for the same reason as we kill weeds or wild beasts, but not otherwise.

"I suppose we must punish evil-doers, as we extirpate vermin; but I don't know that we have any more right to judge them than we have to judge rats and mice, which are just as good as cats and weasels, though we think it necessary to treat them as criminals." (Vol. I. p. 281.)

Abner Briggs, Jun., and Silas Peckham are the only persons in the history, so far as we remember, who are deemed worthy of anything like judicial condemnation, and it is to be presumed that a mere oversight prevented their being treated with as much leniency as Dick Venner, whom the good Doctor took pains to convey where the miserable civil laws that have been enacted with so little regard for the insanity of wilful murderers -might not molest him.

The peril of thus loosening the bonds of moral obligation need not be pointed out, nor the havoc which a doctrine so radical makes with the most sacred truths. The holiness, the justice, and therefore the mercy of God, are sunk out of sight. With the disappearance of sin disappear repentance, penalty, and atonement. The voice which says, in reproach, warning, pity, and sublime love, "OH ISRAEL, THOU HAST DESTROYED THYSELF; BUT IN ME IS THY HELP," is heard no more. Such as sin is, God himself is responsible for it; but its design may be just to show how He can allow and even love what we call evil, as He "permits the crotalus the incarnation of all that is devilish to lie unharmed in the cradle of Nature."

The tendency to extravagance is constantly seen in the Professor. If he had said that the innate propensity to sin, though needing to be eradicated, is not sinful and punishable in the same sense as voluntary transgression is, he would have had the assent of many among evangelical readers; and he might have quoted some very pertinent texts of Scripture - from the eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel, for example-in support of his position. If he had said that total depravity is not true in any such sense as to deny the existence, in many unrenewed souls, of feelings, desires, and actions that would be holy if supreme love to God were their motive, he would have had upon his side the testimony of the Evangelist concerning the feeling with

which Jesus regarded the Young Ruler. If he had said that natural malformation, partial ignorance, or unfavorable surroundings mitigate guilt in the sight of God, and are motives that awake the response of his mercy, he might have cited the answer implied when the unfaithful steward charged his master with being "a hard man, reaping where he had not sown, and gathering where he had not strewed"; or the declaration, "It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for Capernaum and Bethsaida"; or this, "He that knew his Lord's will ... shall be beaten with many stripes; but he that knew not. . shall be beaten with few stripes"; or the dying prayer of the Redeemer for his murderers, whether they were unenlightened Romans or bigoted Jews: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." And if he had taught us to make allowances far more than is our wont to do for inherited or providential limitations, we might have laid aside the book, feeling that we had been made better by breathing its atmosphere.

But within no such boundaries will his ardor permit him to confine himself. Depravity, in any other sense than disease, must be denied altogether. Responsibility must be reduced till moral distinctions become almost or quite impossible. The result is a book which will unsettle the confidence of many in the Scriptures; which will, we fear, encourage many to sin; and which will occasion to many pain, that one so capable of advocating truth should turn his glittering weapons upon the faith once delivered to the saints.

We will offer a suggestion or two upon the celebrated sermon of the Rev. Dr. Honeywood on "The Obligations of an Infinite Creator to a Finite Creature," the text of which was the question of Abraham: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"— Gen. 18: 25.

Human reason is not excluded from the domain of God's character and government; but its step there should be characterized by humility, reverence, and faith. Even Abraham, on the occasion referred to, was in danger of doing injustice to his Maker, or making shipwreck of his own faith, by reasoning from premises that were afterward proved false. He assumed that there were many righteous men in Sodom, and that the

destruction of the city would therefore be unjust. Upon that assumption he made his remonstrance; and the event showed how reasonably he might have addressed his question to his own fears, in the tone of child-like trust. We do not think, therefore, that the text was well chosen as a warrant for the discourse. But if even the good patriarch erred, we shall be slow to believe that a man so capable of misrepresenting his brethren, as Dr. Honeywood shows himself, is qualified for the function he undertakes in defining the duties of Deity. We almost shudder at the audacity of such a sentence as the following, intended to set forth the orthodox theology: "Would it be fair for a parent to put into a child's hands the title-deeds to all his future possessions, with a bunch of matches?" If the reverend doctor has studied theological opinions to so little purpose as to think that he has fairly enunciated any extant opinion by this figure, or if he has so little conscience as wilfully to caricature the doctrine he once professed to hold, by all means let him return to those practical discourses which are so much more suited to his genius and taste than theology, or else let him leave the profession till he has learned not only to preach, but to practise the command against bearing false witness.

Aside from philosophical or theological discussions, we miss in these volumes that aroma of the Gospel which, more than intellectual power or artistic skill, can make a story immortal. Conviction for sin such as David had, such as Edwards had,is sneered at. And yet the parable of the Prodigal Son is represented as a stumbling-block for Calvinists! Pray, what was the Prodigal but a penitent sinner, and for what did Christ come but to save the lost?

Would that Elsie might have found a hand to lead her to the Saviour of sinners! He who cast out of Mary Magdalen seven devils, might have cured this daughter of misfortune. If fierce Africaner could be made by Christianity a little child, surely this fierce spirit might have been reached and tamed by the same power. If, notwithstanding her strange physical malady, the maiden could love Bernard Langdon and be, by that love, lifted to a still higher stage of humanity, surely she might have learned to love Jesus of Nazareth, and have lost in him her former self!

For Oliver Wendell Holmes, as a genial poet, we have ever had a warm admiration; against him, as a man, we have neither knowledge nor prejudice. But we are constrained to think that he lacks the candor, the fairness, the humility, and the thorough, experimental knowledge which would fit him for the vocation of a religious teacher. He addresses a vast audience from the platform of the "Atlantic Monthly." Let him take heed to himself and to his doctrine, remembering that unto whom much is given, of him will much be required. Let him bear in mind, with reference to his highest and most permanent influence among mankind, the declaration of our Lord: "Whosoever shall fall upon this stone shall be broken.” The great truths of Sin, Retribution, and Redemption are central in the system of Christ, and the man, however gifted, who hurls himself gainst them, will but damage himself, and such as are misled with him, while the truths remain impregnable.

ARTICLE VII.

GENERIC Ar. ICATION OF APOCALYPTIC
SYMBOLS.

THE Apocalypse has had a remarkable history. There is scarcely any book of the Scriptures on which so much has been written, and of which such widely different expositions have been made. In view of the numerous and unsatisfactory expositions, many are strongly inclined to the belief that the Revelation is an exception to the statement of Paul, that "all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness."

But infinite wisdom does nothing in vain, and as this book is a part of the inspired volume, it should be regarded as something more than a collection of dark enigmas which must always remain without solution. Its symbols have a significance, and there is some way by which they can be interpreted so as to be eminently instructive and interesting.

The most commonly adopted mode of interpreting this book

is the church-historical theory. This was adopted by Luther, who forcibly expresses its characteristic peculiarity when he says: "Since the book is to be a revelation of future events, and specially of great tribulations and distress of Christendom, we think that the simplest and surest way of finding the interpretation would be to put together from the annals of history, the past history and troubles of Christendom, and to put them beside the symbols of the Revelation and compare them with the words. Then, whenever it would nicely fit and coincide, there we might depend on obtaining a sure and incontrovertible interpretation."

There is another theory the generic one. According to this, the Revelation does not contain specific predictions of individual events, so much as warning and comforting prophecies concerning the great leading powers and events which are connected with the conflict between the kingdom of Christ and that of Satan. Its symbols are so generically significant, that they are not absolutely confined at any one period to single specific events, but as Lord Bacon says, "they have springing and germinant accomplishment throughout many ages, though the height or fullness of them belong to some one age," and thus every age may learn from them and more how to recognize and guard against the various attacks of the enemy and the afflicted Church of Christ at all times receive courage and consolation.

This theory has several advantages above the first. It is more consistent with the great Protestant principle, that the Bible is the best interpreter of itself. According to the historical theory, the interpretation of the Revelation depends chiefly, if not entirely, on history. Interpretation and fulfilment are confounded, the former being dependent on the latter. Instead of the book enabling us to understand the times, the times must interpret to us the book. Though history may aid us to a clearer knowledge of the Revelation, yet the book is evidently adapted to enable us to discern or properly interpret the signs of the times, to enable us to learn the general character of future events, and to see to what great results the events of history tend, while each event in an important sense becomes the symbol of that to follow in the series, and so on to the end.