The word Amen, which generally closes a prayer, is a word, in my view, of more importance, than some persons appear to imagine. It is a prayer of itself: So may it be. In other words, it is a summary of the preceding prayer; and it should be pronounced with an audible voice, and with emphasis and solemnity.

SELECTED POETRY.

(From the Philadelphia Herald.)

THE following beautiful lines, written by HENRY W. HEMANS, son of Mrs. Hemans, we do not remember ever to have seen in print. They will be found to contain much of that beauty and pathos which have thrown such a witchery around the poetry of his gifted mother.

They ask me why I do not weep?

They say my love was chill,
Oh! think not sorrow is not deep
Because its voice is still;

The secret pang-the smothered sigh,
Corrode the heart, but shun the eye.

It was not beauty's power that moved
This fond heart to adore!

I loved her not as others loved,

And yet I loved her more.

For though her outward form was fair,
Within was beauty far more rare.

And yet I scarcely ought to mourn
The spirit early flown,

Ere the soft heart by anguish torn,
. Affliction's blight had known,
For I'm in tears, and she at rest,
The sufferer cannot weep the blest.

She sleeps where in the balmy air
The perfumed wild flowers wave;
And violets spring in garland fair
Around her hallowed grave,

And waft their sweet, their living breath,
Around the silent couch of death.

And often at the evening's close
I seek that lonely tomb,
To tend a solitary rose

That blossoms o'er her bloom:
A graceful emblem of the dead,

As pure and bright as swiftly fled!

CORRESPONDENCE.

[OUR extreme desire to act with impartiality and courtesy to all, and our sincere respect for the writer of the following letter have induced us to publish it, although we observe, with regret, that our remarks have been entirely misunderstood. We will take up the

subject more at large in our next number. - Ed.] The Rev. J. C. Means, London, to the Editor of the Bible Christian. SIR, Although it is contrary to ordinary practice to admit a reply to a reviewer in the pages of the work in which the review itself has appeared, I have to beg the insertion of a few strictures on the notice which has appeared of my book on the doctrine of atonement in the pages [29-32] of the Bible Christian. I am the more inclined to do this, as I think the Reviewer has, by no means, dealt fairly, either with the subject itself, or with the arguments by which I have attempted to support it; and I think it will be allowed, that, on whichever side truth may ultimately be found to lie, the question is of sufficient importance to demand grave and impartial discussion.

The first thing to which I object is the epithet 'Calvinistic," which the Reviewer, in the very outset, applies to the doctrine which I advocate. It is inappropriate: the doctrine is not peculiar to Calvinism. The Arminians hold it, at least a great body of them, including the Wesleyan Methodists and five-sixths of the Arminian Baptists. There is, then, nothing that is peculiarly characteristic of Calvinism in the doctrine itself, and nothing Calvinistic in the statement which I have given of it. Your Reviewer admits that I have avoided "many of the most irrational parts of the commonly-received Calvinistic doctrine," and that "therefore the same objections do not exist in their full force with respect to it." But, Sir, this admission is insufficient, for your Reviewer gives a representation of Calvin's doctrine which renders it something very different from mine. "The Calvinistic doctrine," he says, "represents the Almighty as entertaining such wrath against his

creatures, because of Adam's sin, that all were doomed to everlasting punishment; which punishment they must have endured, had not the full amount of that suffering been actually submitted to by Christ."Now, Sir, I have contended, as indeed the extract given in the review shows, that the Divine Being was not actuated by wrath, but by the desire of maintaining the sanctity of his law, on the observance of which depends the well-being of the intelligent creation. To describe a governor as acting from wrath is one thing, to represent him as desiring to uphold the law for the benefit of the community is a different thing altogether. Either then the Reviewer has misrepresented "Calvin's doctrine of atonement," or he has miscalled mine; for mine is certainly a very different doctrine from that which he has described.

I do not urge this objection from any peculiar sensitiveness as to names, but because I know how far it is likely to influence the judgment of the reader. "Calvinism" is to one section of the religious world what Socinianism is to another, something from which they have been taught to shrink with horror, and every approximation to which is to be shunned with the greatest care. The influence of names is not limited to one sect or party; there are those who are as little inclined to give a candid hearing to "orthodoxy," as others are to give quarter to "heresy."

This unfair identification of the doctrine I have advocated, with the "Calvinism" which haunts your Reviewer's imagination, has given a tone to the whole review. There is abundance of argument or declamation against the ascription of wrath to God, which, however forcible it may be, is quite beside the question, and, so far as my own view of atonement is concerned, might have been well spared. I know of no other purpose which it can answer than to divert the reader's mind from the real merits of the question, or to mislead him as to the position which I have assumed. The opponents of atonement have constantly argued as though it were a question of vindictiveness or forgiveness on the part of God to men; and the representation of some of its advocates may have given them good reason to consider it so; but when the ground of vindictiveness is pointedly disclaimed, it will be seen, that the question must be determined by considerations altogether different.

In the outset of the review the writer promises to "demonstrate that the chief positions occupied by the author are untenable." This is somewhat confident certainly: especially as the demonstration does not appear in any subsequent part; nor any thing which,

66

by the utmost courtesy, can be considered as approaching to it. The Reviewer does indeed say: "We think that the chief difficulty remains, viz. that it is, and must be, an act of gross injustice to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. What an absurdity it is to maintain that a God of justice as well as mercy, would transfer punishment from one to another, that his wrath must be satisfied by the sufferings of the pure and guiltless." Perhaps this may be meant for "demonstration;" to me it appears to be assertion only; and that part of it which speaks of "wrath satisfied by suffering," irrelevant assertion. But the Reviewer afterwards adds, we ut terly deny that God's law, the immutable law of justice, viz. the rendering to every man according to his deeds, is at all vindicated or maintained by the punishment of innocence; nay, we hold that the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty, would itself be the most flagrant violation of that immutable law." Here again is an assertion-an assertion containing, I think, some fallacies; but at any rate nothing which can be called "demonstration." It is not, however, my business to complain that the Reviewer has not "demonstrated," according to promise, that my "chief positions" are "untenable;" nor even to point out the impropriety of such a formidable boast with so little attempt to make it good. My business is to advert to the unfair quotation by the Reviewer of the passage, in which I try to obviate the objection to atonement on the score of its injustice. My answer is too long to be inserted here: suffice it to say, that it consists of two parts—an examination of "the character of the divine government, as developed in the present world;" and a consideration of "the true nature and object of punishment in the divine administration." Now, from this part of my work, the Reviewer makes a garbled extract,, omitting all notice of the second part of my reply, and even mutilating that part which refers to the present phenomena of the divine government; and, after having given, as continuous, without the least note of the important omissions, the disjoined fragments of my statement, he triumphantly observes, that "if this be all the meaning" attached to the term atonement, it does not need an elaborate defence. Really, Mr. Editor, it is altogether unfair to leave out the greater part of my argument, and then to present the remainder with the remark, "if this be all:" your Reviewer must have known it was not all, if he had read the work with that attention which alone would qualify him to pass a judgment on it. I must not extend this paper beyond due limits. I have charged

your Reviewer with unfairness in three distinct particulars: 1. In having improperly designated the doctrine supported by me, the "Calvinistic" doctrine of atonement, and repeated the epithet again and again; by this appeal to the odium Theologicum precluding the fair and impartial consideration of the question. 2. In having, by he whole tone of his remarks, implied that I had represented atonement as designed to satisfy the wrath of God by the sufferings of the Redeemer. 3. In having given without any mark or notice of omission, a garbled extract of my reply to the charge of injustice: and then triumphantly intimated that this was all.

I do not wish to fix upon him the charge of wilful misrepresentation. There is nothing in his critique which may not be accounted for by the heat engendered by the contests which have agitated the Irish Presbyterian Church, or the prejudices which are apt to beset the mind in the discussion of points long and eagerly contested. But I am anxious that the question should, as much as possible, be discussed on its own merits, and by minds free from any undue bias. My observation of the state of religion in different bodies in England, has led me to consider the doctrine of atonement as of great practical importance, and to attempt to win attention to it by every fair and Christian method. I have not entered upon the question itself in this paper, not from reluctance to engage in the discussion, but because I wish in the first instance to clear away some misunderstanding which might preclude the fair consideration of it. Should your readers desire it, and you be disposed to admit my communications, I may hereafter offer some remarks upon the doctrine itself, and the scripture evidence by which it is supported.

Walworth, 29th March, 1839.

JOSEPH CALROW MEANS.

INTELLIGENCE.

ABERDEEN CHRISTIAN UNITARIAN CONGREGATION.

OUR readers will be happy to learn, that, notwithstanding the virulent opposition made by the clergy of all denominations to the principles of this religious society, it has continued to make steady progress. Persons at a distance can form no adequate idea of the lengths to which that opposition has been carried. Misrepresentations of the most flagrant description have been bandied about from pulpit to pulpit; the press has likewise teemed with scurrility and abuse; the people have been exhorted to have no dealings with the maligned and persecuted sect; and every instrument has been set to work, which could be pressed into the service by clerical intolerance and bigotry, to stay the diffusion of Christian Unitarianism, and drive the hated heresy from the city. But all in vain. The Christian deportment, and steadfast, persevering labours of the Rev. John Cropper, have won for his pleadings in behalf of Christian truth and righteousness a candid and respectful, as well as crowded, auditory. His Sunday-evening lectures, in illustration and vindication of the principles really held by Christian Unita