of Oxford and of the ruling spirits there by whose influence and procurement he was condemned as a heretic? If all the learning and logic of that famous university were mistaken in the case of Dr. Hampden, is it not possible that Dr. Bushnell may be many degrees less heterodox than he has been thought to be by the Church Review and in some other respectable quarters? But if Oxford was right, what must we infer concerning the åbility of the Church of England to throw off heresy?

Take another fact which will not be disputed. Within the last thirty years, there has been developed within the Church of England, chiefly by influences concentrated in its two great universities, a powerful movement toward all the heresies of Romanism. That tendency to Rome, which in its recent development has been named from Oxford and the Oxford Tracts, has always existed in the Church of England, and has had, from time to time, its paroxysms of special activity. Any body can see that the tendency is not merely chronic, but constitutional. The errors of Romanism are essentially subversive of Christianity; yet, in the Anglican communion, they propagate themselves from age to age, and the church with its episcopacy and its sequence of doctrine has not the ability to throw off such heresies. Multitudes, within a few years past, have done what Bishop Ives has just been doing-have gone over in form to the Roman communion. But among them all, how many can be named who have gone otherwise than voluntarily, or otherwise than in good and regular standing? Among those assiduous and mischievous disseminators of false doctrine, what one has been excommunicated, or degraded from the ministry, or even arraigned before an ecclesiastical tribunal for his heresy? To how many of their pupils and adherents has any bishop in England ever dared to refuse ordination on the score of doctrinal unsoundness? In vain do we look for any indication that the Church of England has "the ability to purge itself of such heresies without being pervaded by their influence."

Doubtless the Anglo-American Church has in many respects the advantage over the mother Church. It has facilities for dealing promptly and effectively with error, which the Church of England, in its dependence on the state, cannot have. But to what extent does the administration of discipline by American bishops, differ in this respect from the administration of discipline in the Church of England? In this same Number of the Church Review we find an allusion (p. 27) to the history of the somewhat notorious individual who preceded the Rev. Philander Chase (late bishop of Illinois) in the care of the Episcopal Church at Hartford, and "whose doubtful service, doubtful in

all senses, closed with the abandonment of the Church for the Universalist pulpit." Doubtless that man was in due form deposed from his dignity and office, after he had accepted an invitation to become the stated preacher in a Universalist conventicle, and had notified the bishop accordingly; but had "the Church" ever previously dealt with him for his heretical doctrine? Did he not stay as long as he chose; and when he found he could do better, did he not go of his own choice? What was it that took him over into the Universalist connection? Had he "found in the Church a repellent power which he could not resist," or had he found a stronger attraction out of the Church? How many instances do the records of the dioceses show of ecclesiastical censure inflicted for unsoundness of doctrine? There cannot but be unsoundness of doctrine, and a great deal of it, in a Church which is indoctrinating and training so many into complete Romanism, and from which men and women, students, deacons, priests, and even bishops, are steadily graduating into full communion with Rome. We remember an instance in which the trial of a fatuous young presbyter, for some extravagances of doctrine, shook the diocese of Massachusetts, and was sounded abroad through the country; but, if we remember right, he was acquitted of all heresy ;-and where he now is, we cannot tell. When Congregationalists and Presbyterians shall begin to rush into Unitarianism as Episcopalians are rushing into Romanism, when the theology taught in our schools shall have the same affinities with Strauss and Parker, which the theology of Oxford and of "the General Theological Seminary at New York," has with the Council of Trent, we shall begin to be seriously alarmed. Nay, has not Oxford itself begun to be noteworthy not only as a fountain of superstition, but also as a fountain of Naturalism and infidelity? Can the reviewer forget that there have been two Froudes and two Newmans-all from Oxford?*

It would be less than justice to the theology of the Church Review, if we should dismiss the article before us without some notice of a topic on which the reviewer seems to be particularly clouded in his mind. At the hazard of repeating some things which were said in a former article, we will try to make the reviewer see his own position on the doctrine of original sin.

* The reviewer asks, "Has not a Unitarian minister been received into a Congregational pulpit in New Haven?" We answer, NO. As what is thus indirectly stated, has been expressly asserted in some quarters, we will say that we are aware of the fact on which the story is founded. The "minister" referred to is not a Unitarian, and was not introduced "into a Congregational pulpit in New Haven" till the pastor inviting him had what he regarded as satisfactory evidence on that point.

In the Church Review for October, 1852, our author undertook to show that it is impossible to hold the doctrine of original sin, soundly and consistently, unless we will hold also the doctrine that the guilt of original sin is remitted in baptism. His words are,

營

*

*

*

* *

"It is impossible, without destroying the attribute of justice in God, to hold that any guilt attaches to Original Sin, previous to the actual choice of transgression; unless there is also held a doctrine which New England rejects as a foul and fatal error, the doctrine of 'one Baptism for the remission of sins.' * Any Churchman, so holds the doctrine of Baptism, as that he can also hold the guilt of Original Sin, without impugning the Divine justice. * If God permits men, without agency or fault of their own, to come into the world, with not only a depraved nature, but also with a guilt attaching to that nature, which, in the words of Art. IX, 'deserveth God's wrath and damnation,' then evidently some mode might be looked for, in which with as little agency on the part of an individual, this guilt could be remitted. This mode is afforded in the institution of Infant Baptism. In this, the guilt of Original Sin is remitted to the recipient-though the infection is not removed-with no more agency on his own part than he had in his creation, while there can be no actual transgression to forgive. * Now where this doctrine is not held, where it is not believed that God has graciously instituted a means by which the guilt of Original Sin can be so remitted, there men's instinctive sense of right and justice makes them uneasy."

*

*
*

Our readers will recollect the comments which we made on this singular statement, in our last Number, (pp. 109-111.) We thought we had made ourselves intelligible. It did not occur to us that any human being capable of reading the English language could miss the drift and bearing of our remarks. Our point was this: The reviewer holds that the imputation of guilt to infants who have not personally sinned, is shocking to the moral sense, and cannot be reconciled with the justice of God. He holds that God having permitted helpless and unof fending infants to come under "wrath and damnation," is bound in justice to help them out of the guilt which lies upon them, without agency or fault of their own. We pointed out a discrepancy between the reviewer's notion and the article of his own Church referred to by himself-between his notion, that in original sin there is no ill-desert that can justify the infliction of punishment, and the article which declares that original sin "deserveth God's wrath and damnation." We also suggested the question whether a man who holds that original sin, though it draws punishment after it, implies no real desert of punishment-can be regarded as really believing that doctrine of original sin, which he says the New England theology rejects, and the rejection of which he imputes as heresy. To all this he now makes answer, as follows.

"But we reached, it appears, the climax of absurdity and atrocity,' in connecting God's justice with this forgiveness. Now we certainly had no idea,-though

we did not suppose it necessary to say so, in so many words,-of disconnecting this forgiveness, from the Vicarious Sacrifice of Atonement. That is, of course, of God's most free and undeserved grace. But then, in Him who made it, mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other.' And it becomes possible therefore, to speak of justice, in connection with the institutions and arrangements, under that Atonement; and even to say, that where they are not received and believed as God appointed them, then the attempt will be made to vindicate God's justice in other ways. We use the expression, precisely as St. John employs it when he says, 'If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. Nor could we have thought of Baptism, except as an Institution, established under and to apply the benefits of, the atonement." pp. 90-100.

Somewhat wide of the mark! As if the doctrine which we pronounced "ungodly and atrocious," was nothing else than "connecting God's justice with the forgiveness" signified in baptism! Most undoubtedly the forgiveness announced in the Gospel is not granted or sealed to sinners at the expense of God's justice. Who does not know-who suspected the reviewer of not knowing-that the end for which Christ was offered as a propitiation for sin, is, "that God may be just and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus?" The position on which we were commenting, was, not that it is consistent with God's justice to forgive sin, through Christ the Redeemer, but the much more singular and surprising position, (especially for a man in the act of depreciating other people's orthodoxy,) that though original sin brings guilt upon the soul and is liable to punishment, yet inasmuch as it implies no personal demerit and is not the fault of those whom it infects, it would have been unjust in God to punish that sin if he had not provided for its being washed away in baptism. We understood the reviewer as teaching that the idea of subjecting infants to punishment on account of original sin, "destroys the attribute of justice in God," but that the idea of subjecting infants to punishment because though born in a Christian land, they have not been baptized for the remission of their original sin, is an idea which "men's instinctive sense of right and justice" can get along with very easily. Did we misunderstand him? Have we misquoted him? Have we put upon his language any meaning which he did not give to it, or which is not essential to the coherence of his argument?

Should the reviewer try his hand again on this topic of original sin, it would not be amiss for him to remember that the subject is one upon which the New England teachers of theology, from the elder Edwards to Professor Park, have expended much serious and patient thought; which they have analyzed with a degree of acuteness not unworthy even of his respect; and which they have traced out, not without great disputation

among themselves, into its logical connections with psychology and metaphysics, as well as with the doctrines of redemption. And if they have, some of them, learned to use certain terms with an exactness of discrimination, and even in a shade of signification, not common among Anglican theologianswhose studies, especially of late, have tended in other directions, it does not follow that they deny or impair the doctrine around which all their theology is arranged, and which they have labored to illustrate that it might commend itself alike to consciousness and to conscience. Dr. Daniel Dana is doubtless a good man, venerable for his age and for the ever-growing fervor of his zeal in behalf of what he supposes to be the only orthodoxy; but the Church Review would do well to remember that his representations about Professor Park and the degeneracy of the times, are to be taken (like the New York Churchman's representations of Connecticut Episcopalianism) cum grano salis. Let the reviewer study thoroughly Edwards, Hopkins, Emmons, and he will probably understand, better than Dr. Dana can tell him, what is the doctrine taught at Andover, and what are the distinctions about which living divines have had their controversies.

ART. VIII. THE NEW INFIDELITY.

THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH; or, a Visit to a Religious Sceptic. Boston Crosby, Nichols & Co., 1852. 12mo. pp. 452. THE RESTORATION OF BELIEF. I. Christianity in relation to its ancient and Modern Antagonists. II. On the supernatural element contained in the Epistles, and its bearing on the argument. Philadelphia: H. Hooker, 1853. 12mo. pp. 232.

THESE two volumes are reprints from recent English works. Their appearance in England indicates that English theologians and pamphleteers are somewhat aroused to the inroads of unbelief upon the better classes of English society. Their republication in this country shows that some of the friends of Christianity believe it is time that the same unbelief with us were boldly confronted and its pretensions earnestly discussed. We have for a long time believed that the so-called leaders in the