Farewell to the First Congregational Church in Norwalk, Conn. (bound with other addresses)

3. Does not the "vindication" of the teachings com- plained of, in the volume of Dr. Bushnell, entitled " Christ in Theology," to which the Hartford Central Association has referred us, in explanation of their decision, furnish new evi- dence that he persists in holding and propagating, and that they persist in shielding, the chief heresies contained in the book entitled "God in Christ"? 4. Is it true that those who persist in advocating such views " cannot justly be denied the confidence of their brethren in the ministry " ? 6. "When any of our ministers persist in advocating, and a majority of his Association persist in shielding, fundamental error, does our ecclesiastical system affiird any remedy, and if any, what ? 6. When any of our District Associations persist, after due labor used, in violating any of the fundamental principles which lie at the basis of our ecclesiastical union, and our mutual confidence and fellowship, ought not the General Association itself to interfere, in the use of appropriate means, until the oflfense is removed ? Y. What course ought one of our Associations to adopt, when a sister Association persists, after due labor used, in shielding what the former body solemnly "believes and alleges to be fundamental error, and refuses to furnish any evidence to the Association aggrieved, that the sentiments so shielded, are not heretical? APPENDIX. c, c. Dr. Bushnkll says, {Christ in Theol.,p. 6) : " As my former volume was called ' God in Christ,' I have called the present ' Christ iw Theology,' with a design that will be sufficiently obvious. To complete the descending series begun, there is w'anted another volume, showing the still lower, and as it were sedimentary, subsidence of theology itself preci- pitated in the confused mixtm-es of its elements ; a vqlume that shall do upon the whole body of theological opinion in JTew England, what my anonymous fiiend C.C. has done with such fatal e&ct upon the particu-i lar strictures of my adversaries." Since he La, this manner endorses. C. C, and signifies ^at a simila); attempt upon the theology of New England is a desideratum, we w^ briefly consider what C. C. has done. His work or attempt upon Dr. B.'s reviewers appears to be two-fold. 1. He endeavors to show by extracts from all sorts of reviewers, whe-t ther apologetic or condemnatory, that some few passages in Dr. B.'s book have been interpreted differently by different persons. And what else could be expected, in comparing the constructions put by all sorts of critics upon a writer who glories in mysticism, paradox, and contradiction? In point of fact,, however, several of the discrepancies alleged by C. C. are merely verbal, not real. This will readily appear from extracts suffi- ciently extended to show the real meaning of the reviewers. Thus, when Dr. Hodge is arrayed against the " Christian Observatory" by C. C, in reference tp Dr. Bushnell's pantheism, it appears from the extracts them- selves, tljat the latter says that Dr. B. holds a " pantheistic form of Sa- bellianigm," while the former says, "he (Dr. B.) holds the details of a system without holding its fundamental formative principle," sc, panthe- 9i ism. But the details of a system whose "formative principle is pantheism" must surely themselves be pantheistic. But even if, owing to the incongruous mixture of pantheistic, mystic, and rationalistic elements which compose his book, some single passages have been ditferently construed by different reviewers, there has neverthe- less been a peifect agreement among them as to the cardinal points in- volved. Dr. Hodge, for Princeton, Dr. Pond, for Bangor, Dr. Goodrich, for New Haven, Dr. Tyler, for East Windsor, Drs. Adams, Albro, Beecher, Messrs. Kirk, Thompson and others, in the " Christian Observatory," Bap- tist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Swedenborgian,- and Unitarian reviewers have understood him to teach, on the subject of the Trinity, Sabellianism with a tincture of pantheism ; on the subject of the incarnation, that there is no evidence of a distinct human soul in the pereon of Christ ; on the atonement, that it is not really vicarious, although it should be preached as such. As to all that is vital, even in the interpretation of Dr. B., the agreement could not be more " certain and complete." 2. C. C. attempts to prove that there is no standard of orthodoxy on the doctrines in question, by extracts from the reviews of Dr. B.'s adver- saries, tending to show that they are disagreed in fundamentals among themselves. Here lies the force of the pamphlet, if it has any. So its en- dorsee signify, who requested its publication. We will, therefore, notice the principal instances in which, vnth an air of triumph, he attempts to prove this discord. The first is that in which Dr. Hodge, on the one part, says, it is enough to admit the three pei-sons in the Godhead with- out " investigating their interior metaphysical nature." While the " Chris- tian Observatory," on the other hand, says that this " interior metaphysical nature " is the gist of the whole subject. But we have seen in our exami- nation of Dr. B.'s views upon the Trinity, that by "interior nature" or " metaphysical nature " in God, he means a three-fold distinction in the Divine nature. Dr. Hodge, on the other hand, understood by it what it is generally understood to mean in such a connection, i. e., not only the reality of such a distinction, but the " interior metaphysical " properties which constitute it. In this latter sense, he would not investigate it. In the former sense, he plainly agrees with the " Christian Observatory," in regarding it as the " gist of the whole subject." For he says, p. 279 : " He (Dr. Bushnell) shuts us up to Tritheism or Unitarianism. Ifo three- fold distinction in the Divine nature is admitted. There can be no doubt, therefore, as to our author's rejection of the Trinity, or the purely ra- tionalistic grounds of that decision." Says the " Christian Observatory, " as 95 quoted by 0. C, " that which distinguishes a Trinitarian from a Unita- rian is this — a belief in an original three-foldness in the natm-e of God." The agreement as to things is, therefore, most " certain and complete." But C. C.'s climacteric is in reference to the word "subsistence." This, in the nomenclature of the church theology, has a technical meaning like its Greek cognate, " hypostasis." Here it signifies pei-son, or the gi'ound of pereonality. In New England, this sense of the word seems generally to have been lost. Our theologians had attached no meaning to it, in such a connection, but that which prevails in common use, i. e., being in exist- ence. Most of Dr. B.'s New England reviewere therefore asserted that Christ's human soul had a " distinct subsistence," meaning thereby " a being of its own," distibict from the Divine natm-e. The context in every case shows that they meant this, and meant no more. Not one of them ever asserted or believed that there were two persons in Christ. They only asserted, as C. C. should have known from the context, a distinct hu- man soul in Christ, which Dr. B. had called in question. Dr. Hodge, on the other hand, used the word " subsistence " in the technical theological sense, and accordingly denied a distinct human " subsistence, suppositium or pei'son " in Chiist, while he asserted a distinct human soul. Just here, then, where C. C. professes to have shown utter discord, the difference is clearly only in words, and the agreement in things is most " certain and complete." As to C. C.'s attempt in reference to the doctrine of Atonement, he disposes of it all, both for himself and Dr. Bushnell, on p. 32, where he shows that the more " mitigated " orthodox scheme terminates in sub- stantial agreement with the higher, in regarding the atonement as " evil directly suffered to pay the release of evil " i. e., as strictly vicarious, and that as such, they are both alike rejected by himself and Dr. Bushnell. Such, then, is a sample of the work which Dr. B. would have done upon our New England theology, thus " completing the descending series ' of his assaidts upon our most holy faith. Of all forms of assault upon our Chi-istianity, it is the most unworthy and dangerous. It corresponds with all his tactics thus far. The scope of these seems to be to disami op- position to his own doctrines, by sapping all confidence in any doctrine. The only tendency and effect of such efforts must be to gender a' wide, spread, all-blighting scepticism. They are the stale device of infidelity, which we had hoped had grown obsolete, and at all events would be shunned and detested by all professed ministers of Christ. THE TALUE AKD SACEEDNESS OE DIYINE TEUTH. ADD EE S S BEFORE THE SOCIETY FOR INQUIRY Theological Institute of Connecticut, East Windsor Hill, AUGirST 4, 1853. BY EDWIN HALL, PASTOR or THE TIEST CHURCH, IN NOEWAIK, CONST. NEW YORK: S. W. BENEDICT, 16 SPRUCE STREET. 1 s.«;5! New York : S. "W- Benedict, Priwt., 16 Spruce street. At a meeting, numerously attended, of Ministers from various parts of this and the adjoining States, convened at East Windsor Theological Seminary, August 5, 1 852, it was unanimously voted — That the thanks of this meeting be given to Rev. Edwin Hall, D.D., for his Address on " The Value and Sacredness of Divine Truth," and that he he re- quested to furnish a copy for the press. The undersigned were appointed a committee to confer with Dr. Hall on the subject, and provide for the contemplated publication. BENJ. L. SWAN. J. A. M'KINSTRY. ADDRESS The subject to which I would call the attention of my young friends, who have so kindly invited me to address them at the present time, is The Value and Saoebdness of Divine Truth. I do not wish to con- ceal from you, that I am led to the selection of this topic by the aspects of the times. Other ages seem to have had, each, its prevalent form of error. Gnosticism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Sabellianism, each in its turn seemed to be the great heresy of the day ; and one great heresy, like one great pestilence, seemed to overshadow and draw into itself all others. The Eeformation was a contest for Justification by Faith, in op- position to justification by priestly interventions, and the prerogatives of the Church. Striking at this principle, it struck at the root of all the corruptions of Rome ; while a series of assaults upon individual abuses, would have issued only in petty and transient reforms, leaving the great fountain of error untouched. The Puritans stood for religious purity and freedom, against the assumptions of Prelacy ; which had proved themselves equally hostile to freedom and to truth. Then came the con- test with Arminianism. Our immediate fathers were called to contend with Deism and Infidelity. In every conflict the truth was worth ten thousand times more than the cost of its defence. What mischiefs were; stayed ! What abuses and oppressions were removed ! How light and, blessedness sprung up once more in the pathway of truth ! The present age is, perhaps, more prolific than any other in multiplied forms of error ; few of which, indeedj are new in their elements; and. many of which, after having rested for some ages quietly in their graves, have at length been exhumedj and brought up once more almost in their ancient shape and feature. So rapidly have these multiplied of late, that it seems as though all the ancient extravagances and errors, which were scattered along in the history oT eighteen hundred years, have at length ■ 6 been concentrated, and poured down in one hideous legion upon the pre- sent age.