AMONG the wonderful discoveries relating to things "Edwardian,” which philosophers have achieved in these latter days, the highest place will have to be assigned, we think, to the most recent; first published, so far as we are advised, in Boston, a few weeks ago, by the Pastor of the New York Tabernacle Church, in a Sabbath evening lecture before the Young Men's Christian Union. It would now seem that the most important works of Jonathan Edwards owed the characteristics which provoke the criticism of this luminous age, to the disadvantages under which they were written, and especially to his peculiar "humility," and his "ignorance of algebra, the higher mathematics, Greek classics," &c. Only think what Jonathan Edwards might have done, if he had known algebra and Greek, and had not been so extravagantly humble! Which humility, nevertheless, it is claimed, although it appears "extravagant to-day," ought not to be thought so very "strange," since, as we know, human nature has often developed into things equally extravagant in the opposite direction; as, for instance, that German philosopher who said, "I will create God"! Don't you think the pride of the philosopher was about as bad as the humility of the theologian?

We are also instructed, by this profound discoverer, that Edwards belonged to an "inelegant and inhuman" class of writers: hence the "vividness with which he portrays future punishment," which is declared to be a "grossness of expression" "not at all in accordance with our modern ideas of taste," and "wholly unsuited to our times." These "modern ideas of taste," it is said, forbid the preacher's" presenting the figures of the Bible in detail."

Did HE, who gave us the most startling of those figures, with reiteration and fearful emphasis, also belong to the "inelegant and inhuman" class? Would his preaching have been "wholly unsuited to our times"? Alas, we fear so! Can any prophet tell us whither we are drifting? We hardly know which to admire most, the magnanimity and brilliant knight-errantry of that voluntary surrender to a professedly free-thinking assembly, or the flippant and superficial trifling with the name and fame of Jonathan Edwards.

A NEW THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. We find the question on our Table, and pass it along, whether another school of the prophets is not needed. Many churches have great and protracted difficulty in obtaining a pastor who is fitted to their very peculiar wants and wishes. One church has very nice shadings, perhaps overcloudings, in its theology. Another is so given to practical godliness that it cannot receive any doctrinal preaching, like a pilot so intent on the prac

tical duties of the helm that he cannot give any attention to charts and reckonings. Yet another church would captivate and convert (to pew-occupants at least) certain outsiders, who rank sermonizing among the fine arts, and the pulpit as a baptized lyceum. The circumstances of another church are very peculiar. They are surrounded by Arminians, Restorationists, Unitarians, &c. They would draw all these into a Broad Church Evangelical. A young man of popular talent, prepossessing appearance, (good physique we think the churches watching for pastors call it,) silent on doctrines, progressive, devout in attitudes and intonations, would answer their purpose. The First Avenue Church is destitute. Under the former pastor this church did nothing but sustain its regular meetings and the common charities of the day, make small and frequent additions to its numbers, and live a common Christian life. But they could not pay their pastor, and so sent him away. They want a smart young man, and are not particular about the salary. The Pilgrim Rock Church is in want of a man. During the presidential campaign their house was closed, except for the discussion of "great questions." "What must I do to be saved?" was not one of them. The Election is now over,

Deacon Eli,、 power, for his They want a

the times are dull, and they propose to have a revival. one of the officers in this church, wants a man of great sons, Hophni and Phineas, give him some anxiety. man who has always produced a revival in his six and twelve months' settlements. A new and fashionable church, in a growing place, feels the need of a man a little above medium size, dark complexion, heavy whiskers, and perhaps moustache. The latter point cannot be settled till after the next levee. If he have all but the moustache, and they settle to have it, they consent to close the house while he tarries at Jericho the time requisite. The Polygon Church wants a man so smart and so feeble, that he can preach but seldom. A pale, thoughtful recluse, who has strength to see only the principal families, and has a German reputation, would be preferred. If his health requires a trip to Europe while they shut up the church for six months, and pay his expenses, it will suit them, for "a good name is better than precious ointment."

It is proposed to found a Seminary that will furnish custom-made ministers. From four to eighteen months, according to the specialities in the order, would suffice to get up the article, while many a church has spent three years in hearing candidates and criticizing, and then got nothing but a minister of the Gospel.

It is an open question, whether or not to have any creed, even one "for substance of doctrine," in this new Seminary. For it is found

that a definite creed, as the Westminster, is a special hindrance to settlement. Yet nothing serves so well as a basis on which to beget confidence, funds, professorships, &c. But we leave the whole question open, as we found it.

MAY we show anxiety without being called "alarmists"? May we "tremble for the ark of God" without being accused of sowing discord among brethren? We find the following in the February number of The Monthly Religious Magazine," a Unitarian organ, "edited by Rev. Edmund H. Sears and Rev. Rufus Ellis":

"A member of one of the large metropolitan orthodox churches sends us their creed. It is an excellent creed, every article of which we could heartily subscribe. Tripersonalism, the resurrection of dead bodies, election and reprobation, and other dead traditions, have been sloughed off, bringing this church into nearer conformity with the one Catholic Church of the Lord."

The creed is given. Among the "other dead traditions" " sloughed off," we find that total depravity is one; for of man's natural state it only says, "until renewed by the Holy Spirit destitute of the holiness required by the divine law," that is, deficient more or less.

We have no hint or notion what church this is. We know this, that its creed can have the "hearty subscription" of Unitarians. We want to express grief, anxiety, alarm. We want to mention some large metropolitan Unitarian churches that were once orthodox. We want to put in a plea for holding fast to "the form of sound words," against the introduction of creed-phrases, made to order, and of the most liberal and elastic and compromising accommodation. We want to bring out some old records, and compass and chain, and hunt up and reset certain ancient metes and bounds. But we must forbear. For so doing, we should stir a divisive movement among these brethren, create needless alarm, prove ourselves to be antiquaries, and hostile to all progress and "improvements in theology."

GOVERNOR ANDREW has presented to the State of Massachusetts the first military trophies of the Revolution—the gift of Theodore Parker, and won by his grandfather at Lexington. Was it a part of the official duty of His Excellency to eulogize, in the Message announcing the gift, the principles and labors of the donor, a man who has done so much to dishonor the principles and labors of the Fathers of the Revolution? And must French Infidelity, beautifully finished up with Yankee veneers and varnish, thus be palmed

off under the Seal of the State? If so, then we beg leave to say. “God save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."

We would humbly suggest that His Excellency also make an occasion, while thus engaged in extra-official duties, to eulogize the deep reverence for God's Word, the strong doctrinal creeds, and the prayerful, holy life of those men who won trophies "in the sacred cause of God and their country."

We must not omit to say, how deeply moved to grateful emotion we have been by the very encouraging notice of the Congregationalist. It gives at length our table of contents, and then saith as follows, to wit: First, we are "comely"; at which we blush with maiden modesty. Second, we exhibit a surprising "lack of strength, both of thought and of orthodoxy"; to which we say, good, as indicating an improved standard of thought and orthodoxy, where, in both, it is greatly needed. Third, we are capable of achieving a "respectable and influential position"; almost too much for our maiden modesty, considering its source; and, in addition to the "comely":

"Oh wad some power the giftie gie us

To see oursel's as others see us!"

Fourth, we may be expected to do "both good and hurt"; quantities, respectively, not given, but the sentence seems to read very much like a balanced account, or thus, plus six added to minus six, equal to nothing; a mighty alleviation, as coming from a quarter where the bare apprehension of what we were going to do excited so much uneasiness beforehand. Lastly, there is mingled warning, fear, and prophecy, done in mingled mother-tongue and Latin, that, if we don't take care— the very thing which we mean to do- we shall come into "a dusty immortality upon the old pamphlet-shelves in the cellar of Burnham's great perfugium librorum exanimorum!"

The pathos of this last is so touching, that we are afraid somebody has got there already.

THE friends of the Boston Review will understand that this enterprise is not a personal interest, but that we have gone forward in it in compliance with the earnest entreaty of the friends of a staunch Puritan theology. We have no agents in the field. We do not intend to send out any, but must depend on those who love the old theology to see that our subscription-list puts us beyond all pecuniary anxiety.

Will not our brethren help the common cause by sending in at once a few subscribers each for the Review?

BOSTON REVIEW.

VOL. I.-MAY, 1861.-No. 3.

ARTICLE I.

DOCTRINAL PREACHING.

"How myche spicry is more powned, by so mych virtu is encresid in pyment, so how mych we pownen more goddis spechis in expownynge, bi that we heerynge, as drynkyng, ben more holpen."

"Cristen men owen moch to traveil nygt & day aboute textis of holi writ, and nameli the gospel in her modir tunge."

"Symple men owen not dispute abowte holi writ, whether it is sooth or profitable to mannes soule: but thei owen stidfastli to beleven that it is verri soth & profitable to alle cristen men."

-Wiclefs New Testament. Prologues, 1, 2.

WHAT can a minister of the Gospel preach if he does not preach doctrines? Christianity is nothing else than a system of principles, with their consequent and relevant duties. A State has its bill of rights and statutes, a corporation its constitution and by-laws, astronomy its fixed facts and principles, and arithmetic its rules. Revealed religion, in like manner, has its facts, truths and doctrines. The relations of men to each other, to God, and to eternity, and the duties growing out of these relations, find a frail foothold and a precarious existence, as pertaining to revelation, till there be a doctrinal body or framework to which they can pertain.

The doctrines of Christianity are as the bones and skeleton of the human body. They determine not only its symmetry