softer mould, whose home was amid luxuriant scenes of nature, presented their gods in a lovelier aspect. Throughout the whole range of idolatry, there was found no element of development. The gods and goddesses were of a character to deprave the minds of those who did them reverence. The conception of them was, that they were beings superior to mortals in power, knowledge, and duration of life, but at the same time slaves of the most brutal impulses and the vilest lusts. The effect of offering such a character for worship must be either to crush out the sentiment of religion, or to degrade the whole moral nature. The former effect was produced upon the philosophers, the latter upon the people. Fate and the Epicurean doctrine of a deity who took no care for his creatures, but gave himself up to his own ease and pleasure, were the general notions entertained by the wise. The great practical doctrines of religion had no place in any system of theirs. The soul's immortality was shrouded in a cloud of darkness, which the eye of the wisest philosopher could not penetrate. Socrates just before his death said, "I have hopes that I am going into the company of good men, yet I would not be too confident of it." Cicero also said, "Whether the soul is mortal or immortal, God only knows. Which is most probable is a very great question." So, too, were the other philosophers in suspense on this point. An assurance was needed which philosophy could not give, an assurance which could not be disputed.

With such views of the higher powers as were entertained by those who believed in their existence, and with such ignorance as prevailed with respect to the future destiny of the soul, there was no culture of the religious affections. Those feelings that distinguish man from the brute creation, which ally him to the infinite Father, which give him joy in prosperity and solace him in adversity, and which impart comfort in seasons of suffering and sorrow, had no opportunity for development.

The moral aspect of things showed the need of a higher light. Although there were individual instances of moral excellence, there was but little in the great mass of the people that was entitled to respect in a moral estimate. Nor could we reasonably expect to find moral worth

among the people whose gods were personifications of the basest passions. The very services of religion were in many cases atrocious orgies of cruelty and libertinism. In the worship of Bacchus, of Ceres, of Venus, and of Cybele, all decency was set at defiance. As Paul says, "They were alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that was in them; because of the blindness of their hearts, they gave themselves over unto lasciviousness to commit all iniquity with greediness."

Such was the condition of the religious element in man's nature previous to the revelation by Jesus. In the exercise of their unaided freewill, men had reduced themselves to this state of degradation, from which they had no power to free themselves. It has been urged by Deists, that there was no need of any other revelation than that afforded by nature and reason. The testimony of history is so decidedly opposed to this, that the theory does not merit consideration. Reason and nature had been forever at hand, yet neither nor both together could impart a knowledge of what man had aspired to know. There are truths which reason and nature cannot teach. Like the Cyclopean Polyphemus, they struggle eyeless and aimless. It is true that there is no discrepancy between the teachings of Jesus and of nature. The revelations of both are in harmony. Nature is now christianized by the revelation. of Jesus, and thus it appears to the casual observer that nature is all we need. But we ought to remember, that to discover that a fact is in harmony with nature and reason, is very different from finding out a fact by the aid of nature and reason. Nature reflects the light of Christianity, kindled by Jesus.

In the illustration of these three facts, our author is singularly happy and effective. In the development of the "Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation," he is we doubt not equally satisfactory to those who accept his theory. And yet we must confess we have never been so deeply impressed with the sense of the difficulties that cluster around the Calvinistic system as in reading this book. One of his positions is, if Christ be not God, then does God encourage treason. For Christ, by his teachings and his labor for sinful man, attracts love to himself, and thus stands as a rival to God. He says it does not change

the case to assume that God sent Christ. It is Christ who does the work, and him, therefore, we love. To whom would such an argument ever occur but to a Calvinist? He illustrates this by supposing a captain to order one to go to the relief of a shipwrecked crew. Though the messenger may speak of the mercy and tender-heartedness of the captain, if he be himself a man of compassion and does what he can to alleviate their distress, takes no thought for himself, but is anxious for their comfort, they will love him instead of the captain. This is no doubt true; but what then? Why, says the author, if Christ be not God, then shall we not love God but Christ. What is the foundation of our love to God? Is it for what Christ has done and for this alone? Here is a fallacy, which the author, who we understand is a lawyer, would very readily discover in a legal argument. Jesus came into the world not merely to attract love towards himself as the Saviour, but to induce men to love God by showing his paternal character. There are other reasons for loving God, than such as the author recognizes. The basis of our love to God, in his view, seems to be our salvation from impending eternal misery. He says, and truly, that we cannot command the affections to love and be obeyed, unless there be shown to them an object of lovable qualities. Let this be borne in mind in considering the foundation of love to God, and there need be no fears that Jesus will divert from God any love to himself. By showing the lovable qualities of God, by revealing his paternal character, Jesus turns our thoughts and affections to the Father.

There is another very singular position which he attempts to defend, founded, we presume, on the importance which he feels of offsetting some of the absurdities of the doctrine of the trinity, which is this, that we cannot love God for what he does, unless he practise self-denial, This he illustrates thus:

Suppose an individual is confined under condemnation of the law, and the governor in the exercise of his power pardons him. This act of clemency would produce upon the heart of the criminal no particular effect either to make him grateful or to make him better. He might perhaps be sensible of a complacent feeling for the release granted; but so long as he knew that his release cost

the governor nothing but a volition of his will, there would be no basis in the prisoner's mind for gratitude and love. The liberated man would feel more gratitude to one of his friends who had labored to get petitions before the governor for his release, than to the governor who had released him."

In this extract the governor is supposed to represent God. Now we would like to ask the author whether he considers this a fair representation of the relation which God sustains to his creatures? Is there no tender feeling towards us? When God pardons our sins, is it only a "volition of the will?" Are we forced to adopt this alternative, or to accept his position that God practises self-denial? It cannot be. We love God because he first loved us, and has manifested his love each day of our lives.

In his chapter on "faith, as the exercise through which truth reaches and affects the soul," he considers the importance of belief in its effect upon the character and life. This generalization is too hasty, and his reasoning incomplete. He is controverting the remark often made, that it makes no difference what a man believes if he be sincere. He shows that in respect to business affairs, it does make a difference, and the sincerity of the belief may make the difference the greater. Thus it makes a good deal of difference whether we believe a man to be honest, with whom we have business relations. If he be a knave, and we think him honest, he may defraud us, and the sincerity of our belief in his honesty may make the result more certain. In this illustration he has stated a fact which we presume no one will be disposed to question. And yet does not every reader feel as though it were hardly a fair illustration, to be used in an argument against the dangers of mistake in matters of belief. In this case, the man is no worse as a man on account of his mistake. It has not affected his moral character. There may be cases where the character is unfavorably affected by the belief. We have seen that this was the case in the days of idolatry. This is not, however, what the author means. He has brought forward the illustration referred to, and others, in order to show the necessity of right views in respect to the doctrines of Christianity. He founds his argument on the practical effects produced. If a case can be found 35*

where there are no practical effects, we presume he would not insist upon the absolute necessity of right notions. The doctrine of the Trinity is one the belief or disbelief of which does nothing to change the life. A Trinitarian is no better for his belief than a Unitarian for his. We have yet to learn that this belief ever affected the heart to produce purification, or ever helped one in the work of consecration to the service of God. We are willing to accept this test and to try the truthfulness of the various forms of doctrinal belief by the effect produced. We accept his statement which he calls especial attention to:

"That doctrine which rectifies the conscience, purifies the heart, and produces love to God and men, is necessarily true, because, as it has been demonstrated that righteousness and benevolence is the greatest good of the soul, and likewise that the greatest good must depend on the belief of truth, therefore the conclusion is inevitable, that that doctrine, which being believed destroys sin in the heart and life of man, and produces righteousness and holiness, is the truth of God.. If it destroys sin wherever it takes effect by faith, and makes happiness grow out of right living and right loving, from the constitution-from the character of God-from the nature of man, that doctrine is the truth of God."

A. A.

ART. XXIX.

Literary Notices.

1. Pictures of Europe, framed in Ideas. By C. A. Bartol. "What thy soul holds dear, imagine it

To lie that way thou go'st."-SHAKSPEARE. Boston: Crosby, Nichols & Co. 1855. 12mo. pp. 407.

WE always read every publication that bears Mr. Bartol's name. Whatever the title or the topic may be, however unpromising it may look, or foreign from the stirring interests that engage immediate attention,we are always sure of finding rich results of meditative thought, imagery, and illustration that flow aptly and gor