intellectual interest, and still be unaffected by any of those emotions in which the true spiritual hath its dwelling and its life. They have their pleasant ideal reverie; they have seen an ideal likeness, if not "their own natural face," in the preacher's or lecturer's "glass," and they go away forgetting, or rather having never known, what strange "manner of persons they are." Even when there might seem to be produced something that looks like a more inward and abiding effect, it may be but the inertia of quietism, not the rest of holiness. The difference may be stated in a word-one single word, found only in the Bible language, and unknown alike to the highest as to the lowest philosophy. Platonism, the best Platonism, has no cross. With all its apparent asceticism, with all its proud talk of autocracy, or the government of the lower by the higher nature, it has no real cross either in the doctrinal or the practical, the disciplinary or the expiatory sense. When it is not wholly speculative, but sincerely carried out in some consistent form of life, there may be ascetic mortification of the flesh, and yet, perhaps, only in obedience to some proud demand of this "higher nature," falsely laying its own soulsins upon the miserable body.

Thus it is a radical defect of this pseudo-spirituality that there is no descending before ascending, as is the uncompromising Gospel way. There is no humiliation in it, however much it may sometimes seem to assume the form of humility. There is no true repentance for sin as committed against God and Christ. There is no acknowledgment of utter spiritual, as well as passional ruin; of utter alienation from God as the cause of all the lower war that has been let loose in the sense and the flesh. Socrates is eloquent here, most impressive as well as most instructive. He well understood the soul to be divided, broken, "dispersed," as Augustine says, "over variety of vanities." Hence he so earnestly speaks of its being "collected, gathered into itself," avrǹv els aútηv žvλλéуeσ0aι, and in this way "made whole." Such was the only peace he knew. The Psalmist had the same, or a higher thought, but he connects it with a still more transcending and saving idea

when he prays, (Ps. 86 : 11,) "Unite my heart (make one my heart) to fear thy name."

Hence, too, it is that in this Platonic owrnpía there is no real losing the earthly life to gain a heavenly. The sins of the mind, the "spiritual wickedness in high places," demanding often a severer struggle than with the powers of flesh and blood-these are not cast away, or may not be cast away. On this account there is no reconciliation with God and of Godin other words, no outward and forensic as the ground of any inward peace. In short, there is no coming to Jesus, being lost in Jesus, going out of self (the highest as well as the lowest self) into Christ and finding in him that priceless righteousness without which all human virtue, from the lowest form of prudential worldliness to the highest dream of a pietistic philosophy, is but an eternal bankruptcy.

Socrates might have brought his phronesis, too, within the list of exchangeable values. The philosophic calmness, as well as the sensual riot, is to be surrendered. Quietism itself must be disturbed, as well as ambition dethroned, and appetite resisted, and worldliness exchanged for grace, if we would win the higher riches,* the kanpovoμíav åμápavтov, (1 Pet. 1: 4,) "the inheritance unfading," "the amaranthine crown" (1 Pet. 5:4) "preserved in heaven for those who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation." The whole soul must be emptied out with all its fancied treasures. A man must sell all that he hath, parting with every "high thought" as well as low desire. Self-loathing, repentance in dust and ashes, must take the place of all philosophic complacency, and "God be merciful to me a sinner!" must be the only plea and

"The riches of grace (Eph. 1: 8) which he hath made to abound in us in all wisdom and prudence," (oopía kaì opovýσel.) Prudence is a poor rendering for this last word. We are not to suppose that Paul here meant to talk Platonically, but the more spiritual sense of the word was on his mind, and the very structure of the sentence shows that poóvnois here is higher than copía. As the one denotes the knowledge of the intellect, the other more properly suggests the knowledge of the heart, that moral state of the spirit which makes the mind clear. Socrates was aiming at something like this in his opóvnois or harmony of the soul. This passage in Ephesians should be rendered: "In all wisdom and spiritual discernment.”

prayer with which the most intellectual as well as the most sensual, the most ideal as well as the most material, the most philosophical as well as the most worldly, must come as beggars to the treasury of heaven. The Senecas and the Antonines, if they come at all, must come as the contemned publican or the sensual epicurean; Gamaliel must receive salvation on the same terms and with the same repentance as the crucified thief. All men do not owe the same amount, but all are equally bankrupt, the least owing ten thousand talents without a farthing to pay. "Lord, forgive us our debts :" the idea, as well as the prayer, was unknown to any heathen ethics or heathen philosophy. O loose our bonds, remitte nobis debita nostra. The pure breathing of this petition, from a soul conscious of its insolvency as well as its poverty, is demanded, if not as the price, at least as the condition, on which any one can become an heir of the true riches, or indulge the hope of any share or interest in the "Pearl of great price."

ART. VI.-EDWARDS ON THE ATONEMENT.

BY PARSONS COOKE, D.D., LYNN, Mass.

The Atonement. -Discourses and Treatises by Edwards, Smalley, Maxcy, Emmons, Griffin, Burge, and Weeks. With an Introductory Essay, by Edwards A. Park, Abbot Professor of Christian Theology, Andover, Mass. Boston: Congregational Board of Publication. 1859. Pp. lxxx. 596.

THE Introduction here named has a separate title, to wit. The Rise of the Edwardean Theory of the Atonement; an Introductory Essay. This is a true description of what the author undertakes in this Introduction, whatever views may be taken of the success of his endeavors. In the course of his remarks, he embraces in his series of "successors of Edwards," besides those whose works appear in the book before us, the names of Bellamy, Hopkins and West. These three, whose works on the atonement are not published in the series before

us, Dr. Park represents, as having a position second to none of the successors of Edwards. The reason why these are omitted, and others of less importance are inserted, does not appear at the first glance. This, however, is to he said, that of Bellamy he testifies, that: "Like the elder Edwards, he sanctioned in the main both the views and the phraseology of the old Calvinists, He repeatedly declares, that God must and does always, throughout all his dominions, not only in word threaten, but in fact punish sin, with infinite severity, without the least mitigation or abatement, in any one instance whatever." As to Hopkins, he says: "We do not deny, that, like his teacher, Edwards, and his companion, Bellamy, he makes an impression favorable in many respects to the more ancient form of Calvinism." But as he makes Dr. West more fruitful in sources of argument for the new theory, than either of the others, it is not to be supposed that the others, or that West himself would have been excluded, because the impression which their whole treatises would have made, would have been too favorable to the old Calvinism. But, certainly, the republication of West's treatise, would have been a public benefit, could we have had it in the place of some, which have recently been republished.

The Introduction is the main attraction of the book.

It is of great importance, as a means of defining the position. of the author, and of the large and influential body of ministers and people in sympathy with him. There are two reasons, in our view, why it has been so little noticed. One is, that it consists very much of subtle and abstruse disquisitions and quotations, not to be understood without labor; and the other is, that it is not to be bought without purchasing a volume of nearly seven hundred large octavo pages, consisting of treatises on the atonement, by other authors, most of whom are already well known to the public; to which volume, Professor Park's work is put as the vestibule. But, for present purposes, the vestibule is more important than the house; especially for the light it throws on what has seemed ominous and mysterious in existing accounts of theological speculation. It goes far to enucleate the paradox of Edwardeanism against

Edwards, that lately developed system which is claimed to be most in accordance with Edwards, and yet is made vastly more consistent and improved by positions in conflict with him. During the development of this scheme, Calvinists have looked on with suspicion. It has been a painful mystery to them, that those opposing the distinctive features of the system of Edwards and Calvin, should assume the name of Edwardeans, and virtually deny it to those who, in all points, adhered to that system. The mystery has been still more painful, from our remembrance of a similar phenomenon, attending the early development of Unitarianism among us. Then it was contended, that the Liberals were the only true successors of the Puritans. Now, the work before us, though it may not allay the anxiety in the case, will give us the needed information. It comes from one who ought to be able to tell us all about it; and one who, upon the main point, has not been wanting in frankness.

The author's frankness in the concession, that the elder Edwards is against him, is worthy of all praise. What other writers have attempted to prove, he more than confesses. He not only admits this in general, but he specifically states the points of conflict between Edwards and the Edwardeans. He then goes on to show, how elements of opposition to Edwards were eliminated from him; how the progeny has devoured its parent; how the inference has annihilated its premises.

Our author uses the term Edwardean in the sense, not of those who believe with Edwards, but with "the successors of Edwards." This is a favorite phrase with him, as if the inheritance of his name had somehow gone out of his family, and out of possession of those who adhere to his system. He traces the line of Edwardean succession down through such honored names as Bellamy, Hopkins, Dwight, Smalley, Emmons, Maxcy and Griffin, and makes it terminate in himself and those like him, who hold views on material points, as he himself shows, opposite to those of the elder Edwards.

But we must no longer delay to let our author speak for himself. The joint product, which he gets from the writings of Edwards, developed by the long line of successors, and