go on until it has reached new subjects, and affected all souls. Divine Truth will be-not more clearly revealedbut more fully comprehended; and the result will be the subjugation of all human minds on earth. But if the meaning is, that the objective revelation of truth is a developement; that, as the gospel was unfolded from the root of Judaism, so a future growth is yet to spring from scriptural Christianity, and perpetually bud and bloom into new truths and systems, in comparison with which the New Testament is but a germ, we confess we regard the opinion as fundamentally erroneous. Such an assumption lies equally at the basis of the modern pantheistic theology and the figments of St. Simonianism. And the history of modern opinion in Germany teaches us, that there is no safety in any lower ground than that of the Reformers, and in the more rigid views of divine inspiration. If, as is maintained, theology is advancing, and maturing itself by new discoveries, the progress should bear a closer analogy with the march of other sciences. More positive truth should be brought to light. Dogmatic statements should be more clear and explicit. Definitions and distinctions should be precise and above the danger of mistake. Great principles having been ascertained, the more minute ramifications of truth should be made apparent. But instead of this, the whole tendency of German theology, including that of the work before us, has been a marked retrocession from all fixed points. Dimness and generality have succeeded to precision and unequivocal enunciation. Formulas have been adopted, which may be the vehicles as well of error as of truth. And the prospect was never less, than at the present moment, of anything like a new creation.

"I cannot agree" says Neander, "with the conviction of those who think that this new creation will be only a repetition of what took place in the sixteenth or seventeenth century, and that the whole dogmatic system, and the entire mode of contemplating divine and human things, must return as it then existed." Neither can we; but at the same time we must protest against those who would sweep away as rubbish the whole of that glorious structure, with cries of Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof. We have no respect for speculations which refuse all aid from those great spirits whom God raised up. They militate against their own theory of developement. Rejecting that theory, in its excess, we nevertheless do not believe

that every race is to lay a new foundation. The system of the reformers was not only a great advance upon that which it superseded, but was vastly superior to that which would now displace it. The same service which was rendered to Luther and Calvin by Augustine, may be rendered to Neander and Twesten by Luther and Calvin. Though we would not swear by the names of these masters, we would, if the question were inevitable, prefer the system of any one of them, as a whole, to that of the work under review. We would adopt the Loci Communes of Melancthon or of Peter Martyr, in preference to any dogmatic system which modern Germany has produced. Nay, we are so thoroughly convinced, that honest, bold and categorical declarations are better than wavering ambiguities and transcendental amphibologies, that, we would rather let a pupil take his chance of truth between two opposite systems, for instance those of Arminius and Gomar, than to refer him to the misty generalities of the ablest modern syncretist.

After all the alleged improvements in theological research, we never feel so much disposed to take down one of the old Latin dogmatic writers of the seventeenth century, as immediately on closing a fresh work from Germany. These antiquated writers have a thousand faults, it may be; they are stiff, they are prolix, they are technical, they are intolerant and austere, they are scholastic in their distinctions, but they have one great merit-they always let us know what they mean. Their atmosphere, if wintry and biting, is clear. They boldly march up to difficulties, and beard even those which they fail to conquer. Their dialectic was an armour of proof, which might be used as well on the wrong as on the right side, but it was of the finest temper, and of such weight as to be unwieldy to champions of our day. The frequent perusal of their disquisitions has a value independent of the truths evolved. It promotes patient thought, prompts to exact definition, whets the discriminative acumen, and exercises the intellect in logical strategy. Especially does it beget a repugnance to dreamy contemplation and the use of vague diction for concealment. It is precisely this point in which lies the great difference between the two classes of writers. It is a difference not so much of opinion or system, as of intellectual habitude. The clearness which we applaud, is found not only in Turretine Rivet, and Chamier, but in Crellius, Grotius and Le Clerc. That objects are made more luminous in the writings of the

orthodox, we readily grant; for whatsoever doth make manifest, is light. It is this description of writers, and this style of disquisition, which we would unhesitatingly recommend to young theologians. They have one obvious claim upon our preference, that they accord in their chief peculiarities with the characteristic of the American, or what is the same thing, the British mind. It is the school from which proceeded the clear-sighted and unambiguous Bulls, Pearsons, Chillingworths, Tillotsons, Baxters, Watsons, Edwardses, and Paleys, of a former age. On the other hand, the taste for German writers on dogmatic theology, is factitious, alien to the genius of the Anglo-American mind, and productive, wherever it exists, of debilitating and rhapsodical musing.

Our current of remark has led us into some strictures, which do not apply in all their force to the great writer before us. Indeed we are afraid it may seem to border on arrogance, that we should have ventured to take any exception to the works of a venerable theologian and noble scholar, who is perhaps the most celebrated professor of Germany, and whose works we never open without instruction and delight. But however sincere our feeling of all this may be, the duty of pointing out error, according to the measure of our ability, is imperative. While the work of Neander remained in its German dress, we felt no desire to take it up, though within our reach; but now that it has appeared in a translation, from the press of a popular and enterprising publisher, we have seen no way to escape from our conviction.

ART. II.—1. The Missionary Chronicle: Containing the proceedings of the Board of Foreign Missions, and of the Board of Missions of the Presbyterian Church and a general view of other benevolent operations. Vol. XII. January, 1844.

2. The Missionary Herald: Containing the proceedings of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, with a view of other benevolent operations. Vol. XL. January, 1844.

THE Missionary enterprise is at present, unquestionably, the characteristic movement of the church. Whatever be

the feelings or pursuits that obtain in any part, or even the whole of the visible communion of saints, yet there is none at once so deep and pervading, and none that possesses so fair a claim to the privilege of naming the ecclesiastical age in which we live, as the increased zeal of Christians to extend the Master's Kingdom. This feeling exhibits itself, not only in the embodied efforts that are made through Missionaries abroad, and Missionary organizations at home, but in a seemingly increasing desire to know the whole ground on which this responsibility rests. We find an increase of books and periodicals bearing on this general subject, which seems to indicate an increasing desire in the public mind to investigate and understand the facts and reasonings on which this enterprise is founded. These various productions, with their countless variety of motives, statements, arguments and illustrations, present us with a tolerably correct view of the mind of the church, in this matter.

In looking over these publications, and especially those which stand at the head of this article, we have been struck with the fact, that although many of them are the productions of Calvinistic pens,* and the two periodicals named are the official organs of the most prominent Calvinistic bodies in the country, yet there is so little that is peculiarly Calvinistic in their mode of treating this subject. Motives are drawn from the condition of the heathen, the promises and threatenings of God, and the general principles of duty; but few if any are drawn directly from those peculiarities of doctrine that constitute so important a part of their creed.

Several causes may have contributed to produce this omission. The missionary organizations of the present day were instituted at a time of comparative reaction in doctrinal fervour. The panting combatants on the field of polemics had tacitly concluded an armistice. Whilst this truce continued a new field of action seemed suddenly to open to the energy and enterprise of the church, and the attention of her champions was directed from what were

* We feel called upon to apologize for the use of the word Calvinism so often in this article. It is a serious evil to designate the truth of God by the name of a man. There is not a principle included in the system called Calvinistic, which was not held by Luther and the English Reformers, and which was not taught by single theologians merely, but by large bodies of men, even in the Romish church.

regarded as matters of theory in which they must differ, to matters of practice in which they could agree. With some, these doctrinal peculiarities were not brought to bear on this department of effort, because they were not brought to bear on any part of practical Christianity, being regarded as mere theoretical speculations having no point of contact with the usual tenor of the Christian life. They were viewed with that indifference which is the natural result of the comparative coldness if not ignorance that so frequently attends the mere didactic investigation of truth.

With others the omission has been more studied and intentional. Regarding the Missionary cause in the light of a great Catholic movement of the church, they feared to bring these distinctive doctrines to bear fully upon it, lest they should be charged with sacrificing to sectarian bigotry the interests of a world. As it has so often been charged on Calvinism that it tends to chill the warmth of sympathy and cut the sinews of effort, they feared to connect it with the cause of missions, lest by such an association the latter should bear some of the odium and hostility that are heaped on the former.

Whatever may have been the cause of this course, its propriety may justly be questioned. Truth is the measure of duty; and these doctrines if they are true at all must cast their roots deep into the heart of the Christian system. Hence it would seem strange if they had no bearing whatever upon the great work that God has entrusted to his church. Moreover by this course we furnish a plausible support to the charges of those who oppose these doctrines, that they are merely speculative and esoteric, and that when active at all, we are so not in consequence but in spite of our creed. The impropriety of this course is still more strikingly obvious when we find that it runs counter to the example of God himself. Whatever we may think of the Calvinistic system, its most prominent doctrine, that with which it usually stands or falls, is that God has a people, whom he has chosen from the sinful world, and whom he has determined to bring to himself by the use of the means of grace. It is precisely this doctrine however that we find God himself on one occasion using as a motive to perseverance in missionary labour. When the great missionary to the gentiles was on one occasion discouraged by the blasphemies and opposition of the Corinthians when the gospel was brought to them, we are told that God ap