Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadMcClintock Biblical Encyclopedia: Theology, New England
Subjects in this Topic:
including “New Divinity,” “Edwardean Divinity,” “Hopkinsianism,” etc.
I. Origin and Development. —The original theology of New England was the strict Calvinism of the Reformed standards. In 1648 the Westminster Confession was formally adopted by the synod convened at Cambridge, and it remained the standard of faith for all “the New English churches” until 1680, when “the elders and messengers of the churches in the colony of the Massachusetts in New England” substituted the confession drawn up by the Congregationalists of the mother country, and known as the “Savoy Confession.” In 1708 the Connecticut churches made the same change. This substitution was in neither case demanded by a changed theological sentiment in the churches, the Savoy Confession being almost word for word identical with the Westminster, except on points connected with Church polity. Its Calvinism was equally strict. Not long after this, however, strong and independent minds began to appear in the ranks of the New England ministry, whose philosophical acumen and practical earnestness could not rest satisfied with a theological system which to them seemed palpably inconsistent in parts, and morally paralyzing as a whole.
These, prompted partly by their own subjective difficulties, and partly by the exigencies and influences of the period which witnessed the rise of New England Unitarianism, the introduction of Universalism, the visits of Charles Wesley and George Whitefield the planting of Methodism, the Revolutionary War, the abolition of slavery in the New England states, the defection from orthodoxy of Harvard College and the largest churches of Massachusetts, the end of the compulsory support of religion by taxes, the fall of the Lockean and the rise of a transcendental school of philosophy, the extension of the Baptist and of the Methodist Episcopal and Protestant Episcopal churches over all the New England States, the foundling of the noble missions of the American Board — not to mention remoter and less important events — commenced a series of modifications in the traditional Calvinistic system of doctrine designed to render it more rational, more palatable to the believer, and more easily defensible against the assailant. The process has been going forward with a good degree of steadiness ever since the days of president Edwards. One has suggested change in one part, another in another; one has brought forward a metaphysical novelty, another a theological one, a third an ethical; liberal and progressive influences have become incorporated in organs and institutions; free pulpits have popularized the various innovations; new generations have grown up under the influence of the improved doctrination; in short, an almost complete theological revolution has gradually taken place. In their earliest development, the more generally received of these new views were styled'” New-light Divinity;” then “New Divinity,” afterwards “Edwardean;” sometimes “Hopkintonian” or “Hopkinsian.”
From the fact that Edwards, Hopkins, West, and Catlin resided in Berkshire County, the system was at one time called “Berkshire Divinity.” When embraced in Great Britain by Andrew Fuller, Dr. Ryland, Robert Hall, Sutcliffe, Carey, Jay, and Erskine, it was called “American Theology,” to distinguish it from the European systems. In this country it has often been denominated “New England Theology,” in order to discriminate it from systems that have prevailed in other parts of the land. This term, however, is far from satisfactory, partly because the New England theology of to-day is very different from the New England theology of a hundred and fifty years ago, and partly because, in speaking of the New England theology of recent times, the term must be used in a sense sufficiently wide and vague to include differing types of doctrine historically associated with various individual divines and with the Andover, New Haven, and East Windsor (now Hartford) schools.
The precise relation sustained by the elder Edwards (1703-58) to this theological development has long been, and still remains, a subject of controversy. The advocates of the most advanced -new views are anxious to claim him as the real father of the whole movement, while the Old- school writers, with equal zeal, endeavor to guard the good man's memory from so “slanderous” an allegation. The former appeal to the “Ten Improvements in Theology,” enumerated by the younger Edwards (Works, 1, 481) as having been “made by his father,” and claim that such a list entitles their author to the very first rank among the innovators upon New England orthodoxy. The latter find in this enumeration of the younger Edwards only an effort on the part of its author to magnify the number and character of his father's theological novelties, in order the better to prepare the way for the introduction of his own more radical and dangerous ones. One writer (in Princeton Rev. Oct. 1858) has attempted to show that president Edwards's only deviations from the current Calvinism of his age were confined to two points-viz., he held to mediate instead of immediate imputation; and, secondly, advocated “an eccentric philosophical theory of virtue.” The true state of the case would seem to be that Edwards, without intending to initiate, or even to occasion, such a grand revolution, really advanced principles and made statements which afterwards suggested, and almost logically necessitated, the peculiar views and even phraseology of his successors (see Park, On the Rise of the Edwardean Theory of the Atonement).
To present a complete delineation of New England theology, it would be necessary to write a critical history of New England speculation. Contributions and modifying influences have come from so many sources that even then it would be exceedingly difficult to apportion to each of the original elaborators his precise due. This difficulty is greatly enhanced by the intimacy of the relations, which subsisted among them. So close were those relations that in some instances it is next to impossible to determine the real authorship of important modifications. Edwards. Bellamy, and Hopkins, the “great triumvirate of New England theologians,” were not merely contemporaries, they were confidential friends, reciprocal teachers and learners, mutual givers and receivers, allied investigators of divine truth: Each had peculiarities of belief, each held fast to the substance of the old Calvinistic system; but there was substantial agreement in much that was new and revolutionary. For many years they enjoyed the most favorable opportunities for the interchange of sentiments, mutual stimulation, and influence. Their relations to the generation succeeding were also intimate. The first was father of Dr. Edwards, the second his theological teacher, the third was his most valued counselor, and was intimately associated with him in the examination of his father's MSS. West was a confidential companion of Bellamy and Hopkins, intimate also with Drs. Edwards, Smalley, and Emmons. Through Dr. Edwards the spirit of the triumvirate was transmitted to his pupils Dwight and Griffin, to his friends Backus and Smalley. Smalley was a pupil of Bellamy, the instructor of Emmons, the friend of Hopkins and West. To ascertain the exact contribution of any one of these to the actual development is evidently a task of the greatest difficulty.
About the year 1756 there were four or five clergymen whose views had come to be popularly distinguished as “Edwardean.” In 1773 the number had increased, according to Dr. Stiles, to about forty-five. During this year Dr. Hopkins published his Inquiry into the Nature of True Holiness, elaborating the Edwardean theory more perfectly than Edwards had done; and, in a voluminous appendix, defending it against the objections which Mr. Hart and others had published against it. Thenceforth the Edwardeans were generally denominated “Hopkinsians.” This new term, though first applied to the New Divinity with special reference to its doctrine of the utter sinfulness of all acts preceding regeneration, was soon used to designate all Calvinistic divines who favored the doctrines of general atonement, natural ability, the active nature of all holiness and sin, and the justice of God in imputing to men none but their own personal transgressions. Their number in 1796, according to Dr. Hopkins, was upwards of a hundred. Dr. Stiles enumerates as among the champions of the new system in 1787 the two Edwardses. Bellamy, Hopkins, Trumbull, Smalley, Judson, Spring, Robinson (father of Dr. Edward Robinson), Strong, Dwight, Emmons. In 1799 Hopkins appended the names of West, Levi Hart, Backus, presidents Balch and Fitch. A later pen has added the honored names of Dr. Catlin, president Appleton, and Dr. Austin. At the present time the peculiarities of New-school New England theology have very general prevalence in the orthodox Congregational churches of the New England and Western States, and are favored by many in other Calvinistic bodies. They are taught in the theological seminaries of Andover, New Haven, Bangor, and Chicago. They are disseminated by quarterly and other organs of marked ability, among which the Bibliotheca Sacra and The New-Englander, hold the first rank. They have affected the current theological teachings of the Baptist churches not a little; and the great schism which divided the Presbyterian Church in 1837 was chiefly traceable to their influence in that communion. SEE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES.
II. Relation to Original Calvinism. —The metaphysical and ethical principles accepted by the New-school representatives of modern New England theology, and fundamental to their system of doctrine, are the following:
(1.) There is a radical distinction between necessity and certainty.
(2.) All sin is of an active and voluntary nature; the same is true of all holiness.
(3.) Although in every exercise the human will possesses the natural power of contrary choice, still, as a matter of fact, it is invariably determined by motives. In other words, although the will always can choose the least apparent good, it always will choose the greatest apparent good.
(4.) Natural ability must in all cases equal obligation.
(5.) Moral character or deserts are in no case transferable. In logically adhering to these principles and such as these in all their theological applications, the Edwardean divines have deviated from the old Calvinistic system in the following important theological, anthropological, and soteriological points:
1. Predestination. —They do not teach that God decrees the violations of moral agents in such a sense as to make those volitions necessary, but only that he has determined so to make and place men that they will act just as they do. In this manner God's decrees secure the certainty of men's choices, but do not secure their necessity. He predetermines all that lies back of the volition — the sensibilities of the agent and whatever may act on these — which predetermination enables him to foresee the result. At the same time, the agent is able in any case to choose otherwise than he actually does; and ought to make a holy choice even where God foresees that the choice will be sinful, and actually decrees to do that which will in fact result in the sinful choice or to omit that which would prevent it.
2. Original Sin. —Denying that there can be any ill desert prior to personal transgression, they repudiate the old Calvinistic doctrine respecting the imputation of Adam's guilt to his posterity, both in its mediate and immediate forms, with their realistic and diathetic justifications or theodicies. In its place they maintain that, in consequence of Adam's transgression, all men are so made and placed that they will uniformly, certainly, but freely, choose wrong rather than right. This constitution is not sin, but merely the sure occasion of it.
3. The Atonement. —
(1.) As to its nature, they teach that the sufferings of Christ were a satisfaction, not to the distributive, but only to the general, justice of God. He suffered not the exact penalty of the law, but pains substituted for that penalty and answering its purpose in the securement of the ends of the moral government.
(2.) As to the ground of its necessity. The necessity for an atonement was governmental, not arbitrary or ontological.
(3.) Fruits:
(a) simply release from the curse of the law, and thus mediately the blessings to the reception of which that curse was a bar (Emmons), or
(b), all blessings whatsoever (Griffin and the main body).
(4.) Extent. The atonement was not designed for the elect alone, but was made for all men as truly as for any.
4. Justification does not consist in any real or hypothetical transfer of the righteousness of Christ to the believer, but in pardoning his sins for Christ's sake and treating him as if innocent (Emmons), as if holy (main body).
5. Regeneration. —Objecting to old Calvinistic descriptions of this work, the New England theologians define it
(a) as a divine communication of a new spiritual taste or relish (elder Edwards, Dwight, etc.); or
(b), as a spiritual illumination (Bellamy); or
(c), as a (human) change of governing purpose under the influences of the Holy Spirit (Taylor, Finney, etc.); or
(d), as a gradual conversion by the moral suasion of the Holy Spirit (peculiar to Gilbert and his sympathizers); or
(e), as that radical change of the soul which is produced by the interposition of the Holy Spirit, and which consists in a change in the balance of the sensibilities and a change of preference from wrong to right (Prof. Park); or
(f), as a restoration of that life-communion with which God was lost by sin (Bushnell). Professor Park would apply the term regeneration to the work instantaneously wrought by the Holy Spirit on the nature of the soul, and the term conversion to the first holy act of the soul itself, the work of God preceding the free act of the soul in the order of nature, though not of time. By some the soul in this change is called wholly active (Emmons, Spring, Pond); by others, wholly passive (Smalley, Burton); by others, both active and passive (Park).
6. Perseverance. —The elect can fall away after regeneration, even totally and finally, but never will. This is maintained by most on purely Biblical, as distinguished from psychological, grounds.
Other points might be adduced on which original Calvinism and the new tenets are far from accordant; but these are the most fundamental, and the differences above indicated will be found a key to the whole system. Perhaps nothing better illustrates the spirit of the two than their respective views of the final end of God in creation and providence. According to Old Calvinism, that end — the end to which all minor ones are subordinated — is the manifestation of God's character, particularly his justice and mercy, to intelligent creatures; according to Dr. Taylor, of New Haven, as understood by many, it is the production of the largest amount of happiness possible, holiness being simply a means thereto; according to Andover, and perhaps the main body of New England Calvinists of the New School, it is the securement of the largest amount of holiness, the highest happiness being simply a natural consequence. (But see a somewhat different representation of Taylor's views by president Porter in The New-Englander for 1860, p. 726-773.)
The controversy respecting the “Doings of the Unregenerate” has been quite too prominent in the history and development of this New Divinity to be passed over in silence. There have been three theories:
(1.) That man is under obligation to repent at once, and that all moral choices before repentance are sinful and must be utterly forbidden (Emmonis, Spring, Park).
(2.) That man is under obligation to repent immediately, but lie may perform preliminary acts which are neither sinful nor holy, and hence are not forbidden (Taylor).
(3.) (Corresponding with the Old-school theory) That while all acts of choice are sinful before repentance, it is still right to exhort men to the performance of certain acts before repentance, as this is the most probable method of securing their repentance (Dwight).
III. Relation to Original Arminianisn. —The representatives of old- fashioned Calvinism have often charged that the modifications introduced by the Edwardean divines have simply brought about a substitution of the Arminian system for the Calvinistic one of the primitive New England churches. The teachings of New England theology with respect to the absolute dependence of individual salvation upon individual divine election, as also with respect to “special” grace and to human ability considered apart from the gracious aids of the Holy Spirit, do not sustain this charge; but in almost every other principle and doctrine the allegation is, in our view, susceptible of the fullest substantiation.
1. Take the “five points” of the original Arminian controversy. The Calvinists affirmed and the Arminians denied
(1) that the decrees of God respecting the eternal salvation or damnation of individual men are irrespective of the use they may make of their own freedom;
(2) that in the divine purpose and by divine decree the benefits of the atonement are limited to unconditionally elected individuals;
(3) that in consequence of original sin all persons naturally engendered from Adam are in such a condition of spiritual death that without that effectual calling and supernatural renovation which is by divine decree limited to the elect they can do absolutely nothing either towards the fulfillment of God's law or towards an effectual appropriation of the benefits of redemption;
(4) that those gracious influences of the Holy Spirit which are adapted and sufficient to lead a sinner to true repentance and salvation are restricted to a portion of the race, namely, to the unconditionally elect; and
(5) that true believers cannot, by any possibility, totally and finally fall from grace. In every one of these memorable issues of the Remonstrant and Contra-Remonstrant parties the representatives of New England theology stand with the original Arminians.2. The same metaphysical and ethical principles underlie the two systems. We will review them in the order before given:
(1.) Certainty as distinguished from necessity. This was a favorite Arminian distinction (see Arminius, 1, 280, 281; 3, 402, 411, 416, 423, 425; Epistolae Theologicae, epist. 19:72 [Arminius]; Curcellaets, p. 774, etc.).
(2.) Active and voluntary nature of sin and holiness, universally maintained by the Arminian divines (see, for instance, Episcopius, 2, 92 b; Curcellseus, p. 136, 137, 902, 904; Limborch, II, 23:15; III, 4:8; V, 3, 2).
(3.) Self-determination in view of motives. According to New school New England theology, the will invariably chooses the greatest apparent good. This may be deemed incompatible with Arminian principles. Properly explained, however, it does not seem to be so. The theory is not that the will invariably chooses the greatest real good proffered for choice, nor even the greatest apparent good as estimated by the cool exercise of judgment, but simply that it chooses that good which appears to the subject, organized, circumstanced, and disposed as he is, as most desirable. It is only saying, in other words, that a man invariably chooses just as under the circumstances at that moment the state of his mind prompts him to choose. But,(2.) Active and voluntary nature of sin and holiness, universally maintained by the Arminian divines (see, for instance, Episcopius, 2, 92 b; Curcellseus, p. 136, 137, 902, 904; Limborch, II, 23:15; III, 4:8; V, 3, 2).
(a), the Arminian authorities never denied this position. They denied that the mere absence of co-action constituted liberty (Episcopius, 1, 356,357 a); but New England divines do the same. They denied that mere spontaneity is liberty in its full sense (ibid. p. 198 b; Curcellaeus, p. 158,159); but the New England divines do the same. They denied, as did Leibnitz, that the decision of the will is invariably determined “ab ultimo judicio rationis practico” (Episcopius, 1, 209 b sq.; Curcellaeus, p. 985; Limborch, p. 131, etc.); but in the form propounded to them, the divines of New England would ill like manner repudiate it. They denied that the will is necessarily determined by motives; but this doctrine is rejected with equal explicitness by champions of Newschool New England theology.
(b.) The will in all rational choices invariably acts in view of a good (Episcopius, 1, 202 b, et al.).
(c.) The will is able to choose the least apparent good. This follows from the Arminian doctrine of power to the contrary. It is also illustrated in choices between objects of equal apparent desirableness. “Si paria offerat, quorum alterum talltumn eligendum est, libertas plenaria locum habebit” (ibid. p. 207).
(d.) In all deliberate choices men ordinarie follow the decision of the judgment; when not, it is because “alia quaedam causa impediat” (ibid. De Libero Arbitrio, VIII, 9).
(e.) They will never choose evil as evil, or “sub ratione mall” (ibid. 1, 215 b, 318 sq.).
(f.) Though the will does not invariably choose the greatest good according to the decision of the judgment, it does in all rational choices invariably choose thatgood which seems the most desirable to the whole man. This doctrine seems to be clearly implied in cap. 10 of Episcopius, Examen Sententiea Cameronis. The apparent contradiction found in cap. 8 of his Responsio ad Defensionem Cameronis is easily solved by observing that according to the doctrine of Episcopius, as according to that of the New England divines, the will does not invariably follow the dictate of reason, nor invariably follow the dictate of the natura appetitiva, both which maintenances are perfectly consistent with the doctrine in question — to wit, that the will invariably chooses the good which to the whole man under the inward, and outward conditions seems the most desirable. On this point, then, so far is the doctrine of the Newschool divines of New England from being incompatible with Arminian teachings that, on the contrary, that doctrine finds in Remonstraint literature some of its earliest and most carefully guarded enunciations.
(4.) Obligation cannot transcend ability-an axiom with the Arminians (see Arminius, Declaratio, passim; Curcellaeus, p. 96 b; also VII, 2, passim; Limborch, III, 4:7, etc.). Here we may remark that the distinction between natural and moral ability is much older than its emergence in New England theology, being clearly laid down in several of the elder Arminian divines (see Episcopius, 2, 94 a; Curcellaeus, p. 156, 421).
(5.) Intransferableness of moral character and deserts, strongly asserted by Episcopius, 2, 151 b; by Curcellaeus, p. 131-137, 424, 470, 896-902; by Limborch, V, 77, 18; III, 3, 11, etc.
3. In positive theological, anthropological, and soteriological teachings the two systems are in marked accord.
(1.) The Decrees of God. —The New-school divines of New England hold to a universal foreordination, absolute as respects all divine acts, effectual as regards all consequences of those acts. One of the consequences of those acts is the establishment and maintenance of human freedom. What said Arminian theology?
(a.) All divine acts are absolutely decreed--” Deus nihil facit, nisi prius apud se id decreverit facere” (Curcellaeus, p. 82).
(b.) God foreordains (positively or permissively). whatsoever cometh to pass” Nihil absque ipsius permissu ant directione evenit” (ibid. p. 87).
(c.) God decrees to do things which he knows will occasion sinful choices on the part of men, and to abstain from acts which, if wrought, he knows would prevent sinful choices. This also is clearly involved in what is laid down by Arminius (3, 418-429), Episcopius, Curcellaeus, and Limborch on Permissio, Exccecaiio, and Induratio.
(d.) God decrees to do that which he knows will occasion sin, for a specific end, and that end is the best possible (Arminius, 3, 419).
(e.) A decree to do that which will as a matter of fact occasion sin does not in any wise necessitate that sin (Curcellieus, p. 382, 1021).
(2.) The Constitution of Men not Sin, but the Invariable Occasion of Sin. —No New England divine has produced all abler exposition and defense of this view than are found in Curcellaeus, Dissertatio de Peccato Originis, and in Limborchb III, 4.
(3.) The Atonement. —The identity of the Edwardean theory of the atonement with the Dutch Arminian, as respects the nature of the atonement, ground of its necessity, and its extent is articulately proven in art. 3 of the Meth. Quar. Rev. July, 1860.
(4.) Justification. —Arminius's definition of justification could be subscribed to by the whole body of New England divines with perhaps the exception of Emmons. “Justification is a just and gracious act of God as a judge, by which, from the throne of his grace and mercy, lie absolves from his sins man, a sinner, but who is a believer, on account of Christ and the obedience and righteousness of Christ; and considers him righteous [justum], to the salvation of the justified person, and to the glory of divine righteousness and grace” (2, 116).
(5.) Regeneration. —By the elder Arminius, Calvinistic, and Lutheran divines this operation of the Spirit is not sharply and definitely distinguished from sanctification, but in the definitions of the representative New England divines there is nothing to which Arminius or his disciples would have objected.
(6.) Perseverance. —
(a.) The regenerate can fall away. This is universally maintained by the Arminians.
(b.) The regenerate in point of fact never do fall away. Arminius did not decide. He says, “At no period have I asserted that believers do finally decline or fall away from faith and salvation” (2, 281). Like New England Calvinists, he asserted the possibility, but not thefact, of a total and final defection of the elect.
From the foregoing it is evident that the evangelical New England reaction against Calvinism, while remarkably indigenous and original, resembles in a most striking manner the earlier Arminian reaction. The Remonstrants repudiated no part of standard Calvinism which these New England theologians do not repudiate; they revolted from traditional tenets from the same honorable motives; they anticipated by two centuries nearly every favorite idea of their New England successors, and would perhaps have anticipated every one explicitly, had it not been for the backwardness of the psychological and ethical sciences. Nevertheless, there ever remains this radical difference, that according to New England theology, as according to original Calvinism, the real reason why one man is saved and another is not, is always in the last analysis to be found in the different foreordinations of God respecting the two, and this difference of foreordinations is referable solely to the sovereign good-pleasure of God.
IV. Variations and Side-issues. —Several noteworthy views and speculations, to which their respective authors owed no small share of their reputation, are either not adopted: or positively repudiated by the great mass of recent New England Calvinists. For example:
1. The Edwardean notion of human liberty. President Edwards is generally understood to have accepted the definition of Locke and of the sensational school, making the liberty of the human will “the power, opportunity, or advantage that any one has to do as he pleases ;” in other words, one's ability freely to execute volitions philosophically or coactively necessitated. The inadequacy of this definition is now universally admitted. SEE EDWARDS.
2. Hopkins's doctrine of disinterested benevolence. This was at one time the most vital and essential element in the New Divinity. With Hopkins it was the corner-stone of systematic theology. SEE HOPKINS.
3. Emmons's hypothesis of God's efficient causality of ever moral act of man. Emmons held that God was the efficient originator of every volition of the human mind, good or evil, holy or sinful. He has had but few adherents, and doubts are expressed as to whether he has been correctly understood by many on this point (Park, Memoir, p. 385 sq.). SEE EMMONS.2. Hopkins's doctrine of disinterested benevolence. This was at one time the most vital and essential element in the New Divinity. With Hopkins it was the corner-stone of systematic theology. SEE HOPKINS.
4. Nathaniel W. Taylor's view of the non-preventability of sin, his doctrine of the basis of virtue, and his metaphysical explanation of the Sacred Trinity. SEE TAYLOR.
5. The perfectionism of Prof. Finney. SEE CHRISTIAN PERFECTION; SEE OBERLIN THEOLOGY.
6. Dr. Edward Beecher's doctrine that all the descendants of Adam have enjoyed an equitable probation in a previous state of being, and that they are born under the curse of original sin on account of having sinned in that pre-existent state. See his Conflict of Ages and Concord of Ages. SEE PRE-EXISTENCE.
7. Dr. Horace Bushnell's view of Christ and of the Sacred Trinity, of revelation, sin, and the atonement. See literature below.
V. Literature. —
1. In General. —A Memoirs and Works of the Edwardses, Bellamy, Hopkins, Stephen and Samuel West, Samuel Spring, John Smalley, Emmons, Dwight, Leonard Woods, N. W. Taylor, Benlnet Tyler; Lynman Beecher, Horace Bushnell, and others above mentioned; Park, Essay on the Development of the Edwardean Theory of the Atonement (prefixed to his collection of Discourses and Treatises on the Atonement by Edwards, Smalley, Maxcy, Emmons, Griffin, Burge, and Weeks); Woods, Old and New Theology (from an Old-school Presbyterian standpoint); Hodgson [Meth.], New Divinity Examined; Fisk [Meth.], The Calvinistic Controversy; Ellis [Unit.], Fifty Years of the Unitarian Controversy; Fiske [Cong.], New Eng. Theol. in Bill. Sac. 22:477, 568;. Lawrence, in Amer. Theol. Rev. May, 1860; Bibl. Sac. and Princeton Bibl. Repertory, 1851- 52, and passim; The Church Review, 2, 89; 5, 349; Smith, Church History in Tables, p. 78; Ueberweg, Hist. of Philippians (Amer. ed.), 2, 443-460; Sherman, New England Divines; Sprague, Annals.
2. The Pre-Edwardean Period. —See Sprague, Annals, vol. 1; SEE COTTON, JOHN; SEE DAVENPORT, JOHN; SEE MATHER, COTTON, SEE INCREASE, and SEE RICHARD; SEE STODDARD, SOLOMON; SEE WIGGLESWSORTH, EDWARD.
3. Jonathan Edwards and his Theology. —Reviews of his work on the Will by Dr. James Dana (1770), J. Day (1841), A. T. Bledsoe (1845), D. D. Whedon (1859); Oliver Wendell Holmes's art. in the International Rev. July, 1880. The Bibliotheca Sacra will give some of Edwards's yet unpublished manuscripts in 1881. One on Trinity and Redemption, ed. by Smyth, N. Y. 1880. SEE EDWARDS.
4. Hopkins and Hopkinsianism. —Memoir and Works, 3 vols.; Bibl. Sac. 9:174 sq.; 10:63 sq.; 19:633; Ely, Calvinism and Hopkinssianism. SEE HOPKINS, SAMUEL.
5. Emmons and Emmonsism. —Memoir and Works, 6. vols.; abstract of his theology in Bibl. Sac. 7:254 sq., 479 sq.; see also 9:170 sq., and 22:467 sq.; Smith, Faith and Philosophy, p. 215-263.
6. Taylor and Taylorism. —Memoir and Works, 4 vols.; Bibl. Sac. 17:355 sq., 452 sq.; Lord, in the Evang. Mag. 1832-36; Tyler, Letter to Dr. Hawes; essays in Christian Spectator and Spirit of Missimos, passim; Pigeon, New Haven Theology, in Lit. and Theol. Review, 5, 149 sq.; 6:121, 280, 557; Fisher, Discussions in History and Theology (1880), p. 285 sq.; Thasher, Taylorism Examined (1834,12mo); Meth. Quar. Rev. Oct. 1860, 1862; New-Englander, 1859, 1860.
7. Bushnell and Bushnellism. —Life and Letters; Works, especially God in Christ; Forgiveness and Law : —Vicarious Sacrifice; Turnbull, Review of Bushnell's Theories; Hovey, God with Us, an Exam. of Bushnell's Vic. Sac.; Bartol, Principles and Portraits, p. 366 sq.; The New-Englander, 2, 309,440; 5, 6; Meth. Quar. Rev. 1866.
8. New Divinity in the Presbyterian Church. —Memoirs and writings of Rev. Albert Barnes; Beman, On the Atonement; Duffield, Regeneration; Whelpley, Triangle; E. S. Ely, E. D. Griffin, etc.; Hodge, Essays and Reviews; Bibl. Sac. 20:561. SEE PRESBYTRIAN CHURCH, NEW- SCHOOL.
9. The “Old School” in New England Theology. Tyler, Memoir and Lectures; Woods, Works (6 vols.); Burton, Essays; Fisher, Discussions in History and Theology, p. 227 sq.; Bibl. Sac. 20:311 sq.; 30:371 sq.; Parsons Cooke, New England Puritan; Recorder, etc. (W. F. W.)