery to have been forever unknown in
his dominions with as much ease, as to have suffered things to take
their present course.
" We agree, that God knew with infallible certainty, that things
would take their present course and issue as they will issue, in the
eternal ruin of milhons, unless he himself should interpose, and effec-
tually hinder it.
" We agree, that God did, as it were, stand by and take a perfect
view of the whole chain of events, in which his honor and the good
of his creation was infinitely interested ; and in a full view, and under a
most lively sense of the whole, did deliberately forbear to interpose
effectually to hinder the introduction of sin into his world, ivhen he
could have hindered it as easily as not." p. 126.
What now are the conclusions to which the impartial
must find themselves carried by these passages, in respect to
your and the reviewer's statements.^ Can any fact be
clearer, than that the whole tissue of his pretences that Dr.
Bellamy concurred with Dr. Taylor, is utterly unauthor-
ized ; a misrepresentation the most causeless, the most stu-
pendous, and the most calumniatory i' Or, could any mass
of evidence render the conviction more resistless that it was
so intentionally ^ a falsification as deliberate and malicious
as it is unequalled in magnitude and daring. What con-
sideration have you to offer that can justly shield him from
this verdict f What exculpatory explanation have you to
give of the assertion you have ventured to make, that " this
subject does not appear to have come before" Dr. Bellamy,
*' in the form in which it is now presented, as a distinct sub-
ject of contemplation and argument i^" You will find it
necessary, I suspect, not only to allow tliese interrogations
33
to come before you, as a distinct subject of contemplation
but to give them very explicit answers, in order to extri-
cate yourself from the difficulties in which you " appear" to
be involved.
IV. You will find it an equally perplexing task, I con-
jecture, to give a justificatory reason for the statements you
have made in your next sentence. After saying that this
subject does not appear to have come before them as a dis-
tinct subject of contemplation and argument, you add :
" They assumed the common theory of the day, as it had come
down to them, without distinctly inquiring whether there was any
alternative consistent with the Calvinistic faith, or following this
out in its hearings on other known and admitted truths."
Assumed the common theory of the day as it had come
down to him, and wrote a volume in explanation, proof and
vindication of it, without ever making it a distinct subject
of contemplation and argument! What a singular air of
accuracy this representation wears ! In what an admirable
light it exhibits the anxious endeavors of the reviewer and the.
New Haven theologians, to make out that Dr. Bellamy's
" authority may be appealed to with equal or even greater
propriety, in support of the principles which they have
advocated on the subject ;" than of " the common theory"
which he assumed and maintained ! The testimony of a
man on a metaphysical question, which had never come
before him as a distinctsubject of argument, or even of con-
templation, must be truly admirable authority ! How
enviable the condition of theologians, who find it necessary
to bolster up their theory by the suffrage of one of whom,
to lend any color to their claim to his support, they are
obliged to give such a representation !
But " they assumed the common theory of the day,"
34
you say, "without distinctly inquiring whether there was
any alternative consistent with the Calvinistic faith, or fol-
lowing this out in its bearings on other known and admitted
truths." You will find it necessary, I suspect, to make thi«
representation " a distinct subject of contemplation and ar-
gument," in order to exculpate yourself from the reproach of
an egregious and most childish misstatement. How is your
assertion that Dr. Bellamy assumed the common theory with-
out ever inquiring whether there was any alternative consis-
tent with the Calvinistic faith, to be reconciled with the fact
that in r^ply to the objector's question, whether " there was no
other way in which God could have made angels and men
as holy and happy without the permission of sin ;" he ex-
plicitly answered, " no !" and declared that the fact '• that
infinite wisdom" has actually " chosen the present, before
all other plans, demonstrates that it is of all possible plans,
the best contrived to give a full and clear manifestation of
the Deity, and raise intelligences to the highest pitch of
moral perfection and happiness.'*" How is it to be recon-
ciled with the fact that he not only discussed the question
whether several other theories that had been advanced were
consistent with the scriptures ; but that he formally raised
that inquiry respecting the hypothesis advocated at that
period by the Chevalier Ramsay, and now put forth by Dr.
Taylor, that the Most High cannot hinder his creatures
from the sins which they commit, " consistently with their
free agency :" " that it was not in the power of God to
prevent the fall of free agents, without turning them into
intelligent machines, incapable of virtue as well as of
vice;" and that he rejected and denounced this hypoth-
esis in the most full and unequivocal terms, as confuted by
"plain scripture representations," which demonstrate *' that
it was in God's power to have confirmed all intelligences
at first, and left them moral agents, notwithstanding .'"'
35
How is your declaration to be vindicated, that he assum-
ed'the common theory, without following it " out in its bear-
ings on other known and admitted truths?" What acknow-
ledged or known truth is there, sir, ivitli ivhich the New
Haven theologians regard it as inconsistent, on which Dr.
Bellamy did not treat and follow his theory out in its
bearings ? Is it a known and admitted truth that sin and
misery are great evils ; that sin is the object of God's ab-
horrence ; that he is sincere in requiring a perfect obedience
from his creatures and in inviting them to repentance and
faith ; that he, in itself considered, desires the holiness and
happiness of each of his moral creatures ; that his perfec-
tions assure us that he chooses that course of agency which
secures the greatest practicable sum of good ; that his crea-
tures are moral agents ; and that all the measures of his
administration over them, to be wise and just, must be
adapted to their natures, as such? But he has expressly
recognized and treated each of these truths in its bearings
on his theory, and replied to the objections that are found-
ed on them ! as he has every other, which has been ofiered
by the New Haven gentlemen, as contradicting his hypo-
thesis. I challenge you, sir, to point out a solitary ex-
ception, of any significance, to this statement. Here is, cer-
tainly, a wide field for the display of your perspicacity
and love of justice ; a liberal offer of an opportunity, if in
your power, to extricate at least one of your declarations
from the disgrace of a total inconsistency with truth ! I
recommend it to you, to avail yourself of it, if you can.
If you succeed, you , will entitle yourself not only to my
hearty congratulations, but to " the praise which our admi-
ration confers on the highest intellectual attainments."
Should you, however, enjoy a success in this undertaking
equal to your most ardent wishes, your embarrassments will
36
not have terminated. Your next sentence demands an
equal share of attention and skill. You say,
" Hence it is not wonderful if when they met with difficulties of
which this theory did not afford a satisfactory solution, they uncon-
sciously gave their arguments a shape which involved the assump-
tion of the other."
What difficulties, sir, did Dr. Bellamy meet with, of which,
in his judgment, his " theory did not afford a satisfactory
solution ?" Has the reviewer pointed out ; can you desig-
nate any such ? Is not the intimation that there were any,
totally unauthorized and unjust.'* But apart from the detes-
table unfairness of the passage, — what logic ! Supposing
Dr. Bellamy had in fact adopted the common theory, with-
out inquiring whether there was any other attended with a
smaller share of difficulties, or following it out in its
bearings on other known and admitted truths ; — pray, sir,
how would it thence follow, that it ought not to excite our
surprise, that when he met with difficulties of which this the-
ory did not afford a satisfactory solution, he should have un-
consciously given his argument a shape implying it to be
totally false, and involving the assumption of the opposite
hypothesis ^ One would naturally presume, if he had met
with such difficulties, he would have paused and made them
a distinct subject of contemplation ; traced them out in
all their bearings on his hypothesis ; and if he found them
insuperable, that in place of disguising them by false and
deceptive reasonings, he would have frankly admitted his
perplexities. I beg leave, sir, to think that it would be
** wonderful" if a man of Dr. Bellamy's uprightness and
candour, had pursued any other than such a course. It is
the weak-minded, sir, the shuffling, the unprincipled ; they
whose object is, at all events, to uphold a party, or give
37
currency to an opinion, whether right or wrong, who shift
their principles at every new difficulty, and frame their ar-
guments, now on this theory, and now on that, as the exi-
gencies of the moment may seem to be best subserved !
Men of integrity do not resort to such expedients. " Not
wonderful," — if he met with difficulties that he could not
satisfactorily solve on his own theory, — that he should un-
consciously abandon it and undertake to obviate them on
principles which he distinctly rejected, and denounced as at
war with the plainest representations of the scriptures !
Not a matter of any surprise that he should be utterly for-
getful of his own principles, when in the act of endeavor-
ing to obviate the difficulties of which those principles were
seen and felt to be the origin ! If he found himself unable
to vindicate the administration of the Most High, on the
theory, that he voluntarily permits the sin that exists, for
wise and benevolent reasons, when he might with perfect
ease prevent it ; — " not wonderful" that he should unconsci-
ously abandon that theory, and attemptto justify him on the
assumption that sin is not voluntarily permitted by him,
but takes place in spite of his utmost effiarts to prevent it !
What a satisfactory solution of the inconsistency which you
impute to him ! How happy for his reputation that he has
fallen into the hands of so impartial and sagacious an apo-
logist !
You go on to say,
" This is the less surprising, when it is considered that both theo-
ries occupy so much common ground — the doctrine of God's eternal
purpose — of his permission of sin in order to the greatest good — of
his universal providence overruling it for good — and in shortfall the
essential attributes of his nature, and all the revealed principles of
his government."
Again, what dialectics ! By your own concession in re-
spect to Dr. Bellamy's doctrine, it is indisputable that the
38
theories occupied directly opposite ground in regard to the
questions whether sin is the necessary means of the great-
est good ; whether it is voluntarily permitted by the Most
High, or takes place in spite of his utmost efforts to prevent
it; and whether, or not, it is included in his eternal pur-
pose, or universal plan. Now inasmuch as the views of
Dr. Bellamy were the direct opposite of those entertained
by Dr. Taylor on each of these topics — the great theme of
their theories ; how can the circumstance that their hypo-
theses occupy common ground in respect to some other
subjects — supposing it to be a fact, though I do not admit
it — serve to render it a matter of no surprise that he should
abandon and contradict his peculiar views on these ques-
tions, and assume the hypothesis which he rejected? If
men concur in their views on some subjects, though at an-
tipodes on others — it ought never to excite our surprise,
your doctrine is, at any moment, to find their partial coin-
cidence, sliding into a universal agreement ; to see them
unconsciously abandoning their most cherished principles ;
refuting their most peculiar views ; and adopting and veri-
fying the doctrines which they intelligently and strenuously
disown ! In what a hopeful condition must be your cause,
when you find it necessary to resort to such logic for its
support !
But, sir, the artifice by which you attempt to cheat your
readers into the impression that the theories occupy com-
mon ground in respect to the topics which you enumerate,
is as detestable as your reasoning is weak. Dr. Bellamy's
theory relative to God's eternal purpose is, that his plan
embraces all the events which transpire in his empire ; and
the sin which his creatures commit, as well as the holiness
which they exercise. But Dr. Taylor's theory is, that his
" plan consists only of what God does ;" neither including
therefore the sins nor the obedience of his creatures! Dr.
39
Bellamy's theory relative to the permission of sin is, that
God voluntarily p€rmits it by his providence, when he could
have hindered it, and " caused misery to have been forever
unknown in his dominions, with as much ease, as to have
suffered things to take their present course." But Dr.
Taylor's theory in respect to it is, that God does not vol-
untarily permit it by his providential administration, but
that it is exerted by his creatures solely because he is una-
ble to prevent it by any providential or spiritual influence
that he can exert, without destroying their freedom ! Dr.
Bellamy's theory is, that God overrules the sin that is exer-
ted by his creatures, in such a manner, as to produce an
immeasurably greater sum of holiness and happiness, than
could have existed, had not that sin been permitted. But
Dr. Taylor's theory is, that God neither does, nor can so
overrule that sin, as to secure as much holiness and happi-
ness as would have existed, had sin never been committed,
but obedience been universally exerted in its place ! Dr.
Bellamy's theory, to say the least, does not directly deny
any of the essential attributes of the divine nature, nor re-
vealed principles of the divine government. But Dr. Tay-
lor's theory is a direct denial of God's power to exert either
such a providential or spiritual influence on a moral agent,
as to prevent him from sin, or efficiently to excite him to
any act: and thereby denies all the essential attributes of
God's nature, and not only all the revealed principles of
his government, but the reality of his government itself!
Your intimation then, that their theories occupy common
ground in relation to these great themes, — if restricted in
its import to truth; must mean simply that they both actu-
ally respect, or are theories of these subjects ; though they are
exact opposites in the views they exhibit of them ! and this
fact you have the effrontery to offer as a reason that no sur-
prise should be felt, that Dr. Bellamy, if he found his own
40
theory perplexed with difficulties, unconsciously abandoned
it, and adopted the other !
This wretched farrago of impudence and chicane, you
at length wind up with the following declarations.
" This Mr. Hart thought was the fact, and referred to the passages
in their writings which induced this belief. This was not claiming
them as having adopted the theory attributed to the New Haven
theology. It was claiming only that this is a theory to which those
powerful minds, contrary to the tra^dition received from the fathers,
unconsciously resorted in explaining and vindicating certain reveal-
ed truths ; and the only inference is, that it is a theory which com-
mends itself to the mind in view of the revealed character and go-
vernment of God."
As to the pretence that the reviewer did not exhibit Dr.
Bellamy as conducting all the main branches of his discus-
sion on the theory of the New Haven theology, and never
deviating from it, except by inadvertence and becoming in-
consistent with himself; — but only claimed that he resorted
to it unconsciously, and by abandoning his own hypothe-
sis ; — its sheer afid impudent falsehood I have already de-
monstrated.
As to your statement, that Mr. Hart really thought that
the account given in that article of Dr. Bellamy's theory
and reasoning, was correct; and that he was induced to
that conviction, by the passages in his writings, to which he
refers ; — I find the same difficulty in crediting it, as in as-
senting to your other unsupported and unsupportable repre-
sentations. The whole mass of that article bears the most
unequivocal marks, in my judgment, of an intentional, deli-
berate, and malicious falsification ; perpetrated, sir, with a
full consciousness of its enormity ; — for the purpose of ad-
vancing the interests of an unprincipled party, at the double
price of deceiving the churches in regard to its doctrines,
and traducing the principles of an eminent servant of God.
41
If it is in your power to demonstraXe, or exhibit any ra-
tional probability that such was not the fact ; I have already
solicited you to do it, and now repeat the invitation. In
the meantime, a single example will show of what an un-
righteous perversion he was guilty, of the passages by which
he attempted to support his representations. Dr. Bellamy
exhibits his opponent as thus objecting to his theory and
arguments.
" I grant this reasoning looks plausible, and that some pious con-
scientious persons may have been induced to believe the wisdom of
God in the permission of sin by it ; but it does not convince me. For
if once I should believe that it was wisest and best in God to permit
sin, most for his glory and for the good of the system ; 1 should feel
myself under a necessity to look upon sin as being in its own nature a
good thing, for the glory of God, and good of the system; and that
God delights in it as such. And that, therefore, instead of hating
sin, mourning for it in ourselves, lamenting it in others, we ought
rather to esteem it as really a good and virtuous thing ; and as such
to rejoice in it, and even to keep an everlasting jubilee in remem-
brance of Satan's revolt, and Adam's fall; events so infinitely glo-
rious:— Absurdities so shocking that I never can believe them."
p. 144.
To this objection Dr. Bellamy replies,
"And absurdities, let me tell you, that if you did but understand
the scheme you are opposing, you would know, are so far from fol-
lowing from it, that they are absolutely inconsistent with it.
"For the doctrine of the wisdom of God in the permission of sin,
supposes sin in itself, and in all its natural tendencies to be infinitely
evil, infinitely contrary to the honor of God, and good of the system.
For herein consists the wisdom of God in the affair — not in bringing
good out of good — but in bringing infinite good out of infinite evil,
and never suifering one sin to happen in all his dominions, but which,
notwithstanding its infinitely evil nature and tendency, infinite wis-
dom can and will overrule to greater good on the whole. So that
all these objections are without weight.
For sin in itself and its natural tendencies, being just as evil at
though God never meant to, and in fact never did bring any good out
6
42
of it, is as much to be hated for its evil nature and tendency, to be
repented of in ourselves, and lamented in others, mourned for, watch-
ed and prayed and preached against, as if no good was ever to be
brought out of it." p. 145.
Now, sir, two of the eight arguments which the author
of that review employs to verify his assertion that Dr. Bel-
lamy decisively countenanced Dr. Taylor's hypothesis, that
sin is not the necessary means of the greatest good, and
that it is exerted by his creatures, not by his voluntary per-
mission, but in spite of his utmost efforts to prevent it ; are
founded on these passages : and one is the identical argu-
ment of the objector to whose reasoning Dr. Bellamy
replied ; and the other is founded on his reply to that rea-
soning, and is nothing more nor less than a slightly varied
repetition and reassertion of that objection ! The following
are the passages.
" 2. Dr. Bellamy uniformly exhibits sin as taking place by God's
^^ permission'" Now we ask, why is he always so careful to speak
of it as ^permitted?' Does the Almighty merely ^ peTmiV or only
not hinder the existence of that, which is really demanded by the
supreme good of the universe ? If the nature of sin is such, as to
render it essential to an object of infinite magnitude ; or if, as some
maintain, [an implication that Bellamy is not of that number] it is
an integral part of that system, and on the whole advantageous rath-
er than hurtful — a good rather than an evil, why talk of its being
only ^permitted' ? Is God honored by being represented as merely
peitnitting or not hindering the best ineans of the best end ? Surely
if sin is this means, instead of supposing simply that God would not
hinder it, we ought to believe that he made obvious and special
arrangements for its introduction into the universe, and that he is
in the strict and proper sense the author of sin. The nature of the
case requires this supposition. The honor of God, and the good of
the universe require it. But this is totally incompatible with the
notion of laexe permission.'''' " No one can with the least propriety
speak of permitting an evil, while he views the evil as the neces-
sary means of the greatest good." "The inference, we think, is
unavoidable, that at times certainly, and with good reason, Dr. B.
43
regarded sin, not as the necessary means of the greatest good— < but
as a baleful evil, incident to the best system." Christian Spectator,
for 1830. p. 534,535.
Here, sir, you perceive he adopts the identical objection
and reasoning of Dr. Bellamy's opponent ; and yet, in the
face of the fact that Dr. Bellamy pronounced both the objec-
tion and argument to be wholly without weight, and asserted
the truth of his theory in contradiction to them ; the re-
viewer boldly alleges this objection as demonstrating that
Dr. Bellamy did not maintain his own theory, but held the
directly opposite hypothesis now advocated by Dr. Taylor!
What think you, sir, of the reviewer's honesty, in thus
treating this passage ?
But the effrontery of his logic is equal to its unfairness.
Look at it, sir. He alleges the fact that Dr. Bellamy uni-
formly exhibits sin as permitted by the Most High, as the
necessary means of the greatest good ; as rendering the in-
ference unavoidable, that he did not regard it as the neces-
sary means of the greatest good ; but contemplated it as a
baleful evil ! And the fact that Dr. B. represented God as
voluntarily permitting it, when he might have hindered it
as easily as not; as forcing us to the conclusion, that he did
not regard it as voluntarily permitted ; but as an evil " ne-
cessarily incidental to the best system," and taking place in
spite of the utmost efforts of the Most High to prevent it!
Do you flatter yourself, sir, that honest men can be led to
regard such reasoning as having emanated from a conscien-
tious, upright mind ? Does it not bear the most indubitable
marks of intentional and malicious misrepresentation ^
The other argument is not a shade better.
'' 5. The tendency of sin, according to Dr. Bellamy, is only evil. —
c' It naturally tends to evil, and only to evil, to dishonour God and ruin
the system:" p. 126. " In aZZ its natural tendencies it is infinitely
evil, infinitely contrary to the honour of God and good of the sya*-
44
tem." p. 145. " But how can a thing be, in any case, a necessary
means of God's glory, if it tends, in every case, to dethrone him, and to
cast him into the deepest contempt ? It may be over-ruled as an in-
strument of good, but how can it be the means of an end,towards which
it has no tendency ? Nothing can be plainer, than that in using such
language as Dr. Bellamy has used on this subject, he failed ttirough
inadvertence, to perceive that a thing which in its very nature tends
only to evil, cannot, according to the nature of things, be the neces-
sary means of the greatest good. For if it is really the necessary
means of the greatest good, then it is of such a nature and tendency
as a-re fitted to produce this result. Surely then Dr. B. in asserting
so strongly as he has, the tendency of sin to evil, and to evil only, con-
tradicts the theory on which he elsewhere reasons, that sin has the
strongest tendency, viz. that of a necessary means of the greatest
good." p. 536, 537.
One of the sentences here quoted from Dr. Bellamy, you
see, sir, is taken from a passage which I transcribed
from him above. What judgment should be formed of the
morals of the reviewer, this complication of misrepresenta-
tion and sophistry can leave upright minds in no doubt.
Though the language of Dr. Bellamy respecting the evil
nature and tendency of sin, here animadverted on, is quo-
ted from a passage in which he expressly declares, — in
answer to the identical objection now repeated by the re-
viewer,— that that nature and tendency are not only com-
patible with, but essential to its being overruled, as his
theory represents, so as to be made the means of the great-
est good ; — yet the reviewer has the daring injustice to in-
timate that it was " elsewhere''' only that he reasoned ou
that theory ! As though this objection had never suggested
itself, nor been presented by an opponent to his notice ! as
though, if it had been ofiered to his consideration, it could
not but have forced him to relinquish his theory !
But beyond this, he declares that " nothing can be plain-
er than that Dr. Bellamy, in using this language, failed
through inadvertence \''' and used it because of that inadver-
45
tent failure, the intimation is; " to perceive that a thing,
which in its very nature tends only to evil, cannot, accord-
ing to the nature of things, be the necessary means of the
greatest good :" — not only as though Dr. Bellamy had
never made this objection ■' a distinct subject of contempla-
tion and argument ;" but in defiance of the fact, that the
express object of a great proportion of his pages is, to un-
fold and demonstrate the mode in which sin — though infi-
nitely evil in its nature and tendency, and because thus evil —
is so over-ruled by the Most High, as to be the means of
the greatest good ! What, sir, must be the state of a man's
mind to be capable of perpetrating such consummate injus-
tice f Can any thing be plainer than his utter destitution
of veracity ?
But, sir, his reasoning is as unfair as his intimations are
false. Admitting even that the objection he here urges is
legitimate ; it proves nothing more than simply, that Dr.
Bellamy's theory is incorrect : It does not demonstrate that
he did not hold that theory, and that theory alone ; much
less, that he held the directly opposite hypothesis ! Yet the
reviewer is guilty of the injustice of alleging his asserting
as he has, the tendency of sin to evil, as demonstrating that
he contradicts the theory on which he reasons that sin—
being thus evil in its tendency — is the necessary means of
the greatest good : and he places this among the eight argu-
ments which he employs to show, that Dr. Bellamy deci-
sively countenanced the hypothesis that sin is not the neces-
sary means of the greatest good ; and that it takes place,
not by God's voluntary permission, but in spite of all the
providential and spiritual influences he can, consistently
with the free agency of his creatures, exert to prevent it !
But sir, this sophistry, extraordinary as it is, is not the
most exceptionable part of his reasoning. Its main element
is still more dishonest. The assumption on which he founds
46
his argument, being, in direct contradiction to Dr. Bella-
my's belief, that a thing in order to be a necessary means
of good, that is, of holiness and happiness, must itself be
morally good : he first argues from it, that Bellamy, in order
consistently to maintain his theory, should have held sin to be
morally good in its nature and tendency, in place of evil ; ho-
liness instead of sin : and then boldly alleges the fact that he
did not regard it as such, but held it to be sin, instead of
holiness, as a demonstrative proof that he contradicted his
theory that being infinitely evil in Us nature and tendency, it
is the necessary means of the greatest good ; and decisively
countenanced the hypothesis that it is an evil that forces itself
into the system against the wishes of the Almighty, solely
because his power and wisdom are inadequate to exclude it
without destroying the free agency of his creatures ! What
think you, sir, of this logic? Is it legitimate? Is it honest?
Was there ever a more barefaced and shameless perversion
of a writer's language ; or a more daring attempt to cheat
and mislead readers ? Yet these two arguments are not
more foul with sophistry and misrepresentation, than are
all the others which he employed to make out his assertion
that Dr. Bellamy's authority may be appealed to with equal
or even greater propriety in support of the principles of Dr.
Taylor's theory, than of his own.
V. I have conducted the foregoing discussion as though
Mr. Hart were, in fact, as you intimate, the author of the
review of Bellamy. I observe, however, sir, you do not
expressly declare him to have written it. Your remark is
" For the June number of 1830, he prepared the review on
the early history of the Congregational Churches of New
England* The review of Bellamy appeared in the suc-
ceeding number." Your language, however, throughout
the remainder of the passage, is framed precisely as though
he wrote it ; and must leave every reader, who has no other
47
means of knowledge, under the fullest impression that he
was its author.
I beg leave, however, sir, to inquire of you, on what
grounds you gave that " shape" to your " argument ?" —
What evidence have you that Mr. Hart was the writer of
that review? Did you ever hear him declare, or admit
that he was its author? Has professor Goodrich or Dr.
Taylor ever stated to you that he wrote it ? Did you never
hear Mr. Hart distinctly declare, that he was not respon-
sible for its statements ? or, at least, have you not heard,
that, to shield himself from the odium which the report that
he wrote it occasioned, he made such a declaration to
others ? Have you never heard the gentlemen at New Ha-
ven state, or admit, that such was the fact ? Is it not, sir,
in one word, within your certain knowledge, that that ar-
ticle, at least as to all the important portions of it, was
not written by Mr. Hart, but came from the pen of the
Dwight professor of theology in Yale College ; aided doubt-
less, by professor Goodrich ? I call upon you, sir, for a
categorical answer to these questions ; and take the liberty
to apprise you, that there is more than one individual whose
knowledge on the subject is such as to render it unsafe for
you to return any other reply than is strictly coincident
with fact.
What an edifying spectacle these transactions form for
the contemplation of the churches ! In what a becoming at-
titude they present the guileless and innocent gentlemen at
New Haven, who are so averse to controversy ; such assi-
duous lovers of truth, and cultivators of charity ; and with-
all, so conscious of their integrity, as — though assailed
by intimations that they have been guilty of the grossest
deception in the management of their discussions, — to pre-
fer to allow the attacks of their opponents to pass unre-
48
futed, rather than indulge in an appearance of contention
with brethren !
Such, sir, are the animadversions T have to offer on your
remarks on the review of Bellamy. I regret that through-
out the whole passage on which I have dwelt, I have not
been able to find a single sentence, nor proposition — with
the exception of your admission that Bellamy held his own
theory! — that is not either in glaring contradiction to fact,
or at best, most essentially deficient in accuracy.
Of those misrepresentations and inaccuracies, to you the
task now belongs, to unfold the causes, and furnish the re-
quisite correction ; — a task you will find it necessary, I
cannot but think, to discharge with eminent felicity, in or-
der to meet either your exigences, or the just demands of
the public. That such a tissue of blunders- — if your errors
belong to that category — of mis-statements and sophistries,
should have been put forth by you in the Christian Spec-
tator in reference to that review of Bellamy ; — itself a com-
plication of misrepresentation and treachery; — cannot fail
to strike observers as a singular and startling fact ; — a fact
that doubtless must have had its origin in an equally extra-
ordinary cause. Why is it — the inquiry resistlessl}' presents
itself — that these ministers of the gospel ; these teachers of
theology ; who profess to be such independent and impar-
tial inquirers after facts : such ardent lovers of truth ; such
disciples of charity ; have deliberately written and publish-
ed, in reference to Dr. Bellamy's theory and their contro-
versies respecting it, such a mass of statements, that are
marked with every distinctive feature of studied falsehood ;
and attempted to sustain them by a laboured array of rea-
soning, that is fraught with all the usual characteristics of
intentional sophistry ? If assured of the truth of their the-
ory, and of their competence to vindicate it to the churches,
49
why is it that they attempt to sustain it by such artifices ?
Why labour so assiduously to make out that it was deci-
sively countenanced by Dr. Bellamy; instead of showing,
that it is indubitably sanctioned by the pages of revelation ?
If satisfied of the accuracy of the statements and reasonings
of the review of Bellamy ; why put forth, in the article un-
der notice, a representation of it so totally contradictory to
fact, and adapted to mislead their incautious readers ? If
there is nothing in it to be retracted nor regretted ; why at-
tempt to screen themselves from responsibility for It, by
ascribing it to one who is no longer here to answer for his
errors, or expose their injustice ? How is it tliat such a
complication of mis-statements, sophistries, tergiversations,
plots, under-plots, gyrations, and circumgyrations, as these
articles and the transactions connected with them, exhibit ;
can have been the work of upright and guileless minds ? —
that in such a multiplicity of statements and reasonings, it
can have come to pass " unconsciously," and by sheer mis-
take, that they have not so framed their propositions, in one
single instance, as to express the truth ; — nor so shaped
their argument as to correspond with fact ? It certainly is
utterl}' unlike the usual experience of the intelligent and
upright. It is totally at variance with the law of chances !
But if this concatenated sj^stem of obliquities is not to be
accounted for by mistake ; what views are to be formed of its
cause ? What sort of men are its authors ? What must be
their sense of the condition of their theology, if it is felt
to be necessarj' to resort to such expedients for its support
and diffusion ? If in these instances they are so utterlj' in-
sincere and deceptive in their pretences ; to what reliance
are their professions entitled in any other ? What assurance
is there, that they will not exhibit equal treachery, when-
ever their interests require the profession of doctrines
that they reject, or the intimation of purposes \?hich
50
they have no design to fulfill ? What qualifications have
they for the station they occupy — what title to the :nfluence
they aspire to exert? What but presumption, but mad-
ness, can it be to intrust to them the delicate and responsi-
ble work of training up the young for the sacred ofiice ; of
moulding the faith and forming the character of the future
teachers and guides of the church !
Such are the reflections and apprehensions, sir, which the
consideration of the subject must resistlessly force on evei'y
conscientious mind ; such is the position in which you and
your co-laborers at T^ew Haven have placed yourselves, in
respect to the friends of truth and piety ; — a position from
which you are to extricate yourselves ; convictions and ap-
prehensions which you are to meet and successfully obviate ;
or necessarily become the objects of general distrust, and
reprobation ; as be assured you are, of the profound
commiseration of your well-wisher,
THE AUTHOR OF
VIEWS IN THEOLOGY.
Rev. N. PoRiEn, D. D.
'^^i- 2 H /op:
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11