and of his present circumstances, may constrain him to hold fast that article of the faith, in some form to satisfy his conscience. But his system must banish it just so far as it prevails. Schleiermacher, formed under different circumstances, and less inwardly trammelled, openly rejected the doctrine. He wrote a system of theology without saying a word about the Trinity. It has no place in his system; he brings it in only at the conclusion of his work, and explains it as God manifested in nature, God as manifested in Christ, and God as manifested in the church. With him the Holy Spirit is the Spirit which animates the church. It had no existence before the church, and has no existence beyond it. His usual expression for it is, "the common spirit" (Gemeingeist) of the church, which may mean either something very mystical, or nothing more than we mean by the spirit of the age, or spirit of a party, just as the reader pleases. It is, in point of fact, understood both ways. Burke once said, he never knew what the London beggars did with their cast-off clothes until he went to Ireland. We hope we Americans are not to be arrayed in the cast-off clothes of the German mystics, and then marshalled in bands as the "Church of the Future.”

We said at the commencement of this article that we had never read Dr Nevin's book on the Mystical Presence until now. We have from time to time read other of his publications, and looked here and there into the work before us; and have thus been led to fear that he was allowing the German modes of thinking to get the mastery over him, but we had no idea that he had so far given himself up to their influence. If he has any faith in friendship and long continued regard, he must believe that we could not find ourselves separated from him by such serious differences without deep regret, and will therefore give us credit for sincerity of conviction and purpose.

ART. II.-Discourses and Reviews upon Questions in Controversial Theology and Practical Religion. By ORVILLE DEWEY, D.D., Pastor of the Church of the Messiah in New York. New York: C. S. Francis & Co. 1846, pp. 388, 12mo.

THE author of these discourses stands in the very first rank of Unitarian literature. As a pulpit orator his reputation is distinguished, and the post which he occupies in our greatest city adds importance to whatever he may choose to utter. For these reasons, and because it is some time since a polemic

volume has been produced on the side of Antitrinitarianism, we are disposed to subject it to a serious examination.

With a few exceptions, which shall be noted in their proper place, these essays are not chargeable with the usual offensiveness of controversial writing. Dr Dewey possesses all the qualifications which are needed to give seemliness and polish to the form of his opinions. He shines more to our apprehension in the gentle glow of sentiment than in the conflict of reasoning. Nothing is more characteristic of the whole work than a disposition to avoid bold statement of positions, sharp cutting of defining lines, and penetrating analysis of philosophical difficulties. The shudder with which the author sometimes flies back from metaphysical methods (as on page 73), is more amiable in the saloon than dignified in the field of disputation. Yet he is not a common man, and where he is in the right, as he frequently is, we admire the perspicuity and scholarlike elegance with which he can express a familiar truth.

This volume, as we learn from its first sentence, is designed to give a comprehensive reply to the question, "What is Unitarianism?" This is encouraging, for no one cause has hitherto more prevented successful debate than a sickly dread of disputation, and a studied vagueness and even reticency in regard to the points at issue. In telling us what Unitarianism is, Dr Dewey seems to have found it strangely necessary to tell us also what Calvinism is. Of this we make no complaint; but was it necessary or pertinent to the design above stated? If the reason is, that of all schemes of opinion, Calvinism is that which shows the strongest lines; that of all defenders of ancient faith, Calvinists have been the most determined; or that of all opponents, ours are the most opposed,-we accept the omen in good part. The fact in regard to this volume is obvious to him who only opens its pages. The very first essay is constructed with reference to the views of Calvinists. A laboured treatise is given on "the Five Points of Calvinism;" another treatise discusses the "Calvinistic Views of Moral Philosophy;" and everywhere the form of Christianity which our author depicts is the Calvinistic form. He allows himself to forget that it was not Calvinism but Trinitarianism which he was held to refute.

The book opens with an article entituled, "The Unitarian Belief." This creed is marked by a careful avoidance of the more repulsive points of Socinianism, and as careful an approach as honesty will allow to the words of sound doctrine. We might have expected such articles as these: Unitarians believe that the Son and the Spirit are not divine persons; Unitarians believe that Jesus Christ was a mere man; Uni

tarians believe that faith and works are the same thing;* Unitarians believe that future punishment is not eternal: but this is not the method pursued. We are far from charging the author with a purpose to deceive; we indicate the policy as characteristic of the party from the days of the Council of Nice. Witness the accession of the Arians, save in a single iota, to the homoöusian symbols. If space were allowed us, we should be glad to transcribe every word of Augustine's oral debate with Maximus, the Arian bishop. It would show the disposition, common to all who reject the divinity of our Lord, to fly from too abrupt an avowal of their extreme opinions. The terms used in all these cases are not such as are best suited to express fairly and fully the doctrines maintained, but such as to the ear are most like the orthodox confession.

In this exposition of his faith, Dr Dewey sets himself against those who say that his "creed consists of negations." Although we could ask no better proof of this offensive proposition than this very article, we shall now state what Unitarians actually believe-1. They believe, according to our author, "in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost." 2. They "believe in the atonement." 3. They "believe in human depravity." 4. They believe "that men are to be recovered by a process which is termed in the Scriptures regeneration." 5. They believe "in the doctrine of election." 6. They believe in a future state of rewards and punishments. 7. They believe "in the supreme and all-absorbing importance of religion." Now, we would not wrong an adversary, in particular one of so many amiable qualities as our author, but we cannot conceal our astonishment at this mode of statement. Knowing, as we do, and as Dr Dewey knows, how many derive all their knowledge of a treatise from the heads or titles of its parts, and knowing that this is a phraseology appropriated by immemorial usage to the orthodox faith, we regard it as a glaring impropriety to employ this very phraseology to denote the precise opposite. We yield all the advantage which may flow from the acknowledgment, that in the body of the essay Dr Dewey, after these several declarations, duly proceeds to empty each of them of all evangelical meaning. We admit that Bible speech is common property, but we contend that thus to use it is neither open nor politic dealing. And if we are asked in what way the objections to Trinitarian doctrine-for of such objections the essay is made up-should be expressed, we reply just as Trinitarians express their repugnance to the op

* "Belief and unbelief, in Scripture use, embrace in their meaning essential right and wrong, virtue and vice, religion and irreligion."-(P. 318.) Yet a little after he says, "Man cannot stand before God, demanding heaven for his keeping of the moral law."-(P. 322.)

posing scheme, fully, clearly, and in terms which leave no man in doubt for a single sentence.

When we penetrate to the interior of these statements, we find that meagre and unsatisfying religion which belongs to all who reject the gospel. We find that if Jesus "is God in his nature, yet as Mediator between God and man he cannot be regarded as God." We find that the Holy Spirit is the " "power of God," or "divine influence;" and we find that the atonement is a vague something which we cannot and need not explain:

"But what now is the meaning of all this phraseology, and of much more that is like it? Certainly it is, that there is some connection between the sufferings of Christ and our forgiveness, our redemption from sin and misery. This we all believe. But what is this connection? Here is all the difficulty, here is all the difference of opinion. We all believe, all Christians believe, that the death of Christ is a means of our salvation. But how is it a means? Was it, some one will say, perhaps, as if he were putting us to the test, was it an atonement, a sacrifice, a propitiation? We answer, that it was an atonement, a sacrifice, a propitiation. But now the question is, What is an atonement, a sacrifice, a propitiation? And this is the difficult question-a question to the proper solution of which much thought, much cautious discrimination, much criticism, much knowledge, and especially of the ancient Hebrew sacrifices, is necessary. Can we not receive the atonement' without this knowledge, this criticism, this deep philosophy? What, then, is to become of the mass of mankind, of the body of Christians? Can we not savingly receive the atonement' unless we adopt some particular explanation, some peculiar creed, concerning it? Who will dare to answer this question in the negative, when he knows that the Christian world, the orthodox Christian world, is filled with differences of opinion concerning it? The Presbyterian Church of America is at this moment rent asunder on this question. Christians are everywhere divided on the questions, whether the redemption is particular or general; whether the sufferings of Christ were a literal endurance of the punishment due to sin, or only a moral equivalent; and whether this equivalency, supposing this to be the true explanation, consists in the endurance of God's displeasure against sin, or only in a simple manifestation of it."-(Pp. 10, 11.)

6

We should like to see the difference pointed out between this scheme of atonement and that which has been maintained by some theologians not Unitarian. For our part we abjure that theology which seeks not to know the connection between Christ's sufferings and our forgiveness. The link which is here dropped is the very support of faith. Give us all the superstitions of the Tridentinum rather than a system without expiation. The last sentence of the extract above might furnish occasion for remark and vindication, but we forbear. Dr Dewey's notion of atonement is, "reconciliation, not of God to

NO. V.

Y

us, but of us to God." As he does not argue this point at length, we merely record our dissent.

In regard to human depravity, Dr Dewey maintains that it is not of nature; for "human nature, nature as it exists in the bosom of an infant, is nothing else but capability; capability of good as well as evil, though more likely from its exposures to be evil than good." These are words easily uttered, but as no proof is alleged, and as we do not recognise the statement as intuitively true, we pass to other matters.

There is no part of the work before us in which the amiable author's strength more remarkably breaks down under a great argument, than in his attempt to show that Unitarians believe in election. Dr Dewey has good reasons for inveighing, as he sometimes does, at metaphysics; it is certainly not the field in which his laurels are to be won. Referring his doctrines to their legitimate paternity, he says of election, "Our good old Arminian fathers fought with it for many a day." He might have added, and with weapons of better temper than their sons, as better knowing what they opposed, and where the real difficulties lay. The Unitarians, we are here told, believe in God's universal prescience. We are glad that they go so far, but it is added, "We believe in election, not in selection." Here the reader, who is at all familiar with his language, may excusably rub his eyes and suspect his vision or the typography. Can it be that we are reduced to the necessity of showing that election and selection are identical? Must we go to Ainsworth to find that eligo, from e and lego, means to choose, elect, or pick out," and that selectio, from se and lego, means "to choose out, to pick and lay aside, to cull?" Must we quote Johnson to show that election is "the act of selecting one or more from a greater number?" We spare our readers the infliction, and reserve our comments for the sequel.

Under the head of future punishment we thus read: "Life everlasting' and 'everlasting fire,' the mansions of rest,' and 'the worm that never dieth,' are phrases fraught with a just and reasonable, but at the same time vast and indefinite import. They are too obviously figurative to permit us to found definite and literal statements upon them." In all our perusal of theological treatises, we call to mind no greater instance of laxity in reasoning. We are charged with changing the vast into the literal, and the indefinite into the definite. We may not on these phrases found "definite statements;" they are vast and indefinite. We grant it, and read the objection with astonishment; for, let us respectfully ask, what is so vast as eternity, or so indefinite as infinity? Definite! we are so far from this, that we assert a continuance of punishment to such a degree indefinite as to have no limit. The exclusion of such