by innumerable friends from the four quarters of the firmament. Man is not compelled to touch merely the next link above; but, being constitutionally the HEAD of Creation, he can enjoy the countless relationships which exist, most intimately, between him and external nature; between him and the spiritual universe! He thinks he is supernatural, and perfectly free, because he can raise a book and overcome the law of gravitation. This he thinks NATURE can not do, because it is bound by the inexorable principles of cause and effect. Dr. B. should remember that a tornado can also overcome the law of gravitation accompanied with terrible manifestations of its power; not only by raising the book, but by raising fifty men-filled with free agencyat the same time! But Dr. B—. informed his congregation, repeatedly, that HE WAS A MAN-a FREE man—a MAN that could shoot his neighbor-could do, in a word, any thing he pleased. Now, believing him to be a man of unimpeachable veracity, I would solicit a few practical illustrations of his perfect freedom of Will. Will he answer these questions? Could he, by the exercise of his personal freedom, procure powder and pistols if these things were not yet invented?

Can he control, by his will, the conditions of mind known as belief and disbelief? or, the states known as love and hate?

Can he voluntarily hate his best neighbor? Or, can he for ten minutes love affectionately a person, or a thing, which is revolting to his whole soul?

Can he, by the exercise of his personal freedom, disbelieve in the existence of a Supreme Being? Or, believe it at will?

If the Lecturer can not do these things at the instigation of his will, then he is in bondage to the system of terrestrial cause and effect. How does he know that there are objects, lights, shades and colors in nature? I answer, that he knows these things, through the medium of bodily vision; without which organs, in spite of all his personal freedom, he

would have in his possession no certain knowledge of them. So, too, is he absolutely dependent upon his bodily hearing to learn ideas of sound; upon his limbs for locomotion; upon the cheerful action of his tongue to communicate his ideas to the people. If his tongue were paralyzed—his arms amputated -his eyes deprived of their appropriate functions-and his brain loaded with blood; how impotent would be his will should he then desire to shoot his neighbor, preach to his congregation, or impart his thoughts by wielding the pen! If Dr. B. can not do every thing which he may desire, simply by willing to do so,—a man who felt and declared himself so superior to all "cause and effect," then I do not see how he can escape the Rationalistic theory, that all things are bound together in the Universal Spirit of God-" in whom," according to his original text, "all things consist."

How depressing, and how unlike an impartial investigator, was the attempt to ridicule the great Bible-doctrine that God is "without variableness neither shadow of turning." The Dr. seemed to have forgotten that this opinion was entertained by the Bible-authors, and hence ridiculed it as a Rationalistic Theory. Instead of saying that the Lord "made the heavens and the earth, and all that in them is in six days," and devoted the seventh to rest (as the Bible expresses it,) he ridiculed it, as a naturalistic notion, that God, as a mechanic, had "made and perfected his MACHINE a long period since, and was now engaged in turning the crank!" Why Dr. B———. ridicules Bible-doctrines under the title of Rationalistic Theories, is a difficult question to solve; unless we charitably conclude that he has not familiarized his mind with the opinions of his antagonists. He thought the idea degrading and abhorrent, that the Lord should have perfected the vast machine of heaven and earth, and pronounced it "good," a long time ago, and had nothing to expect outside of its action!

Surely Dr. B. does not understand the Rationalistic.

theory; which teaches that God is constantly improving and advancing NATUre. If the object is to dethrone rationalism, why does not the Lecturer state its doctrines, and then proceed in a dignified manner to expose their fallacy? To assert that modern philosophers believe, that the Deity perfected his machine centuries ago, and then assign to the Creator the duty of turning the crank, is all a false and ignoble representation. This is the doctrine inculcated in Genesis, but is vastly unlike the rationalistic theory.

The Harmonial Philosophy teaches that Progress is a Law of Deity; that nature is the receptacle of the Spirit of God; that every thing is perpetually advancing from bad to better-from matter to mind, from earth to heaven; that "the machine" can never be perfected that the Deity can not be "turning a crank;" because he is the great Positive Mind, enlivening and controlling the material and spiritual universe, with an unerring and unchangeable government.

Dr. B. thought that, should he wish to address the Deity, through love and gratitude, according to rationalism, he should be regarded by the Creator as giving expression merely to the emotions natural to his organization-a consequence of the machine, like an island thrown up by volcanic action from the sea. In this view, he thought a man might as well be something else; and KOSSUTH, so far as responsibility is concerned, might as well be smoke curling from the chimney-top! Now I am impressed to object to such unfairness and inconsistency-it should not emanate from a reasonable mind-especially not, from one who is somewhat disposed to be a Martin Luther in theology.

Dr. B—. ridicules this system of cause and effect-of praying and being righteous on the ground of personal organization—and yet, he is an advocate for schools, colleges, churches, and systems of education. He thinks well of temperance societies, &c. But wherefore? Because these insti

tutions influence the human mind to goodness. Because good morals depend upon good influences and upon good systems of education. Because, in a word, the human mind, like the softened clay, can be fashioned and molded into ANY SHAPE, by the action of external causes upon it. Thus, while he would, as a Christian scholar, theologically repudiate the doctrine of cause and effect as applicable to man, he at the same time virtually acts upon it in his daily existence and professions. In closing, I will merely remark, that this doctrine of human freedom is THE PIVOT, upon which Dr. B—'s whole philosophy of the Incarnation and Redemption depends. This made him sarcastic in his criticisms, and impatient in his utterance. But he has not yet answered all the objections which can be urged against his doctrine; nor manifested any ability to make his propositions invulnerable. The latter, being an impossibility, he can not be expected to do. His definition of NATURE and SUPER-NATURE, is not to be admitted; because he has not given us the least evidence why such a definition should be accepted as resting in truth. And his statement of the extent of nature, is too narrow to answer the conceptions of rationalists, who believe Nature. to be the external Revelation of God-immeasurable, infinite, eternal. In a word, his theological opinions are cramping and trammeling his own mind, as they have, in other forms and modifications, enslaved hundreds of thousands; and which have prevented the introduction of those more reformatory theories, that lie at the very foundation of Christianity and promote the highest civilization.

THIRD REVIEW.

LAST Sabbath evening, Dr. Bushnell delivered his third discourse upon the Supernaturalistic system of religion. It seems that he has forgotten or neglected to achieve the promised "reconciliation" between the naturalistic and the unnaturalistic forms of faith; and, abandoning considerably the philosophical ground, has proceeded in the old familiar work of constructing a theological fabric or system in which to enshrine his scholastic notions of religion and revamped theology. Conservatism, therefore, of the unprogressive and unrighteous kind, will probably be, or appear to be, promoted to a higher throne in the kingdom of dogmatism, and receive another coronation as the Emperor of Antiquity and the changeless friend of Oriental Doctrines.

The Lecturer, as you doubtless remember, found a suggestive title to his discourse in the sixth chapter of Isaiah, fifth verse, in these words "The Lord of Hosts," a form of words-"The expression very frequently employed by all those who were converted from paganism, or polytheism, to a belief in monotheism and in the Hebrew God.

In his previous lecture, it will be recollected, Dr. B———. acknowledged, that his "future arguments" could not be fully appreciated, unless his "definition" of Nature and Supernature was understood and accepted by his hearers. He therefore expressed the definition, and proceeded to build his house of theologic thought accordingly.

For two reasons, I am impressed to regard this method as