bility (which unfortunately is very slight,) that, when he comes to frame and adjust the superior portions of his theological temple, he may discover that the compartments are too contracted, and the dome too low, to suit the real wants of his expanding and aspiring nature!

It is now my impression to examine the introductory lecture of the course alluded to, on the foundation which he therein laid before the people, viz.: Rationalism as opposed to Supernaturalism,-contemplating the ultimate reconciliation of the two theories. For to apprehend him to mean, by supernaturalism or Christianity, any thing really different from the generally received opinions on that head, is to impeach the soundness of his judgment regarding his own position in the premises,-to do which I have no inclination. I rather desire to believe him to be not fully aware of the deeper workings and convictions of his mind. I come now to the closer criticism.

The Lecturer foreshadowed the whole question, and his future answer thereto, in this comprehensive passage-which he selected from the first chapter and seventeenth verse of Paul's epistle to the Colossians,-" And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Of this scriptural assertion he discovered a parallelism, or correspondential indorsement, in the third verse of the first chapter of John; where it is asserted that, "All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." Now if Dr. B. really believes that Christianity, "as a system of redemption," was originally laid in the wisdom of the Infinite Mind before any thing was made; and if he believes that, when that Mind elaborated the world, Christianity was incorporated into the very soul of creation; then why does he allow himself to betray, or to experience, any FEAR as to the safety of that system which God himself created and sustains?

If Dr. B. believes Christianity to be a PRINCIPLE of Love and salvation, incorporated in and unfolded out of the system of the world; then he unquestionably occupies Rationalistic grounds, in interpreting his theology; and so there is an end to all cause of difference between us, on the fundamental points at issue. But he evidently does not occupy this position; because he manifested great concern for the welfare and success of Christianity, as a scheme of redemption.

Furthermore, if Dr. B. believes Christianity to be a SPIRIT, and NOT a form-a principle operating between God and Man; not confined to a mere combination of books called "the Bible;" then he is clearly a believer in the fundamental teachings of the Harmonial Philosophy; and thus, again, ends all cause of controversy. But I am impressed not to identify him with that which he himself did not originate and acknowledge; for evidently he is never insensible to the LuTHER feeling, the marking out of an independent course to suit his own affections and gifted intellect.

.

There is no disguising the plain, palpable fact that Dr. B. is not yet emancipated from the customary or POPULAR FORM of Christianity; that is to say, he regards the Bible as the precious relic of what occurred twenty and more centuries ago the Casket of a "system of Redemption," whose supposed jewels must not be examined; except by the EYE of a confiding, unreasoning faith. If he is to be received as the representative or exponent of his own thought; then the above statement of Dr. B's present position, is perfectly accurate. A mind thus trammeled, and thus manacled by the paper and ink habiliments of the Christian religion, can not adapt itself to the workings of the law of Progress. He must, alas! close his eyes to the operations of a progressive Christianity; the great law of human destiny! He must step blindfolded along the path of error, describe a circuitous and zigzag course in the fields of humanity and thought; and,

whilst the resplendent beams of an orient sun are lighting up the highway to social harmony and human happiness, he must close his eyes, and pretend not to see any "worldsaving truth" in the sublime principles of modern reformation!

Dr. B. is not yet, I repeat, emancipated from the paper and ink relics of Christianity. The New Testament is the only orthodox remains thereof; the only SKELETON to remind one of the departed spirit. Alas! what a "foundation of sand" to build a spiritual Zion upon. Every wind of doctrine threatens to demolish the splendid superstructure. The Egyptian pyramids have withstood for long centuries the whirlwinds of the desert; though they approach from "all directions" at the same time. But this is man's work. Surely, if the Bible is the pyramid of Christianity which God himself has erected on the moral desert of this world; then can Dr. B—. really believe, that the "whirlwind of skepticism and infidelity, coming at once from all points of the compass," can overthrow the God-made superstructure? To this question I earnestly solicit a reply. I know that there are watchmen on the towers of the modern Zion of ancient construction, whose cry is, "It is a Christian duty to hold reason in subjection to faith!" Yet the building is in danger, because, forsooth, TRUTH, alone, can withstand the surging billows of TIME, of independent investigation, and remain forever unmoved and unchanged.

Let us look at another point. If Dr. B—. sincerely believes the New Testament to be a God-made book, and that the authority thereof should not be questioned by an enlightened reason, he surely was very injudicious, to say the least, to object, in the very onset, to the defective translation of a portion of the text which headed his discourse. Nothing can be more productive of absolute faithlessnessespecially in the youthful mind and rising generation—than the shadow of a suggestion that a passage of Scripture has

been imperfectly or incorrectly translated by the talented English scholars. In one part of his discourse, the Lecturer stated, in a tone of voice somewhat ironical and sarcastic, that "Rationalists rejoiced and luxuriated in all good men," and that, when "it suited their convenience, they would even quote passages of Scripture." Now I object to such essential unfairness, especially when draped in very respectful and honest-sounding language. Surely, a reasonable man is always pleased and at liberty to adopt the words of any author, in or out of the Bible, should these words express his own promptings and convictions. As for example: Dr. B—. quoted from Paul a passage which plainly declared his own intellectual pre-conceived convictions; with the qualification, however, that, "had the translation rendered the word 'by,' 'IN,' as it is in the original, the idea would be much stronger;" and, consequently, far more suited to the intellectual conception which the Lecturer had formed of the system of the world, and the relation of God to it. Here, then, is an orthodox example of the rationalistic method of quoting Scripture, "when it is convenient," or illustrative of some particular thought or theme. Again, I can not but remark upon the injudiciousness and incautiousness of that mind, which,-while it professes to believe the Bible to be the pure and unalloyed Word of God,-yet so openly ventures to affirm that a passage therein is not correctly or infallibly translated. In this instance, the mistake of the translators is not essential. But what assurance have we that greater mistakes have not been made in other passages?

Let us now think of the text. It was asserted that it imparted a clear "outlined conception" of the system of the world. Also, that it showed conclusively, that the whole "structure and plan of Christianity" were contemplated before the world was made; and that it is, consequently, an institution laid within the constitution of things. To this I

am moved again to reply, that, if Dr. B—. means, by Christianity, a PRINCIPLE OF LOVE,--that redemption from sin is practicable through a personal and universal exercise of that principle,-a principle unfolded in the progressive developments of nature and humanity; then, he is with us, and we with him, and thus satisfactorily ends the controversy. In this case, his whole question, together with all his apprehensions about "Infidelity" and "Christianity," are based upon his own intellectual misconceptions; the issue is false, and hence unnecessary. But that he does not take this ground has already been shown from his method. By Christianity he means precisely what every other Bible believer means by the term. Hence, in order to be perfectly sound and reasonable in his conclusions, Dr. B——. must admit that the Deity actually planned-in the holy labyrinths of his wisdom, "before the world was made"-the garden of Eden; the fall of man; the misery of his offspring; the deluge; the confusion of tongues; the vicarious atonement; and the unutterable miseries of hell. Does this category of evils seem like the handiwork of an all-wise and perfectly good Creator? But no matter! It must be so,—that is, if the text under consideration is, in very truth, the word of God. For "He is before all things, and in him ALL THINGS (not a portion of things, remember, but all things) consist." If Dr. B. were a rationalistic or spiritualistic Christian, this text would clash with no truth which his affections might feel or judgment comprehend. But as he is not, his position is exceedingly painful, inconsistent, and untenable. Indeed, the conflict which will inevitably be generated in his mind, by the entertainment of such hostile sentiments, and the attempt to reconcile them, will be sufficient, it seems to me, to force him, either into rationalistic doctrines, or else, into a deeper and more incurable conviction of the asserted truth of the Persian tale of Total Depravity! That he may never