tion by faith, and the perseverance of the saints, together with many other doctrinal truths of that excellent formulary. Indeed, every thing was cast out or distorted, that did not accord with the scheme of Dr. John Taylor, whose writings, then just received into this country, were esteemed by multitudes throughout NewEngland, as the best human standard of faith.

Unitarianism, chiefly in the Arian form, was another corrupt system of doctrines, which began to be diffused, to some extent, previous to the period under review. Indeed the leaven had spread so considerably, as to warrant Dr. Bellamy in openly attacking it with his pen, and from the pulpit. If the daring speculations and dogmas of the Polish heresiarchs, who so far matured the scheme as to efface from it every distinctive feature of the gospel, were unknown to these colonies; yet the writings of many an English Arian or Socinian, were read with eagerness, and several distinguished men who retained as much of the character of free-thinkers, as was compatible with a cold assent to the general position that the bible is a revelation from God, had already imbibed the poison.

We pretend not to assign the precise date of the commencement of Unitarianism in our land. It had an underground progress for many years. It discovered itself gradually, by cautiously sounding those whom it hoped to influence; by suggesting doubts relative to some points of the orthodox faith; by avowing tenets which, from their affinity to the scheme, were acknowledged, often reluctantly, to be its legitimate fruits; and by various other expedients to advance the cause, without discovering to the people at large, the real object in view. Indeed, the way in which it was then diffused, was but the prototype of the manner in which, in our day, it has been more successfully propagated in and about the metropolis of NewEngland. It happened at that time, as it often does, when a few keen-sighted men perceive dangerous errors to be covertly introduced, and raise the voice of remonstrance and warning: the motives of those who first descried and proclaimed the danger, were arraigned. Some of the orthodox who had for several years perceived and deplored the growing mischief, were accused by their brethren of being too suspicious, and of acting under the influence of persons who, for political purposes, wished to cast the reproach of heterodoxy on a portion of their countrymen. Many of the friends of truth were exceedingly culpable for their blindness. In the face of clear evidence which, in spite of the attempted secrecy, could not but transpire, they were either so weak or so culpably charitable, as to believe that there were "no Arians, no Socinians in the land." 66 Oh," says Bellamy, in a letter designed to warn the public against these errors, "Oh, that this were indeed the case! Oh, that our fears were quite groundless.

How soon would I believe it, if you could help me to see just reason for it. But how would the party through New-England, laugh at our credulity in Connecticut, if their friends among us could make us believe all to be safe till they could carry their points here, as they have elsewhere."

In one respect however, a portion of the Unitarians of that period were more noble than those in" one of our principal commonwealths in later times; who might have remained to this hour, without a public avowal of their principles, and thus have more extensively insinuated their principles, had it not been for the luckless indiscretion of Belsham, one of their English oracles. In the above-mentioned mutilated Catechism published, as it would seem, at the united instance of Arminians and Unitarians, one of the articles" entirely left out," was the great doctrine of the Trinity. Thus honestly did they give the public to understand that they were not Trinitarians. And yet the merit of this openness was destroyed by their effrontery. For, in the spirit of insulting defiance, they inform the world, in the preface to their "Improved" Catechism, that "the snarling party of bigots will be little regarded." How exactly this contemptuous language accords with much of the phraseology, so flippantly employed by not a few of their successors at the present day, we will not stop to show. Qui legit, intelligat. Nor was the frankness which we have commended, confined wholly to the authors of that mutilated publication. "Come from New-Hampshire along to Boston," says Dr. Bellamy, "and see there a celebrated D. D. the head of a large party! He boldly ridicules the doctrine of the Trinity, and denies the doctrine of justification by faith alone, in the sight of all the country, in his book of sermons." The gentleman probably alluded to, afterwards declared himself a Universalist; and in two of his publications now lying before us, we find the unmeasured effusions of his enmity to the almost unparalleled work of grace in the days of our fathers. Unitarianism and Universalism, and bitter hostility to revivals, are not a very unnatural, nor a very uncommon confederacy.

The third class of erroneous doctrines which corrupted and rent many of the churches at this period, were of an Antinomian complexion. Soon after the establishment of the first churches in the colony of Massachusetts, various tenets of this class were broached, and urged with a positiveness and violence which threatened the extinction of religion from the land. They were of a nature so alarming, as to call for the meeting of a Synod at Cambridge, in the year 1637; by which body eighty-two errors were examined, and with exemplary firmness and meekness, condemned. The venerable Mr. Cotton, whom Dr. Mather with his usual quaintness styles "not the least part of the country,"

was in some degree infected with them. At any rate, he thought so highly of the piety of those who had espoused them, as to be placed by public opinion among the delinquents. And much had it redounded to the honor of that synod, if they had manifested as much temper in dealing with him, as they had just shown in examining and censuring the errors of the sect. At length however after much debate and explanation, the synod and Mr. Cotton happily came to a compromise, to the great grief of the Antinomians; who, misinterpreting his qualified approbation of some of their positions, and his charitable regard for them as christians, notwithstanding their other errors, had proudly claimed him as their champion.

Antinomian principles were first introduced at Boston by Ann Hutchinson, and though repressed by the synod just mentioned, they were at different times afterwards revived to a greater or less extent; till the adversary of truth, taking advantage of the remarkable religious excitement in 1740, gave them a wider spread and a more disastrous influence than they ever had in this country, before or since that memorable period.

Of the many errors belonging to the Antinomian scheme, as it then existed, our limits will allow us to specify only the following: That to be a christian, a person must know the fact of his regeneration, and the precise time of its occurrence; that great joy is a certain evidence of conversion;-that christians are known to each other less by practical godliness, than by inward feeling;—that sanctification is not to be regarded as an evidence of justification; -that "assurance of God's love" is a necessary qualification for church-membership;-that bodily agitations, and even outcries in the time of public worship, together with what were called "lively impressions of an outward Christ," whether seen enthroned in heaven or bleeding on a cross, are important indications of a regenerated heart;-that in every passage of scripture there is a spiritual meaning, which cannot be understood without a special revelation to the soul by the Spirit of God;-that vital piety in all its members, is essential to the being of a true church of Christ ;that christians love God not so much in view of his infinite moral excellence, as from an apprehension that he loves them;—that saving faith is the belief which an individual has that Christ died for him in particular, which proposition becomes true only by being believed ;-that assurance belongs to the essence of faith; and in a word, that christians are released from obligation to the moral law, being placed under the milder law of the gospel. This last was the original source whence flowed, directly or indirectly, nearly every other error belonging to this selfish, preposterous, destructive system.

No wonder that a scheme like this, embraced as it was by great

numbers, should have distracted the churches, marred the work of God, and awakened all the energies of the friends of the revival to oppose it. It should be observed however, that most of the churches, and all the regular ministers in Connecticut, were uncontaminated by it, and labored to counteract its influence; some indeed with feelings of hostility to the revival, as the supposed parent of these opinions; and others with the deepest grief that a work so manifestly produced by the Holy Spirit, should be accompanied by the prevalence of sentiments, so pre-eminently fitted to ensnare and ruin the soul.

But there were certain ecclesiastical usages which had been of long standing, and which at this period were causes of much alienation and contention. Two of them shall be specified. One was the injudicious and unscriptural practice of admitting into the church any persons not outwardly vicious, upon merely a public assent to the cardinal truths of revelation, without allowing them to partake of the Lord's supper. The covenant into which the candidates entered with God and the church, was called, in the language of the times, "the half-way covenant;" and the responsibilities of this partial membership were assumed, that they might procure baptism for their children. As to the manner in which their children could be benefited by baptism administered on such grounds, there was much difference of opinion. Some, directly in opposition to their declared belief of the entire corruption of human nature, spoke of initial grace as producing a sort of incipient faith in the unsanctified professor of religion; which, it was thought, might somehow serve as a medium for the conveyance of spiritual benefits to the baptized infant. Some supposed, that moral sincerity in the parents was all that could be expected of them, till the Lord should renew their hearts; and therefore that this was a sufficient ground on which to expect advantage to the child from the ordinance. Others, and indeed the common people generally, abstaining from all speculation on the subject, unconsciously took sides with the Papists, and relied wholly on the opus operatum; believing that baptism itself, on whatever grounds administered, possessed a certain mysterious intrinsic efficacy.

"The half-way practice" was first introduced by a synod which assembled in Boston in the year 1662. The principal reason which governed that venerable, but in this instance, mistaken body, was, that as the children were mostly growing up in an unsanctified state, some measure must be taken to diffuse more widely the privilege of baptism, or the church itself, now fast diminishing, must, in their view, soon become extinct. Accordingly, they recommended the unscriptural expedient under consideration; for the children thus baptized, were considered as

actual members of the church, and if irreproachable in their external deportment, were admitted, at a certain age, to the Lord's table.

The synod however were far from being unanimous. The point was powerfully debated before the decision, and for more than a century afterwards; and of the churches, some accorded with the recommendation of the synod, and others refused compliance. This difference of practice ceased not to be the prolific parent of alienation and controversy, till within a few years past. It was not however introduced into Connecticut till the year 1696; and it never obtained universally in this or any other State.

66

It is remarkable that the covenant entered into by members in full, and by those who were members only in part, was the same, although styled "the half-way covenant" when its obligations were assumed by the latter. Both classes of professors alike promised to walk faithfully, in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord. But "among these ordinances," Dr. Dwight observes, one of high import is the Lord's Supper. Yet it was the professed intention of the candidate, at this very time, not to attend upon that ordinance. In addition to this, it was his declared apprehension, that at the very time of making his profession he was not a christian, and therefore was not at all disposed to walk in any of the commandments or ordinances of Christ. Glaring as this contradiction was, both ministers and people contended for it with eagerness."

The other usage to which we have referred, was of still earlier origin, and scarcely less disastrous in its effects. We mean the admission of persons to full communion in the church, without requiring of them any relation of their motives or religious experience. In many instances, no inquiry was made to ascertain either their doctrinal or experimental acquaintance with religion. If, being unexceptionable in their outward conduct, they desired admission into the church, they were readily received, upon publicly assenting to the confession of faith. The church in Salem, the oldest in the colony of Massachusetts, countenanced this practice; leaving it to the option of the candidate, to give an account of his views and experience orally or in writing; to answer such interrogatories as might be proposed; or simply to express his accordance with the confession and covenant. "This" says Dr. Mather, "was perhaps more beautiful than would have been a more punctilious uniformity." The only beauty we can discover in it, is that of the whited sepulchre-deception without and pollution within. This practice prevailed more or less till the period under review; nor even then was it wholly discontinued. For in 1736, after the fruits of the first revival under the ministry of Edwards, were received into the church, he says, "It VOL. II.

42