the m is sundered forever. But, according to our doctrine, it will be eternally true, that the saints will be holy through their oneness in the participation of the Spirit with the Son of God, he being the vine and they the branches. And fit it is, that those who have sinned, should everlastingly stand accepted only in the Beloved, and in Him receive all the sanctifying influence, and joyous communications by which they forever go onward and upward in holiness and bliss.

Our article has grown on our hands to a greater length than we expected. We wished to remark on a number of additional topics on the tendency of the doctrine we oppose, to discourage and sadden the hearts of the righteous whom God hath not made sad,-on its adaptedness to nourish the hopes of hypocrites,-on its tendency to lead sinners to return to the Lord, like treacherous Judah, feignedly, and not with all the heart-and on some professed principles of objectors, which necessarily involve the very doctrine they deny.

In conclusion, we cannot think it arrogant to say, that those who venture to maintain, that the many passages of God's word, which in so strong language demand the whole heart, in order to acceptance, are to be taken with qualifications, are solemnly bound, either to point out those qualifications in the Holy Scriptures, and not merely to refer us to the deductions of a doubtful human theology, or to abandon a position apparently so dangerous to souls, nor continue to proclaim a doctrine which mars the Gospel, and in principle makes void the law. If the Bible can be shown to be against us, we trust that we shall bow with humble submission to its authority, nor proceed further to darken counsel by words without knowledge. But while the Bible appears plainly to teach us these views, we dare not abandon them, nor dare we cease proclaiming them, though all the Augustines, Luthers, Calvins, Westminster Assemblies, Theological Seminaries, and learned Theologians in the universe were against us. "Let God be true, but every man a liar." But it is delightful to us, to think, that however in appearance divided on this great subject, the church of the living God are in heart and aim "perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." May God hasten the day when the wood, hay and stubble which any of us may have unwittingly placed in the edifice of truth, may be burned away by the salutary fires of faithful, fraternal discussion, and naught be left in its strong and beautiful walls, but gold, silver and precious stones.

ARTICLE XV.

Simplicity of Moral Actions.

By the Junior Editor.

THE greatest differences of opinion in respect to religious ceremonies and forms of worship, whether we assign them a place within the territory of "unlearned and foolish questions" or upon the limits of "the faith once delivered to the saints," are equally barren of all important logical consequences, and can never acquire the right to extend themselves into the domain of practical theology. However prolific, therefore, they may be in strife and commotion upon the border-lands of religion, they can never be inconsistent with entire harmony within its sacred boundaries. But it is far otherwise with such as relate to the nature or essential properties of Moral Actions. Originating, as they do, in the very source and central life of moral agency, their logical consequences must, of necessi ty, sweep the whole circle of ethical science, and run through every individual doctrine "pertaining to life and godliness." And whether great or small in their origin, we may rationally expect that they will preserve a proportionate magnitude throughout the whole line of their logical extension. It is plain, therefore, that "necessity is laid upon" the advocate and opponent of the doctrine of the simplicity of moral actions, to hold views almost fundamentally unlike in relation to the doctrines of faith and repentance, the conditions of pardon and justification, the nature and possibility of sanctification, the import and liabilities of sin after conversion, and in fact in relation to every other doctrine that at all involves responsible agency.

Before entering directly upon the discussion of the question before us, we beg leave to lay before the reader a slight survey of the most important of these differences.

The advocate of the doctrine under consideration, denying the possibility of any mean between an action wholly right, and an action wholly wrong, must maintain, that the sinner in the very instant of consecrating himself to God, affects a total change in his moral character; that

his penitence and submission are then unmingled with impenitence and wilfulness, and his faith and charity unalloyed with unbelief and selfishness; and that, until he lapses from that state, he will continue to be as free from all sin as before entering upon it, he was free from all righteousness. His opponent, on the contrary, conceiving that the same action may be both right and wrong, finds no logical difficulty in believing that every virtue which adorns the christian character, may be locked in deadly strife, or friendly greeting, with a kindred vice; and consequently, that penitence and impenitence, submission and willfulness, benevolence and selfishness may meet in the very act of consecration, and ever after, till the triumph of the dying hour, nestle together in the same bosom.

The opposing kingdoms of absolute right and absolute wrong, according to the former theory, are separated from one another only by a mathematical line; and it is but the act of a single moment to effect a total transfer of our governmental relations and allegiance. The latter admits of no such precise boundary, but requires us to regard them rather, like the rival empires of light and darkness, as gradually melting away into each other: and consequently, allows us to suppose, that an indefinite period may be consumed in passing from the unillumined midnight of sin to the ceaseless noon of "perfect love." Nay, strict logic has nothing to oppose to the conclusion, that we may linger eternally if we choose, where we first meet the faintly struggling rays of approaching twilight, or where light and darkness are combined in equal ratio, or at any other point between the exclusive control of one or the other.

Both theories admit, that repentance is an indispensable condition of justification. But, according to the former, where true repentance exists, no sin is ever found; consequently, sin and justification can never meet in the same person at the same time. According to the latter, sin either is or may be mixed with all we do. If it is mixed with all we do; it is plain, that we must either be justified in sin, or not justified at all. If it may be mixed with all we do, we must conclude, either that sin is not inconsistent with justification, or that true repentance is not inconsistent with exposure to perdition.

An act of transgression after conversion, according to the former view, implies during the time of its continuance, an entire suspension of all right choice or intention, cancels the

act of justification, and creates a real exposure to the condemnatory sentence of the divine law. According to the latter, a right intention once formed, lives on in undiminished vigor through every kind of sin, lust and murder not accepted; and the act of pardon that first smiled upon its happy birth, "never leaves or forsakes it."

The adherent of one view must maintain, that if the law of God is ever obeyed at all, it is perfectly obeyed; and that entire consecration is the very starting point of all true religion. The adherent of the opposite view, believing that true reli gion may commence with very imperfect obedience, may consistently enough propose to himself entire consecration as the goal of his highest earthly attainment.

Without pursuing this parallel further, we think it must be already sufficiently evident to the reader, that whichever of these theories be true, the other must be dangerously, if not fundamentally false. Many zealous advocates there may be, of either view, who can satisfy their abhorrence of the other, with no less serious an imputation, than that of downright heresy. But even these are not under the painful necessity of regarding their opponents as heretics. For although it is true, that men's lives are generally worse than their creeds, it is also true, that in many cases they are indefinitely better. Nevertheless, no intelligent Christian who has well considered the relation of faith to practice, can contemplate discrepancies of such vast magnitude, with any thing like indifference. Heresy in the creed, naturally and unavoidably tends to heresy in the heart; and every lesser error in exact proportion as it approximates the character of a heresy, tends in the same proportion, to mar the beauty and symmetry of Christian character, and poison the very fountains of moral life. To conclude, therefore, because a truly orthodox life often keeps company with a heretical creed, and vice versa, that all creeds are alike harmless, is as egregious folly as to infer from the fact, that many who have used daily and in large quantity both rum and tobacco, have lived as long and enjoyed as good health as their temperate neighbors; that narcotics and alcoholic stimulants are fraught with no more injury to the human system than cold water and wholesome diet. "A form of sound words" can never be the object of an intelligent sneer. The only creed from which absolutely no injury is to be apprehended, is one which quadrates exactly with the revelations of human consciousness and the truth as it is in Jesus Christ.

If this remark be true, the question before us is one of

fearful importance. And the effort to settle it is not, as many seem to suppose, like a vain dispute whether an insignificant branch that has wandered farthest from the parent trunk and central life of the vine shall be pruned away. It resembles rather a contest, whether a main branch laden with rich and purple clusters, or fragrant with their blooming promise, shall give place to a graft of foreign extraction, whose grapes "Like Dead Sea fruits, shall tempt the eye;

But turn to ashes on the lips;"

and whose poisonous luxuriance shall at length render sickly and unproductive all that remains of the original growth of the vine. In this opinion the opponents of "Oberlin theology" seem to concur. Like a skilful commander who discovers a strong post in the possession of the enemy, which must be carried, or the whole field lost, they have gradually abated the fury of their attack on other points, and concentrated their strongest forces, and turned their deadliest fire upon this. Our friends too are of the same mind, not a few of them having expressed a strong desire to see a more extended and thorough discussion of this subject than has hitherto been attempted. And in fact, any one can see at a glance, that while the great question, whether an action may be both right and wrong, remains unsettled, controversy on other questions growing out of it, though protracted endlessly, can lead us to no valuable results. They all presuppose, and must inevitably lead back to this question; just as all controversy in relation to passive regeneration, absolute decrees, election and reprobation presuppose, and when not mere dogmatizing and textsparring, must lead back to the great question of the liberty of the human will. On the other hand, it is equally plain, that to settle this one question, is virtually to terminate all controversy along the whole line of its logical derivatives. Obtain a decision in favor of the simplicity of moral action, and you have laid the axe at the root of the opposite theory, and need give yourself no further trouble about its branches. Their speedy decay and ultimate disappearance is inevitable. Obtain a decision in favor of the latter theory, and an equally certain and speedy mortality must seize upon all the ramifications of the former. Thus shall we despatch at a single blow, all those points of difference to which we have already alluded, together with many additional questions inseperably connected with the discussion of the doctrine of the attainability of sanctification in the present life, &c.

In the soundness of these views, we seek our only apology