eleven took our seats upon the top of the stage for Newcastleupon-Tyne. We passed Jedburgh Abbey,—a most magnificent ruin, -an erection" by pious King David." Our way lay through large "moors," which, if they were but distributed among the people, and cultivated, would yield a living for thousands of the poor, who are in almost a starving condition. Our seats were rendered exceedingly uncomfortable by a rain which commenced soon after we left Melrose, and continued through the day. We all raised our umbrellas, but then the difficulty was to avoid the drippings from those held by our friends on either side. After becoming thoroughly wet, the "inside" having been emptied of its nobility, we obtained a sort of half-way consent of the driver to take a seat there. There we were safe and comfortable. The following line was lettered with a paint-brush in a prominent place: "Licensed for 17, 4 inside and 13 out."

We fell in with several of the hunting gentry, who had become satisfied with the "hunter's luck," and were making their way home. The season for shooting grouse had just begun; that is, the time had come when the "game laws" permit this species of sport. And taking the men, we, in some cases, had to take gun, dogs and all, with them. It was amusing to see with what animation these sons of Nimrod would talk over their success. One who had taken quarters in an inn where the stage halted, came out and accosted a companion upon the stage, with the question:"What success? what success?" The answer, as near as we can recollect, was somewhat equivocal. "I," rejoined the knight of the musket, "came in completely exhausted: I went out yesterday, I saw several, and shot one;-I had that cooked for my supper, but it has rained so severely to-day, I have done nothing. But there is game plenty at the north." The remarks were common-place; but the interest with which they were made, and the evidence of excitement produced by shooting a bird about the size of a wild pigeon, gave us some small idea of the reason why, in the old world, hunting is so regulated by law as to be almost entirely monopolized by the gentry.

We passed a nobleman's hunting grounds this day, which show in a different way, and upon somewhat a large scale, the importance which is put upon the sport. For miles the country was divided between forest and moor. Here thousands of acres, which, if cultivated, would yield an abundant reward to the laborer, are entirely unoccupied except by deer, rabbits, and birds. In the centre of these "hunting grounds" is a large establishment, consisting of a country-seat, a few cottages for "game-keepers,"-sta

bles, and kennel. And here the proprietor spends a few weekssometimes only a few days-in the year in sporting. Such remnants of the old feudal system still remain in England, Scotland, and Ireland but how long the unnatural monopoly will be permitted to continue, God only knows. The burdensome monopolies of the old world are now under a pressure which may modify, or even ruin them.

We reached Newcastle at half-past seven, and took quarters at the "Queen's Head Hotel."

ART. VII.-CRITICAL NOTICES.

1. The Philosophy of Christian Perfection; embracing a Psychological Statement of some of the Principles of Christianity on which this Doctrine rests: together with a Practical Examination of the Particular Views of several recent Writers on this Subject. 12mo., pp. 159. Philadelphia: Sorin & Ball. 1848.

THE subject of Christian perfection is one which, at the present time, excites as much interest, and receives as large an amount of attention, from the Christian mind of the country, as any other one theological doctrine. Books have been produced for and against the doctrine; reviews, and other periodicals, have discussed it, in the way of argument, pro and con. Philosophers have endeavored to bring it to the test of philosophical analysis, and have dressed it up in the habiliments of scientific nomenclature, while imaginative and eccentric minds have reduced it to a mere ideal existence. It concerns considerate minds to look over the mass of thought—good, bad, and indifferent—which has been evolved upon the subject, and inquire how much progress has been made, especially within the present century, toward a better understanding of the doctrine, and a more complete experiment upon it as a practical truth. We have examined with some care, perhaps, all the theories of Christian perfection, and are finally settling down upon the conclusion, that, in the general, so far as they look beyond the lines distinctly drawn in the Bible, they are calculated to throw the honest and consistent inquirer into perplexity and doubt. Mr. Wesley theorized sufficiently upon the subject, and the difficulties, real or supposed, in which his positions are involved, attach invariably to his speculations, and not to his plain statements of the doctrine, or the fact, of Christian perfection. But he was met with speculative objections, and attempts to push out the subject to ultimate doctrines, and to show its antagonism in relation to speculative principles, and he sometimes made the effort to satisfy the demands of his antagonists. In

some instances he may have satisfied, or at least silenced them; but in general he seems only to have furnished occasion for new objections and assaults from other quarters. But Mr. Wesley's speculations upon the subject are few, and in themselves harmless; but those who have come after him have so far exceeded him in this mode of treating the subject, that, could he rise from the dead, they would not be within the reach of his vision without the aid of a telescope.. And how far some of these men have "darkened counsel by words without knowledge," we will not now pretend to say.

The latest work upon the subject which has come under our observation is the one whose title-page we have placed at the head of this notice. We had seen "the philosophy" of almost everything" of religion," "of morals," "of the plan of salvation," and now we have before us "the philosophy of Christian perfection." And it is no mean specimen of the mode of bringing out the rationale of Christian doctrine by philosophical investigations, now prevalent in some other quarters besides Germany. We wish we had space for a full review of this book, but we have not. All we can attempt at present is to give the reader a mere outline of the work.

The argument of the work is directed to the inquiry, "What is the standard of moral perfection personally attainable by man?" In pursuing this inquiry, the author looks at the primeval state, or "the original constitution of man," his present condition, and the provisions made for his recovery. His mode of investigation precludes his use of "technical language, even though it may be the language of Scripture." He says, He says, "We propose to interrogate our psychology, that we may see whether science, as the handmaid of revelation, can be made to aid in giving us any clearer views of the moral constitution of man, or any more definite ideas of the moral perfection made attainable by him." He objects to the statement of the doctrine found in our book upon the subject of Christian perfection-"That it implies, simply, loving God with all the heart;" and that it does "not imply a perfect fulfillment of the Adamic law," on account of its "indefiniteness." But after all his interrogations of "psychology," as definite a response as his oracle gives him, is, "that psychology furnishes" no "other limits" to "the strength which this new and holy affection' can acquire in the heart-than those which bound the goodness of God, and the glories and perfections of his character." Is this much more definite than our proposition? But let us look a little further. He says: "The moral elevation procured for him, [man,] by the atonement of Jesus Christ, is nothing less than an entire restoration to his original state of perfection." We follow the author's italics, by the aid of which he would make his specification still more specific. But how far has he proceeded VOL. VIII.-10

6

toward the ultimate truth he is pursuing? Let us look at another leap toward an absolutely specific view. "If there is any philosophy in the principle, that he loves most to whom most is forgiven, we might even expect a more intense ardor of elevation in the soul of man, 'created anew in Christ Jesus,' than was ever exhibited by one who had never sinned." See pp. 50, 51. Here we learn that Christian perfection is somewhat above Adamic perfection; but how much, we know not.

On "the original constitution of man," our author's position is, "That man, as he came originally from the hand of his Maker, was a being of distinguished excellence and perfection." This proposition will not be disputed. But lest we should think too highly of our forefather, he proceeds to guard his proposition by limitations. And he tells us that man 66 was imperfect in knowledge," because "the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression." He then proceeds to the doctrine of " temptation," and makes it out to consist"in the conscious tendency of the appetite to seek its gratification in the forbidden object." And again: "A conscious tendency of some of the desires to seek gratification in a forbidden object." And this "conscious tendency of the appetite to seek gratification in the forbidden object," he makes to be an essential "element" in the "temptation" of man in Paradise before his fall. Now, supposing a plain, unsophisticated person, were to ask the author what he means by "a conscious tendency of the appetite," or "of some of the desires," what would he say? Would he say, without circumlocution, It means to desire? Or would he say, This is philosophical language, which you cannot be made to understand? If he were to give the former answer, would he not leave the inquirer to infer that there is no sin in desiring “ gratification in a forbidden object?" But if the latter, would he not be left to conclude that none but philosophers can understand the responses of "psychology" in relation to man's primeval state? In other words, that the Bible, at least so far as it relates to the introduction of moral evil, is a sealed book to all, except our philosophers and metaphysicians? But we must pause in our course. Our object is not a refutation of the author, but a mere development of his theory. This theory, so far, seems not to admit, that the solicitations and reasoning of Satan constituted the original temptation. And this agency seems to be spoken of in rather doubtful terms by his favorite German author, Dr. Ullmann, who agrees with our author in maintaining that, in temptation, "the mind receives certain ideas, so as to feel, in connection with them, some excitement of desire." "This," he says, must be the case, even if we choose to adopt the notion of a tempting agency working from without, of whatever nature the agency may be." Mark this language: “Even

66

if we choose to adopt the notion of a tempting agency working from without." This language the author quotes without any note of dissent or explanation. He does elsewhere admit Satanic agency in the temptation; but he must have the element of "desires to seek gratification in the forbidden object" come in to the devil's help, or such a thing as a temptation could not, by possibility, be originated by all the skill and power his Satanic majesty could muster.

Adam, then, was not only originally "imperfect in knowledge," but had "desires to seek gratification in a forbidden object:" and, furthermore, our author says he "had his trials and afflictions before he fell into sin." P. 65. However "distinguished" the "excellence" of man was, "as he came originally from the hand of his Maker," it must be taken with the above abatements.

The "second point of general agreement among evangelical writers," to which our author calls attention, and which constitutes a particular theme of remark, is, "That, by transgression, man lost much of his original excellence." P. 28. But how " much" of "his original excellence man lost by transgression," we are not told. Indeed we should judge, from what the author has previously advanced, that he had very little to lose, excepting of one kind. He tells us "that the perfection of our first parents was essentially a moral perfection." P. 22. He distinctly denies to man both "physical" and "mental perfection." Pp. 23, 24. Of course he did not lose by the fall what he never had. And as to "moral perfection," he lost "much" of that; but it would seem from the language employed, there was a residuum left-more or less-how much we are not told. Again, in speaking of man's fallen condition, he asks, "How, then, with the moral powers deranged, the natural appetites and passions clamorous for gratification "-not a very bad thing this, since Adam and Eve, before they fell, had the same "natural appetites," "seeking gratification in a forbidden object "-" and the will at least partially enslaved by their action, could he come up to the requirements of this law?" P. 34. The "appetites and passions," only, perhaps, act a little more fiercely than in Adam, and become rather clamorous, "and the will is at least partially enslaved." And again, he says of fallen man, that "he has become subject to temptations and dangers, though not, as we can perceive, differing materially in their nature, yet more numerous and varied, than those which attached to man's original condition." P. 36. The whole account being just about what any old Pelagian or modern Unitarian would have made up in relation to the fall of man, and its effects upon the race. The whole, whatever it is, amounts to a negation of "much of man's original excellence."

The third position taken by our author is, "that the atonement by