ment in his sense. Taking the clue from Dr. Watts, he makes an ingenious distinction between "Atonement" and "the higher ransom." The former is simply the ground of release from punishment; the latter, including the gift of the effectually working Spirit, is a gratuity conferred only upon the elect in consideration of the merit of Christ's supererogatory active obedience. Hence, when New England declares that the "Atonement" was truly designed and made for all men, and Dort declares that Christ's "meritorious death" was for the elect only, Dr. G. finds no discrepancy. One party is speaking of the lower, the other of the higher ransom.

But ingenious as this device may be, it fails to serve its author's purpose. It may account in some degree for the endless confusions and contradictions which characterize the final deliverances of the synod on the second of the Five Points; but it cannot obliterate or qualify the evident Arminianism of the "Edwardean" teachings on the extent of the Atonement. The Remonstrants treated of the Atonement precisely as Dr. G. does. They did not ask permission to teach that "effectual calling" was common to all men. They desired to maintain that Christ died for all, not that irresistible grace had been purchased for all or any. They even made the distinction at the time as clearly as Dr. G. could ask.

In their Declaratio Sententiæ, p. 283, they say: "The effect of Christ's propitiatory work we term the impetration of divine grace; that is, not an actual restitution of all to a state of grace, in which, if we persevere, we shall infallibly be saved, much less a state from which it is impossible to fall, but restitution to a state in which, justice no longer presenting any obstacle, God is both able and willing to communicate to us his benefits," etc., etc. Farther on they sum up the results of the "reconciliatio impetrata." They affirm that, in consequence thereof, the human family is so positioned that, 1. No man shall ever be eternally damned for Adam's sin. 2. No one of the called shall be rejected on account of sins committed before he was called, but all shall find mercy if they will only repent, believe, and lead a new life. 3. No believer shall ever perish on account of the infirmities incident to human nature; only those who contumaciously reject salvation shall be delivered up to everlasting torments. So in all the Arminian systems of divinity afterward drawn up, the occasional or external moving cause of Christ's coming into the world is invariably represented to be peccatum and mors eterna; to deliver man from these was the Redeemer's mission. The grand difference between these divines and Dr. G. is simply this: according to the former, all man needed in order to his salvation was to have the obstacles presented by justice removed; God's essential

benevolence would then prompt and effectuate all further measures which might be necessary; according to Dr. G., man needed to have his Redeemer do something more for him than simply to place him where the Moral Governor could forgive and bless him, and deal with him as if he had never sinned; he needed a Redeemer who should purchase and merit from the Father those positive saving influences which the Arminian divines supposed would be exerted by the Father freely, spontaneously, gratuitously. This difference, then, affects not in the slightest degree the question of a restricted or universal atonement. On this question we boldly reiterate our assertion, that Dr. G. and all his "Edwardean" associates are strictly, purely, simply Arminian. The Atonement was understood by both parties in the same sense, and both pronounce it universal. Here then we pause. We have passed in review the teachings of the "Edwardean" divines respecting the nature of the Atonement, respecting the ground of its necessity, and respecting its extent. In every particular we have found those teachings anticipated by the great teachers of original Arminianism. The theory is purely Arminian in every part. Its advocates may complaisantly arrogate to themselves the distinguished honor of having exposed the untenableness of the old Calvinistic scheme, and of having originated a statement of the doctrine as truly "epoch-making" in its history as was the Nicene formula of the person of Christ in the history of that doctrine; but let them not turn back to the rich suggestive pages of Episcopius, Grotius, and Limborch, lest they discover the mortifying fact, that after two hundred years they have just come up to the enlightened views of the primitive Arminians. Perhaps two hundred years more may suffice to discover to them the semi-Pelagianism of some principles involved in the form of Arminianism they now hold to, and bring them to a genuine evangelical Arminianism with all its derided features. At any rate, we wish them the good fortune.

How admirable the divine Nemesis of history! The Calvinistic refugees of New England, pale, thoughtful exiles in the wilderness, have atoned vicariously for the violent expatriation of the innocent Remonstrants, adopted their once derided faith, and will not fail eventually to claim with pride those great, farsighted heroes of the Belgic Church as true pioneers and leaders of the "New School" host. How little dreamed John Robinson of this as he prepared for his grand disputation with Episcopius! What a theme for the pen of the future historian of Calvinism!

NOTE. Since the above was written, the first numbers of a series of pamphlets, entitled "Views in New England Theology," have been issued from the press of

Messrs. Crocker & Brewster, Boston. In the first, "The New England Theology contrasted with the New Arminianism," the writer, understood to be Dr. Parsons Cooke, endeavors to rescue the terms Edwardean" and "New England" from their present perverted use, by proving that the soi-disant Edwardean or New England Theology is radically opposed to the real views of Edwards and of the New England of olden time. Taking up the doctrine of Sin, as set forth in the unpublished but oft-copied lectures of Professor Park, he instances twenty-five points of open disagreement between Edwards and his Andover disciple, while there is but one point upon which they agree "half-way!" "What is here proved," he affirms, "is not a variance from Edwards on a few immaterial points. It is a difference toto cælo, one of the most direct contradictions of Edwards's system that can be found." He takes the liberty of calling it "New Arminianism, not in a way of reproach, but as most according to the reality of the thing." As the author of the "Introductory Essay" in the book we have reviewed has been accused in some quarters of a little "special pleading" in said essay, in order to find his theory in the writings of the elder Edwards, we trust we may, without disrespect to any, refer our readers to this new and interesting brochure as an effectual corrective, if the accusation have any truth. At the same time it will be found to furnish striking confirmation of the main position of the above article, showing, as it does, that, bating some few semi-pelagian particulars, the "New Divinity" is as truly Arminian on the doctrine of sin, as on that of the atonement.

ART. IV.-OBLIGATIONS OF SOCIETY TO THE COMMON LAW.*

WE have the authority of Cicero for saying that "nothing is truly useful which is not honest;" and it was an exhortation of the wisest of men to "buy the truth, and sell it not." Whatever is opposed to honesty and truth is an enemy to virtue and morality; and if there be any profession or calling, the practice of which tends to enervate the love of truth or the disposition to honesty, it is to be condemned and avoided. Rectitude of thought, of speech, and of conduct are the distinguishing characteristics of a virtuous and happy man; and he cannot be delighted or benefited in any employment where he may not readily cultivate those traits of character, for they are more desirable than all attainments in science.

Cato, of Utica, resolved to die when he anticipated the fallen liberties of Rome. So let even the professor of law bid his much loved science adieu, if truth and honesty, which are better sovereigns than Cesar, can triumph no more!

The persuasion is, perhaps, not uncommon, that the science and the practice of the law are both unfriendly to the great interests of

Substance of a lecture delivered before the Law Department of the New York University, Nov., 1859.

truth and morality; that a great lawyer is not apt to be a good man; and that difficulties to virtue thicken in the path of him who engages in the practice of the law. Let one speak of the legal profession in connection with the pursuit of morality and religion, and he would probably be entertained with a verse from the "Loyal Garland:"

He would be fortunate if he escaped a facetious application of a text from St. Paul: "The strength of sin is the law." And should a father apply for a suggestion as to which of the two professionslaw or medicine-it were supposed his son seemed to promise best adaptability, he need not be surprised at some such allegorical reply as this:

"One told a gentleman his son

Should be a man-killer, and be hanged for it;
Who after proved to be a great and rich
Physician, and with much fame was hanged
In picture in the university, for a grave example!
Another schemist

Found that a squint-eyed boy should prove

A notable pick purse, and after a most strong thief;
When he grew up to be a cunning lawyer,

And at last died a judge!"

A single remark from La Fontaine will illustrate the idea: “A shipwrecked voyager cast upon an unknown and, he feared, barbarous shore, presently espying a gallows erected in the distance, knew that he was in a civilized and Christian country!"

But civilized society owes to the science of the law a better respect than is thus indicated; for it is easy to maintain that the very foundations of such society would sink, and regulated communities degenerate into elements that would overthrow civilization, were it not for the invisible but potent protection of the law over society and its multiplied interests. A society of order cannot subsist without law; and were we to dispense with it we should take the perilous road to barbarism.

"Of law," says the judicious Hooker, "no less can be acknowledged than that her seat is the bosom of GOD; her voice is the harmony of the world; all things in heaven and earth do her homage, the very least as feeling her care, and the greatest as not exempted from her power." Both St. Paul and Cicero affirm that the law is the minister of God to man for good. It is undeniably

true, that in all countries where it reigns it is a protector to the obedient and an avenger to the rebellious. Although the government which it upholds be that of Nero, it is better than none; and, notwithstanding its principles have been filtered through many forms of grossness and ignorance, still, what now remains to the civilized world is the alembic of legal purity, and is made obligatory by the

sanction of heaven itself.

It has been objected as to human laws, that after they have been improved to the utmost attainable degree of perfection, they must still be imperfect in three particulars: 1. They will be defective in substance; 2. Weak in motives; and 3. Only partial in their operation. It is said under the first of these objections, that although law forbids crimes that are apparent and atrocious, still it cannot reach many refined irregularities which are not the less capable of troubling society for not appearing enormous or palpable. Let it be granted that it cannot ordain patience, meekness, or love, and that society without those virtues must needs be unhappy. It is said, under the second objection, that no reward for obedience to human law, nor penalty for its violation, can be sufficient to make it universally observed. Let it be granted that every violation of the law derogates from its force and authority, and that the insufficiency of its apparent motives is an evil. It is said, under the third objection, that the laws avenge us on insignificant offenders, oftentimes punishing the petty thief whom the pain of hunger or the fear of death has tempted to rob us of a paltry sum, while magnificent plunderers, wearing the plumes of conquerors, ravage kingdoms with impunity, and overwhelm whole districts with injustice and oppression. Let it be granted that the history of the world abounds with instances that illustrate the force of the objection.

But what then? Because the law cannot prescribe all moral duties, nor redress all possible wrongs, nor pervade the domain of religious obligation, is it fit that a Christian community lay it aside?

"Ubi plura nitent in carmine, non ego paucis
Offendar maculis."

It cannot be denied that the law of nature, which has issued from the throne of infinite wisdom and goodness, is perfectly adapted to the true and lasting happiness of man; and that the precepts revealed to us in the Holy Scriptures compose a solid foundation of ethics. Now it is the boast, both of England and the United States of America, that their forms of government and systems of law are in consonance with those divine rules and precepts, and rest upon that sure foundation of the law of nature and revelation; and it is a