probable inferences. True, our author adduces "existing facts;" but how are we to know that they are facts, unless we are satisfied with testimony, or admitting that we may satisfy our own eyes of the fulfilment of certain prophecies, yet we cannot ascertain that these prophecies were written at a very remote date, and by the very individuals whose names they bear, except through the medium of probable evidences. As well might we attempt to establish a mathematical proposition by moral reasoning, as to reduce the truth of Christianity to a mathematical demonstration. Its verity may be ascertained by the highest degree, (so to speak) of moral demonstration; but we like to have things called by their proper names; and the title of a book on such a subject as the evidences of Christianity, should not convey an erroneous impression.*

*For a specimen of reasoning worthy the name of moral demonstration, let the reader examine the following synopsis of a chapter taken from the first volume of Faber's Dessertation on the Credibility of the Pentateuch, and compare it with Dr. Keith's first chapter, as the point to be established is substantially the same in each.

"As the evidence of miracles is designed for a contemporary age, so the evidence of prophecy is designed for all succeeding ages. The nature of this evidence is such, as to be germinant, gaining instead of loosing strength by the lapse of years.

I. The apparent and uninspired prescience of an able statesman can only reach a particular point; for he can do nothing more than argue from known causes to their probable effects

II. But the prophecies of Moses extend far beyond any such point; nor can their accomplishment be accounted for on the supposition, that he merely inferred certain effects from certain causes after the manner of an able politician.

1. A discussion of the prophecy that Israel should be characterised among the nations by dwelling alone or remaining unmixed.

2. Discussion of the prophecy that the Israelites should be deported from their own country into other lands,—that they should there become a proverb and a byeword,-that their plagues should be of long continuance, and that they should be universally recognized as divine judgments.

(1.) No human sagacity could have foretold such improbable

events

(2.) Therefore Moses must have received the knowledge of them from inspiration.

But herein the writers of our day differ from those of the past. They left their arguments to speak for themselves;we forestall, if possible, a favorable judgment. They relied on the merits of their works, but modern authors, in not a few instances, presume too much on the credulity of the public.

ART. VII. LETTERS TO A SOUTHERNER.

LETTER I.

SIR, My search has at last been successful. I have at length found one whose acquaintance with the New Theology qualifies him to be an able instructor and his zeal for its propagation, will no doubt make him a very interesting one. He lives on the most intimate terms with the New Haven Theologians, and report speaks of him as the author of some of the most powerful tracts in defence of the new Philosophy.

On my first opening to him the object of my errand, the good man's eyes fairly sparkled with pleasure. He most cheerfully tendered his services, and so confident is he of the weight and cogency of his arguments, that I have little doubt that he already counts on me as a convert. He informs me that a scholar of any ordinary capacity will acquire the New Theology in the course of a very few hours, and

3. A discussion of the prophecy, that the Isralites on their national return to the God of their fathers, shall be returned to their own land.

4. A discussion of the standing prophecy, involved in those sanctions of the law which presume the constant operation of an extraordinary Providence.

5. A discussion of the standing prophecy similarly involved in various positive institutes of Moses.

III. The inspiration of Moses may be proved, not only from his own accomplished and accomplishing predictions, but likewise from those of every subsequent prophet who recognised his divine commission."-See Fuber's Hora Mosaica, Vol. 1, Chapt.

assures me that in three or four interviews at most, he will make me a perfect master of the great fundamental principles of their doctrine. I fear he counts too much upon my capacity, or upon the simplicity of his system, if I may make our first conversation a sample of what is to follow. However, nothing shall be wanting on my part, I shall attend on him whenever his professional duties leave him at leisure, and transmit to you an exact account of all that passes

between us.

You would be delighted to witness this amiable man's enthusiasm on the subject of the New Theology; it is really worthy of a better cause. Upon my asking him in what books the new system was to be found, the good man hastened to his library (which stands in a small case of shelves) and brought forward eight or ten large cloth bound volumes, which I found to be the Christian Spectator, a theological periodical formerly published at New Haven. "Here," says he, laying them down on the table before us, "here I bring you truth itself embalmed; here you have the new theology in its purity, the clear first gush from the fountain head here are the labours of those who have spent a life in separating truth from error, and presenting it without any foreign mixture. Here you have the very quintessence of reason the pure essential oil of common sense." "But, Rev. sir," says I, "do all your followers receive this as the text book of the system?" "All our followers first obtained the system from this work; it is the very Koran of new Thelogy. This is the very storehouse from which all our best writers have drawn their principles and arguments. It was here that the system was first unfolded to mankind.This work has constantly circulated among our followers in every part of the Union. Our best divines in every section of the country have contributed to its pages, so that whatever principles you find advanced in this work, you may safely count on them as the principles of our whole party." "Now let me ask if you have ever taken the trouble to look into this work ?" "I was obliged to confess I had not." "Indeed ?" Nor Barnes's Notes ? Indeed! Nor Stuart's Romans? Nor Finney's Sermons? Nor Beecher's Views." "Reverend sir, I must confess my ignorance, though I perceive you pity it." "Pity it! far from it! Pity it! it may sound strange to you, I envy it. Sir, you know not what a feast you have before you. Such another the world could

not furnish.

You know not what light is soon to break in upon you. I protest that it is no small pleasure barely to recal the delightful emotions that these, our standard works, once awakened in my bosom."

catechism.

"Now, sir, I will shew you the fundamental principle on which our whole system rests. Just please to answer me this simple question. Do you believe in the depravity of man, or the depravity of sin?" "In the depravity of man. to be sure." I thought so. I thought so. The doctrine of physical depravity. You got it from your nurse and You believe that sinfulness is something that may be predicated of the sinner himself; an absolute blasphemy against human nature, and, what is more, against the God of nature. Yes sir, here is the great discovery of modern times. It has been found that sinfulness can belong to nothing but acts; that the sinner himself is not sinful and this simple disclosure has revolutionized theology and changed the face of the Church. I don't know where the opinion originated, but some how or other it got into universal currency, that sinfulness was something which might exist in man himself and belong to his nature, and the absurd dogma has produced infinite mischief both in religion and morals. Yes sir, the greatest part of sermons and books of devotion, for the last few centuries, have been little better than so many libels upon human nature. I am fairly astonished that mankind could ever have borne with such scoffs and blasphemies which now appear so shocking to pious ears. It has been absolutely demonstrated, sir, that sinfulness cannot belong to human nature that it is as absurd to impute depravity to man himself as it would be to predicate weight of thought or roundness of the affections. In short, sinfulness may with as much propriety be attributed to the nature of holy angels or of God himself as of man and devils. We hold to the sinfulness of acts and of these alone; we grant that the acts of the extortioner, the thief or the murderer may be sinful, but to assert that these acts express any qualities of the agents themselves, this absolutely shocks us, we regard it as little short of blasphemy. Is not this a comfortable doctrine?" "I profess, sir, if it be true it is the most comfortable one I ever heard; why, to find that I myself am perfectly pure and free from all sinfulness, it is absolutely electrifying. Now inform me at once who has brought us

this glad tidings, who made the discovery?" "Our great Fumosus." "But was he the very first discoverer?" "We do not claim for him exactly the merit of being the first discoverer, but we boldly assert his originality in bringing this great truth to light. The fact is we have lately ascertained that the same great principle was discovered and ably unfolded by the eloquent Pelagius some centuries ago, but no one supposes that Fumosus was ever aware of this; and we have all agreed to concede to him the merit of entire originality." And did Pelagius hold the very same scutiments?" "As nigh as words can express it. He denied that we inherit any sinfulness from Adam, or that there is any thing good or evil in man distinct from his actions. I give you his own words: All good or evil on account of which we are either praise or blameworthy is acted by us, not born with us; before the acting of his own will there is only that in man which God created.' There is no sinfulness before acts, but it is all placed in acts. It was on this foundation that he built his whole system, and if this be solid no man can prove but—” "But, Rev. sir, I thought you called yourself a Calvinist and held the doctrine of total depravity." "And so I do, and so do we all; we profess to acknowledge that all the acts of unconverted men are sinful; but then we hold it to be the very height of absurdity, on account of this uniform course of sin in the agent, to argue any sinfulness in his nature as its cause. Here, sir, we have found solid ground: we reconcile all difficulties on this vexed question; it removes all absurdity, and must satisfy every sceptical mind; we hold, sir, to the perfect purity of human nature, and the perfect sinfulness of all its acts. In short, we are so far Calvinists that we believe in the perfect purity of man, and the total depravity of sin. Do you see the distinction ?" "Perfectly." "And is not here orthodoxy enough for any reasonable man?" "Rev. sir, I am no theologian and cannot pretend to be a judge in such nice matters; but is it to be expected that they who hold to the perfect purity of man will long believe in the entire depravity of his acts? Is it not to be feared that they who have ventured to deny original sin, will soon begin to explain away that which is actual?"

"You may be perfectly easy on that head: there is no imaginable connection between them. It has always beenwith me matter of absolute astonishment, that divines have