own words,) 'they will not leave them so much as a figleaf to cover the nakedness of their moral deformity.'"

"Now, sir, I wish to ask you, before I go any farther, whether you comprehend the distinctions which I have been making; in short, let me ask you, whether you have understood my meaning. It is pretended that there is no real difference between us and the old school; that it is a fine abstract subject of no practical importance in the world." "Rev. sir, I understand you perfectly; it is the most delightful and the most practical discovery that was ever made by man. What can be finer than to know, that our nature is perfectly sinless without any stain of depravity? It gives a man, too, a most exalted view of his powers over his vices if he have no inherent corruption. None but a pretty acute metaphysician can see why all his acts should be perfectly sinful rather than perfectly holy. Besides, how consoling it must be to worldly people, to know that ambition, envy, and avarice, which have always governed the world, and have been the source of almost all the crimes which have filled it with misery, how consoling must it be to know, that their ruling passions, which all admit to be innate, are made, by that very circumstance, perfectly innocent. The doctrine, too, must serve to promote general cheerfulness, by giving just ideas of sin. Many have formed such hideous notions of it as have driven them to despair; but when we come to view it as always the act of a pure, sinless nature, of a being not himself depraved, it must tend greatly to the quiet of uneasy consciences."

But, my dear sir, it occurred to me while you were speaking, that if this be a doctrine which Fumosus found in the Bible, he deserves no credit at all for original discovery; and if it be not in the Bible we are afraid of it." "Well, sir, he did not use the Bible at all. He did not attempt to prove the depravity of man scripturally false, but in the nature of things impossible.Old divines, because, forsooth, that every individual of the human race, in all ages and nations, had done nothing but sin from the cradle to the grave, inferred that the cause must be some depravity in human nature itself; and then, by giving scripture a literal interpretation, they very comfortably made out the doctrine of original sin, or physical depravity. Fumosus struck at the very vitals of it; he just proved from reason that it was, in the very na

ture of things, impossible, and left men to draw their own conclusions as to its truth or falsehood; as to its being in the Bible or out of it."

"But, reverend sir, I dont doubt the ability of Fumosus to demonstrate that it is absurd to ascribe sinfuluess to man as it would be to a stone, but yet language itself seems to be constructed on that theory; for all men of all nations speak of him not only as the agent of sin, that is, as a sinner, but also as himself actually sinful. I have a great distrust for the demonstrations of reason. I want the authority of-" "Ah, I see where you are going; the instant your party get into difficulty, you strike off to the Bible for help. Now, sir, you must understand we have stolen a march on you; we have actually taken possession of your strong hold, and turned its guns against you. Our great Hermeneuticus, in his ingenious Commentary on Romans, has absolutely proved the fathers, the reformers, and the Church, in all ages, to be absolute novices in the Scriptures. In the opinion of some that are reckoned good judges, he has made St. Paul as pretty a Pelagian as you would wish to see." "But has Hermeneuticus absolutely cleared up all the difficult passages on this subject?" "He has not done all that we could wish to be sure, but yet, considering his circumstances, we cannot imagine how he could do as well as he has. The old idea of a professor's signing a creed as a condition of holding his salary and office, is happily going out of fashion. It was like hampering a man, and then requiring him to walk. A man who shall undertake to teach others, ought surely to be ready to learn himself; he ought to have his reason wholly unshackled; it should move with the slightest breath of evidence, and be carried about like a weathercock with every wind of doctrine. We regard the work on Romans, as fit only for babes in New Theology; and for this reason, we have employed some of our best writers to prepare something which will suit the digestion of such as can bear strong meat. Hermeneuticus carried the principles of interprctation a good way, but he by no means brought them to perfection. Now, two of our able men have, by sound demonstration, settled a system of principles by which a person may go from one end of the Bible to the other with perfect safety, and never meet the doctrine of physical depravity, physical regeneration, effectual grace, and certain kindred notions, which have so long troubled the Church, and retarded the progress of piety." But, Rev. sir, I design

66

to communicate the substance of our conversation to a friend. I know, indeed, from what I have seen in the books of these writers, that their great fundamental position is, 'that there can be no sin or sinfulness, except wrong voluntary action,' but I should be glad to have all their great principles in their own words.""Right! and that is just what I am designing to do. I have as yet but just described our great principle; shown that it is not a metaphysical subtility, in which you could have no interest, but a practical truth, capable of being brought to bear upon almost every thing. I trust I have got you interested in the subject. I shall next give you our great principles of interpretation, which lay at the very foundation of our system in the words of our writers. In future you shall not complain for lack of quotations. But you have already heard, perhaps, as much as you will remember." Here our first interview closed, and here I close my letter.

LETTER II.

On the authority of the Bible in Theology.

At the commencement of our next interview, the good clergyman thus began :-"You have doubtless heard us 'accused of leaning to reason and philosophy, and of evincing a singular and unwarrantable degree of self confidence.' We are constantly taxed with setting up reason and philophy above scripture. Now this we hold to be a wilful misrepresentation on the part of our adversaries. We have never dreamed of putting reason above revelation; we put them both exactly on the same level. We hold the true meaning of Scripture, providing we can come at it to be certain truth; and we also hold that the unbiassed decisions of reason in its own appropriate sphere are infallible truth. Now who would ever set up one infallible guide above another? Can these men prove that we have ever asserted that reason was more than infallible? if not, then let them acknowledge themselves base calumniators." "But, reverend sir, we grant that reason may be a very good and sufficient guide in the affairs of this life; as for instance, when we should plant or reap, or where a man had better vest his property. But you dont pretend surely that it can venture to speak on those subjects where a revelation was necessary to us, and on points upon which

an infallible God has already decided, and which he has forever set at rest." "There, I see you have the vulgar blasphemous notion of the weakness of human reason, from which our writers are happily delivering the Church. Now you must know that our great Pyrrho, in Christian Spectator, Vol. 9, p. 151, has composed a small tract on this very subject, On the authority of Reason in Theology,' and what do you suppose are his conclusions? He decides positively, page 151, That the clear unperverted deductions of reason, are as binding in their authority, and not less truly to be relied on, than the word of God.'"

เ

"But can it be that Pyrrho really means to assert that reason is an internal infallible revelation ?" "Most asuredly, sir. I will give you his own words; he says, p. 151, that he coincides with those who have accustomed themselves to give heed to the voice of reason as the voice of God, and implicitly bowed to her authority; assured that while honestly employed upon subjects within her competency, she can never mislead or betray? We regard reason as the voice of God, and we are absolutely shocked at the profane language of scoffers and blasphemers, who are perpetually declaiming against it. But, sir, you perceive that reason must be unbiassed, and act within its own sphere in order to be entitled to this high confidence." "Aye, that is the important question, more important than the point in theology upon which she is to give her opinion. Who is to determine, sir, when reason is competent and unbiassed ?"——— "Who? do you suppose a revelation is to be given on the subject? reason herself must decide and she is abundantly able, and our ingenious Duplex, before deciding a question in theology from reason, takes the precaution first to prove that it is one within the province of reason, and one in which she has no interest to sway her." "But Pyrrho cannot be bold enough to claim for reason the right to sit in judgment on questions which an infallible God has already settled. He cannot surely wish to give us to understand that the word of God relates to questions which reason is competent to settle-he must be speaking of certain curious questions which it is of no manner of consequence how they are determined; he cannot mean that reason is to discuss a question where the word of God has already given a decision; for that being infallible, any farther discussion must be unnecessary and even presumptuous." "There, sir, you are

mistaken. Pyrrho asserts that reason and revelation have equal authority in theology, and to demonstrate to you that he means that they may act on the same question, he adds, in the very next sentence, that the former can never contradict the latter. Does that satisfy your incredulity?" "But, Rev. sir, he surely could not pretend to extend this licence beyond some very easy questions. How far might we suppose it to extend ?? Well, sir, as far as any reasonable man could possibly wish. It extends to every subject in which man is responsible to God for his opinions. Here, as you are disposed to be so incredulous, I will give you Pyrrho's own words. In deciding the question, why God holds man responsible for his opinions,' he says, 'one and only one satisfactory answer can be given. It is and must be because he has, with his own hand, implanted in the breast of every subject of his righteous government a mind capable of arriving at truth, on all those questions in reference to which SUCH RESPONSIBILITY IS INVOLVED.' Is not here a field wide enough for reason to move in." "Certainly, I cannot for the life of me conceive how the most daring reason can wish for any farther licence. But allowing that reason were perfectly competent to discover all the truths of revelation, I cannot imagine why Pyrrho is so anxious to have it take up questions which have already been settled by the omniscient God. I cannot conceive how reason, with all its power, can give additional confirmation to what is already allowed to be unchangeable truth. His position, if true, seems to be entirely useless." "I thought so, I thought so. I meant to let you see you were in difficulty before I came to your help. You have not learned our great foundation principle of interpretation. This was laid down and demonstrated by our celebrated Duplex in a series of articles in the third and fourth volumes of the Christian Spectator. He is admitted to have settled these great principles, and for this reason Pyrrho has taken many things as granted, for the proof of which we must consult the writings of Duplex. He has done perhaps more than any single individual to bring the Bible over to our side." "Pray, sir, don't keep me long in suspense, I am impatient to learn the great principle of the system which is to free us from the discouraging doctrine that human nature itself is sinful. I am almost dying to know that all my sins are committed by a being of a nature without the slightest stain