and see even their own champion triumphing over a fallen adversary, without a revulsion of feeling, dangerous to the very cause which they have espoused and supported. I have known controversialists who seem to say, on almost every page, "We are the people, and wisdom shall die with ;" and I confess that whenever this is the case, it takes away not a little the confidence which I might otherwise feel in the correctness of their opinions. us; Your journal it is confidently believed, Mr. Editor, will soon gain a wide circulation; and we want to see it one of the great primaries of our moral system, revolving in so high an orbit, around the common centre of truth, as not to feel those little disturbing forces, to which minor satellites are liable. Permit me to make a remark here, upon the fashionable style of discussing almost all subjects, under the imposing title of reviews. I allude to those cases, where some recent publication is selected, not with a view to analyze the work itself, or to point out its merits or demerits, but to make it the occasion of descanting learnedly and eloquently upon what, oft times, can hardly be called a kindred subject. Now this, like some other imported fashions, does not agree well with our straight-forward, republican simplicity. If any book is really to be examined, let it by all means pass the customary ordeal. But, really, when a writer has something important to say, as the result of his own thinking or investigation; when he wishes, for instance, to present a cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith, in a clear, connected and convincing light, why should he concern himself about what somebody else may have written on a kindred subject, or even on the same subject? Why should he impose upon himself the embarrassment, of coming at the point in this awkward and circuitous way, when the whole wide field of independent discussion lies open before him? I am fully satisfied that sound theological investigation has, within the last fifteen years, been very considerably retarded and obstructed from this cause. Any man, it seems to me, who wishes to lay out all his strength upon some one of the great doctrines of the Bible, can give more unity, and point and freedom to his thoughts, in the old fashioned way of dissertation, than by trying to throw them into the shape of a review. Many things more I might say, and some things I in tended to say, with reference to doctrinal discussion, in your journal; but I am afraid of trespassing too long upon your patience, and of excluding more important matter from your pages. One thought more, however, I beg you will allow me to suggest. It is this: should your correspondents have occasion to appeal to our most distinguished theological writers, "who being dead yet speak," I hope, in the first place, they will not seem to put any human authority on a level with the Bible, or any where near it. What if one of your writers does happen to agree with Edwards, or Witherspoon, or Dwight, on some leading article in our confessions of faith; that he is found in very good company, no one will dispute. But it is possible he may be wrong after all; for no mere human authority, either of the living or the dead, is infallible. In the next place, I hope, that whenever the fathers of our church are appealed to, they will be allowed the privilege of speaking for themselves, and explaining their own meaning. It is not always, that even a great man, when he writes on great and difficult subjects, is perfectly consistent with himself throughout. And where he is, it may sometimes require a good deal of time and candour, in reading and comparing one part of his writings with another, to see their consistency. It is easy to select insulated passages from any book, comprising a system of religious truth, (the Bible not excepted,) which may seem to present discordant views of the essential elements of the Christian faith. But the general scope of a sensible author's meaning can generally be found out, even where there is a real or apparent clashing between some of his statements and arguments. Now it is very unfilial to disinter the inconsistencies of a venerable father, in order to sustain our own opinions, by making him say, in one place, what manifestly contradicts the drift of his general reasoning. And it is extremely unfair, to bring forward any writer as the advocate of doctrines, which, when we take the whole of his works together, it is manifest he never embraced. It shows, moreover, that a disputant is exceedingly hard pushed in the argument, or he would never resort to so disingenuous an expedient. I have dwelt so much longer than I intended upon the subject of doctrinal discussion, with reference to your forthcoming Quarterly, that I can only glance at several other topics, upon which I should be glad to extend my remarks. The importance, for instance, of making all the great doctrines of revelation bear directly upon Christian practice and Christian experience, can hardly be overrated. What the Scriptures teach of the being and perfections of God; of his mysterious subsistence, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; of our relations to him, as Creator, Preserver, and final Judge; of our native and entire alienation of heart from him; of his eternal purpose and electing grace; of the mediation and atoning sacrifice of Christ; of regeneration by the special agency of the Holy Spirit, and the kindred subjects of repentance, justification by faith alone, and the constant need of divine influence to carry forward the work of sanctification in the heart; these, according to the evangelical system, which it is understood you intend to advocate, are the doctrines that lie at the foundation of an enlightened, healthful, and vigourous piety. And if I am right in this view of the matter, the connexion between doctrines and duties, between the basis and the superstructure, ought to be more clearly pointed out, than they are apt to be, in the religious books and periodicals of the present day. Another suggestion which, with your permission, I will offer to your correspondents, is this. While great stress is laid, and justly, upon some prominent Christian duties, such as sending the Bible and missionaries to the heathen, furnishing all the destitute at home with religious instruction, and bringing up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; writers are too apt to forget, how wide and comprehensive the circle of action is, and to overlook those less prominent features of practical piety, which are essential to the symmetry and stature of "perfect men in Christ." True religion is the all pervading principle of obedience, in the renewed soul. It watches over all the movements of the hidden man of the heart; it rebukes and restrains the turbulent passions; it cherishes all the benevolent and kindly affections, and it touches all the relations of human life. How important is it, therefore, that these legitimate offices and influences should be traced out in all their secret bearings and minute ramifications! I hope the contributors to your work, will meditate deeply on this subject, and furnish us, from time to time, with such dissections of the Christian character, as will enable every reader to see what manner of man he is. All will admit, that in the excite ment and bustle of the religious efforts of the day, though still far below the gospel standard, Christians are in great danger of overlooking the source and spring of all acceptable action. Many seem to know more of almost every thing else, than they do of themselves. We exceedingly want a department, enriched with such matter as Evans on the Christian Temper, Owen on In-dwelling Sin, Flavel on keeping the Heart, and Baxter's Saint's Everlasting Rest. I can hardly think of any thing which would so much enhance the value of your journal. It is, you will permit me to add, my dear Sir, unspeakably important, in this blest age of religious revivals, that the nature and evidences of regeneration should be pointed out with great clearness, and frequency too, especially as the work of the Lord is often extremely rapid in its progress, and there is always so much danger of self-deception in young and ardent minds. I need not say, that this department of your work, including every thing else, which properly belongs to the infinitely momentous subject of revivals, will require much experience, uncommon judgement and discrimination, a deep knowledge of the human heart, and an intimate acquaintance with the Holy Scriptures. May God in great mercy to the church, constrain those of his servants, whom he has qualified to counsel and guide in these critical circumstances, to give us the benefit of their wisdom and experience! One thought more, and I will bring this letter to a close. When any thing appears in a religious periodical, which is not exactly adapted to the state of things in a particular section of the church where it circulates, some readers are apt to find fault with its management, as if what they do not need, must, of course, be put down to the score of lost labour and expense. I hope you may never be embarrassed by this complaint from any quarter. It is based upon extremely limited views of the wants of a great religious community. As your work is to circulate in various and widely distant parts of the country, and will have to encounter open infidelity in one region, unitarianism in another, romanism in a third, and some other errour in a fourth, it ought, as far as practicable, to consult the wishes and interests of all its patrons. And to this end, it must of necessity have its local, as well as general bearings upon the cause of truth and righteousness. I conclude, with offering my fervent supplications to the Father of lights, that he will richly endue you, and the dear brethren, your more immediate associates and advisers, with all needful wisdom, and knowledge, and grace; that in the faithful discharge of your arduous duties, you may grow in favour with God and man; and that the work of the Lord, which you have undertaken, may greatly prosper in your hands. With great respect, I subscribe myself sincerely yours, Amherst College, Dec. 21, 1833. ART. III.-GOD WITHOUT PASSIONS. By Rev. JOHN WOODBRIDGE, D. D. Pastor of the Bowery Church, New-York. BRAHMINICAL philosophers, Epicureans, and infidels,* who reject the Christian religion, have to a great extent denied to the Deity, under pretence of doing him honour, those moral perfections, by which he is proved to be the patron of virtue, and the enemy and punisher of sin. The assumptions of such daring speculators are contradicted by both reason and scripture. The reality of principles, equivalent to moral feelings, in God, (though, of course, infinitely distant from every thing which imports fickleness or imperfection,) is manifest from the fact of his performing any operations, and especially from the nature of those acts, which are achieved by his agency. We cannot conceive of him as purposing to act without some motive, nor of a motive or inward spring of action, which has no moral character; that is, which is neither selfish nor benevolent,-adapted to gratify neither a holy disposition, nor a mixed one, nor a temper of absolute malignity. What better than blind fatalism can that Power be, which exerts its energies without any rational inducement, or desirable end to be accomplished by its exertions? The nature of the effects which God has produced; the implantation of conscience in the human bosom; the connexion he has established between certain moral actions and appropriate physical consequences; and the obvious tendency of his general system *Bolingbroke, for example, blames divines for distinguishing between the natural and moral attributes of God. |