ers are real, are fitted to excite interest, and are entitled to very serious consideration. Still, as they are all held in avowed consistency with that great series of facts which goes to constitute the Orthodox system, they should not be regarded as placing their advocates beyond the proper limits of Orthodoxy. They constitute a wide field of important discussion, over which those who agree in holding the Head-in holding the great doctrines of redemption by the blood of Christ, and of sanctification by the Holy Spirit-may freely and fraternally traverse. Modes and forms, the interpretation of passages, and explanations of particular doctrines (so long as essential doctrines are not discarded) may be discussed, without the interruption of brotherly affection, and without the imputation and reproach of heresy. One person may hold that all scripture is given by the inspiration of suggestion; and another, that, while some parts are the fruit of immediate suggestion, others may more properly be attributed to the inspiration of superintendence; and neither shouid charge the other with denying the inspiration of the scriptures, or with being a heretic, or an infidel. One person may insist that the passage, in 1 John v. 7, is authentic scripture, and strong proof of the doctrine of the Trinity; and another may doubt this, or deny it altogether; and neither should be charged with intentionally corrupting the scriptures, or with being a Unitarian. One person may hold that God executes his immutable and eternal decrees by a direct efficiency, and another that he does it by the intervention of motives; and yet one be no more an Arminian than the other.

In relation to this subject, the great Orthodox community are in danger on either hand. They are in danger of suffering their system, or some part of it, to run down into palpable heresy. No professed friend of truth ever became a finished heretic at a single leap. The approaches of error are insidious. Its beginnings, like those of strife, are 'as when one letteth out water. It is easy for speculative and presumptuous men to make 'shipwreck of the faith.' So they did in the Apostles' times; so they have done in all periods since; so they are in danger of doing now. And there is danger that, in the wreck, others less criminal than themselves will be involved and ruined. He who can see no such dangers in the times on which we have fallen, is asleep. He who does not vigilantly guard against them, cannot be a faithful watchman.

On the other hand, there is danger of a degree of suspicion and jealousy in regard to this subject, which will go to check inquiry and discussion, interrupt Christian feeling, lead to mutual censures and reproaches, and needlessly break up the ortho

dox community into divisions and sects. To divide and weaken us after this manner is the desire and labor of our enemiesin both worlds. We have all seen how eager they are to seize upon our differences, how ready to magnify them, and how intent to blow the kindling sparks of contention into a flame. We have no need to be ignorant of their devices. And we shall be without excuse, if we neglect to watch and guard against them. -It may help to secure us against the danger here spoken of, to settle in the mind what Orthodoxy is, and what it implies-what are the limits, between which we may differ, and may discuss our differences as Christian brethren, and where the confines of heresy begin. It is hoped that the remarks which have been made may serve to throw some light on this difficult but important subject.

It follows from what has been said, that Orthodoxy is essentially different from Arminianism, as this latter term is now commonly understood. Arminianism, as contained in the published works of Arminius, is a very different thing from what it afterwards became, in the hands of Whitby, Taylor, and many others, who have been accounted his followers. Adopting these later writers as the standard of Arminianism, it is obvious that between this system and orthodoxy there is a wide and essential difference. All orthodox persons believe in the universality of God's eternal purposes, as giving certainty to all events, and as executed in a manner entirely consistent with the free-agency of creatures. But Arminians regard this whole representation as absurd, insisting that there must be what has been termed a "liberty of contingency," and that if the actions of men are certain from eternity, they cannot be free.-All orthodox persons hold to the doctrine of personal election, a doctrine which Arminians universally reject. They teach that the election spoken of in scripture is an election of churches and nations, and not of individuals, and "that it imports rather an election to enjoy the means of grace, than a certainty of salvation by those means."* -All orthodox persons hold to the natural and entire depravity of man. But Arminians believe "that mankind are not totally depraved, and that depravity does not come upon them by virtue of Adam's being their public head; but that mortality and natural evil only are the direct consequences of his sin to his posterity."-All the orthodox hold to instantaneous regenera

* See Whitby on the Five Points, Disc. i. chap. 3.

+ See Adams's View of Religions. Article, Arminians.-Some Arminians hold that mankind are so disabled by the fall as not to be capable of doing their duty; but that, in consequence of the atonement, a "sufficient grace" is imparted to all, to enable them to work out their own salvation. This is supposed to be the doctrine of the Methodists. Ineed not say that it differs widely from the statements of orthodoxy.

tion, by the special influences of the Holy Spirit. But those Arminians who deny total depravity deny, of course, instantaneous regeneration. They represent a change of heart, so far as it needs changing, as a gradual process, and that men become good as they become wise.-The orthodox consider the moral law as immutable and inviolable. It is as really in force, and is as binding now, as it was before the fall of our first parents. But Arminians think the moral law superseded by what they call "the new law of grace," and that sincere, not perfect, obedience is all that is now required of us.-Again; all the orthodox hold to the doctrine of saints' perseverance;-a doctrine which Arminians universally reject.-From the comparison here made, which might be even more extended were it necessary, it will appear to every candid mind that there is a wide and essential difference between Orthodoxy and Arminianism; and consequently, to charge those, who have not departed from the principles of Orthodoxy, with being Arminians, is to do them great injustice.

And if there is a wide difference between Orthodoxy and Arminianism, still more wide and important is the distinction between Orthodoxy and Unitarianism. Indeed, by the advocates of these two systems of religion, there is scarcely any thing held in common. The one regards the Supreme Being as existing in three persons, the other as in one person. The one believes all Scripture to have been given by inspiration of God, the other denies it. The one believes in the Divinity and atonement of Christ, in the Divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit, in the natural and entire depravity of man, in the necessity of regeneration by a special Divine influence, in justification by faith, in the perseverance of saints, in a general judgement, and in the endless punishment of the wicked; but by the most liberalized Unitarians of the present day, all these doctrines are rejected. Unitarians sometimes pretend that they do not differ more from the Orthodox, than the Orthodox do from one another. Our readers will know how to estimate such assertions. They certainly are the result, either of great ignorance, or of something worse.

Surrounded as they are by dangers and enemies, Orthodox Christians have the strongest inducements to cultivate union among themselves. They are united in a great and glorious system of Divine truth-the same which once occupied the minds of Apostles, and into which the angels desire to look; and notwithstanding their differences of opinion upon minor points, they have common ground enough on which to stand, and where they may co-operate, in every work of faith and labor of

love. They worship the same God, trust in the same Saviour, have been sanctified by the same Spirit, are travelling the same road, and looking forward to the same eternal home;—and why should they fall out by the way? Why should local prejudices, and sectional jealousies, and denominational pride, and party zeal, and differences of opinion in smaller matters, be permitted to sunder the bonds of Christian love, and array them one against another? Did they consider how such contentions will look to them in heaven,--and how they tend to grieve the Holy Spirit of God, obstruct the progress of truth, and spread joy among the malignant spirits of darkness;-did they remember the last prayer of the Saviour with his disciples, "That they all may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us,-that the world may believe that thou hast sent me ;"*-they surely would be more diligent, and more successful, in their endeavors to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace.'

INQUIRY INTO THE MEANING OF ROMANS VIII. 19-22.

MR. EDITOR

You have doubtless seen, in the second number of the Biblical Repository, an interpretation of Rom. viii. 18-25, by Prof. Stuart. About the time of the publication of that number, I was engaged in examining that difficult passage, with the hope of satisfying my own mind, at least, as to its meaning. I was then strongly inclined to the opinion, that the term rios, which creates the chief difficulty in the passage, means Christians, or rather Christians in the present state, with a frail corporeal nature. when I read the critical and learned exposition of Prof. Stuart, my confidence in my own opinion was shaken. Subsequently, another examination was entered into, of which the following

But

* The venerable Philip Henry remarks on this passage, as follows:-"Notwithstanding the many sub-divisions that are in the church, yet all the saints, as far as they are sanctified, are one: one in relation, one flock, one family, one building, one body, one bread, one by representation, one in image and likeness, of one inclination and disposition, one in their aims, one in their askings, one in amity and friendship, one in interest, and one in their inheritance; nay, they are one in judgement and opinion; for though in some things they differ, yet those things in which they are agreed are many more, and much more considerable, than those in which they differ. They are all of a mind concerning sin, that it is the worst thing in the world; concerning Christ, that he is All in all; concerning the favor of God, that it is better than life; concerning the world, that it is vanity; concerning the word of God, that it is very precious," &c. See Matthew Henry's Life of Philip Henry, p. 241.

is the result.

13

Should you think the view I have taken of the passage deserving of notice, it is at your disposal.

Prof. Stuart, has, in my view, triumphantly refuted the various, and many of them absurd, interpretations which have been given of the passage; except that which gives to xrious the meaning, Christians, or Christians in their present corporeal state. The question then is, does the controverted term ztiois mean MEN, THE HUMAN RACE IN GENERAL, or does it mean CHRISTIAN MEN, Christians, with a body which clogs the exercises of the soul, and from which they long for deliverance?

To decide this question, let us, first, look at the passage, renderded according to the different meanings of the controverted

term:

18. For I consider the sufferings of the present time as nothing, in comparison with the glory which is to be revealed to us.

19. For the longing desire of the Christian in his present state, is for the manifestation [of the glory] of the sons of God."

20. For the Christian, as to his corporeal nature, was subjected to frailty, not voluntarily, but according to the arrangement of God; yet in hope

21. That this very corporeal nature of the Christian shall be delivered from the bondage of its frail and perishing condition into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

22. For we know that all Christians in the body, do groan and suffer anguish together until the present time.

23. Not only Christians generally, but we who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves, [Apostles and others of distinguished gifts who might be considered as exempt] do groan inwardly, waiting for the blessing of our sonship; to wit, the redemption of our body.

of

24. For in hope we wait for this complete deliverance: course, the object of our hope is yet future; for how can a man be said to hope for that which is present?

18. Moreover, I count not the sufferings of the present time as worthy of comparison with the glory which is to be revealed to us.

19. For the earnest expectation of the human race is waiting for the manifestation [of this glory] of the children of God.

20. For the human race was made subject to frailty, (not of its own choice, but by him who put it in subjection) in hope

21. That that same race may be freed from the bondage of a perishing state, and (brought) into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

22. For we know that all mankind sigh together and are in anguish, even to the present time.

23. And not only so, but we who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves do groan within ourselves, waiting for our adoption as children, the redemption of our bodies.