2. “That sin or guilt pertains exclusively to voluntary action, is the true principle of Orthodoxy." The old Orthodox divines held that men sinned in Adam, and thus became depraved. We hold that they sin by nature-sin in in themselves and for themselves, and thus render themselves depraved.

3. "The view of sin, or moral depravity, maintained in this discourse, cannot be justly ascribed to mental perversion, or to any sinister or selfish design."-We know not on what grounds the theological Professors at New Haven have been charged with a dereliction of Orthodox principles, in their views on this subject. We see no reason at all for such a charge. So far as the nature of sin* is concerned, their views are substantially the same with those of Hopkins, and Spring, and Dwight, and Emmons, and of the Orthodox clergy of New England generally. If, indeed, there is any perceptible difference, we are satisfied it is chiefly verbal.

4. "The universal depravity of mankind is not inconsistent with the moral perfection of God."

5. "The view of man's depravity here given is of great importance "in its bearing on the preaching of the Gospel."

"Does God charge on men, as that which deserves his endless indignation, what Himself does? Does God summon men to repentance with commands and entreaties, and at the same time tell them, that all efforts at compliance are as useless, as the muscular motions of a corpse to get life again. Does this book of God's inspiration, shock and appal the world, with the revelation of such things, respecting God and respecting man? Will the charge of such sin on man, touch the secret place of tears? Will the exhibition of such a God, allure the guilty to confide in his mercy? If so, preach it out-preach it consistently, preach nothing to contradict it,-dwell on your message, that God creates men sinners and damns them for being so.-Tell them such is their nature and such the mode of his interposition, that there is no more hope from acting on the part of the sinner than from not acting; tell them they may as well sleep on, and sleep away these hours of mercy, as attempt anything in the work of their salvation; that all is as hopeless with effort as without it. Spread over this world such a curtain of sackcloth, such a midnight of terror, and how, as the appropriate effect, would each accountable immortal, either sit down in the sullenness of inaction, or take his solitary way to hell in the frenzy of despair!

"But such is not the message of wrath and of mercy, by which a revolted world is to be awed and allured back to its Maker. The message we are to deliver to men is a message of wrath, because they are the perpetrators of the deed that deserves wrath.-It is a message of mercy to men who, by acting, are to comply with the terms of it, and who can never hope to comply even through God's agency, without putting themselves to the doing of the very thing commanded of God." pp. 36, 37.

The preacher concludes with remarking "on the fearful condition and prospects of the sinner."

"His sin is his own. He yields himself, by his own free act, by his own choice, to those propensities of his nature, which under the weight of God's authority he ought to govern. The gratification of these he makes his chief good, immortal as he is. For this he lives and acts-this he puts in the place of God-and for this, and for nothing better, he tramples on God's authority and incurs his wrath. Glad would he be, to escape the guilt of it. Oh-could he persuade himself that the fault is not his own,-this would wake up peace in his guilty bosom. Could he believe that God is bound to convert and save him;

The difficult subject presented in a note (pp. 29-34) we have not space or time here to discuss. And without opportunity for discussion, we prefer not to hazard an opinion respecting it.

or even that he could make it certain that God will do it,-this would allay his fears, this would stamp a bow on the cloud that thickens, and darkens, and thunders damnation on his guilty path. But his guilt is all his own, and a just God may leave him to his choice. He is going on to a wretched eternity, the self-made victim of its woes. Amid sabbaths and bibles, the intercessions of saints, the songs of angels, the entreaties of God's ambassadors, the accents of redeeming love, and the blood that speaketh peace, he presses on to death. God beseeching with tenderness and terror-Jesus telling him he died once, and could die again, to save him-mercy weeping over him day and night-heaven lifting up its everlasting gates-hell burning, and sending up its smoke of torment, and the weeping and the wailing and the gnashing of teeth, within his hearing, and onward still he goes. See the infatuated immortal-Fellow sinner, IT IS YOU.

"Bowels of divine compassion-length, breadth, height, depth of Jesus' love Spirit of all grace,-save him-Oh save him-or he dies forever." p. 38.

2. The Character, Trials, and Security of the Church. A Sermon preached at the Dedication of the Meeting House of the Evangelical Society in South Brookfield, August 18th, 1829. By MrCAH STONE, Pastor of the Church. Brookfield: E. and G. Merriam. pp. 31.

We have read this discourse with great satisfaction, knowing as we do the various afflictions through which its estimable author, and his beloved church and people have recently been called to pass. The bush with them has indeed been burning, but we rejoice to know that it has not been consumed.* We rejoice that it still lives, full of vigor, of hope, and of promise, a monument of the faithfulness of its covenant Head and Redeemer. We congratulate the members of this suffering flock, in the so speedy accomplishment of their wishes and endeavors in regard to a temple for the public worship of their God, and would devoutly implore for them the presence of Him who walketh in the midst of his golden candlesticks? to fulfil in them all those benefits of affliction which are suggested in this excellent discourse. May the scenes through which they have passed be so sanctified to them, as to increase their faith, promote their knowledge, give importunity and fervency to their prayers, inspire them with "a tender sympathy for each other," and purge out from among them all those who are not builded on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.'

3. A Discourse delivered at the Ordination of the Rev. Frederick A. Farley, as Pastor of the Westminster Congregational Society in Providence, Rhode Island, Sept. 10, 1828. BY WILLIAM ELLERY CHANNING. Boston: Bowles and Dearborn. pp. 36.

There are parts of this discourse which we cordially approve; others, which we cordially disapprove; and others which, after several readings, we cannot be sure that we understand. The author clothes himself often in a mysticism of expression, through which the sense is but dimly seen, and not unfrequently the reader is left in doubt whether it is seen at all. The admirers of Dr. C.

* An allusion to Mr. Stone's text, Ex. iii. 2.

will, of course, attribute this to his superior refinement; but such a reason, if admitted, does not furnish an apology: For, however refined a public teacher may be, and however sublimated his conceptions, if he deign at all to come down, and discourse' with men of ordinary minds, he ought to adapt himself to their capacitieshe ought to discourse in such a way that the sense may be easily and certainly apprehended.

The discourse is founded on Eph. v. 1, "Be ye followers of God, as dear children." This exhortation is addressed by the apostle to true believers in Christ-who are spoken of in the immediate connexion as "saints"-whom "God, for Christ's sake, hath forgiven" -and who are sealed by the Holy Spirit of God unto the day of redemption." Dr. C., however, by a gross perversion, applies it without distinction to the whole human race, supposing all of every character to be exhorted, as the "dear children" of God, to be followers of him.

39.66

That the author would deny the doctrine of human depravity was, of course, to be expected; but he does more than this. He uses expressions in regard to the nature of man, such as we have never before heard from a professed minister of the New Testament. Mankind are here represented as enjoying "a participation of the Divine nature"- —as having a "like nature to God," and a "kindred nature to God"-as having a Divine likeness,' a heavenly treasure within them." pp. 9, 17, 22, 34. "God does not sustain a figurative resemblance to man. It is the resemblance of a parent to a child, the likeness of a kindred nature.” p. 10. "We discern the impress of God's attributes in the universe by accordance of nature, and enjoy them through sympathy." p. 13. "What is it to be a Father? It is to communicate one's own nature, to give life to kindred beings." "This name belongs to God, because he frames spirits like himself, and delights to give them what is most glorious and blessed in his own nature." p. 18. "I cannot but pity the man, who recognizes nothing godlike in his own nature.” p. 26. Dr. C. repeatedly speaks of "reverencing human nature." "I reverence human nature too much to do it violence. I see too much divinity in its ordinary operations, to urge on it a forced and vehement virtue." p. 22. "I do and I must reverence human nature. Neither the sneers of a worldly scepticism, nor the groans of a gloomy theology, disturb my faith in its godlike powers and tendencies." p. 27. "I conclude with saying, let the minister cherish a reverence for his own nature." p. 34.*

If, by such variety of expression, our author had intended no more than this, that men naturally have noble faculties, and precious, immortal souls, we could cheerfully have accorded to the sentiment, however much we might dislike his mode of expressing it. But he does mean more than this. He means, not only that men have godlike faculties and powers, but that they naturally employ them in a godlike manner. He believes that we inherit, by nature, the moral

* A new duty this for ministers of the Gospel-one to which, we venture to say, they never were exhorted before.

as well as the natural image of God. Speaking of the goodness of God, he asks, "How do we understand this, but by the principle of love implanted in the human breast?" p. 11. I bless it (our nature) for its kind affections, for its strong and tender love. I honor it for its struggles against oppression, "* &c. "and still more for its examples of heroic and saintly virtue." p. 27. "The Divinity is stirring within the human breast, and demanding a culture and a liberty worthy of the child of God." p. 30.

An English Unitarian reviewer, in the Monthly Review for June, 1820, speaking of Rammohun Roy, says, "His plan for reforming the religion of Hindoostan bears a close resemblance to that which Philo imagined for the reformation of the Jewish religion. The system of both of these writers consists in adopting Unitarianism or Pantheism for their radical theology." "In the Evangelic German church," says he in another place, "Pantheism is already becoming the favorite theology, and is believed to be that of the Christian Scriptures by very eminent and very learned commentators." pp. 174, 176. Pantheism regards God as the soul of the universe, and everything else so connected with him, as to be reckoned in some sense a part of God. Now we do not charge Dr. C. with advocating this wild theory of religion; for, as we said, we do not know that we understand him. He may have written rather poetically. The sense he intended to convey may be wrapped up in a mist of verbiage, through which it is not easy for the eye to penetrate. But possibly the extracts already made, taken in their obvious sense, will lead our readers to suspect him of leaning, (it may be unconsciously to himself,) towards the theory above named. And possibly the extracts we are about to make may serve to confirm them in these suspicions. "Its (religion's) noblest influence consists in making us more and more partakers of the Divinity." p. 4. "In ourselves are the elements of the Divinity." p. 10. "What then is religion? I answer; it is not the adoration of a God, with whom we have no common properties; of a distinct, foreign, separate Bɛing; but of an all-communicating Parent." pp. 18, 19. Our author speaks of some," in whom the Divine nature is overwhelmed by the passions ;" and of others, in whom "the Divinity is growing." pp. 35, 25. "Beneath the sweat of the laborer, beneath the rags and ignorance of the poor, beneath the vices of the sensual and selfish," there is to be discerned, says he, "in the depths of the soul, a Divine principle, a ray of the Infinite Light, which may yet break forth and shine, as the sun, in the kingdom of God." p. 34.

One of the greatest apparent difficulties in the way of Unitarians is to determine what to make of the Holy Spirit. One says, "The Spirit of God is God himself;" another calls it an attribute of God; another, an emanation from God; and still another, a Divine energy. Dr. C. defines it "a Divine assistance" or aid."

"Scripture and experience concur in teaching, that by the Holy Spirit, we are to understand a Divine assistance adapted to our moral freedom, and accord

* By whom has human nature been so grievously oppressed? By wild beasts—or demons-or by the possessors of this same godlike human nature?

ant with the fundamental truth, that virtue is the mind's own work. By the Holy Spirit, I understand an aid, which must be gained and made effectual by our own activity; an aid, which no more interferes with our faculties, than the assistance which we receive from our fellow beings; an aid, which silently mingles and conspires with all other helps and means of goodness; an aid by which we unfold our natural powers in a natural order, and by which we are strengthened to understand and apply the resources derived from our munificent Creator. This aid we cannot pursue too much, or pray for too earnestly." pp. 23, 24.

Did our limits permit, we might take the definition here given of the Holy Spirit, and carry it through the Bible, applying it to all passages in which the phrase, Holy Spirit, is used. But our readers are requested to do this for themselves. In place of the words, Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, &c., wherever they occur, substitute the words, Divine aid, and see whether, by such a process, the sense of the sacred writings is improved. "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Divine aid of God." "Ye are not in the flesh, but in the Divine aid." 66 Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Divine aid."

We think it cannot be longer doubted, if hitherto it has been, that Dr. C. is a teacher of universal salvation. In the discourse before us, this doctrine is expressed with an explicitness which need not be misunderstood.' "How far the Supreme Being may communicate his attributes to his intelligent offspring, I stop not to inquire. But that his Almighty goodness will impart to them powers and GLORIES, of which the material universe is but a faint emblem, I cannot doubt." p. 17. "This name (Father) belongs to God, because he frames spirits like himself, and delights to give them what is most glorious and blessed in his own nature." p. 18. God "looks on us with parental interest, and" his “great design it is to communicate to us forever, and in freer and fuller streams, his own power, goodness, and joy." p. 19. Speaking of certain alleged exhibitions of human nature in the general, our author says, "These are marks of a Divine origin, and the pledges of a CELESTIAL INHERITANCE; and I thank God that my own lot is bound up in that of the HUMAN RACE." p. 27.

After what has been said, it cannot be needed or desired, that we should undertake a formal refutation of the errors of this discourse. It is enough that we have exposed some of them. We should not have done even this, had we not been impelled to it by an imperious sense of duty. It is not that we have pleasure in finding fault, but it is that we witness a man of Dr. Channing's literary distinctiona man, who has many admirers, and in whose steps numbers will think it safe to follow, holding forth opinions on the greatest of all subjects, which in our consciences we regard as subversive of the Gospel, and ruinous to souls,—it is for this reason that we have felt constrained to notice the discourse before us in the manner we have. We have felt that this was the least we could do. The public must now form a judgement of it for themselves.

We have said, there are parts of this discourse which we cordially approve. There are indeed passages, to which, if separated from their connexion, and interpreted according to the usual acceptation