Since the tide of infidelity seems to be running in that particular channel, let not the friends and advocates of truth give, by unnecessary concessions, any advantage to this dreadful and abominable system which threatens so much evil to the cause of religion and sound morals at this very time. We do therefore sincerely hope, that Dr. Junkin will expunge this section from his book in the next edition.

We had intended to make some remarks on the section which treats of assurance being of the essence of faith; as we had supposed it probable that the author's views differed somewhat from our own on this subject. But we are now rather inclined to believe that the difference is verbal rather than real. The distinction between the assurance of faith and of sense, used by the two great theologians, Brown of Haddington, and Dr. Mason, does not serve, in our opinion, to cast any light on this question. The true point of difference does not relate at all to the degree of assent given, or of comfort attending it, but to the precise propositions which are the primary objects of a saving faith. According to Brown's definition of the assurance of faith, it is, "The firm assurance of God's love to us, founded on his promise; the assurance of sense is the persuasion that we have already tasted his love." Now we maintain that neither of these is essential to a saving faith in its primary exercise; for we cannot be assured of the love of God to us personally, from any promise contained in the Bible, until we have embraced that promise. Dr. Mason uses the same distinction in the passage quoted by Dr. Junkin, but not in the same sense. As he explains the matter, it amounts to much the same as all sound Presbyterians hold. And we admit that "the assurance of faith" as used in scripture, signifies a firm belief of the truth revealed, and not any persuasion respecting our

own state.

"When we speak of assurance as essential to faith," says he, "many suppose we teach that none can be real Christians who do not feel that they have passed from death unto life, and have not unclouded and triumphant views of their interest in Christ, so as to say, under the manifestations of his love, My beloved is mine, and I am his.' But God forbid that we should thus offend against the generation of his children. That many of them want such assurance may not be questioned. This, however, is the assurance, not of faith, but of sense; and vastly different they are. The object of the former is Christ revealed in the word; the object of the

latter Christ revealed in the heart. The ground of the former is the testimony of God without us; that of the latter, the work of the Spirit within us, &c." But in our opinion this matter is placed in the true stand clearest light in our Larger Catechism, (Ques. 80, 81,) "Such as truly believe in Christ. and endeavour to walk in all good conscience before him, may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the truth of God's promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made, and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God, be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall perse

vere therein unto salvation."

"Assurance of grace and salvation NOT BEING OF THE ESSENCE OF FAITH, true believers may wait long before they obtain it, and after the enjoyment thereof may have it weakened and intermitted through manifold distempers, sins. temptations, and desertions; yet are they never left without such a presence and support of the Spirit of God as keep them from sinking into utter despair."

As to the appropriating act of faith, which Dr. Junkit. makes an essential characteristic of true faith, if it means the act of receiving Christ and resting upon him, which of course we do for ourselves, he is right; but there is no need of a new technical phrase to express it; and if it be an act different from this, by which we are assured that Christ and his benefits are ours, then it is not essential to a true faith. At any rate we are not convinced of the propriety or need of this phrase. And we have not found it used by the best writers on this subject. Still we have no great objection to it, if it be explained in a sound and orthodox sense. perly speaking, the blessings of the New Covenant are appropriated to us, upon believing, by the free gift of God. As to our own apprehension or persuasion that we are interested in them, it must depend upon our evidence of having truly believed; but as to the real title, it is as firm when a true faith is weak, as when it is attended with the fullest assurance of salvation.

Pro

We have now brought our review to a close, and upon a survey of the whole work, our opinion is, that in doctrine it is sound, and that the execution furnishes evidence of a mind of strong original powers, capable of thinking out a subject without dependence upon others. But we must protest against Dr. Junkin's fondness for metaphysical disquisitions;

especially where they are not needed, and where they rather tend to cloud than to elucidate the subject. Indeed, we are of opinion, that metaphysics is not Dr. Junkin's forte. We willingly award to him great acuteness, the power of nice discrimination, and a logical faculty; but he is too rapid and even hasty in running ahead to his conclusions, to be an accurate metaphysician. No man possesses all mental faculties in high perfection. Another thing, which we think we have observed in Dr. Junkin's investigations, is the ability to discern objects near at hand more clearly than those afar off. In regard to the former, he may be said to have a microscopic discernment; but absorbed in these, he overlooks remote consequences, though they may be essential to a correct judgment. But although we should be mistaken in this opinion, we feel great confidence that his method of abstruse reasoning is not adapted to the capacities or the tastes of the "plain reader," for whom he tells us his book was chiefly intended. Our opinion is, that nothing will so much obstruct the circulation and usefulness of this volume as these abstract disquisitions.

As we suppose that the work will go to a second edition, we would respectfully suggest that, instead of writing other books, the author employ his leisure hours in improving this. The outline given in the contents is ample enough for the energies of a life-time to fill up and perfect. Calvin continued to improve his Institutes until the year of his death. At first, we presume it was not larger than the volume under review. The great mistake of many of our best writers, has been that of publishing too much. Had Owen and Baxter and Howe confined their labours within narrow limits, they would have been able to render them much more perfect, and they would have continued to be read to the most distant times. But many of their works are falling into oblivion.

We take leave of Dr. Junkin with sincere respect for his talents and indefatigable industry, and cordially wish him success in his earnest efforts for the promotion of orthodox truth and sound literature. We have used the privilege of critics freely, but we hope not offensively; and we trust that our remarks will be perused with the same candour with which they have been written.

ART. VI.-Theologiæ Dogmaticæ Tractatus Tres de Revelatione, de Ecclesia, et de Verbo Dei quos concinnavit Revmus Dnus Franciscus Patricius Kenrick, Epus Arath, in Part. Infid. et Coadj. Ep. Philadelphiensis. Philadelphia: Typis L. Johnson, in Georgii vico. 1839.

Theologiæ Dogmaticæ, quam concinnavit Franciscus Patricius Kenrick, etc. Volumen II. Philadelphia: L. Johnson. 1840.

AN American work on systematic theology, composed in a dead language, is a thing so foreign from our every-day associations and experience, that we should feel bound to take some notice of it, if it were only as a curiosity. It needed no name upon the title page, to assure our utilitarian countrymen, that the author was connected with no protestant communion. Indeed, the Latin dress of Bishop Kenrick's work will have this curious effect, that while it seals the book to the great mass of American readers, it opens it to the educated world of Europe, and to the Romish priesthood all the world over. We can think of no class to whom it will afford so much entertainment, as to foreign papists, on account of the frequency with which the author interweaves minute accounts of the opinions and the organization of our own religious sects. If the secular part of the community have reason to dread the presence and inspection of English and French travellers, the religious world ought certainly to be aware, that there are those among them who are able and disposed to draw their likeness in imperishable colours, by the use of a language which is not only still the learned language of the world, but which is likely so to be as long as learning shall exist. One impression inade upon our mind, by the inspection of these volumes, we cannot refrain from putting upon paper. We mean the impression of the striking difference between the protestant and popish method of observing men and manners. The former has, no doubt, the advantage as to candour; but the latter is, at least, as much superior in coolness and philosophical composure. One might have supposed that a secluded ecclesiastic, whom we never hear of, and who, for any general knowledge

of him here, might as well be in his titular diocese of Arath as in Philadelphia, would of course be wrapt in a bigotted ignorance of our concerns. Such a hypothesis would soon be destroyed by a cursory glance at these two volumes, in which not only sects, but individuals, are treated as objects of familiar knowledge; in which Mr. Barnes and Mr. Furness figure under the titles of Barnesius and Furnesius. If this be a specimen of the attention which our popish fellow-citizens are paying to their neighbours, and of their disposition to record what they observe, we may take to ourselves Burns's warning to his countrymen: "A chiel's amang ye takin' notes, and faith he'll prent it."

We shall not take upon us to be critics of a bishop's Latin, but shall let it pass with the remark, that it is simple and perspicuous, not more exempt from vulgar barbarisms than from the equally offensive affectation of ultra-classical idiom, which disfigures some of the recent German writers in that language. The truth is, that in style, arrangement, and appearance, the whole work bears a strong resemblance to the old fashioned theological productions of the Church of Rome. And this antique air, no less than the Latin, helps to give a very odd look to the names of our contemporaries, and the account of our religious matters, which attract the eye at every opening of the book.

It seems that the late Archbishop Marechal, of Baltimore, while a professor in St. Mary's College, formed the plan of a system of theology, which his subsequent promotion hindered him from executing. It has since become a matter of complaint, that the systematic works upon theology, imported from Europe, have no view to the state of things in this republic, and to the controversies agitated here. To supply this defect is the design of Bishop Kenrick's work, in writing which he complains that his time was too short, his books too few, and his opportunity of consultation with the learned too restricted. His first intention was to publish a compendious manual for the use of students, but he afterwards adopted a more copious method, lest from excess of brevity, he might seem rather to have betrayed than defended the truth. He carefully exonerates the mother church from all responsibility for his opinions upon doubtful points; invites the critic and opponent of the truth to turn their weapons upon him, and manfully exclaims-" Me, me, (adsum qui feci), in me convertite ferrum"-forgetting, in the