minating Grace or the Illumination of the sinner called into the Church, Converting Grace, Regenerating Grace, Justifying Grace, Indwelling Grace and the Mystical Union, Renovating Grace, Preserving Grace and the Perseverance of the faithful, Glorifying Grace and the eternal Blessedness of the believing who persevere, together with the everlasting Damnation of the unbelieving. It was not necessary for me to write out these several particulars, because they can be found in Schmid's work mentioned above; but I have done so designedly, because they show that Quenstedt, as well as Hollaz, describes not only the active but also the passive operations of grace, and thus intends to give the Order of Salvation complete. But when, in the doctrine of the Means of Salvation, both of them return to this subject, a mistake, which Schmid also points out, is certainly made in the systematic arrangement. They oppose the means on the part of God to the means on the part of man, and thus treat of Repentance, Faith, and Good Works. (Quenstedt having already brought the doctrine of Repentance into the chapter on Applying Grace, discusses only Faith and Good Works). The moments of the Order of Salvation can not be unfolded without these means on the part of man, and to think of fulfilling these conditions by his own strength, lies just exactly at the farthest remove from the old Protestant theology. For Conversion in particular there is, besides the active and passive conceptions, still a third intransitive conception; but Hollaz exhibits this third one also, when, On Converting Grace, Question 1, Proof b, he adds to the well-known comparison with the trunk and the stone, another not less clear: "Intransitive Conversion is the terminus and effect of transitive Conversion, and is Repentance itself, in which the sinner, through the strength conferred by divine converting grace, and passively received, is said to convert himself, just as a ship is said to turn itself, although it does so, not by its own power, but by that of the sailors." However the old Protestant divines were led to that arrangement, not merely in the interest of human freedom, but chiefly because of the necessity of discussing the principal Protestant dogmas outside of the Order of Salvation.

[CONCLUDED IN OUR NEXT NUMBER.]

ART. VI. HOPKINSIANISM BEFORE HOPKINS."
[Supplement to Article in the October Number.]

IN THE previous number of this REVIEW, we gave a highly interesting paper, under the above caption, in connection with an original Letter, never before published, from KOGER SHERMAN to DR. HOPKINS. We think it was made evident in the article referred to that the tenet which has been regarded as peculiar to Hopkins-" willingness to be damned for the glory of God," was held in its full extent by Thomas Hooker, of Hartford, and, in a qualified manner, by his sonin-law, Thomas Shepard, of Cambridge, more than a century before Hopkins entered upon his public ministry.

Still it is left somewhat doubtful, whether Hopkins was aware of the views of Hooker and Shepard, although strong presumptive evidence is furnished that he was. This evidence consists in the fact that Giles Firmin's book, in refutation of Hooker and Shepard, was republished in this country at Boston in 1742, and could not have been unknown to Edwards, with whom Hopkins was intimate, and at whose house he repeatedly visited. It would, of course, become naturally a topic of conversation, and Hopkins would become aware of the sentiments of Hooker and Shepard, names which he would regard with the highest respect.

But evidence that this was actually the case is vastly strengthened by some facts not adduced in the article. The first of these is that Firmin's book, republished in 1742, occasioned a sharp controversy that attracted attention through New England, and especially in Connecticut. Three years after Firmin's book appeared in Boston, Andrew Croswell, for many years a pastor there, published a pamphlet in which he controverted Firmin's view of justifying faith. It bore the title "What is Christ to me, if he is not mine? or, a Seasonable Defense of the Old Protestant Doctrine of Justifying Faith," and it contained Croswell's" Answer to Mr. Giles Firmin's Eight Arguments," in confutation of his "false" notion of faith.

To this pamphlet, Solomon Williams, of Lebanon, a cousin

of Jonathan Edwards, and his antagonist there, a few years later, on the "Qualifications of Communion," wrote a reply. This appeared in 1746, in pamphlet form (4to, pp. 45) under the title of "A Vindication of the Gospel Doctrine of Justifying Faith." It is very severe both in reference to Croswell and to his pamphlet. It sustains Firmin's positions throughout on the subject of justifying faith, passing over altogether the points upon which Firmin is directly at issue with Hooker.

With this controversy, which would naturally make Firmin's book well-known among the New England ministers, Hopkins must have been quite familiar; and if so, we can scarcely suppose him unacquainted with the general scope of Firmin's book, or of his strictures upon Hooker and Shepard.

But there are other facts bearing upon the question. Hopkins and Bellamy were friends, and in a sense neighbors, although one was at Bethlehem, Ct., and the other at Great Barrington, Mass. Bellamy was an old acquaintance of Croswell, before the latter went to Boston, and while he was yet settled at Groton, Ct. At some time, probably on a visit to Boston, Bellamy fell in with Alexander Cumming, also settled over cne of the Boston churches, and a neighbor of Croswell. The two (Cumming and Croswell), engaged in controversy on topics kindred to those discussed between Croswell and Williams. In 1762, Croswell published "A Letter to the Rev. Alexander Cumming," to which Cumming replied in 1763, in " Animadversions on Rev. Mr. Croswell's late Letter." In this controversy the peculiar tenet of Hopkinsianism was directly called in question.

It was in connection with this controversy--and not improbably an occasion of it-that Cumming, in conversation with Bellamy, mentioned to him that Croswell had said in a sermon: "A damuing God is not an object of Love." Bellamy asked Cumming what he thought of such an expression. Cumming replied that it was blasphemy. For this, Croswell called him to account, probably in the letter which he published.

In his "Animadversions" Cumming says (p. 7): "It is imputed to us as an opinion that a person must be contented

and willing to be damned, or made miserable forever. The spirit of the letter very much consists in this imputation, and it seems very much the aim and tendency of it to make the reader believe this is our doctrine. . . . But we reject this opinion as absurd, and the imputation of it as unjust and inconsequential. Nor do I believe that any sober man ever held or taught it, however much it may have been imputed to divers. My doctrine, I own, is the same as Mr. Shepard's, and with him, I apprehend, Mr. Hooker agrees, though his expression be not so guarded as to cut off all occasion of exception."

It is not necessary to vindicate the correctness of the view taken by Mr. Cumming of the doctrines held by Shepard and Hooker, but it is obvious that Cumming himself stood charged with the Hopkinsian tenet, and that the controversy in which he vindicated himself came under the special notice of Bellamy, in Cumming's conversation with whom it doubtless originated. In such circumstances, to suppose that Hopkins, intimate as he was with Bellamy, and united to him in theological sympathy, was not aware of the sentiments of Shepard and Hooker, or of the fact that they had been controverted by Firmin, is to suppose a seclusion, on his part, from a knowledge of the religious world, and of what was taking place, which we should scarcely impute to the obscurest pastor in the obscurest parish in New England.

We must, therefore, assume that Hopkins was aware of the fact that Shepard, but more especially Hooker, had maintained the doctrine which he is credited with originating, and there can be little doubt that he felt warranted in the emphasis with which he put it forth, by the sanction of such names as those of two of the most distinguished of the early theologians of New England.

ART. VII. THE DEAD SEA.

From the British and Foreign Evangelical Review for October, 1870. THE DEAD SEA, at least since the early Christian centuries, has been an object of deep and somewhat awful interest. In the fancy of past generations, and in the eyes of old pilgrims to the Holy Land, it was a black and seething pool, sending forth deadly fumes in which neither man nor beast could live. Birds attempting to fly across, fell suffocated into it. No vegetation clothed its shores, and nothing lived in its waters. These were so dense that nothing would sink in them, and so salt that everything near was encrusted with white crystals. A mysterious darkness, besides, overhung the place. This extended to Jericho and the surrounding country. Not merely was it a sea of death, but it was itself a grave. Deep down in its accursed waters had been distinctly seen the splendid ruins of the wicked Cities of the Plain.

The Arabs still call it Bahr Lut, the Sea of Lot; connecting it, like the Christians, with that black page of sacred history, on which is scored the lowest ebb-mark of social and domestic morals.

Physically, the Dead Sea is no less interesting. On its banks, the traveller stands on the lowest ground in the world.*

It lies like some mythical monster outstretched on his belly, and with open mouth swallows up the living stream of the Jordan. Steadily the river pours its volume of fresh water into this strange sea. Steadily the sea receives it, and, like the lean kine of Pharaoh's dream, is not a whit the sweeter or the larger for it. And yet it has no outlet. Did a communication exist between it and the Red Sea on the south, or the Mediterranean on the west, the waters of these seas would flow into it, and not its surplus into them.

The object of the present paper is to give an outline of what is known of the Dead Sea, physical and historical; and I begin by sketching it as I saw it myself.

The start for any such excursion as that to the Dead Sea, never fails to be a lively and picturesque scene. Under a low arch spanning the street, a short flight of stone steps leads to the paved court of the Damascus Hotel in Jerusalem. From this court, doors open into rooms on the ground floor,

*Its surface is 1316 feet below the level of the Mediterranean. Its length is 46 miles, its greatest breadth, 10 miles. Its greatest depth is 1308 feet. Its southern end averages only 12 feet. These figures can be taken only as approximations, however.