« PoprzedniaDalej »
very matter, we are, in the proper sense, agents; that in our affections and desires we are truly active ; and that these mental actions are of as high an order, at least, as our volitions. I everywhere oppose the idea, that, because our affections and desires are exercised spontaneously in view of appropriate objects, and are not controlled by a previous act of the will, we are therefore not free and active in them, or accountable for them. I hold that we are free, specially free in these mental acts,-free, certainly, in as high a sense as in those external acts which are completely dictated and controlled by a volition.
Inquirer asks,“ how the cornmand to love God and our neighbor is to be obeyed, and what is the nature of the obligation which lies on the sinner to exchange his enmity for love." According to the scheme which he seems to adopt, I should find it impossible to make any reply. For if the affections are not a part of our moral agency, for which we are justly responsible, I see not how they can be commanded, or what obligation can lie upon us to exercise them. But according to the view which I have taken of the matter, it is easy to say something in the way of reply. Love and hatred, and all the affections and emotions which we exercise in view of moral objects, are free, unforced, moral acts, for which we are justly accountable. God addresses his law to us as active, moral beings, and requires us to love him, and forbids our enmity. This command is right. For there is nothing more certain, than that we ought to love and obey such a being as God, and that we are blameworthy and inexcusable for hating him. But if we take the other view of the subject, the view of those who hold that our affections and emotions are not moral acts, how can we dispose of the difficulty ? How can we vindicate the law for requiring, as the sum of obedience, that we should exercise the affection of love, in which we are not moral agents, and for which we cannot be responsible? Inquirer speaks of this as “ a dark, dark place,” and wishes light to be scattered upon it. It would be very dark to me, if I should adopt the theory of my opponents. But, if I mistake not, the subject is illuminated by a light which is sufficiently clear; nothing is necessary, but that we open our eyes to behold it. It is true at least, that we may know all which is of practical use. That we are intelligent, active, accountable beings, is an ultimate fact. Nothing can be adduced to prove it, because nothing is more plain and certain. The sacred writers never say a word to prove it, but always assume it as a well
known fact. And they seem never to have imagined, that any one would deny or doubt it. God has made us moral, accountable beings, and has determined that we shall be so forever. So that our moral, accountable agency is certain and unalterable. Whatever the laws of the mind are; in whatever way our affections and desires are excited ; under whatever influence our volitions are produced; and whatever may be found to be true in any other respect; the certainty of our moral, accountable agency is not for a moment to be questioned, our speculative reasonings cannot affect it. It is not a subject of reasoning, but of consciousness. Treat it as a subject of speculative reasoning, and you involve it in darkness. But treat it as a fact of consciousness, and all is clear. I have said it is an ultimate fact. And we cannot go beyond what is ultimate. We cannot reach farther than this, either on the right hand, or on the left. We cannot ascend to a greater height, or go down to a lower depth. This fact bounds our knowledge; except that we may look up, and see and adore the only wise God who created us. His work is perfect, and cannot be mended. With respect both to body and mind, we are fearfully and wonderfully made. As to the mode of teaching the nature and relations of man, his duty, his sin and ill-desert, and the way of recovery to holiness and happiness, we have the instructions and the example of those who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. It is safe to follow their guidance. It is not safe to follow any other. The inspired teachers are infallible. All others are fallible.
One thing more. Let us not be forward to introduce questions on the great subjects of religion, which the word of God will not help us to answer, and which must therefore gender doubt and strife. When Inquirer asks how this and that can be; who can answer? And if I should ask him, in reference to one or another of his principles, how it can be ; could he give an answer ? The best and only safeguard against an unsettled, skeptical state of mind, is, to avoid the habit of dwelling upon the speculative difficulties which hang about every important subject; to adhere closely and reverently to the word of God; to feed upon its precious truths, and to live in obedience to its precepts; and finally, to cherish a constant, lively sense of our weakness and danger, and a cordial reliance upon the teaching of the Holy Spirit.
I must now close. I hope I shall not be severely blamed,
either for writing so much, or for not writing more. I have not indeed remarked on every particular point suggested by Inquirer. But I have not passed over any thing which I supposed would be deemed important. And I have not passed over any thing, because I thought it difficult to give an answer. Nor have I done it, because I am reluctant to tell what I think. I have frankly and unreservedly disclosed my views, and my mode of reasoning on every subject which has come under consideration; and I am willing to do so on every other subject; so that what is right may be approved, and that what is wrong may be corrected. Let those who differ from me do the same. Let us all unite in avoiding concealment, and equivocation, and every degree of undue confidence in ourselves, and of uncandid or unkind feeling towards others; endeavoring to join soundness of doctrine with the spirit of forbearance and love, and always remembering that bitterness of feeling, or the want of sincere brotherly kindness, towards any of the ministers or disciples of Christ, is one of the worst of errors.
On the whole, I cannot but wish, that I had been able to think and write in a manner more worthy of the subjects which have been brought before me, and more adapted to advance the cause of truth. Still it has been my aim to do that, and only that, which will accord with the word of God, and, both in asking and answering questions, to keep in mind the all-revealing day. I hope that Inquirer will look with favor, if not with entire satisfaction, upon what I have done. For whatever my defects, or my errors in this performance may be, I have endeavored to speak the truth in love. My correspondence with my unknown friend, though not of my proposing, has been of the most pleasant kind. I thank him for the respect and candor which are apparent in his inquiries, and for his patience in waiting so long for the completion of my answer. What he and I have written is now before the public. The Lord grant, that it may so work in with the thoughts and reasonings of others, as in the end to contribute something towards illustrating and confirming the theory of divine truth.
LEONARD WOODS. THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY,
Andover, Nov. 20, 1841.
REVIEW OF QUINCY's HISTORY OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY.
By one of the Professors of Yale College.
The History of Harvard University, by Josiah Quincy, LL. D.,
President of the University. In two volumes. Cambridge: John Owen. 1840.
[Concluded from Vol. VI. p. 403.*] From the unfavorable view given by President Quincy of the conduct of Governor Saltonstall, we felt some curiosity to see what representation was made of certain transactions relating to another Connecticut governor, in which, if there was any thing of questionable correctness, all the blame, we suppose, does not attach to any individual or any institution, either in the colony of Connecticut or of New Haven. We refer to the proceedings under Governor Hopkins's will. Edward Hopkins is reckoned in this work among the principal early benefactors of Harvard College. His “noble beneficence," says President Quincy,“ stands in bold relief; exceeded by that of none of his contemporaries in original value, Sir Matthew Holworthy and William Stoughton, alone excepted ; and, at the present day, greatly surpassing those of both, in amount and efficiency.”+ How this bequest was made, the author has given no very particular and distinct account. Neither the will at large, nor any extract from it, is to be found in these volumes. We are told, however, that Governor Hopkins's will “is an interesting monument of private friendship and public spirit; and justifies the universal language of his contemporaries, who, in eulogizing his character, never fail to celebrate his possession of those
* The following Errata have occurred in the previous sections of this Review. Vol. VI. p. 182, 1. 32, for “ 1649” read “ 1648”—p. 191, 1. 8, for "holydays” read “ on days preceding the holydays”-p. 387, 1. 11, for « them ?" read “them.”
† Vol. I. p. 168.
qualities, which make a man beloved. Then follows the following abstract. “To numerous friends and domestics he bequeathed legacies, amounting to four thousand pounds sterling; to institutions in Connecticut, for the promotion of religion, science, or charity, one thousand pounds sterling. For the advancement of the same noble objects in Massachusetts, the bequest of five hundred pounds, vested in trustees, was destined to find its sphere of usefulness in Harvard College, or its vicinity. After an unceasing flow of annual benefits for more than a century, his bounty now exists on a foundation of productive and well-secured capital, amounting nearly to thirty thousand dollars."* It appears afterwards,t that this “legacy” was not readily paid, but was obtained by a decree in chancery, in March 1712–13, amounting to eight hundred pounds sterling; interest for a certain time having been allowed. A letter of the trustees of this legacy, to Lord Chancellor Harcourt, appears in the appendix of the first volume,t in which, says President Quincy, their “ gratitude is expressed in very lively terms.” There is likewise credited 1658, “ Edward Hopkins, of Hartford, a legacy payable in corn and meal, one hundred pounds."
This account of what is justly called the" noble beneficence” of Governor Hopkins, we cannot but think in some respects erroneous, and in others defective. That the few corrections, which we have to apply, may be more intelligible, we shall first exhibit the leading facts of this case, according as they appear in the documents to which we have access.
Edward Hopkins was a London merchant, and came to New England in 1637, with Theophilus Eaton, the Rev. John Davenport, and their associates. After a residence of some months in Massachusetts, Mr. Eaton and Mr. Davenport founded a new colony at the West, to which they afterwards gave the name of New Haven ; and Mr. Hopkins established himself at Hartford in the colony of Connecticut, where, from 1640 to 1654, he was elected governor every other year. Mr. Eaton was elected Governor of New Haven every year, from the founding of the colony to the time of his death. Between Governor Eaton and Governor Hopkins, there was a near family alliance; the latter having married Anne Yale,|| a step-daughter of the former.
* Vol. I. p. 170. † Ibid. p. 205. I lbid. p. 521. § Ibid. p. 507.
il Governor Yale, from whom Yale College takes its name, was a nephew of Anne Yale.