honourable testimonials of the piety and talents of their author. With some of the theology, however, of the "Discourse on Inability," we are not able to concur. To pass over some common-place remarks on the much vexed question of "natural and moral ability," into the discussion of which we have no desire, at present, to enter, we were greatly surprised to see, from the pen of Mr. C. the following remarks:

"If men possess natural ability to do and to be all that God requires, it follows that they are not passive in regeneration. The common opinion, that depravity consists in a depraved heart, ex. isting anterior to depraved feeling; that it is a constitutional and physical depravity independent of our will; and that regenera tion, which remedies it, is a miraculous creation of a new nature, from which holy feelings spring; the production of a new faculty, which the sinner never possessed before; and the infusion of a new principle, which must be possessed in order to render him capable of holy feelings, is inconsistent with man's natural ability to do all that God requires; or, shall we not rather say, that the doctrine of man's natural ability is subversive of such an idea of his pas sivity in regeneration. God commands men to make them new hearts, and a new spirit. He makes it their duty to be regenerate. And men have natural ability to do and to be all that God commands. But if regeneration be the creation of a new physical faculty, an operation in which man is passive, he has no ability to be regenerate. Nay, if God requires that of us in which we are passive, he requires nothing of us. He requires that we should be acted upon, not that we should act," &c. &c.

On this passage, taken in connexion with some of the sentiments which precede and follow it, we have three remarks to offer. We offer them with the most unfeigned respect for the memory of the beloved and lamented youth whose opinions we are constrained to question. But while we shed a paternal tear over the early grave, and the blighted promises of "a choice young man and a goodly," fidelity to his Master and ours compels us to be faithful in maintaining what we deem truth in relation to an important point in Christian theology. In truth, the more excellent, and the more worthy of admiration and love his character was, the more likely will be any erroneous opinion which he may have patronized to exert a baneful influence.

The first remark we have to make is, that the opinion here opposed is not fairly stated. Nothing is more certain than that the amiable author intended to state it fairly and correct

ly; but it is quite as certain that he has not done so. The opinion which he professes to oppose, he says, is "the common opinion," that is, the opinion commonly entertained by writers esteemed orthodox, or Calvinistic, according to the old nomenclature. Now, we are constrained to say, that, in all our reading or hearing, we never met with a theologian who maintained that the change which occurs in regeneration was a "physical" change, or consisted in the "creation of a new physical faculty." On the contrary, we have scarcely ever read or heard a formal discussion of this great subject, either in the pulpit, or from the press, in which it was not maintained, that it consists, not in the creation of a new faculty; but in giving a new impulse and direction to our old faculties. Not in infusing into the soul any new power; but, by a divine moral influence, producing a new disposition or tendency in the soul, disposing the man to make a proper use of his old powers-to choose and love the most worthy objects. How it happens that a disclaimer so explicitly and constantly made, and so frequently repeated, should be either so entirely overlooked, or so strangely misapprehended, we cannot pretend to explain. No one entertains the opinion which Mr. C. professes to reject, at least in the form in which he states it.

Our second remark is, that we regret to observe the use which is made in this sermon of the doctrine of the venerable President Edwards, as exhibited in his Essay on the Will. There is no writer in the English language who has more clearly, strongly, and abundantly maintained the doctrine which Mr. C. here opposes, than President Edwards. If there be any theological writer who has placed beyond all doubt, by the most explicit declarations, and the most formal reasonings, that he believes in the existence of a disposition, tendency, or propensity of soul, anterior to moral acts-and leading to them-it is the illustrious Edwards.

In his work

on the Will, above referred to, and in that on Original Sin, if any opinion is taught, this is taught. Mr. C. indeed, has not directly asserted in this discourse, that President Edwards did not hold this opinion; but he has quoted from him, with approbation, a doctrine so closely and necessarily allied to that which he (Mr. C.) has rejected, that his readers will be apt to suppose that he considers himself as agreeing with the venerable man whom he so respectfully cites, in reference to the whole subject. We have felt the more willing to offer this remark from having observed, that in several recent pub

lications, and by men of no mean powers, President Edwards is confidently cited as maintaining that there is, and can be, no moral character in any thing but voluntary exercises! If that great man has not taught a doctrine directly opposite to this, as clearly and decisively as it can be expressed in words, then we despair of being able to prove that he ever taught any doctrine whatever.

Our third and last remark is, that there must, surely, have been some misapprehension in the mind of Mr. C. respecting the common meaning of terms, or he could not have expressed himself as he does in the sermon under consideration, in maintaining that man is active in the production of his own new nature. There must be either a strife about words, or a serious error here. While Mr. C. contends, as we have seen, that man is not passive, but active in his own regeneration, he grants, at the same time, that a new heart is God's gift. That man is naturally unwilling to serve God; but that the Spirit of God makes him willing; and that when he thus removes his obstinacy, and makes him willing to love, repent, and believe, he is said in Scripture, to give him love, repentance and faith. Now, the question is not, whether man is active when he really exercises repentance, faith and love. These are acts of the soul; and surely no one will maintain that the soul is passive in acting. But the question is this: Is it the power of the Holy Spirit which, in all cases, leads, prompts, disposes the impenitent sinner to repent and love God? Does this power or influence of the Spirit on the mind always go before the first holy act or choice? Do this power and the consequent act stand in the relation of cause and effect to each other? If so, then this operation of the Holy Spirit always precedes, and efficiently causes, the first holy act in man. Of course the sinner is not active, in any holy sense, anterior to this first act; and, consequently, he is the subject of a gracious operation; in other words, is acted upon by the Spirit of God, anterior to his first act of holy choice. Now, these acts of the Holy Spirit are not the acts of the man, but cause his first acts. In these previous acts of the Spirit, then, is the sinner active or passive? We doubt not that the moment spiritual life is imparted, he begins to put forth holy acts. But is he active in those divine acts of the Great Sanctifier, which, by the concession of our opponents, must necessarily, at least in the order of nature if not of time, precede his own first holy acts? Now this divine,

efficacious operation of the Holy Spirit on the soul, exciting and disposing to holy acts, is what we, and all of the old Orthodox divines, call regeneration. Conversion, consequent upon it, is man's own act. But to suppose that man is active in the first production of his own spiritual life, is, we must believe, either in the first rank of absurdities, or a virtual adoption of the Arminian doctrine of the self-determining power of the will-a doctrine which we do not believe Mr. C. adopted; but which we cannot, for a moment doubt, is really the basis of some old, but newly vamped and circulated opinions, which we are aware have a plausible appearance in view of many, but which, we trust, will have only a confined and transient popularity in our country.

ART. IX.-GIBBS'S MANUAL LEXICON.

A Manual Hebrew and English Lexicon, including the biblical Chaldee. Designed particularly for beginners. By Josiah W. Gibbs, A. M. Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological School in Yale College. Second edition, revised and enlarged. New Haven. Hezekiah Howe. 1832. 236 pp. 8vo.

We are heartily in favour both of manual lexicons and manual grammars, as preliminary and auxiliary to more copious works of reference. The extreme opinions upon this point will, we trust, be soon exploded, if they have not been already, by the publication of a few such books as this. Even adepts and proficients may congratulate themselves on seeing scholars like Professor Gibbs employed in this way. For ourselves, we must confess, that we are glad, now and then, to escape from the leviathans of lexicography. If there is a mental exercise which may be called laborious, it is that of threading the inextricable mazes of a first rate lexicon. After literally sweating through a few such articles as those of Wahl upon the Greek prepositions, or almost any in Barker's New Thesaurus, in quest of something which we never find, it is truly refreshing to escape into the columns of a work containing a mere statement of results. In the one case, we are treading the wine press of philology; in the

other, we are quaffing the pure juice of the grape. But this is a matter of mere taste and feeling. To beginners, works of this sort are not only useful, but, in our opinion, necessary. The use of books in one stage of study, which are properly adapted to another, is not merely inconvenient; it is positively hurtful. As to grammars, we shall here say nothing. With respect to lexicons, the case seems very clear. If the student dives at once into the depths of a detailed and laborious analysis, his first impressions will be false impressions. What is clear and what is not clear will be equally mysterious. The parade of authorities and arguments on points both small and great, will lead him to suspect a difficulty every where. If, on the contrary, he enters upon study with the aid of a vocabulary, in the proper sense, he will learn to distinguish between light and darkness. What is simple and easy he will look upon as such, and where difficulties do arise, necessity will drive him to the proper source of more explicit information. This we believe to be the natural and salutary' process, which, if steadily pursued, would exterminate that misty and perplexed mode of study which is staying the chariot wheels of biblical philology.

But we must not, in discoursing upon manuals in general, forget Professor Gibbs in particular. The volume before us is a neat and accurate reprint of a work already too well known to need description. A circulation of three years among students of theology and others, has no doubt brought its merits to a decisive test. As we have not the original edition at hand, we are unable to determine, by comparison, the actual amount of the improvements promised in the titlepage. We can say, however, and we do say freely, that Professor Gibbs, here, as elsewhere, shows himself to be possessed of high qualifications as a lexicographer. It is true, the work before us is intended for beginners; but so far is this from impairing the proof of the compiler's skill, that it really enhances it; not only because it is harder to write for beginners than proficients, but because defects and errors are more glaring and offensive where results alone are given, than when allowed to lurk amidst the multiplied details of a Thesaurus. This unassuming volume certainly shows traces of that peculiar tact, precision, and acuteness, without which the richest materials and most untiring industry could only generate a shapeless mass of unprofitable erudition. On Professor Gibbs's philological taste and judgment, we have much reli