delight and control the public mind as in the manner of Jeffrey and Macaulay. It is not enough that we present truth; we must present it agreeably, nay delightfully, and if possible irresistibly. The fertilizing influence of classical poetry, eloquence and philosophy, and of the kindred fruits of modern romantic literature on such a mind as this, must be appa rent to every reader of the essays. Many an admirer, on laying aside the book, filled with rapture at what he regards as mere style, will doubtless try to do the like, and to write in the same manner. He may imitate the turn of the expression, or the structure of the periods, but after all the attempt will be ridiculously vain, unless his mind be stored with the same riches of literature. That such accomplishments are useless, few maintain in terms; yet we fear many who are preparing for the service of the church give no time or care to the acquisition of them. Let such consider for an instant, what would be the effect of such writing as that which lies before us, if to all the fascination of taste and genius which it professes, there were added the fire of religion; if the charming effusions of Macaulay were informed by the holy zeal of his devoted father; if the spoils of gentile and of Gothic learning were laid at the feet of Christ; and he will feel that it would be sacrilege to withhold the tribute. The union is not inconceivable or chimerical. A few such men appear among the warmest followers of the Redeemer. Hall was as learned as Mackintosh; Chalmers is as commanding as Brougham; and whatever be the present condition of things in our own land, Learning has borne such fruit in other days VOL. XII. NO. 3. 58 QUARTERLY LIST OF NEW BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS. The Infancy of the Union. A Discourse delivered before the New York Historical Society, Thursday, December 19, 1839. By William B. Reed. Published at the request of the Society. Philadelphia: J. Crissy. 1840, pp. 50. Mr. Reed, has already distinguished himself as a successful cultivator of our early national history. The object of the above discourse is to unfold the causes of the ready union of the several provinces in their opposition to Great Brittain, and in the formation of a general government. Composed originally of dissimi lat and, to a certain extent, of discordant materials, the reason is not at first view obvious, of their realy convalesence into one people and one government. Mr. Reed traces the causes which had broken down the differences between the population of the several colonies, and produced a real or social union long before the occasion arrived for their coming forth as politically one before the world. This task is executed with so much taste and talent as to strengthen, we presume, the already prevalent wish, that he may find leisure to prosecute his favourite researches and rear some abiding monument of his labours. A Letter to the Rev. Ezra S. Gannett, of Boston, occasioned by his Tract on Atonement. By Nehemiah Adams, Pastor of Essex Street Church, Boston. Boston James Munroe & Company. 1840. pp. 64. 66 : The doctrine taught by Mr. Gannett in the Tract which called forth Mr. Adams' Letter is presented with due distinctness in the following sentences. The notion," says Mr. Gannett, "that God could not or would not have for given the sinner upon the most complete repentance, if Christ had not died, so as to render it possible for the heavenly Father to forgive, may be found in almost every system of Christian theology, and infuses into them all the leaven of corruption." Again, " In all these exhibitions of the doctrine, we observe the same idea constituting the corner stone, the idea that the death of Christ was effica cious to procure pardon for the penitent." The notion of the availableness of the death of Christ to procure pardon in some other way than by leading the sinner to repentance," he pronounces it to be, "irrational, unscriptural, and pernicious.' He quotes from a Romish Formulary, from the Westminster Large Catechism, and from the Thirty-nine Articles, to show how extensively, "the notion" which he thus earnestly repudiates has prevailed. To those who esteem the doctrine of the efficacy of Christ's death in procuring pardon for the penitent, as the living principle of the Gospel, and the only enduring ground of the sinner's hope, it is a constant source of thankfulness that, in the midst of the diversities of sentiment which have ever divided the church, this great central doctrine has maintained its position in the creed of every organized christian society. And on the other hand, the rejection of this doctrine, by those who profess to receive the Bible as a revelation from God, and whose official business is to explain it to the people, is no less constantly a source of wonder and sadness. Mr. Adams, after vindicating the commonly received doctrine of the atonement, from the charge of representing God as unmerciful, or of himself indisposed to pardon and restore the sinner, devotes the greater part of his letter to the refutation of Mr. Gannett's assertion that that doctrine is irrational, unscriptural, and pernicious. We need hardly say we consider this refutation successful. Any scriptural text relating to the subject is a refutation. If the doctrine is in the Bible, we have little concern about arguments designed to prove it irrational, not that we suppose there can be any real contrariety between the declarations of the Scriptures and the reason of man; for this would be to say there was a contradiction between truth and truth; but what we believe, how ever, to be a fact too much forgotten is, that in relation to God, we are children, and that it does not become children to vaunt their reason greatly, when listening to their father's instruction. Mr. Gannett attempts first to show that the common doctrine is irrational, and then that it is unscriptural. This is an invertion of the proper order of enquiry. The first question should be, is the doctrine scriptural? If this be decided in the negative, its being irrational may indeed very properly be shown, but the proof of the latter point, could add little to the obligation of Christians to reject it as an article of faith. But if that previous question is decided in the affirmative, and the doctrine still be found really irrational, our only course is to reject the scriptures as an inspired record of divine truth; for an irrational revelation from God is a contradiction. The investigator therefore who begins by proving a doctrine irrational, forestalls all appeal to the Scriptures. Such an appeal is no longer in place, and can no longer be reverently or rationally made. Mr. Adams has spoken the truth in love, throughout his letter, in a manner much to his credit as a minister of Christ. He has shown that the objections urged by Mr. Gannett to the cardinal doctrine of our faith, whether derived from scripture or reason, are destitute of force; and he has made it painfully clear that that gentleman, "evidently understands and intelligently rejects Christ crucified as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin." What Christian can read the following passage without sorrow and astonishment. "The conscience-stricken sinner," says Mr. Gannett " makes Christ his refuge, as if the mercy of God were not large enough to overshadow him. The humble disciple casts himself upon the sacrifice of Christ, as if its whole value did not consist in the persuasion which it utters to submit the soul to God. The dying believer leans on the ' merits of Christ,' as he has been taught to style services which are sadly misrepresented by such a term; and when pointed to the mercy of God, feebly reiterates that he trusts in his Saviour. To me language of this kind.is indiscribably painful. The merits of Christ! where could such language have been learned? Not from the Bible, where it never appears. Not from the teaching of Christ, who never sanctioned its use. Trust in the Saviour! Why not trust in God?" How deep is the gulf which separates those who can use such language, from those who believe that Christ is their wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption! We take it for granted that Mr. Gannett does not profess to believe the Scriptures. He may believe that they contain a supernatural revelation, communicated by ignorant, prejudiced and erring men, and therefore filled with Jewish exaggerations and errors, leaving us under the necessity, by the light of our own minds, of separating the true from the false, what Christ really taught from what his incompetent disciples say he taught. But as to believing the correctness of the prophetic and apostolic representations of the true religion, and yet to make such a formal renunciation of all trust in Christ for salvation, we hold to be impossible. We cannot close this brief notice of Mr. Adams' Letter without expressing our pleasure at the indications which it contains of a more scriptural theology, as we regard it, than we have been accustomed to see from many of our New England brethren. He quotes Mr. Gannett as saying: "The imputation of the sinner's guilt to Christ contradicts our natural notions of justice," and adds, "Isaiah was of a different opinion. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all.' Peter said of Christ, Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we being dead to sin might live unto righteousness; by whose stripes we are healed.'" The imputation of the sinner's guilt to Christ, is one of those doctrines for which Old School men have been most severely censured. To find it now defended in such a quarter is matter for sincere gratulation. Letters to the Rev. Leonard Bacon, in Reply to his Attack on the Pastoral Union and Theological Institute of Connecticut. By Rev. George A. Calhoun, Pastor of the Church in North Coventry, Conn. Hartford: 1840. pp. 94. As these letters constitute an important part of the history of the New Haven controversy, which unfortunately is as much a matter of concern to the Presbyterian, as to the Congregational churches, it is with extreme regret that we are obliged to consign them to a place in our short notices. Until a late period in our preparations for this number, we expected to be able to present our readers with a full exhibition of their merits. And we still hope an opportunity may be afforded to discharge this duty. In the mean time, we can only call attention to them as deserving the careful examination of all interested in the controversy to which they relate. Our readers will remember that Dr. Cox presented himself to the General Association of Connecticut, in 1839, as the delegate from the General Assem bly of the Presbyterian church. The whole Association, we believe, was willing to receive him in his true character as the representative of the New School Assembly, but the Doctor, suffering under what, on another occasion, he called "a hiatus of his wisdom," a chronic and incurable disease, insisted on being recognized as the delegate of the “General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America." This exorbitant demand was strenuously, and we are happy to add, successfully resisted by the old school portion of the Association. A correspondent of the New Haven Record, in giving an account of these proceedings, indulged in such accusations against those who had opposed the reception of Dr. Cox in his fictitious character, that Mr. Calhoun felt called in self-defence to correct his representations. Mr. Bacon seized upon that opportunity to address to Mr. Calhoun a series of letters, in which, with great severity, he censures the whole course of the opponents of the New Haven theology in Connecticut. It is in answer to these letters, the pamphlet before us was written. It throws a great deal of light on the origin and progress of the controversy which has so long agitated the Congregational and Presbyterian ehurch, and effectually refutes the charges brought against the Pastoral Union, and friends of orthodoxy. These Letters are not only distinguished for strength and weight in statement and argument, but for the higher merits of dignity and Christian temper. They must serve to open the eyes of those who have been reluctant to see; and to strengthen the hands of those who have hitherto hesitated to act. Views and Reviews. No. II. May, 1840. An Appeal against Divisions; with an Appendix of Notes on Mr. Calhoun's Letters. By Leonard Bacon, Pastor of the First Church in New Haven. New Haven: Durrie & Peck. 1840. pp. 144. This appeal consists of three parts. In the first, Mr. Bacon shows, from the declarations and acts of a portion of the ministers of Connecticut, that there is reason to apprehend a division of the churches in that state. In the second, he exhibits the points of agreement and disagreement between the new and old school parties there. And in the third, he argues the question, whether, under existing circumstances, a division is proper or desirable. Here, as in his Letters to Mr. Calhoun, the whole sin of contention and division, should the latter event occur, is laid at the door of the opponents of the new doctrines. The churches in Connecticut, and those within our own bounds, were in general harmonious, and had every prospect of so remaining, when certain ministers began to advance doctrines announced as improvements, recommended as clearing away difficulties, as effectually “pulling the bear skin off the face of Calvinism," and depriving it of all the hediousness which had so long made it an offence or foolishness. To these innovators belongs the honour of doing the cause of truth a great service; or the guilt of propagating error and destroying the peace of the church. They are the movement party for good or for evil. They are the aggressors. By what means, then, can the responsibility be thrown on the other side? They confessedly remain on the old ground. They |