something to secure the favour of God, they are influenced by the truth already lodged in their minds, or derived from the immediate perusal of the scriptures; and hence, under the influence of the Spirit of God, instead of following the directions of their teachers which would lead to God in some other way than through Christ, they feel their need of the Saviour, and go to him as the Gospel directs. It is in this way, we have no doubt, much of the evil of this lamentable neglect of the grand doctrines of the Gospel is prevented. But just so far as this defective mode of representing the mode of salvation has any influence, it is to introduce a radically new system of religion. We again remark, we do not doubt that if these preachers were asked if they meant to leave Christ thus out of view, and to direct sinners to God without his intervention, they would answer, No. But we are not speaking of what they may believe on the subject, but of the manner in which, both from the press and the pulpit, the great duty of the sinner under the Gospel is presented.

It was our intention to call the attention of our readers to the panacea which the reviewer has discovered (or rather undertaken to recommend) for the cure of all doctrinal differences. But our notice of his pamphlet has already been protracted to three times the length we originally intended, and we therefore have time to say but little on the subject. His prescription is, to draw a distinction between the doctrines of religion and the philosophy of the doctrines, which, he justly remarks, is an important distinction, which it is of the highest moment should be understood and properly applied. "The doctrines of religion are the simple facts of Christianity. The philosophy of the doctrines is the mode adopted of stating and illustrating those facts in their relations to each other, to the human mind, to the whole character and government of God. From this distinction results the following most important practical principle of Christian fellowship and of theological discussion. All who teach the leading facts or doctrines of Christianity are orthodox, though they differ greatly in their philosophy of those doctrines.”—P. 31. The reviewer gives these passages in italics, to note his sense of their importance. We are constrained, however, to think that although they contain a very obvious and familiar truth, they are of little consequence for his purpose. The truth they contain is, that there is a distinction between the essentials and non-essentials of a doctrine. We care little about his calling doctrines facts. But how is this to aid any one in deciding on what is heresy, and what is not? The reviewer chooses to say that the fact which all the orthodox must receive respecting sin is, that it exists and that it is a dreadful evil. But how its existence is accounted for, is philosophising about it. But if I assert it exists by the immediate efficient agency of God, do not I assert a fact as much as when I say it exists? Or, if I say it exists because God cannot control a moral agent, do I not assert a fact? Again, the orthodox fact about man's natural character is,

that in consequence of the fall of Adam men sin, and only sin, until renewed by the Holy Spirit; the philosophy is in accounting for it. But is it not obvious, that when the church declares that the universality of actual sin is to be accounted for by a sinful corruption of nature, she means to declare that the scriptures account for one fact by another? When it is said, we are condemned for the sin of Adam, is it not a fact again asserted? We think, therefore, the reviewer's distinction between facts and the philosophy of them, perfectly futile. The use he would make of it is still worse. "All who teach the leading facts of Christianity are orthodox." But what are these facts? Let the reviewer state them and then he is orthodox; let Edwards state them and he is a heretic. The substance of the fact regarding man's character is, that somehow, in consequence of the fall, he sins, and only sins, &c. Is not this a bald petitio principii? That somehow may be the very thing which the scriptures clearly reveal, and reveal as a fact. Again: it is a fact that we are saved by the death of Christ-this we have stated as the doctrine of atonement. Yet, as so stated, there is not a Socinian in the world who is not orthodox on this point. This fact is not all that the scriptures teach, nor that it is necessary to believe. The death of Christ saves us, and saves us as a sacrifice. That it operates in this mode, and not in another, is as much a matter of fact, as that it operates at all. Again: it is a fact that men are renewed and sanctified by the Holy Spirit. But here again, all Arminians, Pelagians, and even Socinians, are orthodox; for they admit the fact as much as the reviewer does (allowing them to make the spirit of God mean "divine energy"). They and he might philosophise rather differently about it; but the fact they all admit. How the Spirit does the work is a matter of explanation; some say, by an immediate influence on the mind; others, by moral suasion, or presenting motives; others, by having revealed the truth in the scriptures; so that the result may be ascribed either to the truth as the immediate cause, or to its revealer, the Spirit. And so, finally, though illustrations might be multiplied without end, the scriptures are a divine revelation; here is a fact in which it would seem all might acquiesce and be orthodox, without asking how God reveals truth to man. Yet this fact the neologists of Germany hold and proclaim. It is true, when they come to the philosophy of the fact, they tell us they mean that the scriptures are a providential revelation from God, in the same sense as the Dialogues of Plato.

It is too obvious to need comment, that the reviewer's position is all that any man in the world, who professes any form of Christianity, needs to prove his orthodoxy. Let him have the stating of scriptural facts, and he will do as the reviewer in many cases has done, state them so generally, that Arminians, Pelagians, and Socinians, as well as Calvinists, can adopt them, and, according to this standard, be orthodox.

We have spoken of this anonymous pamphlet with sincerity:

that is, as we really felt. We view it as highly objectionable in the respect to which we have principally referred. Whoever the writer may be, we think he has more reason to lament having given occasion to the Christian public to ask how his statements can be reconciled with notorious facts, than to be offended at the strictures to which it may, and ought to subject him.

ESSAY XIV.

BEMAN ON THE ATONEMENT.*

THE doctrine of which this little book treats has always been regarded as the cardinal doctrine of the Gospel. It was the burden of apostolical preaching; the rock of offence to Jews and Greeks; the corner-stone of that temple in which God dwells by his Spirit. The cross is the symbol of Christianity; that in which every believer glories, as the only ground of his confidence toward God. The rejection of this doctrine, therefore, has always been regarded, and is, in fact, a rejection of the Gospel. It is the repudiation of the way of salvation revealed by God, and the adoption of some method not only different but irreconcilable. Whatever, therefore, affects the integrity of this doctrine, affects the whole system of religion. It lies in such immediate contact with the source of all spiritual life, that the very nature of religion depends on the manner in which it is apprehended. Though all moral and religious truths are in their nature sources of power, and never fail to influence, more or less, the character of those who embrace them, yet some truths are more powerful, and hence more important than others. We may speculate with comparative impunity on the nature of angels, on the origin of evil, on the purposes of God, on his relation to the world, and even on the grounds and nature of human responsibility; but when we come to the question: How am I to gain access to God? how can I secure the pardon of my sins and acceptance with Him? what is the true ground of hope, and what must I do to place myself on that ground so as to secure the assurance of God's love, peace of conscience, and joy in the Holy Ghost? then the less we speculate the better. The nearer we keep to the simple, authoritative statements of God's word, the firmer will be our faith, the more full and free our access to God, and the more harmonious and healthful our whole religious experience. Such is the informing influence of such experience, when it is genuine; that is, when really guided by the

* Published in 1845, in review of a pamphlet entitled "Christ, the only Sacrifice; or the Atonement in its Relations to God and Man." By NATHAN S. S. BEMAN, D.D., Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Troy, New York.

Spirit and conformed to the revelation of God, that it effects a far nearer coincidence of views in all the children of God than the multiplicity of sects and conflicting systems of theology would lead us to imagine. The mass of true Christians, in all denominations, get their religion directly from the Bible, and are but little affected by the peculiarities of their creeds. And even among those who make theology a study, there is often one form of doctrine for speculation, and another, simpler and truer, for the closet. Metaphysical distinctions are forgot in prayer, or under the pressure of real conviction of sin, and need of pardon and of divine assistance. Hence it is that the devotional writings of Christians agree far nearer than their creeds. It may be taken for granted that that mode of stating divine truth, which is most in accordance with the devotional language of true Christians; which best expresses those views which the soul takes when it appropriates the doctrines of the Gospel for its own spiritual emergencies, is the truest and the best.

How, then, does the believer regard the person and work of Christ in his own exercises of faith, gratitude, or love? What is the language in which those exercises are expressed? If we look to the devotional writings of the church, in all ages and countries, and of all sects and names, we shall get one clear, consistent answer. What David wrote three thousand years ago, expresses, with precision, the emotions of God's people now. The hymns of the early Christians, of the Lutherans, the Reformed, of Moravians, of British and American Christians, all express the common consciousness of God's people; they all echo the words and accents in which the truth came clothed from the mouth of God, and in which, in spite of the obstructions of theological theories, it finds its way to every believing heart. Now, one thing is very plain, Dr. Beman's theory of the atonement never could be learnt from the devotional language of the church; ours can. Everything we believe on the subject is inwrought, not only in the language of the Bible, but in the language of God's people, whether they pray or praise, whether they mourn or rejoice. We have, therefore, the heart of the church on our side, at least.

It lies on the very surface of the scriptures:-1. That all men are sinners. 2. That sin, for its own sake, and not merely to prevent others from sinning, deserves punishment. 3. That God is just; that is, disposed, from the very excellence of his nature, to treat his creatures as they deserve, to manifest his favour to the good, and his disapprobation towards the wicked. 4. That to propitiate God, to satisfy his righteous justice, the Son of God assumed our nature, was made under the law, fulfilled all righteousness, bore our sins, the chastisement or punishment of which was laid on him. 5. That by his righteousness, those that believe are constituted righteous; that his merit is so given, reckoned or imputed to them, that they are regarded and treated as righteous in the sight of God. These truths, which lie on the surface of the scrip