the discourse, written, evidently, ad captandum, a show of falling in with the popular objections to some of the most abhorrent parts of Calvinism; and there is much exaggerated statement in it, as inconsistent with good taste, as plain dealing. He retains the system in the main, but lifts up his hands against all those parts which men will no longer bear. He declares, that men have power to obey God and embrace the gospel; but it is a power which no man ever did, and no man ever will, exercise! He stands, then, before his people, and urges them to repent, and at the same time tells them; "As the cold and putrid carcasses of the dead do not of themselves seek life; as the turf would not move, nor the tomb-stones shake, nor the pale, mouldering people open their eyes, of themselves, if I were to go and preach to yonder graves, even so it is when I preach to sinners." Yet he went on, we suppose, and finished his discourse! He wishes to make man responsible for his rejection of salvation, but says, at the same time, that it is an essential part of his scheme "that God, not man, begins the work." "It remains then, that it is the work of God. In the distributions of these favors he acts by a rule that he has not made known to us." He wishes to get rid of the absurdities of Original Sin. But he says, "I have so deep a sense of the utter and total wickedness of the human heart, of its entire opposition by nature to all that is good, and of the corruption of all its best efforts, even when aided, that I involuntarily shrink from every scheme that seems to mingle in merit the pure work of the Holy Ghost, with the crude and abortive energies of my own bosom." Whence came that corruption; is it induced by man's own agency? No. It is a corruption of nature. Whence came that corruption of nature? From Adam, to be sure. And what is this but the old doctrine of original sin brought back again, in its most revolting form?

He says, "no man is compelled against his will to be saved. The work of salvation, and the work of damnation, are the two most solemn acts of choosing that mortal man performs." And in the next line, "The Spirit of God acts upon the will." What miserable quibbling! So the sinner is not forced against his will, because God by his omnipotence changes the will itself! This is really too bad.

What next? He claims it as an act of justice, that he, and his, are never more to be slandered with the doctrine, that

Yet he says,

"God made men on purpose to damn them." "What God does he intends to do. There is no chance, no hap-hazard. What it is right for him to do, it is right for him to purpose to do. What he does in my salvation or yours, he always means to do. In him is no change, no shadow of turning. He has no new plan." This moral inability, universal and unvarying, drives him as necessarily into the doctrine of arbitrary election, as the old system of physical or natural inability; and accordingly, he does not scruple to avow it. "If, then, God renews the heart by his Holy Spirit; if he begins and carries forward the work in all that shall be saved, and holds the power of doing this over all men, and does not thus incline all to come to him, and it be asked, as well it may be, why he does not renew and save all, we have only to say," mark the pertinency, the relevancy, and the satisfactoriness of the reason, "that all do not choose to be saved, and will not come to him! If it be asked, why the Great Sovereign of worlds does not constrain them to come, and bring all to heaven, I answer, my powers of reason here fail."

Still he says, "The rejection of the Gospel is to be traced to some cause, where man will be to blame, not God. It is impossible for the pure Gospel to have any fellowship with a scheme, which, in any sense, charges God with wrong. The fact that the Gospel is rejected, is then to be traced to the obstinacy of men; to a decided, deliberate purpose not to be saved in this way." If it were not that the same folly has been rung over and over again by greater men than Mr. Barnes, we should have been astonished to find on the same page, nay, immediately following, as a reason why men refuse the Gospel, and which exonerates God altogether in the transaction, “All men are supposed, by nature, to be insensible to the need of salvation by another. They are held to be so much opposed to God, that they will not submit to him. They are charged with being so much in love with sin, that neither commands nor threatenings, neither love nor vengeance, neither the offer of heaven nor the prospect of hell, will induce them to forsake it." And all this is said to be by NATURE! The question. then recurs, Who makes men, God or the devil; or did Adam; or do they make themselves? Now we take God to be the Creator of men, of each individual as much as of Adam. No man is responsible for his nature, for this plain reason, that he

had no hand in making it what it is. He is responsible for the use of it, and just in proportion to the viciousness of man's nature, is his responsibility for its right exercise diminished. If this viciousness amount to "total and utter depravity in all its parts and affections," particularly the will, then this defect of nature amounts to total disqualification for moral action, and moral inability becomes complete natural, physical inability, and a distinction is made where there is no difference. If in the unregenerate the will never acts right, in a single instance, then we have no evidence of its power to do so, and all possible evidence of the contrary. This appears moreover from the fact, as he states, that the first right exercise of this power is in consequence of the operation of the Holy Spirit. It appears, then, that the assertion of moral power previous to conversion, is made merely to get rid of the objection of man's irresponsibility, and not because it is consistent with the rest of the system. On this rock must all the New-School men split, who attempt to make up a compound system of theology out of the contradictory elements of Calvinism and Pelagianism. Either of them is logically inconsistent, but they can never amalgamate. One of them is inconsistent with the Divine attributes, and the moral phenomena of human nature, the other is inconsistent with both.

We might go on to notice other incongruities in the theology of Mr. Barnes; such as his maintaining that justification is simply pardon, and passing over the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness in profound silence; and then turning round when he wishes to show the Orthodox side of his face, and talking about being saved "through the merits of Christ." But we forbear. We have already exceeded the reasonable limits of a review.

In concluding, we say, that there is abundant reason for congratulation to all the friends of truth and liberty, in the rise, the progress, and termination of this controversy in the Presbyterian Church. It shows that the age is not standing still. The mind is bursting its fetters, and vindicating its birthright. That it should arrive at once at truth was not to be expected. It is enough to know that it is in progress towards it.

It is a curious fact, that the same discussion is going on, simultaneously, among the Orthodox sects in England, entirely unconnected with that in America, with similar results. A reprint of a work by a Mr. Hinton, shows that the whole sub

ject of Divine and human agency, in the work of salvation, is there undergoing a thorough examination, and, to apply our phraseology, a New School is forming on principles similar to those advanced and maintained in this country.

One good symptom in the present movement towards more rational views of religion is, that the people are with it. This has been indicated in many ways. It appears, we think, in the very discourse which led to all this disturbance. It bears on the face of it, though delivered in the midst of a revival, the marks of compromise and concession, a willingness to sacrifice some of the most obnoxious points of an obnoxious system to the reason of his hearers, for the sake of being allowed to retain the rest. Then again, the spirited manner in which his congregation rose as one man to defend him, and express their willingness to cut themselves loose from the Presbytery rather than give him up. We read the popular character of this movement, likewise, in the title which Dr. Junkin prefixes to his book, as given at the head of this article. A prosecutor must feel a very strong current setting against him and his cause, before he entitles his attack, a Vindication. We conclude, therefore, as we began, by saying, that the cause of Liberal Christianity has received a powerful impulse from the late doings in the Presbyterian Church, and that the end is not yet.

G. W. B.

ART. V. 1. Geschichtliche und statistische Nachrichten über die Universitäten im preussischen Staate. Von WILHELM DIETERICI, Königl. Geh. Ober-Regierungs Rathe, &c. Berlin. 1836. 8vo. pp. 188.

2. Index Lectionum, quæ Auspiciis Regis Augustissimi Frederici Guilelmi Tertii in Universitate litteraria Frederica Guilelma per Semestre Hibernum a. MDCCCXXXVMDCCCXXXVI, à die XIX Octobris, instituentur. Berolini. 4to. pp. 30.

THERE is not a prouder nation on the face of the earth than the Prussian. We Americans are proud of our enterprise, of

our commerce, of our free institutions, of liberty of thought and action, of our common schools, of our academies, colleges, universities, and above all and most justly, of the general intelligence and correct habits of thinking and acting among the people. We are eminently a practical nation. What is useful, what is serviceable to the individual and society, are with us the great questions. But these questions relate to immediate application, to the existing state of society and manners. Unquestionably there are men among us, who look beyond the spirit of the times, who rise above the demands of the age; men who investigate principles, who ask not so much what is popular, what is directly practicable, as what is universally and permanently true and useful, what is suitable to man's nature, what must now and always promote well-being and happiness. Yet this is not our national character. A young and ardent nation, we direct all our energies, and concentrate all our affections upon the immediate interests and occupations of the present times and our own society. The best thinkers among us are educated more by the circumstances of their condition, by the direct influences and spirit of the community around them, than by their own reflections, and by study of the temper, character, and opinions of other people and past generations. Our schools, colleges, and universities are all planned and conducted with a direct and sole view to immediate effect. The kind and amount of instruction given, or intended to be given, the habits of thinking and acting formed and strengthened by them, are precisely those, and those only, which we apprehend to be necessary or useful for our probable or certain situations and duties in life. We are educated to live, and to live in our own narrow spheres, and within the compass of a contracted worldly existence, instead of living to be educated in all our capacities, and for the free, harmonious, continual developement of all our powers and affections. We are prepared for enterprise and action in the spirit and temper of the times; but are not peculiarly qualified to watch over, reflect upon, and correct, modify or conciliate, the spirit and tendencies that exist. We are educated to act with the age, but not upon it; to answer the demands actually made upon us, but not to create a new character in the people, not to give a higher tone or different direction to the pursuits, inquiries, and affections of the community. We are educated, we say, to meet the demands actually made upon us, but not to tell what those de