benevolence would then prompt and effectuate all further measures which might be necessary; according to Dr. G., man needed to have his Redeemer do something more for him than simply to place him where the Moral Governor could forgive and bless him, and deal with him as if he had never sinned; he needed a Redeemer who should purchase and merit from the Father those positive saving influences which the Arminian divines supposed would be exerted by the Father freely, spontaneously, gratuitously. This difference, then, affects not in the slightest degree the question of a restricted or universal atonement. On this question we boldly reiterate our assertion, that Dr. G. and all his "Edwardean" associates are strictly, purely, simply Arminian. The Atonement was understood by both parties in the same sense, and both pronounce it universal.

Here then we pause. We have passed in review the teachings of the "Edwardean" divines respecting the nature of the Atonement, respecting the ground of its necessity, and respecting its extent. In every particular we have found those teachings anticipated by the great teachers of original Arminianism. The theory is purely Arminian in every part. Its advocates may complaisantly arrogate to themselves the distinguished honor of having exposed the untenableness of the old Calvinistic scheme, and of having originated a statement of the doctrine as truly "epoch-making" in its history as was the Nicene formula of the person of Christ in the history of that doctrine; but let them not turn back to the rich suggestive pages of Episcopius, Grotius, and Limborch, lest they discover the mortifying fact, that after two hundred years they have just come up to the enlightened views of the primitive Arminians. Perhaps two hundred years more may suffice to discover to them the semi-Pelagianism of some principles involved in the form of Arminianism they now hold to, and bring them to a genuine evangelical Arminianism with all its derided features. At any rate, we wish them the good fortune.

How admirable the divine Nemesis of history! The Calvinistic refugees of New England, pale, thoughtful exiles in the wilderness, have atoned vicariously for the violent expatriation of the innocent Remonstrants, adopted their once derided faith, and will not fail eventually to claim with pride those great, farsighted heroes of the Belgic Church as true pioneers and leaders of the "New School" host. How little dreamed John Robinson of this as he prepared for his grand disputation with Episcopius! What a theme for the pen of the future historian of Calvinism!

NOTE. Since the above was written, the first numbers of a series of pamphlets, entitled "Views in New England Theology," have been issued from the press of

Messrs. Crocker & Brewster, Boston. In the first, "The New England Theology contrasted with the New Arminianism," the writer, understood to be Dr. Parsons Cooke, endeavors to rescue the terms " Edwardean" and "New England" from their present perverted use, by proving that the soi-disant Edwardean or New England Theology is radically opposed to the real views of Edwards and of the New England of olden time. Taking up the doctrine of Sin, as set forth in the unpublished but oft-copied lectures of Professor Park, he instances twenty-five points of open disagreement between Edwards and his Andover disciple, while there is but one point upon which they agree "half-way!" "What is here proved," he affirms, "is not a variance from Edwards on a few immaterial points. It is a difference toto cælo, one of the most direct contradictions of Edwards's system that can be found." He takes the liberty of calling it "New Arminianism, not in a way of reproach, but as most according to the reality of the thing." As the author of the "Introductory Essay" in the book we have reviewed has been accused in some quarters of a little "special pleading” in said essay, in order to find his theory in the writings of the elder Edwards, we trust we may, without disrespect to any, refer our readers to this new and interesting brochure as an effectual corrective, if the accusation have any truth. At the same time it will be found to furnish striking confirmation of the main position of the above article, showing, as it does, that, bating some few semi-pelagian particulars, the "New Divinity" is as truly Arminian on the doctrine of sin, as on that of the atonement.

ART. IV. OBLIGATIONS OF SOCIETY TO THE COMMON LAW.*

WE have the authority of Cicero for saying that "nothing is truly useful which is not honest;" and it was an exhortation of the wisest of men to "buy the truth, and sell it not." Whatever is opposed to honesty and truth is an enemy to virtue and morality; and if there be any profession or calling, the practice of which tends to enervate the love of truth or the disposition to honesty, it is to be condemned and avoided. Rectitude of thought, of speech, and of conduct are the distinguishing characteristics of a virtuous and happy man; and he cannot be delighted or benefited in any employment where he may not readily cultivate those traits of character, for they are more desirable than all attainments in science.

Cato, of Utica, resolved to die when he anticipated the fallen liberties of Rome. So let even the professor of law bid his much loved science adieu, if truth and honesty, which are better sovereigns than Cesar, can triumph no more!

The persuasion is, perhaps, not uncommon, that the science and the practice of the law are both unfriendly to the great interests of

Substance of a lecture delivered before the Law Department of the New York University, Nov., 1859.

truth and morality; that a great lawyer is not apt to be a good man; and that difficulties to virtue thicken in the path of him who engages in the practice of the law. Let one speak of the legal profession in connection with the pursuit of morality and religion, and he would probably be entertained with a verse from the "Loyal Garland:"

"Lay by your pleading,
Law lies a-bleeding;

Burn all your studies down,

And throw away your reading!"

He would be fortunate if he escaped a facetious application of a text from St. Paul: "The strength of sin is the law." And should a father apply for a suggestion as to which of the two professionslaw or medicine-it were supposed his son seemed to promise best adaptability, he need not be surprised at some such allegorical reply as this:

"One told a gentleman his son

Should be a man-killer, and be hanged for it;
Who after proved to be a great and rich

Physician, and with much fame was hanged

In picture in the university, for a grave example!
Another schemist

Found that a squint-eyed boy should prove

A notable pick purse, and after a most strong thief;
When he grew up to be a cunning lawyer,

And at last died a judge!"

A single remark from La Fontaine will illustrate the idea: "A shipwrecked voyager cast upon an unknown and, he feared, barbarous shore, presently espying a gallows erected in the distance, knew that he was in a civilized and Christian country!"

But civilized society owes to the science of the law a better respect than is thus indicated; for it is easy to maintain that the very foundations of such society would sink, and regulated communities degenerate into elements that would overthrow civilization, were it not for the invisible but potent protection of the law over society and its multiplied interests. A society of order cannot subsist without law; and were we to dispense with it we should take the perilous road to barbarism.

66

Of law," says the judicious Hooker, "no less can be acknowledged than that her seat is the bosom of GOD; her voice is the harmony of the world; all things in heaven and earth do her homage, the very least as feeling her care, and the greatest as not exempted from her power." Both St. Paul and Cicero affirm that the law is the minister of God to man for good. It is undeniably

true, that in all countries where it reigns it is a protector to the obedient and an avenger to the rebellious. Although the government which it upholds be that of Nero, it is better than none; and, notwithstanding its principles have been filtered through many forms of grossness and ignorance, still, what now remains to the civilized world is the alembic of legal purity, and is made obligatory by the sanction of heaven itself.

It has been objected as to human laws, that after they have been improved to the utmost attainable degree of perfection, they must still be imperfect in three particulars: 1. They will be defective in substance; 2. Weak in motives; and 3. Only partial in their operation. It is said under the first of these objections, that although law forbids crimes that are apparent and atrocious, still it cannot reach many refined irregularities which are not the less capable of troubling society for not appearing enormous or palpable. Let it be granted that it cannot ordain patience, meekness, or love, and that society without those virtues must needs be unhappy. It is said, under the second objection, that no reward for obedience to human law, nor penalty for its violation, can be sufficient to make it universally observed. Let it be granted that every violation of the law derogates from its force and authority, and that the insufficiency of its apparent motives is an evil. It is said, under the third objection, that the laws avenge us on insignificant offenders, oftentimes punishing the petty thief whom the pain of hunger or the fear of death has tempted to rob us of a paltry sum, while magnificent plunderers, wearing the plumes of conquerors, ravage kingdoms with impunity, and overwhelm whole districts with injustice and oppression. Let it be granted that the history of the world abounds with instances that illustrate the force of the objection.

But what then? Because the law cannot prescribe all moral duties, nor redress all possible wrongs, nor pervade the domain of religious obligation, is it fit that a Christian community lay it aside?

"Ubi plura nitent in carmine, non ego paucis
Offendar maculis."

It cannot be denied that the law of nature, which has issued from the throne of infinite wisdom and goodness, is perfectly adapted to the true and lasting happiness of man; and that the precepts revealed to us in the Holy Scriptures compose a solid foundation of ethics. Now it is the boast, both of England and the United States of America, that their forms of government and systems of law are in consonance with those divine rules and precepts, and rest upon that sure foundation of the law of nature and revelation; and it is a

principle of the common law adopted by both countries that "no human laws should be suffered to contradict these."

Considering, then, the law as a rational and useful science, promotive of the interests and agreeable to the sentiments of mankind in a state of civilization and enlightenment, it may illustrate and defend our position if we find, on inquiry, that it is a science deeply imbued with the principles of true morality. Let us, therefore, attempt to trace the moral element in legal science, and to touch, if we can, the key-note of natural justice that harmonizes all its parts. It is claimed for the law that it is a science of morality and justice. So much, at least, may be advanced in respect of THE COMMON LAW, as administered by the courts at Westminster, and by those in this country; for it is not only a noble edifice of antiquity, reared by the labor and adorned by the learning of centuries, but its doctrines are comprised in precepts of wisdom and justice. Its object rises as high as that of any human science, while its foundation is as strong as the immutable principles of the law of nature; and although its origin has been said to be "as undiscoverable as the head of the Nile," yet its principles, many of them of higher antiquity than memory can reach, have been recognized by successive generations as of undeniable wisdom, weight, and authority.

Borrowing its primary rules and fundamental principles from the precepts inculcated by the law of nature; from that inexhaustible reservoir of legal antiquities and lore, the Feudal system, called by Spelman the law of nations in Western Europe; from the customs of the Britons and Germans, as recorded by Cesar and Tacitus; from the codes of the northern nations of the continent; from the practical maxims of England's Saxon princes; from the ancient customs of all the divisions of Britain; from the charters of her Norman kings and those of the Plantagenet line; and from the civil law and the canon law of the Romans, the common law of England acquired at length such intrinsic excellence and general authority as to be admitted and observed throughout the realm by king and subjects, Parliament and courts, as the best rule of civil conduct. And when our own republic reared the pillars of her government, not only her federal authorities, but state after state of the confederation recognized, as embracing the most perfect system for keeping the scales of justice even and steady, the great body of the common law.

Never did a race of men advance so far in enlightenment, civilization, morality, and virtue as the Anglo-Saxon race since they were brought under the protection and blessings afforded by that great exponent of natural law.

FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XII.—26