66

CUT OFF out of the land of the living." Daniel also erred; when under the same guidance he wrote, "After threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut OFF, but not for himself."

The predictions of Christ respecting his own death are, according to this theory, altogether erroneous. He said, "The Son of Man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and stall deliver him to the Gentiles, and they shall mock him and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him."

Pilate was needlessly alarmed at the injustice of putting him to death. When he saw that he could prevail nothing. for his deliverance, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person. See ye to it."

The Jews needlessly took the responsibility of his blood, for all the people answered and said, "His blood be on us and on our children."

The declarations of the apostles, that he was slain, are founded in error, and their charging the Jews with having killed the Prince of life was altogether slanderous. It was certainly the universal opinion of the disciples, that Christ was put to death as others are, by crucifixion. And hence Peter said, “Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." "But ye denied the holy one and the just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you, and killed the Prince of life." Paul also labored under the same mistake; for he said of the Jews, that they both "killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets." But if his sufferings did not produce his death, it is not wonderful that the Jews did not believe the apostles, and hat they charged the preachers of this slander with a design "to bring this man's blood upon them." The infliction of divine vengeance on the Jews for killing the Prince of life is unwarrantable and unjust. Respecting those who said, "This is the heir, come, let us kill him and let us seize on his inheritance, and they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard and slew him," it was asked, "When therefore the Lord of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen ?" "They say unto him, he will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall VOL. VI.

59

render him the fruits in their seasons. The Jews have been excluded from the land of their fathers, others have occupied it, and if the theory, that they did not kill the Prince of life be true, this exclusion is altogether unjust.

The new song of heaven," Thou art worthy to take the book and to open the seals thereof, for thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood," is founded in error and ought to be immediately corrected. If the Maryville doctrine be true, the saints in glory will soon cease to sing this song. Indeed, it is amazing, that from the very beginning they were not arrested in their error by Him, who was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities. It is amazing, that they were not taught, that "his sufferings did not produce death," and that the separation of his soul and body was a voluntary act, if this were really true.

Unitarians do not exactly agree respecting the object of Christ's death. Some of them have doubted, whether it has any relation to the forgiveness of sin. Some suppose, that it was to give effect to his precepts. Others that it was to set an example of meekness, patience and forgiveness. Within the circle of our knowledge no one of them has been so pressed by his theory, as to deny, that his sufferings produced his death, and to maintain that he committed a species of SUPERNATURAL SUICIDE. Amidst all their difficulties with the design of his death, no one of them has ventured to do such violence to the Scriptures, to Christianity, to reason and to common sense. After opportunity during several years of acquaintance with them and their writings, we freely say, that although in our judgment their views are peculiarly erroneous, yet we have never read, nor heard of any thing in their works so utterly at variance with the divine record, and so thoroughly subversive of Christianity as this. Nor have we ever heard of an infidel, who admitted the existence of such a person as Jesus Christ, and yet denied, that he was slain by his enemies.

The intrinsic character either literary or theological of these works, does not entitle them to a serious review. It is the relation of their author to the churches as the president of a Theological Seminary, that gives them any importance. Although they are not likely to be read, nor understood by the Christian community, it is to be remembered, that the Theological Questions, whose number is nearly two thousand and whose answers in some important cases accom

pany them, are put into the hands of the students in his Seminary as a guide to divine truth. The Doctor himself says, that "in didactic or Christian theology the class have a subject given to them." "They are then directed to read such and such authors: if the subject be a controverted one, they read on both sides." These books are not named in the published Questions; but in an elegant manuscript copy of Questions and Directions preserved by a student, the class were directed to read on the Atonement " Weeks' Dialogues, Hopkins, Dwight, Griffin, Cannon, Seven Conversations, Edwards on God's Last End," &c. We stop not here to inquire what Edwards or Hopkins, or Dwight would say at being found in such theological company, but only to give notice, that the Seven Conversations are a part of the course of study in Maryville, and that if the language of these Questions and Conversations is to be understood in its usual import, the student would, on some of the topics at least, need no other books in obeying the direction to "read on both sides." But with the exception of the language on the atonement we are not convinced, that it is thus used. On this subject he is explicit. He says, the sufferings of Christ did not produce his death, but he died voluntarily. He supposes the design of his death was to answer the three purposes just mentioned. And also "in order to have a claim on his Father to send the Spirit to renew the heart." He affirms, that "the whole obedience and sufferings of Christ are connected in the scheme of salvation with his death. So also are all the fruits or blessings, of which he is the author. Hence by an easy figure of speech his death is made to stand for the whole, and much stress is laid on his death throughout the Scriptures."* FIGURE OF SPEECH! MUCH STRESS IS LAID ON HIS DEATH THROUGHOUT THE SCRIPTURES! Is this the way, in which the author accounts for the prominence given in the Scriptures to the death of Christ? Is it, because by a FIGURE OF SPEECH it stands for several things besides his death? Was it by this accumulation of other things, for which by "an easy figure of speech" his death is made to stand? Was it this accumulation, that, upon his crying with a loud voice and giving up the ghost, produced the movement in the elements, by which the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bot

* Seven Conversations, p. 46.

tom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent, and the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints that slept, arose? If his death alone is not pre-eminently important,— if to explain its prominence in the Scriptures, we are obliged to suppose it to be a figure of speech,-if to account for the stress laid on it, we are compelled to regard it as standing for innumerable other events in the history of man, how utterly unworthy are our conceptions of him, whom all heaven adores? Yet these are the views, which are now taught to those, whom the church is rearing for her service.

Whilst these volumes contain the Theology of Maryville Seminary, there are other and equally remarkable doctrines in the published works of its Directors. Whoever wishes to satisfy himself on this point ought carefully to peruse “AN ANALYSIS OF the principLES OF THE DIvine government.” From this volume published by the Rev. Abel Pearson, D. D., a Director of the Maryville Seminary, we have made extracts in the preceding parts of this article, by which the question of his orthodoxy can be decided. Nor ought the inquirer to omit an article in the Calvinistic Magazine of Feb. 1831, entitled, "Faith according to Common Sense," in which it is asserted, that man "is regenerated through the truth, applied by the Divine Spirit in the way of moral suasion," that the Spirit "converts him BY THE NATURAL INFLUENCE OF THE TRUTH," and that " REGENERATION

IS THAT MORAL ACT IN WHICH MAN GIVES HIS BELIEF TO

THE WORD OF GOD." This article was written by the Rev. Frederick A. Ross, who is also a Director of the Maryville Seminary. In view of these doctrines it is not wonderful, that these gentlemen with the greater part of the Synod, to which they belong, have thought it inexpedient to remain with the General Assembly, and therefore have abandoned it. Such doctrines but poorly harmonize with the Confession of Faith; and those, who hold and inculcate them, can not preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace with those, who hold the truth as it is in Jesus. But whilst it is not wonderful, that these men desired to go out of a church, with which they agreed chiefly in name, it is wonderful, that the body unlawfully claiming to be the General Assembly, which, in our view, is not yet entirely bereaved of orthodox men, has commended to the confidence of the churches an Institution, whose literary character is not above suspicion, and whose theology is so much at variance with

the standards, which they profess to adopt. It is wonderful,. that within the last year the Presbyterian branch of the American Education Society has had several beneficiaries in this Seminary and its preparatory school. And it is astonishing, that the fathers and brethren of the East should persevere from year to year in the pious collection of funds. for missions in our own country, and confidingly place them, where they may be used to sustain those doctrines, which they abhor.

ART. II.-LETTER ON REVIVALS.

MR. EDITOR:-Having long resided in Connecticut, I cannot but think myself well acquainted with the condition of the churches in this state, and measurably with the religious condition of New England. It is manifest to every one old enough to make the observation, that a great change has come among us during the last twenty years on the subject of doctrine, style of preaching, and the means of promoting revivals of religion.

Once it was supposed that the word of God was the great means of sanctifying the world. Its doctrines were faithfully preached and attended by effects which we still remember with delight. Then conversions were numerous, and converts were an honor to religion. The pure gospel itself was exhibited without any of those softenings, by which human wisdom and prudence contrive to change it into another. Ministers believed that divine truth was the only instrument of conversion, but they ascribed its efficacy solely to God. They did not ascribe it, as is now done, altogether to the sinner.

These holy men durst not alter God's word in the least, though they had a due respect for their people and valued their esteem. Yet they feared God more, and they desired not any esteem of man which should be purchased by offending God and ruining the souls for whom he had made them responsible. They knew that the carnal mind being at enmity with God, receiveth not the things that be of God, that they are foolishness and an offence to it. But they