tion of the attributes of the Deity. After much irrelevant matter in the second discourse, and irksome repetition with regard to Sir Isaac Newton, Dr. C. in the first place attempts to show, that the position which is the basis of the unbelievers argument" that christianity is set up for the single benefit of this earth, is unauthorized,-that it is a mere assumption, to use his own words, it is "an assertion which has no feet to rest upon." In the third discourse this assertion is, for the sake of argument, admitted, and the inference, that " God would not lavish such attention upon so insignificant a field," is considered. He premises, that the objection "goes to expunge a perfection from the character of God."

"When we are taught by astronomy, that he has millions of worlds to look after, and thus add in one direction to the glories of his character; we take away from them in another, by saying, that each of these worlds must be looked after imperfectly. The use that we make of a discovery, which should heighten our every conception of God, and humble us into the sentiment, that a Being of such mysterious elevation is to us unfathomable, is to sit in judgment over him, aye, and to pronounce such a judgment as degrades him, aud keeps him down to the standard of our own paltry imagination! We are introduced by modern science to a multitude of other suns and of other systems; and the perverse interpretation we put upon the fact, that God can diffuse the benefits of his power and of his goodness over such a variety of worlds, is, that he cannot, or will not, bestow so much goodness on one of those worlds, as a professed revelation from heaven has announced to us. While we enlarge the provinces of his empire, we tarnish all the glory of this enlargement, by saying, he has so much to care for, that the care of every one province must be less complete, and less vigilant, and less effectual, than it would otherwise have been." p. 60.

The Doctor then, to use again his own words, "has a quarrel with the argument," and meets the objection of the unbeliever by the position, that God in attending to one part of his works, need not neglect the rest. This very plain and simple truth is most profusely illustrated by an appeal to the personal history of every individual, to the discoveries of the telescope which makes known a" system in every star," and to those of the microscope which exhibit a "world in every atom."

In all this, Dr. C. labours to prove what nobody doubts, and what is nothing to the purpose. It is not a question whether the equal and constant care of God do not extend to this world. This none ever thought of denying. But the question is, whether the doctrine of the incarnation of God, for the purpose of making atonement for the sins of men, is not the invention of those who fancied themselves the principal beings in the material universe, and who were altogether ignorant of their proba ble relative importance? Whether the mind do not revolt from

it at once when we have just views of his character and of the extent of his works? Whether it do not suppose a tremendous waste of machinery to effect a certain purpose, its connexion with which cannot be explained in intelligible language?

But Dr. C. has felt himself authorized to maintain, that the "redemption of man extends in important relations to other parts of the universe." And he declares,

"The informations of the Bible upon this subject, are of two sorts-that from which we coufidently gather the fact, that the history of the redemption of our species is known in other and distant places of the creationand that, from which we indistinctly guess at the fact, that the redemption itself may stretch beyond the limits of the world we occupy." p. 78.

The subjects of the fourth, fifth and sixth discourses are "The knowledge of man's moral history in the distant places of the creation;" on the "sympathy that is felt for man in the distant places of the creation;" and " on the contest for an ascendency over man, among the higher orders of intelligence." It will be enough to many of our readers to have mentioned the title of these discourses. We shall not attempt to give any analysis of them. We may say in general, that they are made up of the wildest hypotheses, and fancy-flights that we ever have known to proceed from the pulpit. They transgress almost every rule of investigation which Dr. C. is constantly insisting upon, and which in the second discourse particularly, he urged to repletion-they are precisely of that bold assuming character, which mark the objection, that he is attempting to refute. Fi nally they rest, as we think, upon almost no scriptural autho rity, certainly upon a few phrases which are among the most indefinite in the bible, and are easily susceptible of a different, and, as we think, a better interpretation. There is indeed nothing more remarkable, as it respects the substance of these discourses, than an ambitious oft-repeated recommendation of the cautious, humble spirit of true. philosophy, standing in strong contrast with continual transgressions of its most obvious requirements. In the sixth discourse, for instance, there is a glowing description of a battle of superior beings for man; God and the Son and good spirits on the one hand, and Satan and the powers of darkness on the other. Though "he (Dr. C.) will not affect a wisdom above that which is written, by fancying such detail of the warfare as the Bible has not laid before him" yet he can say,

"that it was the hour and the power of darkness; that the work of our redemption was a work accompanied by the effort, and the violence, and the fury of a combat; by all the arduousness of a battle in its progress, and all the glories of a victory in its termination." p. 121.

That the conflict

-"decided a question of rivalship between the righteous and everlasting monarch of universal being, and the prince of a great and widely extended rebellion." p. 122.

Does Dr. C. believe this? It is indeed a poor flourish of rhetoric if he do not. Is he then a Manichæan? Is all this said in the spirit of a cautious philosophy? Does he not know that every single text on which he relies, admits a more rational interpretation-better on this account, if on none other, that it does not debase all our necessary apprehensions of God, that it does not shock all our holiest feelings of devotion? For ourselves, we are free to declare, that we consider such wild excursions neither profitable nor safe. God has seen fit to envelope the œconomy of the world of spirits in an awful mystery, and bas revealed only in general terms enough to give sanctions to his laws, and grounds for our hope. We believe it to be our duty to take the plain declarations of his word for our guidance and support, gratefully walking in the heavenly light, when it is youchsafed, and meekly acquiescent when it is withholden.

The concluding discourse of the astronomical series is devoted to a consideration" of the slender influence of mere taste and sensibility in matters of religion." The leading thought, which runs through the whole, is very just and important. We are very apt to substitute some of the accompaniments of devotion in the place of devotion. But it is, as we think, quite a bald and embarrassed performance. We recommend in preference, infinitely in preference, the most able and eloquent Essay of Foster, on the same subject; though this latter proceeds on views of religion, to which it will not be supposed we give our full assent.

It is unnecessary to speak particularly of the remaining sermons, and addresses in both volumes. They all inculcate what we deem a false theology. "The doctrine," as is observed in the preface of the second volume," which is most urgently, and most frequently insisted on in the following pages is that of the depravity of human nature."

"He knows, in particular, that throughout these discourses there is a fre quent recurrence of the same idea, though generally expressed in different language, and with some new specialty, either in its bearing or in its illustration. And he further knows, that the habit of expatiating on one topic may be indulged to such a length as to satiate the reader, and that, to a degree, far beyond the limits of his forbearance," p. ix.

We admit this to be our case. Indeed there is little else in the volume than the repetition of this doctrine, with its necessary consequences. While we regret that such erroneous and gloomy dogmas should be preached at all, and particularly by

men of such efficient minds and of such ardent feelings as Dr. C., we are aware that they do not always produce their legitimate effect-entire scepticism, or a melancholy fanaticism. There is in strong and healthy minds, and in the natural biases of the heart, a reaction against such bad and debasing doctrines of God and religion. Such men will not suffer the manna which God has given, to be changed to poison: they will be good and happy in spite of the speculative faith which is imposed upon them. Besides, this kind of preaching may sometimes be beneficial. Even "curst ungodliness of zeal," may be better than a total indifference to all religion. Such preaching may sometimes serve as an engine to check resolute wickedness, or break down stubborn worldliness. It may sometimes be the pioneer to an enlightened and rational Christianity. As a new soil is subdued by fire, so a flaming zeal and hot religion may sometimes tame the rugged and wild characters of men. And when the mind has been by this progress in some degree ameliorated, better and milder dispositions gain root and flourish; until by judicious culture, the thorns and briars of prejudice are removed, a kindlier soil is gathered on the surface of the soul, the dews of heaven descend and soften and fertilize it, and at last spring up the good fruits of a heavenly temper and religious life.

We proceed to the second part of the duty which we prescribed ourselves, and shall examine as briefly as we can, the literary merit of these far-famed sermons. It is difficult to

characterize distinctly, the style in which they are written. We may say in general that it is marked by almost all the faults of an ambitious kind. It is most unsparingly diffuse, it abounds with every species of amplification-with periphrasis, tautology and gross pleonasm; it is in places inflated but not sustained; it is very gairish and abounds with a painful blazonry of expression, which often puts in strong contrast the hazy obscurity of thought. All this is interspersed with Scoticisms, new-coined words,or new combinations of old ones, continual inaccuracies in the use of those established, an habitual preference of long words, a needless multiplication of epithets, sins against grammar; and all this medley of literary abominations brought to a close, after being drawn out into sentences longer than any body's patience, by a tuneful recitativo of some favorite expression. There is besides an industrious artizanship in the manufacture of phrases, especially, as is not unfrequently the case, when a common thought is attempted to be expressed with emphasis, or an emptiness of all meaning to be covered up with verbiage. We need not add that there is a total want of all simplicity, directness, flexibility, and easy elegance of

style, of all chasteness of expression, and of every thing resem bling a pure English idiom.

We would gladly be excused from citing any examples in proof of these remarks. It is an irksome business, but it were wrong to make such general observations upon the style of one of the most popular pulpit orators of our time, without giving some examples in proof of what we have asserted. We must be allowed however to do as little as we may.

The following passage, which we quote entire, will we think afford a tolerable specimen of tautology. One very obvious idea, in this short extract, is repeated, if we have counted right, seven or eight times; and it is said over and over again in the remainder of this and the subsequent discourses. There is at least one grammatical error in the phrase "slumbering a reverie," and an affected use of language in the expressions "all eloquence," " all habit" and "all fancy."

"But while he gets all his credit, and all his admiration for those articles of science which he had added to the creed of philosophers, he deserves as much credit and admiration for those articles which he kept out of this creed, as for those which he introduced into it. It was the property of his mind, that it kept a tenacious hold of every one position which had proof to substantiate it--but it forms a property equally characteristic, and which, in fact, gives its leading peculiarity to the whole spirit and style of his investigations, that he put a most determined exclusion on every one position that was destitute of such proof. He would not admit the astronomical theories of those who went before him, because they had no proof. He would not give in to their notions about the planets wheeling their rounds in whirlpools of ether-for he did not see this ether-he had no proof of its exist ence-and, besides, even supposing it to exist, it would not have impressed on the heavenly bodies, such movements as met his observation. He would not submit his judgment to the reigning systems of the day-for, though they had authority to recommend them, they had no proof; and thus it is, that he evinced the strength and the soundness of his philosophy, as much by his decisions upon those doctrines of science which he rejected, as by his demonstration of those doctrines of science which he was the first to propose, and which now stand out to the eye of posterity as the only monuments to the force and superiority of his understanding.

"He wanted no other recommendation for any one article of science, than the recommendation of evidence-and, with this recommendation, he opened to it the chamber of his mind, though anthority scowled upon it, and taste was disgusted by it, and fashion was ashamed of it, and all the beauteous speculation of former days was cruelly broken up by this new announcement of the better philosophy, and scattered like the fragments of an aerial vision, over which the past generations of the world had been slumbering their profound and their pleasing reverie. But, on the other hand, should the article of science want the recommendation of evidence, he shut against it all the avenues of his understanding—aye, and though all antiquity lent their suffrages to it, and all eloquence had thrown around it the most attractive brillianey, and all habit had incorporated it with every system of every seminary in Europe, and all fancy had arrayed it in graces of the most tempting solicitation; yet was the steady and inflexible mind of Newton proof against this whole weight of authority and allurement, and,