be used by the reviewer, [Dr. Durbin,] does not imply a "disposition" to indulgence of any kind, nor does it necessarily imply a state of "desire ;"-both which terms occur in the strictures, [of Mr. Stevens,] but neither of them in the review.

of desire;" he now denies that it was a contradiction, and says he meant that "only the incipient or nascent desire is felt."

These passages are presented for the purpose of calling attention. first, to two important omissions-(1) the phrase, "as the term. seems to be used by the reviewer," and (2) the word "necessarily," the omission of either of which could not fail to mislead the reader; secondly, to two important changes-(1) the insertion of the pronoun "this" before the word "excitement," as a part of the quotation, and (2) to the italicising of the word "state," which make assurance doubly sure that in both cases the reader will be misled; and, thirdly, to the last part of the extract, which not being a misquotation, I refer to incidentally. I assure the reader that I have never made a denial of this charge of contradiction-a charge only thus supported; and that if I had, I should have assigned a reason for it totally dif ferent from that which is here put into my mouth. The reader is specially begged to refer to pp. 56-7, and there to see what use is made of this imaginary denial and argument!

From Mr. Stevens's last article.

We denied that the theory's "excitement of the appetites and passions" could be "without sin." The

that it must be, for there can be no temptation without it, because there can be no temptation without access to the will, and no access from the intellect or perception to the will but "through" the intermediate region of the "emotions and desires." -P. 36.

From my first article, p. 147. In the sense in which he [Dr. Butler] explains temptation, it most obviously implies danger; and danger here must imply some connec-reviewer, now under notice, replied tion between the impulse of temptation and the will, from which alone can proceed a moral action. But from the general view which we have presented of the mind's action, this temptation, which must first be addressed to the intellect, can reach the will only through the emotions and desires.-From all this it clearly appears, that the temptation cannot reach the will, or produce action of any kind, without passing through the region of the sensibilities; and that it cannot proceed one step beyond the mere intellectual perception, without producing emotion, the very nature of which is "excitement."

We denied the theory's excitement of the appetites and passions; the reviewer reaffirmed it on the ground that there can be no temptation unless the excitement passes through this region of appetite and passion.-P. 37.

We denied that the desires, &c., could be excited toward evil, in a sanctified man, without sin. The

reviewer replied that they can and

The following are from THE SAME must be.-He affirmed that there

article.

could be no temptation without danTemptation, then, can never be- ger, and no danger without access come properly such, only so far as to the will, and that therefore temptit excites, or tends to excite, the ation must have access to the will; DESIRES. We have before [in the and as there could be no access to argument from which the foregoing the will from the intellect except extract is made] shown that "ex- through the intermediate stages, citement is an essential element of therefore the temptation must pass temptation;" and here we inciden-"through" the emotions and desires. tally find the precise nature and This was his argument.-Pp. 38, extent of the "excitement," which 39. is necessary to give it its distinctive character.-P. 154.

It [the doctrine that the excitement of innocent temptation reaches The peculiar character of the only to the involuntary stage of detemptations of the sanctified per- sire, called the incipient or nascent son, is then doubtless this;-that desire] contradicts his former dewhile they tend, in common with fense of the theory. In his former the temptations of feebler Chris-article he told us that the will must tians and of all other men, to the be reached in temptation, and that excitement of the desires, he does it cannot be reached merely through not allow them to take hold on these desires. He has attained the power of constantly arresting them at this point, and of successfully repelling them.-P. 155.

[The doctrine of these last extracts is restated in my last article, p. 380, and again referred to, p. 384.]

the emotions, but "through the desires;" now [referring to my last article] he informs us that the temptation only "tends to excite the desires," that the desire does "not become fully formed," that it is "nascent."-P. 56.

I appeal to the reader, if he can find, in the passage of my article referred to by Mr. S., (and there is no other than the one presented to which he can refer,) any authority for putting into my mouth such assertions as these :-"There can be no temptation without access to the will;"-" temptation must pass 'through' the emotions and desires ;"-" the will must be reached in temptation," &c.? On the contrary, are not these sentiments most expressly denied in the last two extracts?

Again it is not affirmed here or elsewhere, in my articles, that -"temptation-only tends to excite the desires, &c. ;" but that"the temptation of the sanctified person,”—or, in more general terms,- -"temptation, when successfully repelled,"-only tends to excite, &c. And in passing I may inquire, if it is not somewhat extraordinary, that for the avowed purpose of proving that my articles "contradict" each other, (see the last of the quotations from Mr. S.,) the sentiments of the last two extracts above should be referred to my last article, instead of the first one in which they originally

occurred. Indeed, they do not occur in the last but as formal quotations from the first.

From Mr. Stevens's last article,

p. 58.

From my last article, p. 398. A large part of these quotations aim at nothing, but to prove that He says, "A large proportion pure love should be the controlling of these quotations prove nothing principle in the heart of the perfect but that all evil, worldly and senman, and that all evil, worldly, and sual desires, are excluded. These sensual desires are excluded. These are excluded by the original theoare excluded by the theory originally ry, since it allows nothing but what propounded, since it allows nothing is involuntary,' and these are on all hands allowed to be under the control of the will.''

but what is "involuntary;" and these are on all hands admitted to be under the control of the will.

This passage, thus strangely changed, stands in Mr. Stevens's article as a formal quotation; and the reader is particularly referred to that article, p. 58, for the use made of the omission of the reference to "the perfect man."

From Mr. Stevens's last article, p. 45.

In his [my] last article he tells us that this case of Satanic influence "obviously refers" to a matter "entirely distinct" from the theory's general definition of temptation.

The passage of my article here referred to may be found on p. 381. It is there said that the case-not of Satanic influence, but of "violent excitement,' which has its origin in 'Satanic suggestion,' and is accompanied with 'reflections and imaginings horrible, offensive, and impure," "-is a matter entirely distinct, &c. Satanic influence is but an incident in this kind of temptation, and is not peculiar to it alone.

The following are from Mr. Stevens's first article, vol. ii.

The "solicitation to evil" may be presented to his [the perfect Christian's] thoughts, but it is not felt in his passions. There may be excitement, intense excitement, but instead of its tending to "unlawful indulgence," &c., it has precisely the opposite tendency; the excitement of horror against it, or of conscious triumph over it, &c.-P. 435.

We have admitted that temptations to unlawful indulgence may be presented to the intellect-we have admitted that they may produce excitement, intense excitement, yet not an excitement like that of the reviewer's, tending toward, flowing in the direction of, the unlawful object, but an excitement of abhorrence against it-not an excitement which must be resisted, but consented to as altogether holy.-P. 447.

This sentiment is reiterated on pp. 446, 451, and 456; and in his last article, p. 50, referring to these passages, he says,—“We admitted, among others, [other forms of excitement,] that of the 'moral sensibilities.'

From my last article, p. 388.

Elsewhere [referring to the foregoing passages] the reviewer [Mr. S.] has admitted, in regard to the sanctified Christian, that this intellection may be accompanied with the moral emotion of "horror" and "abhorrence." If this admission be extended to the original transgression, instead of mending the matter, it but makes it worse; for that which before did not amount to a temptation, now actually becomes a powerful impulse in the contrary direction; for he says explicitly of this excitement, "instead of its tending to unlawful indulgence,' &c., it has precisely the opposite tendency." This temptation, which takes the direction of the moral sensibilities, is such, we feel assured, as no metaphysical writer ever yet suggested to the world.

In the last article of Mr. Stevens, p. 40, a part only of the foregoing extract is quoted, commencing with the second period, "If this admission," &c.; and in such connection as to make the pronoun "this" refer to another antecedent from that which I gave it. This he makes the occasion to pronounce it a "preposterous misrepresentation," which, he adds, "forms the force of his [my] article." The reader cannot perceive the full extent of the injustice done to the argument by this omission and consequent change of antecedent, without referring to the passage cited.

Other matter of a similar character might be adduced; but here I leave the subject, and without comment. I deeply regret that my reverend friend should have felt compelled, on the appearance of my last article, to decide that a personal character had been given to the discussion. I assure you, Mr. Editor, and your readers, that nothing was further from my thoughts, or more foreign to my feelings; and if I supposed that in the judgment of the disinterested and discerning I was justly responsible for such a result, the least satisfaction I could wish to render, as it would be the only satisfaction in my power, should be most cheerfully presented, in a frank acknowledgment of my error. But even yet, I prefer not to consider the discussion "personal." The absence from my articles of many of the expressions of courtesy, and of many explanatory and relieving remarks, may be accounted for on the ground, that in this discussion I have been restricted to forty-five pages-twenty-one less than my friend has been permitted to occupy; and though compelled thus to yield to the demand of circumstances, had I presumed nothing on the indulgence of personal friendship, I might perhaps have been more punctilious in repeating my assurances of respect and esteem. I have, however, never been accustomed to think such assurances essentially requisite between men engaged in the honest search after truth.

Very truly yours,

M. CALDWELL.

ART. VI.-CRITICAL NOTICES.

1. History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles. By Dr. AUGUSTUS NEANDER, Ordinary Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin, Consistorial Councilor, etc. Translated from the third edition of the original German. By J. E. RYLAND. Complete in one volume. 8vo., double columns, pp. 331. Philadelphia: James M. Campbell & Co. New-York: Saxton & Miles. 1844.

THE author of the above work is of a school of divines who have for several years made most commendable efforts for the restoration of an orthodox theology, and an evangelical spirit in the German Churches. The present work is characterized by sober criticism and profound investigation. The field it covers embraces the first developments of Christianity. The writings and ministry of the apostles, with the establishment, institutions, and usages of the primitive church, are presented and considered in the author's truly masterly manner. The work is one of great importance to the Biblical student, and is peculiarly appropriate to the times, as it stands in stern opposition to several dogmas which, by a portion of the Christian public, are considered essential elements of "catholic truth."

2. Danger and Duty; or, A Few Words on Popery, Puseyism, and the Present State of the Times, in Connection with Truth, Righteousness, and Peace. By REV. RICHARD MARKS, Vicar of Great Missenden, Bucks. First American, from the ninth London edition. 18mo., pp. 128. New-York: John S. Taylor & Co. 1844.

THIS is an earnest appeal to the Protestantism of the Church of England, against Puseyism and its really Romish developments and tendencies. It breathes the spirit of true Christian sympathy, and is entirely made up of the overflowings of a godly jealousy for the purity and safety of the Church of England, now suffering the dreadful ravages of a most destructive heresy. In theory the author is of the type of Archbishop Whately. He repudiates the doctrine of "the apostolical succession," and extends his confidence to all ministers of Jesus Christ of every name. His manner indicates, what he does not affect to conceal, that he fears the Church of England is destined to the judgment of being "unprotestantized," Romanized, and cursed of God for her sins, and especially for her criminal indifference to the spiritual wants of her numerous perishing children. We confess we sympathize with him in his alarms. And we would not fail to unite with him in his fervent prayers that God would pour out upon that slumbering, guilty Church, the spirit of repentance and supplication, that his fierce wrath may be averted.