listic literature of Germany; and not a few have already been brought under its blighting and destructive influence. And have we not in our own country Unitarianism, Universalism, and other heresies, whose name is Legion? But not to dwell on these gross and obvious forms of error, are there no errors in the bosom of the professedly orthodox church itself? Certainly it is no breach of charity to maintain the existence of error even in this sacred enclosure. Let us but glance at New England, to say nothing of other sections of our land. And we do not intend to speak particularly of the grosser heresies which have become so fearfully prevalent in Puritanic soil. We do not wish to dwell on the Socinian heresy-to speak of Unitarian institutions and churches, from whose pulpits is proclaimed. from Sabbath to Sabbath the denial of our Saviour's divinity, thus attempting to blot the very sun from the ecclesiastical heavens, and burying the hopes of our race in one common grave. We would direct attention to the new views in philosophy and in theology advanced in New England by Dr Taylor and his associates; whose views became known subsequently under the title of "New Theology," as distinguished from the faith of the original Presbyterian and Congregational Churches. In this new theology, a fundamental point of difference relates to the doctrine of original sin. And here we would quote the language of Dr Beecher :—

"The Reformers, with one accord, taught that the sin of Adam was imputed to all his posterity, and that a corrupt nature descends from him to every one of his posterity; in consequence of which infants are unholy, unfit for heaven, and justly exposed to future punishment. Their opinion seems to have been, that the very substance or essence of the soul was depraved, and that the moral contamination extended alike to all its powers and faculties, insomuch that sin became a property of every man's nature, and was propagated as really as flesh and blood. ... Our Puritan fathers adhered to the doctrine of original sin, as consisting in the imputation of Adam's sin, and in a hereditary depravity; and this continued to be the received doctrine of the churches of New England until after the time of Edwards. He adopted the views of the Reformers on the subject of original sin, as consisting in the imputation of Adam's sin, and a depraved nature transmitted by descent. But after him this mode of stating the subject was gradually changed, until long since the prevailing doctrine in New England has been, that men are not guilty of Adam's sin, and that depravity is not of the substance of the soul, nor an inherent or physical quality, but is wholly voluntary, and consists in a transgression of the law in such circumstances as constitute accountability and desert of punishment."*

Such, then, according to Dr Beecher, are the prevailing

* Dr Beecher's controversy with the Editor of the "Christian Examiner in the Spirit of the Pilgrims," in 1828, as quoted in the "Biblical Repertory." See also "Old and New Theology," by James Wood, D.D.

views of New England, on the important doctrine of original sin! And those who are acquainted with the "New Theology," know quite well that this error does not stand alonethat this constitutes a starting-point, from which are deduced legitimately a long series of doctrines, which are very properly regarded as forming a new system. Such a Pelagian view of sin must lead to a new conception of human freedom, of regeneration and conversion, and, in a word, must place in a modified aspect every vital doctrine of Christianity. The church itself, in her proper character as a divine institution, the Christian ministry, and the holy sacraments, all must suffer when viewed from this wrong stand-point. And what have been the fruits of this new system, of this departure from the original faith of the church, the venerable standards of the blessed Reformation? Superficial views of sin, defective conceptions of regeneration, and of the union of believers with Christ-not a few, indeed, deny such union altogether. And how do such regard the church, the Lamb's bride? Alas, with but little respect! And the holy sacraments? These, under the influence of such views, are regarded not as holy seals, but simply as signs-they are stript of all mystery, and thus brought down to an ignoble level with carnal reason. Alas! where will these wrong tendencies end, unless they soon meet with a decided check?

ART. III.-A View of the Scripture Revelations concerning a Future State. By RICHARD WHATELY, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin. Philadelphia: Lindsay and Blackiston. 1855. Pp. 300.

THIS work will be found chiefly valuable, not as a contribution to scientific eschatology, but as an earnest effort to clear up the impressions prevailing among the masses in the church concerning death, the intermediate state, the resurrection, the judgment, and the final states of the righteous and the wicked, and to present ideas suggested by the Scriptures on these subjects in a plain way, for the edification of ordinary minds. As such, it is certainly a valuable production; and some portions of it, at least, could not be too highly commended. The name of the author is itself a warrant for a well-considered, honest, cautious, and suggestive treatise, adapted to its design. The great plainness, even homeliness, of the style, we are prepared for by the remark in the preface, that the style, "which was adopted with a view to the instruction of a mixed congregation,

consisting principally of the unlearned, . . . . . has been retained, as appearing the best suited to meet the wants of various classes of readers, and the most in accordance with the character of a work designed to be, in its matter, plain and popular, without any abstruse metaphysical disquisitions."

The book consists of a series of lectures on the various topics included under the general subject of the Future State, delivered to the people of his parish by a faithful labourer in word and doctrine.

A glance at the history of eschatology shows two things very plainly. First, that the Christian mind is farther fron being settled on the subject of the last things, than on perhaps any other; so that this department of theology is likely to be the last to attain scientific maturity. And secondly, that the subject has a perpetual interest for the Christian mind,-the greater, perhaps, because of the indefiniteness in which the Scriptures have left it. There surely is some truth in the idea, which, in one form or another, has haunted at least some corner of the church in all ages,-the idea of an approaching new dispensation, which should be distinctively the dispensation of the Holy Ghost. Wherever an expectation of this sort has been avowed, as it was avowed with remarkable earnestness by the Abbot Joachim towards the close of the middle age, and as it might be supposed to appear in the rise of such sects as the Swedenborgian and Irvingite, it has arisen from a sense of imperfection in the present spiritual intelligence of man. It is a faithful and reliable witness, that we do not yet know all that may be known respecting the spiritual kingdom, and that even our Christian conceptions are, in many instances at least, far from presenting us with the ultimate or absolute truth. As the law left the intelligent and earnest Jew anxiously feeling after something more satisfactory than the law, as a revelation of God; so the Christian dispensation thus far seems to leave the Christian mind in darkness, or in uncertain twilight, on many points on which it longs for clear knowledge. Yet, in both cases, this very longing is an evidence of the relative perfection of the existing revelation; for the great object of all earthly revelation is to beget in men a hungering and thirsting after the higher and absolutely perfect knowledge to be attained in the heavenly state.

The work before us is an interesting testimony to the indefiniteness of even the Christian revelation on the subject of the future life; and it is fitted to produce on the mind of the reflecting reader a true and salutary impression of the narrow limits of our knowledge. We do wrong to depreciate, in any degree, the great advantage of the Christian dispensation over that of Moses; but we do equal wrong to push our exaltation

of the present to a fanatical extreme, at the expense of either the past or the future. To give the gospel all the honour which its stanchest friends can wish to claim for it, we need not regard it as opening every thing to view, or settling definite conceptions for us on every point. Respecting the future state, our Lord and the apostles seem to give much information. The New Testament abounds with representations of the judgment, the endless rewards of the righteous, and the endless punishments of the wicked; as it does with prophetic descriptions of the second coming of Christ, and as the Old Testament did with pictures of Messianic times. We take these representations which lie so plain on the surface, as it were, of divine revelation, and form from them views which seem to go quite into detail respecting the course of the soul after death. These we hold as the orthodox views, settled by the Bible. When thoughts are suggested which seem to depart from them, or conflict with them, and leave the language of Scripture in some cases only symbolical, they strike us as opposed to the truth, and as going to undermine the doctrine of Scripture, and they find not entrance enough into our minds to be fairly revolved. The less a man reflects, the more he thinks he knows. Our author writes here like one who weighs all his words. And he finds reason to speak on many points with less confidence than many of his less thoughtful readers would do. The more a man reflects, the less he finds he knows, and the more cautious he becomes both in forming opinions and in expressing them; and we may add, with our eye on the pages in hand, the more suggestive and valuable his productions become. "Our Lord's account," says Dr Whately" (as well as that of his apostles), of a future life, though most clear and positive as to the fact, is so scanty and imperfect as to the circumstances, that our curiosity is rather awakened than satisfied. We are told, indeed, as much as is sufficient for our practical use, when we have the certain assurance of future rewards and punishments, and the means set before us by which immortal life may be secured; but we are not told, by any means, all that we might naturally wish to know. Much is withheld from us, doubtless for good reasons; but for reasons which we cannot always fully perceive, though we may sometimes in part guess at them."-(P. 45.)

The absence of a positive expression of opinion on several points brought before us in this book, might bring upon the author, from many readers, the reproach of being non-committal, and might excite suspicions of his orthodoxy on these points. But the honest inquirer after truth will fully agree with our author, when he forestalls such a judgment in the language immediately following the above:

"For instance, we are not expressly told anywhere in Scripture what becomes of a man immediately after death, during the interval between that and the final resurrection at the last day. There are some persons, indeed, who pronounce very confidently on this point; but without, I think, any sufficient grounds for that confidence. It is a more prudent, and humbler, and safer course, not to pretend to be wise above what is written, nor to know what our great Master has not thought fit to teach. To abstain from positive assertions, where there is no good ground for them, may be, to some of my readers, unsatisfactory; but surely doubt is better than error, or the chance of error; and acknowledged ignorance is wiser than groundless presumption. Conjectures, indeed, if cautiously and reverently framed, may be allowed, in a case where there is no certain knowledge; but I dare not speak positively when the Scriptures do not."

This is certainly a mental posture to be altogether approved, and one which ought to prevail in all students of the mysteries of the spiritual kingdom. The principle thus stated by our author could not fail of good effect, if applied in the whole field of theological thought, to the unsparing mortification of all that narrowness of mind which assumes, whether avowed or not, the infallibility of private opinion.

Connected with this inquiring reserve, which appears to characterise our work, is the absence of glowing, sensuous representations of scenes of the spiritual world; the restraint of that kind of fancy, which, with all its soaring, does not get above the material world, but is still entangled with the cumbrous notions of time and space. It is not uncommon to go quite into detail in descriptions of the resurrection, the general judgment, the enjoyments of heaven, and the torments of hell. Such descriptions may not be false, considered as symbols of spiritual facts otherwise incomprehensible to the finite mind, for the Scripture employs them to some extent; but they may be easily indulged to the hinderance of a truly spiritual progress, and, if too much pressed, introduce perplexing questions without number, founded only in this sensuous fancy, and having really no place in a proper view of an eternal, spiritual state. So long as such representations are used only as aids to edifying meditation, they are safe and useful; but in the sphere of logic and dogmatics they never fail to lead to inextricable confusion, which has the additional disadvantage of being altogether gratuitous. Our author does not indulge them much. He seems not, indeed, fully to reach the principle on which they should be discarded, otherwise his whole discussion of the "intermediate state" would have taken a different turn; but he gets such glimpses of it occasionally, as make us wonder he does not admit it to wider influence over his thoughts. We mean the principle, that time and space are mere conditions of this earthly, phenomenal