they say, it may well be asked, that the existence of Christ's body in the sacramental bread is more inconceivable, than the existence of three persons in one being, each possessing his own distinct will, consciousness, and office; or will they undertake to produce any scripture, for the latter notion, that is more direct or explicit, than those words of our Saviour, "This is my body," upon which the former is grounded by the Lutherans and Papists! In like manner, with respect to the doctrine of total depravity, in vain do we look, it may be remarked, for one single passage to uphold this distinguishing article of Calvinism, equally pertinent and full with that, on which the Romanists have built the doctrine of transubstantiation, and equally unopposed by other portions of the Bible; while none can feel, that this Catholic tenet can compare,in horridness, with that of the final damnation of a great portion of our race for retaining a natural heart, which God alone could change, but which he chose to leave in the state, in which it came into existence. Notwithstanding our Calvinistic brethren, however, have not yet seen fit to extend rational principles of interpretation to every part of the sacred volume, since they continue to recognize their legitimacy, we do hope, they will one day pay them a consistent regard.

In the second place, we have much to expect, as we flatter ourselves, from that attention to biblical criticism, which is appearing among them. One of the finest scholars our country has produced in this department of sacred learning, has, in the opinion of some, arisen in their ranks. In many instances, no doubt, they will employ their critical learning with too little fairness and impartiality; especially they, who are more interested to uphold the fabrick of Calvinism; but gradually it must, we think, be apparent, that such works as Griesbach's New Testament, Schleusner's Lexicon, &c. cannot become popular with our students in divinity without producing such effects, as all must denominate happy, who are desirous of promoting a rational and consistent exposition of the scriptures.

In the third place, although a great clamour has been raised against new versions of the scriptures, various readings, and the like, proceeding in a great measure, no doubt, from want of due acquaintance with the subject; still, but too apparently designed, in some cases, to excite a stronger prejudice, than could, it should seem, have been entertained by the authors of the alarm; yet we are happy to learn, that the Old Greek text is giving place to Griesbach's, even in Calvinistic seminaries; while many of the most respectable orthodox critics on the other side of the water, have urged in strong terms the necessi ty of revising the common version of the Bible. Even the

celebrated passage respecting "the three, who bear witness in heaven," which has been so long urged, as one of the strongest texts in favour of the Trinity, is now losing its authority with A most respectable orthodox journal has its former advocates. pronounced it disgraceful to quote it. We cannot but think, that a number of passages in our common English version, which have been usually cited on the same side, will soon experience in a great degree, if not entirely, a similar fate; not indeed as spurious, but as inapplicable to the subject in debate; and that the progress of critical knowledge will ere long be found materially to have allayed the zeal of our Trinitarian brethren. This zeal, we are persuaded, must decline fast, as Christians shall agree, that the meaning of scripture on every subject it treats of, is to be determined by its general tenor; and that an inconsistent sense shall be attached to no passages, when any other can be found, which the passages will bear.

In the fourth place, we have leaned to the opinion, that what by many at the present day is denominated orthodoxy, compared with that of an earlier period, presents some features of amelioration. On this subject, however, we are not without a degree of jealousy, that our wishes have exercised too strong an influence over our judgment. We suspect, that orthodox congregations are less accustomed, than formerly, to hear of infants being justly liable to the eternal pains of hell. This doctrine, we have been ready to hope, was becoming more harsh to the public ear, even among those, who have been educated to a devout belief of the premises, from which it flows. If it be fact, that some degree of doubt is beginning to be entertained among our Calvinistic brethren, as to the justice of consigning infants to perdition, for belonging to the lineage, and possessing the natures, they had no power to refuse; shall the period never arrive, when a similar doubt will be felt, whether adults may, consistently with the rectitude of God, be doomed to the like fate for retaining the inborn dispositions, they had, no power to change? It has afforded us some faint encouragement to find a number of orthodox doctrines stated, in the writings of their modern advocates, in terms as modified and Edwards used to affirm unexceptionable as could be chosen. that "all natural men's affections are governed by malice against God; and that they hate him worse than they do the devil." But though similar language has been heard from Calvinistic pulpits, even at the present day, the best received definition of total depravity, at this time, is natural destitution of holiness; a representation of our natures considerably meliorated in expression, and which, taken by itself, would require

little sacrifice of reason for its reception. For all must acknowledge, that holiness, considered as including religious knowledge and principle, is not an inborn, but an acquired quality; and of course we are as naturally destitute of it, as we are destitute by nature of any attainments whatever. But we well know, that those, who adopt this definition of total depravity, are far from intending to place man's natural destitution of holiness on the same footing with his natural destitution of other things, which can only be acquired. They mean by it a moral deficiency resulting from the very nature of the heart; and incurable, except by a grace, which is confined, as they say, to an elected few of our miserable species.

Calvin, and the older writers of his class, were wont to represent the death of Christ, as propitiating the Deity, and reconciling him to men. In one place he remarks," Christ expiated by his own blood those sins, which made us hateful to God: and, he being our Intercessor, God became placable to us: (iram ejus fuisse placatam)." But says a late orthodox writer, "The sacrifice of Christ was never deemed by any, who did not wish to calumniate the doctrine of atonement, to have made God placable; but merely viewed as the means appointed by divine wisdom, by which to bestow forgiveness. [Magee.] The same author remarks, that "to the question, in what way does the death of Christ operate to the remission of sins, every christian will answer, 'I know not, nor does it concern me to know. It is enough, that this is declared by God to be the medium, through which my salvation is effected.'" It is unnecessary to say how far they are from confining themselves to this answer, who speak of "the flaming sword of divine wrath being extinguished in the blood of the Lamb ;" and who reason, that Christ must have been God, in order to give an infinite worth to his vicarious sufferings, endured under the infinite wrath of God to expiate an infinite sin; though, while they deny that the divine nature of the Redeemer suffered, they leave it obscure why the pains of a sufferer, inferiour to God, might not have been sufficient. If, according to Dr. Magee, "every Christian will say, that he does not know, nor does it concern him to know, how the death of Christ operates to the remission of sin ;" we trust the more ingenuous part of his orthodox brethren, will not so insist upon our receiving their explanation of the atonement, as to require us to own, that our Saviour needed equality with the Father to give infinite worth to the sufferings, in which his human nature only was concerned. Such good men as the Divine we have just quoted, we cannot doubt, will in time succeed in persuading them, that they do not know how the death of Christ operates to the re

mission of sin; if it be only by convincing them of the confusion, which has thus far attended their speculations on the subject.

The foregoing reflections, were particularly suggested to our minds by a discourse of the Rev. Lyman Beecher, which we remember to have seen about a year ago, and have recently run over again with some little attention. It was preached in Park Street, Boston, at the ordination of Mr. Dwight; and, as we do not recollect to have seen any notice of it in the Christian Disciple, or any similar work, we feel the more freedom in adverting to it, notwithstanding the period of its publication. Mr. Beecher is an orthodox divine of considerable eminence. He informs us, that "direct irresistible impulse moving the mind to action would not be moral government." He means, we conceive, direct irresistible impulse, without the intervention of motives. "Moral government is persuasion," he adds, "and the result of it, is voluntary action in the view of motives." "Free agency," he remarks, "cannot be conceived to exist in any other manner, than by the exhibition of motives to voluntary agents, the result of which shall be choice and action." Truly happy we are, that so just a representation of the essential nature of moral government and free agency, should proceed from the pen of an orthodox divine. We hope that the next edition of Griffin's Lectures may be corrected by Mr. Beecher. Dr. Griffin affirms, that "the heart is new, before the motives to holiness enter, and that motives must find the disposition already prepared to favour them, before they can act upon the mind; and again, that the heart must be forced by an act of divine power, as a king forcibly reduces his rebellious subjects, before it is prepared for motives." But, says Mr. Beecher, moral government is government by motives, without direct irresistible impulse; and free agency cannot be conceived to exist in any other manner, than by the exhibition of motives to voluntary agents. Consequently, unless he essentially dissent from his orthodox brother on the subject of regeneration, he must acknowledge that men are not treated as free agents, nor as under moral government, in the renewing of their affections; this being produced forcibly, says the reverend lecturer, before motives have entered the mind or can operate upon it. But if moral government be suspended, and free agency cease, with regard to the great end of moral government and the only blessing of free agency, the attainment of that holiness of heart which alone has the promise of everlasting life, why do Calvinistic divines make such vehement protestations of their holding to such government and agency? New Series-vol. I.

36

"Without the aid of reason," says Mr. B. "the bible could not be known to be the will of God; and reason," he adds, "is the judge of its meaning, according to the common rules of exposition." We surely could not wish for a more explicit disavowal of the sentiment, which is embraced by too many of his brethren, that the bible is not to be read like other books. He, at least, it may be presumed, will insist on their rendering some better reason of the hope that is in them, than is `contained in the reply we are accustomed to hear from them; that "reason cannot discover the doctrines of grace, by perusing the scriptures, as ordinary writings are perused; and that so far as these doctrines are concerned, no unholy man can ever rise from the study of the sacred page, even speculatively the wiser."

"The appropriate meaning of the word reasonable," says Mr. B. " in its application to the laws of God, is the accordance of his laws and administration with what it is proper for God to do, in order to display his glory to created minds, and secure from everlasting to everlasting the greatest amount of created good. But who is competent," he asks, "with finite mind and depraved heart to test the revealed laws and administration of Jehovah by this rule? Reason must ascend the throne of God, and from that high eminence dart its vision through eternity, and pervade with stedfast view immensity, to decide whether the precepts and doctrines contained in the bible come in their proper place, and are wise and good in their connexion with the whole.' Would that such sentiments were more attended to by those, who building their system of theology upon their own view of what the illustration of divine glory requires, affirm, that sin and misery were designed to afford opportunity for the display of God's vindictive justice; and that, consistently with his glory and the best good of the universe, God could not, without becoming incarnate, and offering an infinite atonement for sin in the person of his Son, have granted pardon to penitent man; in a word, who soar so boldy into the regions of metaphysical divinity, as not only to mount above that knowledge of the Deity, which is commonly apprehended by reason, and which is every where disclosed to ordinary eyes, but too often to lose sight of it. We would even recommend to Mr. Beecher himself, to give additional force to the sentiments he has expressed upon this subject, by revising those parts of his sermon, in which he labours to shew, by reasons somewhat too subtle for our apprehension, that the doctrines and precepts of the bible "do come in their proper place, and are wise and good in their connexions." To evince the necessity of scriptur al doctrines, as he understands them, to the moral influence of