Public Labours

CHURCH LABOURS PEOGEESS OF SEMINARY PEIVATE HABITS AND

DAILY ROUTINE THE CONFEEENCE CHAEACTEE OF HIS PEEACHING

THEOLOGICAL TEOUBLES — COMMENCEMENT OF AUTHOESHIP — BIBLICAL

REPEETOEY COLONIZATION COEEESPONDENCE INTEODUCTOEY LEC-TUEES.

THE period of ten or twelve years, beginning with 1818, was so much like that which preceded it, and so void of stirring changes, that we feel the difficulty of treating it, so as to escape the charge of wearisome repetition. Yet it was a time of quiet and happy progress, both as it regards the professor and the school. During this term of years he made several visits to Virginia, in some of these being accompanied by his family. These tours, especially in the years 1818, 1821, and 1825, are remembered by many in his native State; for he was called every where to the work of preaching, and indulged freely in that flow of extemporaneous argument and exhortation, which more than all things else seemed to bring out every latent power of his mind and heart. He was also during these years repeatedly a commissioner to the General Assembly. In this court he was frequently entrusted with important parts of business, and some of the public papers bear the marks of his hand. It cannot be said that he was a frequent speaker; but when he addressed the house on great subjects, to which he very much confined himself, he was uniformly heard with attention, and the candour and force of his argument always carried weight with the hearers. Some testimony of his coeval and friend, the Kev. Matthew Brown, D. D., President of Jefferson College, cannot here seem inappropriate. “I find,” says he, “in the minutes of 1803, that (Mr. Alexander) was one of a committee ’ to report on the state of religion, as collected from the statements of the several members who were called on in order. Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Miller was chairman; there is, however, I think, internal evidence that it was written by Mr. Alexander, or at least that the information and sentiments were from him. No man in that house was so well qualified to give a faithful account of these remarkable revivals. This report partakes of the same spirit which led him to write the History of the Log College. — There was one memorable occasion which is worthy of special notice; it was probably in 1820 or 1821. He was the chairman of a committee to report some alterations in the old Confession of Faith, and particularly in the Form of Government. There was a full and free discussion of the changes proposed. He spoke very little, a ad was always brief, as was his manner in church courts. On this important occasion, he was frequently called upon to explain; and, after attending to the objections and debate, he arose with great modesty, and in a few words, in a lucid and conclusive

way removed all the difficulties. This usually closed the discussion, and I do not remember an instance in which his views did not prevail. It reminded me of what is stated of Dr. Witherspoon, that he did not speak until other members had discussed the subject, when in a concise, clear, and forcible manner, he gave his views, and generally with a unanimous result.”

On practical questions we are secure in saying that no man was regarded as a safer or wiser counsellor. At the same time, it is fair to add, that when parties ran high, his characteristic mildness and caution led many to designate him, sometimes not without a sneer, as a moderate man. This term was used, however, solely in regard to measures; for in respect to doctrine, there was no period of his life in which he did not clearly stand forth, beyond suspicion, as a believer and maintainer of the old Westminster tenets, in their strict interpretation.

In the Theological Seminary, every thing was settling itself into an established form of prosperity, which gave general satisfaction to the Church. The numbers had been greatly increased, and the stream of accessions was steady. The matriculates were in no year fewer than twenty; in 1822 they rose to fifty, and in 1823 to sixty-nine. The number of students, which had been forty-seven in 1817, became considerably more than a hundred. Several Synods began to entertain the project of a full endowment for three professorships. But there was nothing which made a greater impression, on students and on the public, than the erection of an edifice for the accommodation of the young men. Into this solid and excellent building, though but partially finished within, they entered in the year 1818. About the same time Dr. Alexander removed his family into the commodious dwelling in which he was destined to end his days. At this stage of progress, the public rooms of the Seminary were within the large edifice, as yet the only one. These were the Oratory or Prayer Hall, also used for lectures and religious meetings, and theological debates; the Refectory, and two library chambers. All concerned felt the cheering influence of this change to premises which they could call their own, and which had an air of comfort and permanency. The students were brought more near to one another and to their teachers. The result was seen in greater diligence and punctuality, increased fellowship in religion and zeal in the pursuit of knowledge; so that we suppose there has never been a period in the history of the Seminary, during which there was more animation or delight in all parties. Of the alumni of this period, we number among the departed such men as Dr. Wisner, of Boston; Dr. John Breckinridge, and Dr. Potts, of St. Louis; the Rev. Horace S. Pratt, of Georgia; the Rev. James W. Douglass, of Virginia; the Rev. John H. Kennedy, of Pennsylvania; the Rev Joseph Sandford, the Rev. Joseph S. Christmas, of New- York; the Rev. Alexander Aikman, the Rev. Professor Dod, of the College of New Jersey; the Rev. Samuel G. Winchester, of Natchez, and the Rev. Theodore Wright, a man of colour.

In the new circumstances, Dr. Alexander felt himself invigorated and advancing. With his colleague, Dr. Miller, he maintained the most pleasing and harmonious intimacy;

and when an additional helper came; it was in the person of the Kev. Charles Hodge, whose talents he had early discerned, and whom he regarded more as a beloved son than even as a cherished pupil. He had by this time accumulated and digested much of what was to be the matter of his teachings; at least he had surveyed the entire field, and distinctly marked out its boundaries and divisions. His study door was over against the Seminary entrance, and very near to it. These few steps he might be seen to take day by day, at the appointed hours, always in full time. And during many years of his life, this may be said to have been the only bodily exercise he took; as he was now sliding into that habit which afterwards became inveterate. It is not believed that he seriously undervalued the importance of this means of health in others, but it is certain that in the last thirty years of his life, he used as little bodily motion as any man of his times; confining himself not only to one apartment, but to one chair. This was in striking contrast with the customs of Dr. Miller; and there was an amicable but incessant controversy between them on this point, often waged with as much ability as jocoseness. This proximity of the Seminary, and Dr. Alexander’s habit of never denying himself to visitors, contributed very much to that frequency of interview with his pupils, which so many of them remember with pleasure. At all hours, and often in an unbroken succession for hours, he wrould receive visitors, and listen to them commonly with patience. He was certainly to be forgiven, if sometimes, in the presence of the more wearisome ones, he took up his pen, or gazed abstractedly upon that distant horizon marked by blue hills, which he loved to contemplate from his eastern window. Besides the perpetua* work of preparation, in which he was now employed literally every day, his regular public services may be stated as follows. He had one lecture, daily, which, with the accompanying examination of his classes, occupied at least an hour. On Tuesday evening, he attended an exercise of speaking, at which every student, at stated periods, pronounced a discourse of his own composition, on some religious subject. To this was added, during some years, the delivery of complete sermons, by the senior students. All these were subject to the professors’ criticism, and in these exercises the labour was shared by Dr. Miller. On Friday evening, there was a debate, on some point in theology or allied subjects, in a theological society, comprising almost the whole Seminary. The utmost freedom was allowed, and the debate was concluded by the summing-up of the professors, who were both always present. As this was a period of very active controversy in our Church, on those points of theology which have since divided us, there was, as might have been expected, a peculiar animation in these discussions; and in our opinion he never shone more, or more displayed his stores of knowledge, his grasp of great subjects, or his acumen and dialectical force, than in some of these disputations, when, after being warmed by hearing the defence of specious error, he closed with the establishment of sound doctrine. The professors by turns attended evening prayers with the young men; the morning service being conducted by the senior students. At these exercises, Dr. Alexander sometimes expounded a passage of Scripture, and sometimes made a brief but pointed exhortation. He was accustomed also to join his colleague in the meeting for prayer, known as the Monthly Concert. One day in each month was left vacant, for the class prayer-meetings of the young men, and for their more solemn private devotions, to which many of them added fasting; and it was common for the professors to meet the

whole body at a certain hour of the day. From this time forward, even before the erection of a separate chapel, there was a discourse to the students, on the morning of the Lord’s Day; it was delivered alternately by Dr. Alexander and Dr. Miller.

But there was no exercise which more impressed its character on the students of that day, than the Conference of Sunday afternoon, which has been already mentioned. This meeting it is believed owed its origin entirely to the suggestion of Dr. Alexander, and was kept up as long as he lived. Indeed, there were some peculiarities in the manner of conducting it, which may be said to have grown out of his remarkable aptitude for free colloquial descant on religious topics. As the other exercises of the Seminary were intended to give fitness for the external work, this was directed solely to the cultivation of the heart, and there are not a few who bless God that they were ever brought under its sacred influence. Nothing could be more simple than the mode of managing this colloquy. After singing and prayer, a subject in experimental or practical religion, which had been named the week before, was discussed. The conversation was opened by one of the students, whose turn it was; any others were allowed to express their views, as they were called on in order; until a sufficient time had been spent. The professors then closed, with a familiar discourse, of from twenty to thirty minutes. As we have intimated, this was an occasion which more than any other Dr. Alexander used, for the outpouring of his profound personal experience of divine things. There was scarcely a topic in regard to vital piety, which did not come into discussion during the Seminary course. As he sat in his chair, he would begin with a low voice and in the most ordinary tones of conversation, evidently relying upon the feeling of the moment, as raised by foregoing remark, for all his animation. As he went on and drew more largely on his recollections and his consciousness, he seldom failed to kindle, and sometimes at the conclusion left all present in a state of high emotion. These remarkable effusions sometimes almost took the form of soliloquy, as losing sight of all around him, he uttered the serene or enraptured feelings of a soul in communion with God. Singing and prayer closed the service, which commonly occupied about an hour and half. It is but just to add, that Dr. Miller also delighted in this meeting, and contributed to it some of his most valuable thoughts. His little discourses here were always digested and methodical; enriched with many golden sayings from old writers, and enlivened with anecdotes from his singularly copious fund. And, as his colleague was often heard to say, Dr. Miller evinced more and more spirituality of view and feeling, until the very last.

This Conference was so nearly connected with the religious development of Dr. Alexander, that we shall subjoin, altogether from memory, a few of the subjects which used to be treated from year to year. They were such as these: The Work of the Spirit on the Heart. — The Nature of true Conviction. — True and false Sorrow for Sin. — Saving Faith. — What are the Evidences of a Change of Heart? — Spiritual Joy. — The Believer’s c first love, — Indwelling Sin. — Temptation. — The Mortification of Sin. — Symptoms and Cure of Backsliding. — Apostasy. — Spiritual Pride. — The best Method of reading the Scriptures.’ — How to conduct private Devotion. — Revivals of Keligion. — The best Means for the Conversion of Sinners. — Growth in Grace. — Spiritual -mindedness. — Dangers of a Seminary Life. — Religious Conversation. — Fasting. — Nature and Evidences of a Call to the Ministry. — Christian Consolation. — Views proper for those who are about to enter on the Work of the Ministry. — Foreign Missions and the Missionary Spirit. — The Imitation of Christ. — Religious Melancholy. — The Regulation of Appetite. — The Unpardonable Sin. — The Assurance of Hope. — Preparation for Death. — Walking with God. — Divine Meditation. — Brotherly Love. — The Sanctification of the Sabbath. — The Day of Judgment. — The everlasting Rest of the Righteous. Of the opinions which were expressed on these and similar points, some notion may be gained, from the volume of Practical Sermons, and especially from the work on Religious Experience.

During all this time he was preaching as much as many pastors. Both to his own students and to those of the College, he was always welcome in the pulpit. For a time, he and Dr. Miller, assisted afterwards by Mr. now Dr. Hodge, preached on Sunday evenings in the village church. We have said before, that during his whole life as a pastor, Dr. Alexander used the free method, and carried no manuscript into the pulpit. After his arrival at Princeton, he began to change his method in a certain degree, making more experiment of written composition, in sermons on important topics. And what he wrote he also read; for he frequently declared his inability to commit a discourse to memory. We are bound to say that so far as manner and impression are concerned, these efforts fell far below his ordinary discourses. The matter was always equally valuable, and the train of thought was often close and felicitous; but he was sometimes indescribably trammelled by his paper, and was not a rhetorical reader; so that whole congregations used to brighten up as with a ray of sudden sunshine, when towards the close he would throw up his spectacles, cast about his penetrating glances, and, as if indignant at his duresse, break forth in the liberty of his natural eloquence. No two preachers were more unlike, than was he, in the two portions of one and the same discourse. For this reason, those who never listened to him at home, or were acquainted only with his discourses on great occasions, which were carefully written and read, have but the faintest idea of what he was as a preacher. And the period of which we are writing, was that in which he condensed into his pulpit exercises the greatest amount of theological instruction, with the still unwasted vivacity of his earlier years. In two classes of sermons he especially excelled; first, in those which clearly and

connectedly set fo-rfch the different parts of doctrine, in the way of definition and proof, so as to bring them within the scope of the humblest minds; and secondly, those in which he gave the history of a religious experience, in its origin, progress and consummation, with minute dissection, graphic detail, and moving appeal to the heart. In the latter of these, there were many who considered him unsurpassed.

There has seldom been a time since the opening of the Seminary, when it did not contain some students of the Baptist persuasion, as many as five such having been there at once. It is to the honour of both parties, that, as Dr. Alexander loved to declare, no one of these young brethren ever gave occasion to censure for indecorous propagandism, or ever took offence at the frank expositions of doctrine which were made. There was, about this time, an increasing anxiety in the Presbyterian Church, upon a number of questions, both doctrinal and practical. These unquiet feelings were naturally reflected in the students of the Seminary, who at that period came from almost every State of the Union, not excepting New England, which was indeed largely represented. It began to be seriously questioned by many, whether the diversity of theological opinion existing among our ministers were not too great to be comprehended within common symbols. The German philosophy was as yet unknown, and even the works of Coleridge, which afterwards opened the door for it, had not been read, if we except his Biographia Literaria. The later forms of new divinity, commonly attributed to certain New England theologians, were only beginning to assume a regular shape. The conflict was therefore still very much upon the old fields of the preceding century, and disputation ran high upon the points mooted by Hopkins and Emmons. It was warmly questioned, whether the mind is a series of exercises; whether God is the efficient cause of sinful acts; and whether the unconditional submission of the new creature involves a willingness to be damned for the glory of God. Still more earnest was the debate concerning the effects of the fall; the imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity; the imputation of Christ’s active righteousness to believers; the nature of moral and natural inability; and the extent of the atonement. These questions lie so near the foundations of religion, that they were brought into view, whenever instruction and advice were to be given to new converts. They were therefore much agitated in the great revivals which at this time were spreading through the land. By many, the supposed improvements on some of these heads of theology were held forth as necessary to the work of general conviction and renewal; they were warmly published amidst the enthusiasms of great awakenings; and it was not uncommon to stigmatize those who adhered to old theology, as behind the age, if not as the enemies of revivals. Out of the same extensive excitement of religious feeling, arose new questions as to the mode of producing and managing revivals; and hence the controversy, long since dead, concerning New Measures. There are few of our older readers who need to be reminded of the alarm caused by the methods of Mr. Finney; the ’ anxious-seat; ’ and the Lebanon Conference. These once momentous topics belong to our narrative only so far as they had a bearing on

the mind and labours of its principal subject. As a theological professor he was awake to the important bearing of all these innovations. The questions of doctrine were continually coming up in church-courts, upon the examination of candidates, which sometimes afforded opportunity for angry and indecorous wrangling between ministers, over the heads, perhaps, of students from Princeton. The young men of the Seminary came in great numbers from the very midst of revival scenes, where these matters of controversy had been agitated, in connection with their most sacred exercises. There often appeared within the walls of the institution, hot and valorous youth, who were wiser than their teachers, and eager to beard a professor, and make converts among their fellows. The whole of this period, therefore, was one of agitation and consequent solicitude; the rather as the number of students was so great.

These were circumstances which demanded firmness and discretion; and probably there are few who on looking back will not acknowledge that Dr. Alexander displayed both. As was before said, his theological opinions were settled, and were becoming well known; he was universally ranked among the leaders of the old, or as many deemed it, the obsolete Calvinism of the seventeenth century. It was always his lot to suffer most in reputation from those who would have had him quicken his pace, so as to keep abreast of the moving column. At no time was he so much aspersed as at this; and not a few represented him as opposed to the glorious work of grace which was in progress. It was even said that he was utterly unacquainted with the phenomena of religious revival; but this was of course the language of such as had no knowledge of that early history, with which the readers of this volume have been made acquainted. It may be safely asserted that there was no man in the Church who had studied more closely this whole subject; and it may now be added, that the sober opinions which he calmly maintained, in the midst of great opposition, are those which have since become the settled judgment of our Church. Under such a pressure he was led to examine more deeply the foundations of his system, and to push his inquiries into the recesses of theology, as concerned in the prevailing controversy. It became also his sacred duty, to inculcate what he held to be truth, with augmented diligence, and by every means to guard his pupils against the errors of the age. This he never attempted in the way of direct debate, or violent assault, but rather by the safe establishment of such principles in the earlier parts of the course, as from a logical necessity should lead to the reception of orthodox opinion. In this endeavour we believe the charge against him never was, either that he did not understand the points at issue, or that he failed of success in implanting his own doctrines in the youthful mind, but rather that he proceeded by the way of circumvallation and gradual approaches, so that the conviction was carried before they were aware. Thus, likewise, in regard to revival measures, he freely expressed the results of his long observation, when opportunity was given, in public or private; but in such a way as to show how tenderly he distinguished between the genuine work of Divine grace, and the excesses of rash and fanatical instruments. He siezed every fair occasion to preach the Word, in seasons of awakening, and with a fervour and success that often disarmed the prejudice which was ready to arise from mistaken views of his position. The juncture was nevertheless one which called for circumspect walking, and no doubt led him to anxious study and many prayers.

In this connection it becomes necessary to notice the commencement of his authorship. Few men whose works fill many volumes ever began to publish so late in life; for his first book was issued when he was about fifty-two years of age. The method of preparing for the pulpit by laborious but unwritten meditation, was certainly unfavourable to facility in composition. He had given a few occasional discourses to the press, had contributed some articles to the Virginia Religious Magazine, of which we can discover no copy, to the Assembly’s Magazine and other periodical works, and had amassed piles of manuscript upon theological subjects; but he was yet to embark upon the sea of publication. In regard to style he was a rigorous critic, and was always dissatisfied with himself. He never manifested the slightest complacency in any thing which he composed. He would read his manuscript aloud, amend, erase, transpose, and frequently cancel. Never feeling perfect freedom in the flow of composition, he did not venture upon those imaginative flights, nor break into that opulence of expression, which were common in his oral discourses. Hence he satisfied himself with simplicity and clearness; qualities which his written works possess in the highest degree. In regard to his style, it may be observed that he went always for the thought rather than the words, and was never led along by the bait of fine language or the development of a figure. The election between these two kinds of writing, must, we suppose, be made early in life. The occasion of his first published volume is worthy of mention. It was about the year 1823, that a little knot of young skeptics began to make themselves busy in the College of New Jersey, and it was feared that the evil would become diffusive. At the request of one of the tutors, Dr. Alexander prepared a sermon, much longer than his wont, and delivered it in the College Chapel. The text was Luke xii. 57, u Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right? “The subject was the Evidences of Christianity. The discourse had a happy effect, and awakened so much attention that it was requested for the press. On preparing it for this purpose, he saw room for much addition, and at length brought it out as a small volume in eighteens, from the Princeton press, under the title, “Outlines of the Evidences of Christianity.” A second enlarged impression was soon called for. It has since passed through numerous editions in England and America, has been translated into several languages, is used as a text book in many colleges and schools, and continues to find sale without any diminution from year to year. Of this little manual, President Talmage observes, “I consider it one of the most perfect models of classic English which is extant; a book to be closely studied by the scholar not only for its masterly moral demonstrations, but for its lucidness and purity of language.” Yet we remember that the author sent it abroad, with little short of trembling. His analogous treatise on the Canon of

the Old and New Testament appeared in the year 1826. At that time, there was no accessible treatise on this important subject. It contains more erudition than any of his productions, and was immediately taken up by the British press. Although, the substance of this work was incorporated with the last improved edition of the Evidences, he prepared it afresh for the press in the later years of his life. On the whole, it is one of the best specimens of his learned and eminently cautious mode of investigation.

The publication in 1823, of Professor Murdock’s Discourse on the Nature of the Atonement, was a critical event in the theological history of the times. In opposition to the views there avowed, Dr. Alexander contributed a series of articles, occupying about twenty-five pages in Dr. Green’s Christian Advocate.* So far as he apprehended the scope of that celebrated discourse, it maintains that the Atonement removes only that ground of punishment which arises from the tendency of sin to disturb the good order and happiness of the universe; that it does not fulfil or satisfy the demands of the law against transgressors; that instead of being a legal satisfaction, it is an exhibition or display of the righteousness of God, a symbolical transaction intended to impress the minds of rational creatures. If this is so, Justification, in the view of the reviewer, is a real departure from the regular course of justice, and the atonement does not divest the pardoned sinner of his guilt. The article is not only one of the first but one of the most vigorous of the

* Christian Advocate, 1824, pp. T6, 119, 168.

author’s productions; and as it is hardly accessible and unlikely to be republished, we shall annex some of its leading observations.

“1. Our first remark is, that this theory is wholly unsupported by the testimony of God, in his Word. “We know, indeed, that Dr. M. has taken some pains to show that the text, which he has placed at the beginning of his sermon, favours his ideas of the nature of the atonement; but supposing his interpretation to be correct, it still goes but a very little way towards making out this theory. It merely declares that the atonement is an exhibition of the righteousness of God. This is one end which it accomplishes; but it does not follow, that it is the only end. Besides, it may exhibit the righteousness of God by being the execution of the penalty of the law upon the sinner’s surety; indeed, this is the only way in which it can have this effect, according to our ideas. Most commentators, whom we have consulted, take this view of the verse. But is it not very remarkable, that Dr. M. has not resorted to the Bible at all for evidence of the truth of his opinions? When he leaves the discussion of his text, he seems to take leave of the Scriptures. Now, to us, this looks very suspicious. Do we know any thing — can we know any thing of the atonement, but from the sacred Scriptures? And are they not very full on this subject? Do they not present the subject under a variety of aspects? Why, then, did not Dr. M. found his system upon plain and repeated declarations of the word of God? A theory in revealed theology, not founded on explicit declarations of the inspired volume, is no better than a hypothesis in philosophy, supported by no experiment. If God has declared the nature and end of the atonement in his Word, we should receive his testimony submissively and cordially; if he has not condescended to declare what it is, we shall never be able to find it out by our subtle speculations and distinctions. Is it not then an unaccountable thing, that Dr. M. has not even compared his theory with the numerous declarations of sacred Scripture on this subject? We shall for ever protest against this method of constructing theological systems without the aid of the Bible. It is the very bane of sound theology. Until men (and above all men professors in theological seminaries) shall consent to come to the Word of Grod, and receive its doctrines simply as they are revealed, and not strive to be wise above what is written, we shall make no real progress in divine knowledge. We shall be overrun with refined theories, which will supplant each other as rapidly, and with as little advantage to the world, as the fanciful systems of natural philosophy, before that science was reduced within its proper limits and placed on its true foundation. In our times, every man who has ingenuity enough to spin out a fine theory, immediately falls in love with it, and dreams that great improvements are making in the sublime science of theology. But certainly if theologians would study their Bibles more, and theorize less, the prospect of advancement would be much more flattering.

“But Dr. M/s theory is not merely naked of Scriptural support; it appears to us in direct hostility with Scripture. Some of his strong assertions have a good deal the appearance of setting Scripture authority at defiance. We know that this was not his intention, but men in his station ought to regard even appearances. The holy Scriptures teach that” Christ hath redeemed us from the law, being made a curse for us — that he hare our sins in his own body on the tree — that he gave himself the just for the unjust — was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities — when we were without strength, died for us — that he was ‘made sin for us — is our propitiation — gave his life a ransom for all — an offering and a sacrifice to God; and some hundred other passages, of like import. But Dr. M., without even troubling himself to explain any of these texts, goes boldly forward, and declares that the idea of Christ being a sponsor is incorrect — that he never satisfied the law, nor suffered the execution of its penalty, nor removed the believer’s guilt — that the atonement is a symbol, an exhibition, a display, a means of expressing the feelings of God, merely intended, not to inform the intellect, but make an impression on the feelings of rational creatures. How incomprehensible must be the language of Scripture, if it means what Dr. M. teaches respecting the atonement! But by what methods does he establish these opinions, which appear to be so strange to the sacred oracles? By the help of a few distinctions, and a goodly number of bold assertions. We have, after all our search, found no other support for these new doctrines.

“We have not been able to find that the learned Professor has resorted to the Bible for a single auxiliary text, in support of his theory. He boldly asserts that so it is, and so it must be; but why it must be so, lie has not condescended to inform us. If all the things which he has asserted without proof are self-evident to him, his powers of intuition reach far beyond ours. But we did suppose, that it was incumbent on him to show that his views do not militate with the plain declarations of Scripture. This, however, he has not attempted; and unless he has some method of accomplishing it, of which we have no conception, we believe it was prudent in him to keep the declarations of Scripture as much out of view as possible. He might, indeed, have said that the texts of Scripture, which seem to teach the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction, are all figurative; but the Socinian can use, and has long ago used, this subterfuge, with as much plausibility as Dr. M. could possibly do. For our own part, we have established it as a principle, to pay no regard to any theological theories, which are not fairly founded on a just interpretation of the Word of God; and therefore this want of Scriptural support would have led us to reject Dr. Murdocfs views at once, if the system had contained no other marks of reprobation upon its face.

“2. Our second remark on this theory of the nature of the atonement is, that it is wholly incompatible with the justice of God. It is true, indeed, that it makes the only end of the atonement to be a display of this attribute; ’ an exhibition of the righteousness of God, But Dr. M. has not informed us how it can produce this effect. He has, indeed, told us that it is a symbolical transaction, and is calculated to make a very deep impression on rational creatures; but he was no where explained the way in which the sufferings of Christ can, according to his scheme, have the effect of displaying the rectitude of God as moral governor of the universe. When he speaks of the atonement as a symbol, he seems to insinuate that there is nothing in the nature of the transaction itself which has any connection with the end; but that like other symbols, it derives its signification from divine institution; just as words derive their meaning from agreement and use; or as religious ceremonies, which are symbols, derive their import from the appointment of God. We have only to remark on this view of the subject, that in order to know what meaning God has annexed to this transaction, we must have recourse to the Scriptures; there is no other possible method of learning what the will of God is in such cases. But as we have seen, no attempt has been made by the learned professor to show that his views are supported by the general tenor of the Word of God. He has not even attempted to prove that his theory can be reconciled with the plain declarations of Scripture. But our remark is not founded on a mere defect of evidence in support of the theory; we maintain, that according to the view of the atonement taken by Dr. M. nothing can be conceived more manifestly inconsistent with justice. The fact to be accounted for is, that Christ the Son of God, by the determinate counsel of God, endured sufferings unspeakably great. According to the theory under consideration, no sin was charged to his account. He suffered not in the place of any one. The law was not executed upon him. The transaction was simply this: The most glorious and innocent person in the universe, who was capable of suffering, was punished in the most grievous manner, having no sins to answer for, either his own or those of others. Is there any need of argument or illustration on a point so plain? Is there any thing conceivable more incompatible with righteousness than the punishment of an innocent person? Nor will it change the nature of the transaction to say, that Christ consented to endure this exceeding weight of misery. For any one to consent to be dealt with unjustly cannot make it just: if a man consent that another should kill him or deprive him of his liberty, the consent cannot make it right. How then could it be just in God to afflict with pains so inconceivably great, his own Son? If he were considered in the light of a sponsor, or substitute, then indeed the case would be changed. We shall not now discuss the question, whether a substitute for sinners is admissible; but supposing that Christ did become a substitute, then he could be punished consistently with justice; but if we consider him as an innocent person, subjected to the penalty of no law, and having no demands of justice to satisfy, there can scarcely be expressed a more self-evident proposition, than that his death and sufferings are irreconcilable with justice. Dr. M. admits, that the regular course of distributive justice is suspended. c Justification is a real departure from the regular course of justice; ’ but this departure from justice does not relate to the sufferings of Christ, but to the remission of the penalty of the law incurred by transgressors. There is therefore a twofold injustice necessary to be supposed, according to this theory: the one in the sufferings of the innocent; the other in the remission of punishment to the guilty.

How God can be just while he departs from the regular course of justice, is what Dr. M. has yet to explain; and how that departure can be an exhibition of his righteousness or justice, is a problem still more difficult to be solved. The Ruler of the universe, in the atonement, departs from the regular course of justice, in the punishment of the innocent and in the release of the guilty; and yet this transaction is to exhibit his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus!

“We have no doubt that the learned professor has thought much on this subject; and yet it is manifest to us that he would have done well to extend his views still further than he has done. His scheme needs much addition to render it in any degree consistent.

“3. Our third remark is, that according to this theory the death of Christ has in it nothing of the nature of atonement. An atonement is a satisfaction made to an offended person in behalf of the offender. It is a means of appeasing the anger of the person injured. An atonement for the sins of men must contain in it a satisfaction to God on account of their sins. It is an expiation, or propitiation for sin. But according to this scheme, it is a mere symbolical transaction, intended to make the impression that God is righteous. But this is no atonement. Suppose God had fixed upon something else as the symbol of this truth — suppose he had annexed to the vivid lightning, this meaning, would there be any propriety in calling this an atonement? Take away all idea of the death of Christ being a satisfaction to law and justice in behalf of sinners, and you destroy the very nature of atonement. The name may be retained, but the thing is gone as completely, as in any system of Socinianism whatever. Indeed vicarious sufferings are excluded from this system by the express and repeated declarations of the author; therefore all inquiries and disputes respecting the persons for whom the atonement was made, are pronounced to be improper, and to arise from not understanding the nature of the atonement. That the author does reject the idea of vicarious satisfaction from the atonement, is manifest from the whole tenor of the discourse, but it is explicitly stated in his third inference, when he says — c These controversies (about the extent of the atonement) arise from the supposition, that the atonement draws after it by necessary consequence, the salvation, or at least the pardon, of all that believe. And they have given no little trouble to those who hold the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction! Now we contend that this destroys the very nature of atonement, and that the word ought not to be retained. SujDpose that we were informed, that a number of soldiers had disobeyed orders, and incurred thereby a heavy penalty, but that an atonement had been offered and accepted; is it possible to separate from it the idea of the persons for whom it was made? If an atonement has been made, in whatever it consists, the inquiry will ever be proper — for whom was it made? For every thing which partakes in any degree of the nature of atonement, must have relation to offences, and these suppose persons who are chargeable with them. And an atonement which has no relation to offences committed, is an absurdity; if the word be applied to things of this kind, it is an abuse of language. All that is said in this third inference, in the conclusion of the sermon, furnishes conclusive evidence, that according to the theory of the author, the true nature of atonement is completely destroyed.

“4. Moreover, it will appear by an impartial consideration of the principles laid down in this discourse, that an effectual atonement is impossible, because the principal ground of punishing transgressors cannot be removed by an atonement. The author admits that sin deserves to be punished on account of its intrinsic evil; but he asserts, as we have seen, that nothing that a Mediator can do, will have any effect to remove this reason of punishment. Then it must remain in full force, or must be removed in some other way. What that way is the preacher has undertaken to inform us, p. 16, 17. ‘They (sinning creatures) must become holy; this, and this only, can remove the first ground of punishment — and this certainly will remove it, Now, however strange this doctrine may appear to some persons, we ought not to be surprised at the earnestness and confidence with which it is asserted; for if this position cannot be maintained, the whole theory is perfectly nugatory. There is no doubt that the principle here assumed, whether true or false, is a corner stone in this fabric. Let us see then what has been brought to support it. The whole is included in the latter clause of a sentence already quoted. c When creatures cease to be sinners, they cease to be odious in the sight of God, The author seems, however, to have felt some misgivings about this matter; for, in the next sentence, the idea is repeated with some addition: c Their new and holy characters, says he, i render them now lovely in his view; and he can therefore feel no repugnance, so far as their present characters are concerned, to embracing them as his dear children, What does he mean by - present characters? ‘If no more than that a holy God must be pleased with the present holy exercises of a holy soul, it is true, but nothing at all to the purpose. Does God, in viewing the characters of his creatures, extend his attention to nothing but the present exercises? Do not all the actions ever performed go into the estimate? Let us suppose two creatures of similar faculties and advantages, one of whom departs from the way of rectitude, and lives for many years in the commission of the most enormous crimes, while the other retains his innocence and never offends; but at the end of this period, the first returns (no matter how) to his original state of purity; must God, from the holiness of his nature, view them with the same approbation? Does the ceasing to perform evil acts immediately obliterate them, so that they can have no effect on the Divine mind? It is wonderful that the sagacious author did not feel the force of his own sound reasoning in the next paragraph. c He has committed deeds which cannot be recalled. He is a transgressor of the law, and must for ever stand guilty. What is done can never be undone. All he can do will be to repent of the past, and cease to do evil for the future, Now, these are incontrovertible truths; and Dr. M. will do us a great favour, if he will show why they do not apply as perfectly to the first ground of punishment laid down by him, as to the second. When men form an estimate of the characters of one another, do they not comprehend in their view the whole conduct of every person, so far as they can ascertain it? If it were not so, a man who has reformed need not be ashamed of having perpetrated the most abominable crimes. God views things as they are, and in their just connections. All the actions of a man belong to him, and go to form his character; those performed long ago are as much his own, and as truly appertain to his character, as those which he is performing at the present moment. It cannot be, therefore, that God can look upon one who is stained with the guilt of enormous sins, in the same light as if he had never

offended, because he has now become holy. He must for ever contemplate the man as one who has been guilty of heinous offences, and as he acts agreeably to his own views of truth, he must deal with such an one according to his character. We speak now in relation to the theory of Dr. M., for we believe that by a Mediator, the greatest sinner can be so reconciled to God, that he can be received as if he had never offended; but this can never be the case upon the plan here proposed. A mere change of character can never remove this ground of punishment. Indeed, to suppose that it could, is to suppose that guilt contracted by a series of evil acts, can be obliterated by the performance of holy acts afterwards. This is the identical error of those who think that repentance will certainly wash away all former sins. But if the intrinsic evil of sin is a just ground of punishment, as Dr. M. fully admits; and if a creature by transgression has incurred this punishment, then his performing his duty afterwards can have no effect on his former guilt. His good conduct for the present will secure him from incurring more guilt, but the old charges stand in full force against him. If then this ground of punishment cannot be removed by making the creature holy, and if, as Dr. M. asserts, ’ nothing that a Mediator can do will remove it, what is the condition of every sinner? Is not salvation impossible? For, when by the atonement the second ground of punishment is removed, the first standing in full force, all the sufferings and work of the Mediator must be utterly ineffectual. Dr. M. should have examined this ground more thoroughly, before he ventured to trust his whole structure upon it. He has certainly brought himself into a dilemma: either reformation must have the efficacy of cancelling contracted guilt, or the salvation of any sinner is impossible; for here is a punishment incurred which no atonement can remove.

“We have no doubt that this single truth is sufficient to demolish Dr. M/s whole theory. The foundation is unsound; the main principle is perfectly untenable; and when this is removed, the superstructure must fall — unless we can be reconciled to a scheme which would plunge every sinner into utter despair.

“5. We remark again, that the idea of pardon and justification, entertained by Dr. M., is inconsistent and impossible. According to his views, ’ the atonement does not cause a sinner to be justified on the principles of law and distributive justice; ’ c nor did it cover his sins, c nor cause them to be overlooked and forgotten, But ’ the pardoned sinner not only remains, in fact, the same guilty creature he was before, but he is viewed by his Maker as personally guilty, On what principles then does justification take place? To this he answers, ’ we pronounce the justification of believers to be an act of the sovereign mercy of God, a departure from the regular course of justice; and such a departure as leaves the claims of the law for ever unsatisfied.’ This, we must think, is a kind of justification never heard of before. The law which binds the creature, and which is immutable, remains for ever unsatisfied, and the person is justified! The pardoned sinner remains as guilty as before his pardon! This justification then is, confessedly, in violation of the demands of the law. It is a departure from justice. Was such a doctrine ever promulged till now? If the demands of the law remain unsatisfied, then the transgressor remains in a state of condemnation, for the demand of the law against the sinner is, that he shall die. But he is justified by an act of sovereign mercy. How is this? condemned and justified at the same moment? Yes, for ever condemned, and yet for ever justified! Pardoned, yet not divested of guilt! — A more manifest contradiction cannot be expressed in words. It shocks common sense, and sets all argument at defiance.

“But the truth is, that, according to the author’s scheme, there is no such thing as justification, in any proper sense. The theory is, that law and justice are totally disregarded in the salvation of the sinner. The word justification, like the word atonement, is retained, while the thing properly signified by it has no existence. Here then we see that the attributes of justice and mercy are so far from harmonizing in the plan of salvation, that the former is utterly disregarded, to make way for the latter. The thing is not denied; it is as explicitly declared as words can express it. There is indeed an appearance of caution in some of the expressions, as, ’ a departure from the regular course of justice, as if there might be some other course. But to crown all, this theory makes the great end of the atonement to be, 6 an exhibition of the rectitude of God! ’

“We are constrained, from this view of Dr. M/s theory of the nature of the atonement, to declare, that it is more dishonourable to the Divine attributes, and more inconsistent with itself, than any system which we have ever before contemplated.

“6. The great end of the atonement, according to this theory is, to make such a display of God’s holiness and determination to punish sin, that a lasting impression may be left on the minds of rational creatures, that sin shall not pass with impunity under the government of God. But we assert, that according to the view given by this theory, the death of Christ can have no such effect; for the fact is, that in every instance in which it is pardoned, it is unpunished, and how can this teach other creatures that their sins shall certainly receive their due wages? As far as conduct can establish a principle, the very contrary of this is made certain. It is true, Christ has suffered a painful and ignominious death; but this cannot teach that the sinner will hereafter be punished. Christ was not a sinner, and no sins were imputed to him; he suffered, according to Dr. M., in all respects as an innocent person. All that can properly be inferred from this is, that if creatures transgress the law of God, they will not be punished, but the Governor of the universe will pour out his wrath upon some other party. It is calculated to make the innocent tremble, but there is nothing in the transaction to terrify the guilty. Let us, for illustration, suppose, that some king, after a number of his subjects had been guilty of the highest crimes, should, instead of executing the law upon them, inflict a terrible punishment on his own son, to make the impression on his subjects that he was just, and would certainly hereafter excute the laws upon offenders. Would not all the world cry out against the measure, not only as most unjust, but most preposterous? The impression made would indeed be deep and awful, but it would be an impression of horror in relation to his administration. But such is the theory of the atonement inculcated by a learned professor in one of our orthodox seminaries, on more than a hundred pupils, and now printed for their instruction. We have read somewhere of a Brahmin, who, supposing that he had suffered a great injury from a person from whom he could obtain no satisfaction, brought his own son, and murdered him in the presence of the man who had offended him. This is the only analogous case which we have noticed in the proceedings of men.

“7. Our last remark is, that this scheme robs the cross of its chief attractions, and greatly obscures the glory of the divine attributes displayed in the death of Christ. According to the theory under consideration, there is here no manifestation of God’s hatred of sin, on account of its intrinsic evil; no exhibition of his justice in inflicting the deserved punishment on sin in the person of a surety; nc regard manifested to truth, or to the sacred and immutable nature of the law, by executing the penalty incurred. And as to the wisdom of appointing such a costly sacrifice, merely to make a symbolical representation, we cannot see it. The expense appears to us far too great for the end to be accomplished. We were pleased, indeed, to find that Dr. M. holds firmly the doctrine of our Saviour’s divinity, but we confess that we could not see the justness of that inference, in which it is represented as deducible from the doctrine of the sermon. We cannot understand why a divine person must become incarnate and suffer death, merely as a symbol, to make the impression of a certain truth on the feelings of rational creatures. We will concede to Dr. M. that the impression made, will be deeper from the sufferings of such a person, than from those of a creature, but that does by no means prove that it was absolutely necessary. The preacher, indeed, tells us what is very true, that the simple preaching of the cross has had a mighty efficacy in converting men from sin unto God; but this simple preaching to which he refers, has always been very different from those views of the cross which he has given. It was a plain declaration of what the Scriptures teach, where every text that relates to the subject, conveys the idea of vicarious sufferings; of a sacrifice offered up for us; of the love of God in e not sparing his own Son, but delivering him up for us all, The Gospel represents Christ as made under the law; as becoming the end of the law for righteousness; as being made sin for us; as enduring the curse of the law, &c. The simple preaching of the cross displays the divine attributes; exhibits them in harmony, in the plan of salvation; represents the law as honoured and the rights of God as Governor of the Universe vindicated; and shows (not after Dr. M/s manner) how God can be just, and the justifier of him who believes in Jesus. But all these things are excluded from the scheme under consideration, and a strange doctrine introduced of a departure from justice; a justification in total disregard of the claims of the law and distributive justice; of pardon bestowed on the sinner, whilst he remains as guilty as ever; of a symbol to make some undefined impression on the feelings; of the punishment of a glorious person on whom no sin was charged, to demonstrate that God was righteous, and that he would certainly punish the transgressors of his law, &c. If this theory does not rob the cross of its attractions and obscure the glory which encircles it, we will confess that we are blind.

“For ourselves, we are not sorry to see Dr. M. come out with his whole system, for we are persuaded there are thousands who are charmed with vague notions of a general and indefinite atonement, which has no respect to the sins of individuals, who will shrink with horror from the system when fairly extended to its legitimate consequences, and traced to its primary principles. And after all our immense improvements in this part of theology, we shall find ourselves under the necessity of rejecting it altogether, or sitting down in company with Luther and Calvin, and even of taking good old Anselm by the hand.”

In the year 1825, a quarterly publication was issued at Princeton, under the title of the Biblical Kepertory. It was projected and undertaken by Professor Hodge, under whose auspices it has continued to nourish till this day, having now completed its twenty-ninth annual volume. As it is the oldest of existing American theological reviews, so we believe it to have as wide a circulation as any. Its character is too widely known to require our commendation. At its inception, the plan did not look much beyond the reprint of rare and useful treatises on Criticism and Hermeneutics, but it soon became the channel for original articles on theological subjects. Through good and evil report it has pursued its way, and has contributed more than any other agency, to make known those opinions which belong to what some have chosen to call the Princeton School. In times of controversy it has not refrained from a free expression of judgment on great questions; and its pages contain ample discussion of all matters relating to the defence of Calvinism and Presbytery, the jDolicy of the Church, the charities of the age, new divinity, new philosophy, and new measures, and especially the difficulties which preceded, accompanied and followed the division of our ecclesiastical body. Some of the ablest writers in our communion have chosen it as the vehicle of their best thoughts; among these, to say nothing of those who survive, we may mention Dr. Miller, Dr. Green, Dr. Bice, Dr. Fisk, Dr. Breckinridge, Dr. Winchester, and Dr. Dod. From the beginning, Dr. Alexander was active as a counsellor, and from the year 1829 he was a constant and often a large contributor. Its volumes contain some of his most elaborate and memorable treatises on theology, besides many essays and reviews of a minor sort.

So far as can be discovered, his first contribution to the Keview was an Essay on the Bible as furnishing a key to the phenomena of the natural world; appearing in two numbers of 1829. But this was followed by one of his most able and striking productions, namely, his review of Dr. Thomas Brown’s celebrated work on Cause and Effect. As a teacher of mental philosophy, and one well versed in all the varieties of Scottish opinion, he looked with lively interest upon the speculations of this fascinating writer; and believing them to be fraught with danger to the cause of truth, he attempted a refutation, which has been judged fair and successful. So far as we have learnt, this was the earliest extended reply to Brown; for Sir William Hamilton’s noted review in the Edinburgh did not make its appearance until the following year. To this dissertation we would confidently refer those who would judge of his qualifications for metaphysical inquiry, or would learn the methods of subtile and patient analysis, for which his lectures were remarkable. In this answer, he shows that on Brown’s hypothesis all reasoning from the nature of an effect to the nature of its cause, or the reverse, must be futile; that this defeats the teleiological argument for the being of God; that it destroys human accountability; and hence that it is untenable and dangerous. The closing sentence is characteristic: “That his theories have in some instances operated unfavourably on young men of ardent minds, we know to be a fact; but, in our opinion, the right way to prevent the bad consequences of such books, is not to prohibit, but to answer them, and to lead young men to peruse them with caution, and at the right time.”

The name of Dr. Alexander has been long associated with the American Colonization Society. Indeed, if those who were of the councils which projected it, and early committed themselves in its favour, are to be ranked as its founders, he assuredly deserves a name among them. The Rev. Dr. Robert Finley, the real father of the enterprise in its modern form, was a native of Princeton, and an alumnus of the College. He was an intimate friend of Dr. Alexander, and we remember the long and anxious interviews which they held upon this subject. Dr. Finley once said to his friend, “When I consider what many others have effected for the benefit of their suffering fellow-creatures at an earlier age than mine, I am humbled and mortified to think how little I have done.” This he uttered with ardent emotion, adding his determination to engage in some enterprise for the good of mankind. Not many months afterwards he disclosed to the same friend his plan of a colony of free blacks on the western coast of Africa. The scheme struck most as chimerical; but Finley was immovable, and from the very outset Dr. Alexander was as sanguine as he. The first public meeting which ever took place in the country to consider this matter was held in the borough of Princeton; where Dr. Finley gave an exposition of his plan. The meeting was small, but among those present were the professors and most of the students of the Theological Seminary.* It certainly added to the interest which he felt in this undertaking, that it was his young townsman, Captain Robert F. Stockton, of the United States Navy, who, in 1822, accom-

* History of Colonization on the Western Coast of Africa; p. 80.

panied by Dr. Ayres, effected the purchase of Mesurado from the natives, by a series of prudent and heroic acts, which almost savour of romance. He never faltered in his zeal for colonization. When others fell back, he was always hopeful, and his testimony was often repeated, “I am as fully persuaded that the plan of colonizing the free people of colour in Africa is wise and benevolent, as I ever was of the wisdom and benevolence of any human enterprise,” “It behooves those,” said he,” who industriously sow prejudices against Colonization in the minds of the free people of colour, to consider what injury they may be inflicting on them and their posterity. Let them either propose some method by which these degraded and down-trodden people may be rendered more comfortable and respectable here, or let them cease to throw obstacles in the way of their emigration to a country where they may have the opportunity of enjoying the real blessings of freedom. It is in vain to declaim about the prejudice of colour; however unreasonable, it will long continue to exist, and will prove an effectual bar to the possession and enjoyment of the same privileges and advantages which the white population enjoy. If I were a coloured man, I would not hesitate a moment to relinquish a country where a black skin and the lowest degree of degradation are so identified, that scarcely any manifestation of talent, scarcely any course of good conduct, can entirely overcome the contempt which exists, and which is perhaps stronger in the free than in the slaveholding States; and I would use every exertion to reach a land where it is no crime and no dishonour to appear in a coloured

skin, a country where no white superiors look down upon the black race, but where they are lords of the soil and rulers of the nation. I admire the honest ambition and noble daring of the first emigrants. Then no Liberia existed. The Society owned not one foot of ground on that continent, and it was extremely doubtful whether they would be able to obtain any territory for a colony. Yet these lion-hearted men, resolved to run every risk, took their lives in their hands. Like Abram, they went out, not knowing whither they went; and the event has proved that they were called by the providence of Grod, to engage in this hazardous enterprise. And I cannot but feel pity for the grovelling views of many coloured men, now residing in a state of degradation in this country, who in Liberia might rise to wealth and independence, and perhaps to high and honourable office.”

The visit which he made to Virginia in 1825, gave great pleasure to his friends, and to none more than to Dr. John H. Rice, who wrote often concerning it. “If,” says he, “you could but have witnessed the universal burst of joy when it was understood that you were coming, and the deep disappointment expressed by every one, on hearing that probably you would not come, you would know what influence under the divine blessing you could exert here.” “It is not possible to hire a carriage for you, in this neighbourhood. Nobody will hear of that. I do trust that we shall have the pleasure of seeing you and hearing you talk once more. Your head quarters must be with us; in the old house occupied by you so many years. This is the central point, to which people are most in the habit of coming; and near which people who come from Cumberland and Charlotte will find it easiest to get accommodations.” Thus wrote this warm friend while the journey was in prospect; he afterwards says: “I do believe that it would prolong your life and extend your usefulness, if you could make such a visit every year. It might be the means of bringing your children acquainted with the children of those, who will never cease to love you with a fervour and perpetuity of affection, which is rarely to be found except among old Virginia Presbyterians. Come then often among us, and let us enjoy the pleasure of showing, or rather trying to show how much we love you.” And again: “Your visit last summer constitutes an epoch in the annals of our Parish, Things are commonly spoken of, as happening just before, or just after, or while Dr. Alexander was here. And if I could have my wish, you would render your last services to the Church here, and lay your bones to rest in the land of your nativity.”* Amidst public duties, Dr. Alexander found time to indulge the sympathies of Christian friendship. If the correspondence of that day could be recovered, especially with Dr. Rice and Dr. Speece, it would probably give a picture of his inward life which no later pen can supply. A few letters have been preserved, written to his eldest sister, the wife of Professor Graham of Washington College; with this excellent woman he maintained a correspondence for about sixty years. She departed this life in 1853, while this memoir was in preparation. In the year 1822 he wrote thus to her:

* Letters of Dr. Rice, March 18, May 2, August 6, and October 16, 1825.

“I am afraid from what I have heard and from the strain of your letter, that your grief on account of the death of your beloved daughter has been excessive; that you have yielded more than was good to despondency; and that you are in danger of sinking into a settled dejection. I know that your natural disposition exposes you to an extreme on this side, and that unless you vigorously and resolutely oppose it, you will be likely to do yourself a serious and perhaps a lasting injury. Grief, like all other natural passions, becomes sinful when indulged too far. It then involves always some want of confidence in God, some improper feeling in regard to his government and will. It partakes of the nature of that sorrow which worketh death. It wastes the spirits, debilitates the body, predisposes to various diseases, unfits for the discharge of common duties, destroys one’s own peace, and adds to the unhappiness of friends. Somehow or other, we are not so much afraid of sin, when it approaches us through this channel. If we grow light and indulge a love of pleasure, conscience is soon wounded; but we are ready to justify our sorrow, and refuse to make the effort which is necessary to check it. There is often a strong perverseness in the human mind in hugging its sorrows, as if they were valuable or sacred. But while the religion of Christ permits us to indulge our natural feelings, it strictly requires temperance here, as well as in other indulgences. It requires us to rejoice, to rejoice always, and to rejoice even in tribulation.” And more particularly in the same strain, at another time:” I feel for you under the sore bereavement which you have suffered; but the stroke, though severe, comes from the hand of a Father, who afflicts not willingly. Our children are more the property of God than of ourselves. He gave and he taketh away, and it is our duty to submit to his will in all things; for whatever he does is right, and best for his own children. Hereafter they shall see that there was a propriety in all his dealings. To give up a child or other dear relative whom we believe to be prepared, is comparatively easy; but to part with one concerning whom we have no sure ground of confidence — this indeed is hard! But we are poor judges of what preparation is. We know not what God may work in behalf of our children in their last moments. We know not but that the principle of grace may be implanted in such as are piously educated, earlier than we are aware. In some cases, what is called conversion may be no more than the development of a principle implanted before. We know not how far the promise of God to believing parents, in behalf of their offspring, extends, when they are taken away in tender youth. If we believe that all the dying infants of such are undoubtedly saved, why may we not hope that those who have advanced a little beyond infancy may be comprehended in God’s gracious covenant? Many who never profess religion exhibit more of the Christian temper than some who are professors. They are diffident of themselves, and do not make known all that they have experienced. I cannot but entertain pleasing hopes of the salvation of such amiable young persons as have been devoted to God, and early imbued with Christian instruction, when they are cut off by premature death. It can do no harm to hope as much as we can respecting the dead.

Let us be as rigid as we please in regard to the living; but it is no dishonour to God, nor disparagement of his truth, to entertain enlarged views of his mercy. After all, humble submission to the will of God, from a trust in his wisdom, faithfulness and mercy, is the best refuge. When Eli heard the message of God respecting his sons, his language was, ( It is the Lord, let him do what seemeth him good I-” Be still, and know that I am God, These sore visitations are intended to answer wise and gracious purposes. Let us endeavour to profit by seasons of adversity. For most, it is good to be afflicted. Beware of a gloomy, disconsolate mind. Let not grief prey upon your spirits, and unfit you for the duties of a Christian. “We must all very soon die, and it is much better that our children should go early, than live to be old in sin, and then die without an interest in Christ. Cast all your care upon the Lord. Commit all into his hands. Blessed are they that trust in him!”

A place is due also, to the only letter to his aged and declining mother, which is known to be in existence.

DR. ALEXANDER TO HIS MOTHER.

“Princeton, May 25, 1823.

“My dear Mother: —

“When I last saw you, it was very doubtful whether you would ever rise again from the bed to which you were confined. Indeed, considering your great age, it was not to be expected that you should entirely recover your usual health. I was much gratified to find that in the near prospect of eternity, your faith did not fail, but that you could look death in the face without dismay, and felt willing, if it were the will of God, to depart from this world of sorrow and disappointment. But it has pleased your Heavenly Father to continue you a little longer in the world. I regret to learn that you have endured much pain from a disease of your eyes, and that you have been less comfortable than formerly. Bodily affliction you must expect to endure as long as you continue in the world. ‘The days of our years are three-score years and ten, and if by reason of strength they be four-score years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away, But while your Heavenly Father continues you in this troublesome world, he will, I trust, enable you to be resigned and contented and patient under the manifold afflictions which are incident to old age.

“The great secret of true comfort lies in a single word, Trust. Cast your burdens on the Lord, and he will sustain them. If your evidences of being in the favour of God are obscured, if you are doubtful of your acceptance with him, still go directly to him by faith; that is, trust in his mercy and in Christ’s merits. Kely simply on his word of promise. Be not afraid to exercise confidence. There can be no deception in depending entirely on the Word of God. It is not presumption to trust in him when he has commanded us to do so. We dishonour him by our fearfulness and want of confidence. We thus call in question his faithfulness and his goodness. Whether your mind is comfortable or distressed, flee for refuge to the outstretched wings of his protection and mercy. There is all fulness in him; there is all willingness to bestow what we need. He says, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee. My strength is made perfect in weakness. As thy day is so shall thy strength be. I will never leave thee nor forsake thee. Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me, Be not afraid of the pangs of death. Be not afraid that your Kedeemer will then be afar off. Grace to die comfortably is not commonly given until the trial comes. Listen not to the tempter, when he endeavours to shake your faith, and destroy your comfort. Kesist him, and he will flee from you. If you feel that you can trust your soul willingly and wholly to the hands of Christ, relying entirely on his merits; if you feel that you hate sin, and earnestly long to be delivered from its defilement; if you are willing to submit to the will of God, however much he may afflict you; then be not discouraged. These are not the marks of an enemy, but of a friend. My sincere prayer is, that your sun may set in serenity; that your latter end may be like that of the righteous; and that your remaining days, by the blessing of God’s providence and grace, may be rendered tolerable and even comfortable.

“It is not probable that we shall ever meet again in this world; and yet, as you have already seen one of your children go before you, you may possibly live to witness the departure of more of us. I feel that old age is creeping upon me. Whoever goes first, the rest must soon follow. May we all be ready! And may we all meet around the throne of God, where there is no separation for ever and ever! Amen!

“I remain, your affectionate son,

“A. A.”

Unless we greatly mistake, the following letters of consolation, belonging to an earlier year of the same period, will not be uninteresting. They relate to the death of Mr. Thomas M. Hall, of Philadelphia, already named as the friend and host of Dr. Alexander.

DR. ALEXANDER TO MISS MARGARET HALL.

“Princeton, Sept. 24, 1818.

“My Dear Friend: —

“That event which you feared, and which of all earthly afflictions is the heaviest, has come upon you. An aged mother is bereaved of her only son, the staff of her declining years; and an afflicted sister of her only brother. Who would not sympathize with you, under such a stroke! But whilst your hearts have been almost broken with grief, do not yield to discouragement. It is the Lord, let him do what seemeth him good! Remember that this is a dying world. We must all go the same way. You have within a short period been deprived of the society of three affectionate relatives; they are not lost, but gone a little before you; and the best use you can make of these painful dispensations is to use all diligence, so that you may yourselves be prepared at the shortest notice, to join your departed friends in that world of true comfort, where the pang of parting will never

be experienced. Happy will it be for us, if these light afflictions, which are but for a moment, shall work out for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. Be patient, then, and receive from the hand of the Lord evil as well as good. The time is short; our attachments to this world ought to be growing weaker every day; and these heart-rending separations are suited to produce such an effect. Be ye therefore ready, also, says the blessed Saviour; for the Son of man cometh in such an hour as ye think not. Grieve not as those who have no hope. The sorrow of the world worketh death, but godly sorrow worketh repentance not to be repented of. Trust in the promises of God, which are exceedingly great and precious. Trust in the Providence of God, which extendeth to our minutest concerns, even to the numbering of the hairs of our head.

“Through the blessing of our Heavenly Father, my family enjoys comfortable health. Mrs. Alexander sends her affectionate condolence to both of you.

“I am yours sincerely,

“A. A.”

DR. ALEXANDER TO MRS. MARY ANNA HALL.

“Princeton, Sept. 24, 1818.

“Dear Madam: —

“The departure of your dear husband was very unexpected to me, when it occurred. I did, indeed, apprehend that his disease would terminate fatally; but it seemed probable to me that he would linger for months, or perhaps years. But it has seemed good to the great Disposer of all events to shorten his sufferings, and to remove him suddenly from his family and friends. And now it behooves us to submit to the decrees of that Providence, which is mysterious and unsearchable, but always wise and righteous in its dispensations.

“It was a matter of some regret to me, that I had not the opportunity of visiting Mr. Hall in his last illness. At the very time when the news of his unexpected departure reached us, I was meditating a visit to Philadelphia; but it was rendered unnecessary. It has, however, afforded me great satisfaction to learn that his end was comfortable, and that he died in the hope of the Gospel. I need not put you in mind of the greatness of the loss which you and your dear children have sustained; this you feel every hour. All I can do, therefore, is to condole with you and his afflicted mother and sister, on this sore bereavement. But while you mourn, do not murmur nor repine. Consider who it is that hath done it. It is the stroke of your Heavenly Father, who doth not afflict willingly. Endeavour to be resigned to his will, and thankful that you were permitted to enjoy the society of so kind a husband for so long a time, and that you and your children are not left without the means of subsistence. But permit me to remind you that more still is incumbent on you, under this afflictive dispensation. You should pray daily that it may be so sanctified to you, as to work the peaceable fruits of righteousness, and lead you to a full preparation to follow your dear husband to that rest to which you trust he has gone. You have indeed a great charge on your hands, and your heart may be ready

to sink when yon think of the education of your children; but if you will trust all in the hands of a faithful God, your strength shall be equal to your day, and He will never leave you nor forsake you.

“Give my love to all the children, and tell them they must now look to God as their Father; and must remember their Creator in the days of their youth. If they acknowledge him in all their ways, he will direct their steps. I intend to write to your mother and sister Margaret, as soon as I can command the time. Mrs. Alexander joins me in sympathy and condolence with you all.

“Your friend, &c,

“A. A.”

It was from the beginning customary for the professors in rotation to pronounce to the students an Introductory Lecture, upon the opening of each term of study. Of those thus delivered by Dr. Alexander, we find seventeen among his manuscripts; enough, indeed, to constitute a large volume. These are on important subjects, connected with the work of preparation for the ministry. The Introductory Lecture of 1813 comprises an amplification of the following precepts.

“1. Keep habitually in view the awful importance of the office which you have in view.

“2. Cherish assiduously the sincere and ardent love of truth.

“3. Meditate frequently and profoundly on the imbecility of the human intellect.

“4. Accustom yourselves to seek divine direction in every thing, and to depend entirely on God’s blessing for success in your studies.

“5. Learn to think for yourselves.

“6. Avoid premature judgments and hasty decisions.

“7. Avoid at the same time the more dangerous extreme of a skeptical, unsettled state of mind.

“8. Always consider the kind of evidence, of which any particular subject admits, and be satisfied when you have such as the nature of the case requires.

“9. Be not deterred by difficulties from aiming at high attainments in literature.

“10. Lay the foundation deep and solid.

“11. Do not waste your time and strength on studies which are likely never to be profitable.

“12. After having undertaken any important literary pursuit, do not relinquish it on account of inconsiderable obstacles.

“13. So regulate the attention to your studies, as never to lose any part of learning which you may have attained.

“14. On subjects which you wish to investigate, accustom yourselves to meditate in various situations and circumstances. Learn to think and reason closely when you have no access to books and no opportunity of committing your thoughts to writing.

“15. But when circumstances will admit it, write down your thoughts; both for the sake of preserving them, and to aid in confining your attention.

“16. When the investigation of a point is your object,

think nothing of the language in which you clothe your ideas.

“17. Candid and animated discussion, in conversation with others engaged in the same course of study, is one of the best aids in acquiring distinct views.

“18. With respect to many parts of knowledge, it is sufficient to know where they may be found when needed.

“19. Serenity of mind is exceedingly favourable to the pursuit of knowledge.

“20. All pious affections conduce to the same end; and all depraved passions pervert the understanding.

“21. Many physical causes affect the mind. Disease, watchfulness, fasting; substances which exhilarate or intoxicate.

“22. There is reason to believe, that though inspiration has long since ceased, the Spirit of God does now, in various ways, guide, assist and elevate the minds of men.

“23. Form habits of diligence in your studies. Life is short.

“24. But diligence without method, will enable us to make but little progress.

“25. Look well to the spiritual condition of your own souls.”

The Introductory Lecture of 1818 is equally practical. It treats of the topics indicated by such counsels as these.” Never forget the importance of that great object which you have in view. — Let your trust and hope be strongly fixed on God. — Habitually consider the weakness of the human understanding. — Yet depend on your own faculties, rather than on those of other men. Learn to use your own understanding. Search for truth without a slavish regard for human authority. Think for yourselves, and expect to make progress rather by following your own thoughts, than by borrowing those of other men. It is not intended to undervalue the literary labours of the wise. In many things our knowledge must necessarily be derived from books; and on every subject we may gain important assistance from good treatises, commentaries and sermons. But if we accustom ourselves merely to follow the reflections of other men, we shall never attain a respectable proficiency in knowledge. We may, indeed, accumulate ideas. We may fill our memory with stores of learning, and may know what every distinguished author has said on any subject. But this might be laid up almost as profitably in common-place books or libraries. Granting that every subject has been investigated more fully by others, those thoughts and opinions which are the fruit of our own mental exertions are more profitable to us, than those of other and even superior minds; for every mind is like a mint, which has its own peculiar stamp. What we think out for ourselves, is by the very process interwoven with our other thoughts, and intimately incorporated into our own system. When we have, therefore, a subject of inquiry, the best plan is, not immediately to run to those who have written upon it. We ought, in the first place, intensely to apply our own powers, and when we have pursued the consideration as far as we can, to consult authors, that by comparing their views with our own we may correct what is 466 ORIGINAL THINKING.

erroneous. That peculiarity which ideas receive by passing in the manner now described through any mind, is what is called originality; and how much this single quality adds to the interest which we take in any discourse, spoken or written, is known to every one.

“At first we are ready to suppose that we can make no progress in the pursuit of truth by the mere exercise of our own faculties, and are therefore deterred from the endeavour. But this is a mistake which in every instance experience would correct, if we could only be persuaded to make the attempt. All we have to do, indeed, is to &k. the attention on the subject, and revolve in our minds the thoughts which we already possess. The difference between men, as to powers of investigation, is perhaps chiefly in the capacity for fixing the attention closely. In such processes we are conscious of no other effort, than that of keeping the subject before the mind. To learn the art of so concentrating attention, is therefore of the greatest value. Be not discouraged if your first efforts should produce little fruit; persevere, and you will ultimately be successful. — I have insisted on this subject, from a deep persuasion of its importance. This is the only way in which we can acquire independence of mind, and originality of thinking. One reason why so many persons, after all their study and learning, are uninteresting in their productions, is, that they neglect to exert their own faculties.”

Another Discourse of the same period, was on the most common” Defects of Character among Ministers of the

Gospel who are in the main upright.” Among these defects are specified, 1. Want of zeal; 2. Indolence; 3. Vanity; 4. Levity; 5. Carelessness in regard to Truth; 6. Despondency, and 7. Imprudence. Another was on the means of using to the best advantage the opportunities afforded by a Theological Seminary. The suggestions are thus arranged. 1. “The first thing requisite is that you possess in some good degree the desire of improvement.” — 2. “A firm, deliberate resolution to make the best use of your opportunities.” — 3. “The proper employment of time.” — 4. “Concentration of mind upon the subject particularly in hand.” — 5. “Not to aim at too much, nor to hasten unduly.” — 6. “Get the habit of seizing every means of increasing knowledge.” — 7. “The preservation of all attainments for future use.” — 8. “Method.” — 9. “The removal of impediments out of the way of learning.”

The Introductory Lecture of 1819 was on the “Importance of Vital Piety and Holy Living, in all who aspire to the Ministry of the Word.” It is a pointed and stirring discourse, upon the following heads of admonition.

“1. Live near to God, and seek to enjoy daily communion with the Father of your spirits.”

“2. Keep steadily in view the great end of that office which you seek; and let this stimulate you to exertion in all your preparatory studies.”

“3. As students, maintain right feelings and conduct towards one another.”

“4. Endeavour to attain and preserve tranquillity in your own souls.”

In 1820 he addressed the young men in a series of paternal counsels, on a spirit of devotion — benevolence towards all men — humility — inward peace — the subjection of appetite — diligence and punctuality — actual labours of love among the poor and ignorant. In 1822, in a similar strain, but with much variety of amplification and example, he advises thus:

“1. Kemember the sacredness of the office to which you have devoted yourselves. 2. Keflect much on your own weakness and depravity. 3. Often call to mind that c every good gift and every perfect gift cometh down from above, from the Father of lights, 4. Look upon the Bible as the only source of infallible instruction upon earth. 5. Let it be your purpose to be accurate and thorough in your learning. 6. Do not waste your strength by dividing your attention among a multitude of objects. 7. Learn to think, as well as to read. 8. Do good in the vicinity. 9. Be not impatient of the delay occasioned by your course of preparation.” The lecture of 1823 was an answer to the inquiry, “Can any thing be done to raise the standard of piety in this Seminary?”

The Introductory Lecture of 1826 discussed these points. 1. The glory of Grod, as the great, paramount aim. 2. Preparation for the Gospel ministry, as subordinate to this. 3. As important parts of this preparation, (1) a good basis of theological knowledge; (2) moral culture. 4. The discipline of the mind. There is a highly interesting discourse in this series, on “The Use and Abuse of Books.” In reviewing the account of these introductory lessons, the reader will not fail to remark, how directly they tend to the immediate and practical improvement of the pupil, and how largely they are pervaded by the spirit of evangelical religion. They belong to a memoir like this, not only on account of the intrinsic value of the suggestions, but because they characterize the man.