Would that all who hold such principles could see it to be so, and betake themselves to a more reputable vocation.

Our author indulges the hope, that by means of his "Analysis,' many who are embarrassed by the commonly received hypothesis may see their way clear to retain a firm faith in Christianity as a religion of supernatural origin and superhuman authority." Now it is indispensably necessary to such a faith in such a scheme of religion, that two things should be done. First, that we settle the question, as to what is the ground and source of faith-what is revelation? Second, that we settle the principles upon which that revelation is to be interpreted. What is the word of God, and what does it mean? these are the only objects of reason in regard to revelation. We have seen, that in respect to the first, Dr. B. leaves us totally in the dark. He rejects the "old hypothesis," but omits to inform us which of the thousand and one new hypotheses, he himself adopts. If the critical Gefuhl of scholars is to be the standard, we are in a very hopeless condition, for it is different in every individual. If it be a matter of Gefuhl at all, every man must take his own as the standard, religion becomes a matter of mere taste, and as there is no disputing tastes, all discussion is at end. We have, therefore, and can have, no manner of controversy with Dr. B. We have no common standard to be the arbiter between us. But even if the question of the standard were settled, there remains the other question, of the principles of interpretation. Our author has a theory touching this point, which leaves us as far asunder as we were before. In order to give our readers some idea of it, it will be necesssary to recur to his "Analysis," which, it is scarcely necessary to say, is made as much according to his taste, as according to any scientific principle.

It is an "Analysis of the New Testament into Historical Facts. Doctrines, Opinions and Phraseology. The facts are:-the Resurrection of Christ, Reality of Persons, Time and Places, the Consciousness of Christ, the Claims of Christ, Christ without sin, Faith of the Apostles, Perfect morality of the Gospel. The doctrines are:Personality of God, Paternity of God, the Efficacy of Prayer, Forgiveness of Sins, Immortality, Retribution. The opinions are :— Interpretation of the old Testament, Demoniacal Possession, a Personal Devil, the Return of Christ to the Earth. The phraseology contains: the Kingdom of God, Christ a King, Jesus the Son of God, Priesthood of Christ, Sacrificial Language, Regeneration.

Now to say nothing of the merit of this classification, which the reader will perceive at a glance is, logically and scientifically considered, utterly contemptible and absurd, and could not be satis-factory" to any but those perhaps, whose misfortune it has been to listen to the author's stated ministrations: to say nothing of the audacity of referring to the category of "opinions," the great doc.

"By opinions," says the author, "I mean the impressions and habits of thought which were current at the time of Christ, upon subjects collateral to religion, which he did not deem it expedient to criticise. Concerning these matters, he did not consider

trine of the "Return of Christ to the Earth," which has been the "blessed hope" of his suffering people, since the day the heavens received him until now: to say nothing of his denial of the personal existence of the Devil, of the reality of which, this book alone might beget a shrewd suspicion, if there were no other evidence; notice how he sums up, under the head of "Phraseology," some of the most fundamental and glorious doctrines of Christianity. Let it be remembered, that in spite of the " Analysis," the " phraseology" is not a distinct department of the new Testament, but, of necessity, pervades the whole, "facts, doctrines, opinions and phraseology," and that in the author's hands, it becomes a kind of magical incantation, presto! change!" by which the most precious truths are spirited away; and we must either abate our abhorrence of Talleyrand's maxim, that "language was intended to conceal, not to convey thought," or our compassion for the author prevents us from stating the alternative. Here then is the state of the controversy between the friends and foes of the Gospel. We quote the word of God in proof of some doctrine. "Oh!" says the ecclesiastical Talleyrand, "that was intended to conceal the true idea." "You must consider," says Dr. Bushnell, "that language, from the inherent vice of its constitution, cannot convey thought." "There is a dis

a

tinction to be taken," says Dr. Park, "between the theology of the intellect and the theology of the feelings; and those terms of yours no more express real ideas or existences, than Ursa Major denotes a real bear travelling round the north pole." And faintly amid the chorus of these louder voices, may be heard the feeble utterance," that it is all Jewish phraseology and Christianity has superseded Judaism."

The result of the whole matter is,-to accommodate the words of John Randolph, in a debate with Clay, we labor under two very great misfortunes with respect to these honorable gentlemen; one is, that we can never understand them, and the other is, that they can never understand us. We are and must be, now and always, barbarians to each other. To talk of discussion and controversy, when there is neither a common standard to decide between us, nor a common tongue by which we may communicate, is supremely idle.

Thinking is but an idle waste of thought,

Nought is every thing, and every thing is nought.

The social relations of Unitarianism, however, make it necessary for us to enter our solemn protest against the infamous morality of the system. Whether there be a personal devil or not, cannot be determined, so far as the determination of the question depends upon the teaching of Christ; until we have settled the question as to the moral perfection of Christ. Dr. Burnap admits, nay more, asserts the sinlessness of Jesus, and so do most of the fraternity to which it the dictate of wisdom to make issue with his contemporaries." Disc. 15th. The reader will perceive from this statement and the subsequent illustration of it, that opinions" is only another word for "errors" or "superstitions." To this class belongs the "Return of Christ to Earth."

he belongs. Francis Newman, whose liking for Unitarians and "serious atheists" he takes no pains to conceal, is of a different opinion, and has written a chapter in the last edition of his "Phases," which will cover his name with an infamy beyond the power of multitudinous seas to wash out. But the saddest thing of all is, that upon the Unitarian hypothesis, Newman is nearer the truth than James Martineau or George W. Burnap. If Jesus, of Nazareth, was not "over all God blessed forever," then we avow our deliberate conviction, that he said many things, which no man of ordinary integrity, not to speak of moral perfection at all, would have said. Could a man of "oceanic knowledge,"—to use Dr. B.'s elegant expression,-and at the same time of perfect integrity, have uttered what is recorded in the tenth chapter of John's Gospel, or in the eighth? "If ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins." Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am." Could a mere creature say without blasphemy, and, if his knowledge was "oceanic," without conscious blasphemy,--" He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever." "No man taketh my life from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." Could a mere creature die, in his sound mind, under the charge of having made himself equal with God, without repudiating the charge with horror? Especially would it be possible for him to do it, if his knowledge was "oceanic" and his morality perfect! Whatever answer Unitarian theories of phraseology may give to these questions, we confidently appeal to the moral sense of mankind for a righteous judgment in the case. If Dr. B. pronounces the conduct of Jesus right upon his principles, we can only confess, that we have no more sympathy with him than with the inhabitants of those fabulous regions of space, "where all moral relations are reversed, and a crime of unusual turpitude inspires absolute envy." We could sooner believe the disclosures of Voltaire's Micromegas, than the conclusions of "Christianity, its Essence and Evidence."

But to pass over this view of the subject, our author presents us with another appalling aspect of Unitarian morality. In his chapters on Demoniacal Possession and the Personality of the Devil, he represents the belief in both these things as a Jewish superstition, and Jesus as giving systematic countenance to it! That Jesus, be it remembered, whose integrity was perfect and whose knowledge was "oceanic;" who knew therefore that these were mere delusions, while he sanctioned them as real. According to Unitarianism, then, a long and systematic course of fraud is entirely consistent with perfect integrity. With regard to the unhappy demoniacs themselves, Jesus is represented, with all his "oceanic" knowledge, as acting in contradiction to the soundest principles of science, by treating their

delusions as real; and in regard to the unpossessed spectator of the woe, as acting, with all his integrity, as an impostor. But Dr. Burnap says, that this was an affair of physical science, and Jesus came not to teach physical science or to banish erroneous opinions concerning it. This is pleasant. In one aspect, that of mere being, mere existence in rerum natura, all things belong to physics. The pick-pocket, the volition which moves his muscles, the muscular motions involved in thrusting his hand into his neighbor's pocket, may all be physically considered. But is this the most important consideration? And can any man be in earnest when he talks of the doctrine of a Devil, or of demons, being only or chiefly an affair of physical science? We feel that we are degrading ourselves, in condescending to notice such a quibble. But he will say again, we use the term "lunacy," without sanctioning or intending to sanction, the popular superstition, which ascribes madness to the influence of the moon; and why might not Jesus speak of the sufferers in question as "possessed," falling in with the current language of the times, though no such possession existed? To this we answer by the following passage from Trench.* "This had been no more than our speaking of certain forms of madness as lunacy; not thereby implying that we believe the moon to have, or to have had, any influence upon them; but finding the word, we use it, and this the more readily, since its original derivation is entirely lost sight of in our common conversation, its first impress so completely worn off, that we do not thereby even seem to countenance an error. But suppose with this same disbelief in lunar influences, we were to begin to speak not merely of lunatics, but of persons on whom the moon was working, to describe the cure of such, as the moon ceasing to afflict them; or if a physician were solemnly to address the moon, bidding it to abstain from harming his patient, there would be here a passing over into quite a different region; we should be here directly countenancing superstition and delusion; and plainly speaking untruly with our lips; there would be that gulf between our thoughts and our words, in which the essence of a lie consists. Now Christ does every where speak in such a language as this. Take, for instance, his words, Luke 11: 17-26, and assume Him as knowing, all the while he was thus speaking, that the whole Jewish theory of demoniac possessions was utterly baseless, that there was no power of the kind which Satan exercised over the minds of men, and what should we have here for a king of truth?"

But enough. Such is Unitarian morality, to say nothing of logic. We lay down the book with a loathing, mitigated only by the reflection that there are no signs of vitality about it, and that it will speedily find its appropriate place in that limbus of oblivion, to which so many better books have gone before it. We conclude with an apology to our readers, for aiding "in conducting it to that land of forgetfulness with the pomp of criticism."

*Notes on the Miracles, p. 152: 2d Lond. edition. We commend that whole discussion to those who have any difficulties upon the subject. It is contained in his notes on the Demoniacs in the country of the Gadarenes.

SUGGESTIONS TOUCHING THE PRESBYTERIAN SYSTEM FOR SPREADING THE GOSPEL.

No question can be raised before the mind of man of such unspeakable importance as the extension of the Gospel. This importance invests with a kindred value all questions concerning the means to this end. The reason which constitutes the immense significance of these issues, is found in the fact, that the Gospel of Christ is essential to the salvation of the soul; that without it men are inevitably damned; and that means must be used to send the truth to all who will perish without it. It is a brief and obvious result from the importance of the issues involved, not less than from a clear principle of the Law of God, that we are bound to use the very best means in our reach for the extension of the truth, and to use those means in the very best manner of which they are capable. To use inferior means when superior instrumentalities are at hand, is synonymous with treachery to the cause. Nothing short of the very highest exertion of all the capacities by which man can effect the end, will be accepted as a fulfilment of his obligations in the premises. Hence, we advance to the conclusion, that if there is any defect, either in the general system which any part of the Church has adopted for the extension of the truth, or in the particular modifica. tions, or detailed management of that system, we are bound to seek its reform by all the weight of obligations which binds us to the work at all. Let us inquire into some aspects of the great Presbyterian system of ecclesiastical order, in its relations to this subject. We premise a few preliminary remarks on general principles involved in this issue.

First. The Church of Christ is a missionary association by the very law of its existence. It is an organization of the People of God, for the purpose of extending the knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus. This obligation, a unit in itself, binds them to the double aim of maintaining the Gospel among themselves, and of sending it to all who are without it. To suppose any necessity for another, and a distinct association or organization of men for these purposes, is to suppose an absurdity. It would be as reasonable as to organize an order of Masons for masonic purposes, and then to proclaim the necessity of another and a distinct organization for the same ends, leaving the first standing vacant in solitary and useless dignity, bearing a name, yet divested of a function. The creation of the original organization for its own ends is sufficient. To demand another to carry out its purposes, is absurd. Hence, the Church alone, is the great authorized source for the extension of the means of grace, and the knowledge of salvation.

Second. We remark that the Church has been furnished with all the means, agents and powers, necessary to the accomplishment of her ends, and that these are the best adapted of all conceivable methods for this purpose. The Church is an organized and finish