gion, that tells on the great mass of society. We have no faith in the efficacy of mechanic institutes, or even of primary and elementary schools, for building up a virtuous and well-conditioned peasantry, so long as they stand dissevered from the lessons of Christian piety. There is a charm ascribed to the scholastic system of Scotland; and the sanguine imagination is, that by importing its machinery into England and Ireland, it will work the same marvellous transformation there, on the character of their people, that was experienced amongst ourselves. But it is forgotten, that a warm and earnest christianity was the animating spirit of all our peculiar institutions, for generations after they were framed; and that, wanting this, they can no more perform the function of moralizing the people, than skeletons can perform the functions, or put forth the faculties of living men. The scholastic is incorporated with the ecclesiastical system of Scotland; and that, not for the purposes of intolerance or exclusion, but for the purpose of sanctifying education, and plying the boyhood of our land with the lessons of the Bible. The scholarship of mere letters might, to a certain extent, have diffused intelligence amongst the people; but it is mainly to the presence and power of the religious ingredient, that the moral greatness of our peasantry is owing. REVIEW.. ORIGINAL SIN, AN IRRATIONAL AND UNSCRIPTURAL FICTION, DISHONOURING GOD, AND DEMORALIZING MANAN ESSAY, BY W.,H. Drummond, D. D. ¡¡London, 1832. [We have received the following Article from a respected Correspondent At first we hesitated to publish it, feeling reluctant to pollute our pages with the profane title of the book which he has reviewed, or the blasphemous quotations which he has thought it necessary to extract. On second thoughts, however, we resolved to publish it, being determined by two reasons, because the Article is an able exposure of an empty, puerile production, and because it will let our readers see the progress of error in the country. Formerly it appeared in the form of Arianism, now it has advanced to Humanitarianism, wherein Christ is represented F as a mere man, capable of sinning, if not actually guilty of sinful actions. Quere-wherein does the vaunting pamphlet of Dr. Drummond differ from Deism? Let our readers judge when they have perused the able review of our Correspondent.-EDIT.] THIS age has deservedly been denominated one of knowledge and improvement, the intellectual energies of individuals and of nations have been roused into activity, and new channels have been opened up for the purpose of irrigating, by the streams of truth, the hitherto barren and sterile regions of our spiritual world. Every man is now called upon to keep pace with the general improvement of society around him, not only in those departments of knowledge which are immediately connected with that particular profession to which he has devoted himself; but also in the acquisition of that general knowledge, the sources of which are placed within. the grasp of almost every individual of the community. But we do confess, were we to take the pamphlet which is now before us as a fair specimen of the enlightened improvement, to which the clergy can lay claim in this age of knowledge, we should be disposed to coincide with one portion of society in their assertion, that that class have only been the distant followers in the wane of others, and have never led the way to the emancipation of the human mind from the thraldom of ignorance and superstition. The only thing we can, in truth, say, in praise of this production, is, that the author has had considerable respect for grammatical canons in its composition, perhaps more than he has manifested for those which can lay claim to a more divine original;-but the unmeaning style of turgid bombast which characterizes its every page, and the dogmatic egotism, and, frequently, the self-sufficient intolerance of its assertions, form sufficient evidence to seal its condemnation in the view of every liberal and enlightened mind. Reason and common sense are lauded as the very idols of the Humanitarian school, to which Dr. Drummond belongs, and of which he has proclaimed himself the champion; but, if we take him as an example, the manifestations of their reason are only the drunken gambols of besotted pride, and their common sense the intolerance of puerile dogmatism. Wher ever reason is exercised in its legitimate sphere, untrammelled by prejudice and untarnished by self, we applaud it, and it has our approval; and, where it is illuminated by the spirit of the Lord, we look up to it with the highest feelings of earthly reverence; but where it is claimed as the sole possession of a religious faction, where it is forced to give its reluctant consent to every unreasonable chimera that may enter into their imaginations, we regard it with disgust, as the distorted and unhallowed image of the divine original. Such as this would unquestionably be our feelings respecting reason and common sense, were we to form our opinions of them from the melan. choly exhibitions of their desecration in the Essay before us.. The author has, in very few instances, condescended to argue upon the subject which he has chosen for discussion-dogmatic assertion appears to be the only weapon suited to the capabilities of his intellectt-nor can we believe that the Rev. Gentleman's mental acumen would be capable of carrying him through one page of accurate reasoning, even in defence of that cause to which he has devoted himself with so much of the Quixotic chivalry of intellectual heroism. The Essay principally consists of assertion followed by assertion, the only evidence of whose truth is the positive dicta of the author. Surely he must have a very mean and unworthy idea of the understandings of the community, when he obtrudes. so many of his unfounded crudities upon the public, and expects them to be received as so many demonstrated truths. We have read some of Dr. Drummond's poetical productions, and though they can scarcely lay claim to mediocrity, yet would we most earnestly recommend him rather to court the muses than again commit himself as a theological writer. Indeed, the gentleman, upon many occasions we should think, was scarcely aware whether his Essay was to appear as a theological production, or as a piece of pure poetic fancy;and the most charitable method which we can devise for excusing his absurdities, is, by admitting that he merely gave way for a moment to the poetic enthusiasm of his imagination, so as to cast a few of the brilliant coruscations of his genius over the dark, benighted gloom of Calvinism, like the warrior when he throws up, in the dead of night, the flaming rocket, to enable him to take a better and a deadlier aim at the opposing foe. But, indeed, so great appears to be the dread with which our author regards the Calvinistic system, that no sooner does he approach it than he utters an exclamation of horror, flies from its terrifying precincts as speedily as possible, and then standing at a respectful distance he bespatters it with all the opprobrious epithets which either good fortune or his own charitable and liberal disposition can devise. Whenever the author descends from the sublimation of his heroics to sober argumentation, he has only retailed over again, but of a more diluted consistency, the arguments of Turnbull, Taylor, and others of the same school. We presume that he has never read the reply of Edwards to Taylor, though he once or twice mentions that celebrated writer's name; and as all the arguments which he has brought forward are satisfactorily answered there, we would most earnestly recommend it to his perusal, not only as a refutation of his own errors, but as a specimen of chaste reasoning which he should endeavour to imitate in the composition of his next Theological Essay. The pretensions of the members of the Unitarian school to an exclusive liberality of sentiment have been repeated ad nauseam; but truly we have not read any production during the whole of the stormy period of religious controversy, which has lately taken place in this country, in which less liberality has been displayed, or more of the sour rancour of bigotry than in this Essay. Those who entertain the opinions generally denominated Orthodox or Calvinistic, are uniformly designated the "corruptionists." "We might suspect," says he, "that all their views were taken from hordes of savages or cannibals, or in the most profligate dens of iniquity, among liars, cheats, thieves, robbers, murderers, and culprits of every grade and caste. Now, though their representations may be correct, as far as their own experience and their own hearts are concerned, we protest against their application to our friends and neighbours."-page 36. How liberal is this mean, worthless, unmanly insinuation! "Again," says he, "of all strange things this appears most strange, that men, who are sensibly affected by a tale of woe, who feel compassion for the afflicted, and who would hasten to pour oil and wine into a sufferer's wounds, should, notwithstanding, embrace a doctrine which teaches them to believe that their hearts are desperately wicked; a doctrine so disgraceful to their nature, so full of blasphemy against the author of their nature, and so decidedly confuted by their own feelings, thoughts, and actions."-page 43. This is certainly a new thing under the sun. The prophet Jeremiah teaches us, that, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." Jer. xvii. 9. But Dr. Drummond setting up his authority in opposition to that of the prophet, declares that those who believe this portion of the Word of God, believe what is disgraceful to their nature, and what is full of blasphemy against the author of their nature. "Of all strange things this appears most strange," that the belief of any declaration of the Holy Scriptures, should be denounced, by a minister of Christianity, as blasphemy against God. Whether Dr. Drummond or the prophet should be accounted worthy of the greater credit, reader judge. The prophet, if our author be correct, is chargeable not only with having entertained thoughts which were blasphemous in their character, but also with the horrible crime of having taught that which is blasphemous under the pretended authority and sanction of the God of heaven. Surely Unitarianism must be at a low ebb, when its supporters are reduced to this. Such is the spirit of this pamphlet-such is the reckless disregard which the author manifests respecting the announcements of heaven, and such is his liberality, that by differing from him you are denounced as guilty of blasphemy against God. This is certainly Christian charity with a witness. We have merely taken these few passages at random, and they form but a sample of those which we had intended to adduce, breathing the same spirit, and equally opposed to the positive declarations of the Word of God. We have refrained, lest our observations should extend further than the merits of the work, under consideration, should demand. There are, however, a number of errors into which the author has run, which, whilst they show his want of accuracy in thinking, and the superficial character of his views, do also display his lamentable ignorance of the system which he is opposing. It is granted by Dr. Drummond, that moral evil does exist in the world, or, in other words that men are guilty of sin-he accuses Calvinists of blasphemy against God, by entertaining certain opinions respecting its origin; but it must be evident to every impartial and intelligent reader of his pamphlet, that the clumsy method in which he endeavours to account for it, is open to greater objections than the Calvinistic, and besides it has the disadvantage of being hostile to revelation, whilst the other harmonizes with its every pre cept. Unless Dr. Drummond could prove that there is no such thing as sin in the world, his system must fall to the ground-nay, by it he makes God the direct and im mediate cause of all the sin which is in the world, by contending that man, in his present state, is an unfallen creature ; from which it must follow that the Almighty created him at first with the very intention that he should commit the iniquity of which he is guilty. The subterfuge to which the writer resorts is not only unscriptural, but it is opposed to every principle of sound and legitimate reason. Calvi Our author appears to be ignorant of the distinction between natural and evangelical virtue, which has led him into many egregious blunders and mistakes, particularly in the section entitled a brief vindication of human nature. nists admit the existence of natural virtue, and they applaud it as much as Dr. Drummond can possibly do; but at the same time they say, that as this springs not from the motive |