pilations of earth. And with regard to this last point, we insist upon it, that for the practical uses of the church aud the Christian life, it is not theology we want, but the Gospel; not the philosophy of religion, but religion itself. Science can not take the place of art, and the philosopher in the work shop is as truly out of place, as the artizan in the study or the laboratory. Do we then divorce study from practice? By no means. What natural science has proved to the arts, their hand-maid, and nurse, and mother even, that would we have theology be to the ministry and the church. Systematic theology is unquestionably the necessity of a thinking age, and indispensable to the full exposition and defense of Christianity. The thinking and inquiring minds of every generation need thinking Christian teachers; and in every congregation there will be at least one in a hundred who will wander off on the dark mountains of philosophical unbelief, and his shepherd ought to be able to follow him-only let him leave the ninety and nine behind him in the green pastures and by the still waters, while "he goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray.' We only insist upon the natural and philosophical order; we would make theology secondary and subordinate to the plain and direct teachings of God's word; and to these teachings we would always give the first place, as most useful and necessary. Science, properly so-called, in spiritual as in natural things, lies above and beyond the immediate uses of mankind. When we reach the regions of theory, the summits of a high generalization, we must remember that we leave the many for whom Christ died behind us; and if they are to be benefitted at all it must be mediately through the benefit we have ourselves received. The great instruments of salvation, the great sources of light and heat, to the mass of mankind, will be in time to come, as they always have been, the simple facts and plain declarations of the Gospel. There is a vitality and power in the actual lessons of Scripture, which is absolutely inexhaustible; they are suited to the human mind, and immediately applicable to the wants of all mankind. Men show by their conduct, not alone in their religious but in all their relations, that the forces which move them reside not in ideas but in facts, not in theories but results. It is doctrine put into practice, principle sent to its consequences, that awakens feeling, carries conviction, and elicits. action. The English revolution, which overthrew the arbitrary and perfidious Charles, was not excited by the mere assertion of unconstitutional prerogatives. It was not until the prerogative was exercised, and ship-money demanded and refused by Hampden, that a case was made out, and the common sense of the nation was aroused to the danger that threatened their ancient privileges. There were not a few loyal souls, who would listen respectfully and bow submissively, when the most absolute claims

issued from the throne, whose feelings and whose attitude were wholly changed, when they saw the royal prerogative in actual conflict with the people's rights. And such is man and nature. The American Revolution was not begun in the hearts of the people, when the right to tax America was asserted by the British Parliament. The tax was levied; the people understood the case; and resistance began. So too the Reformation was not begun, when the Pope claimed the keys of the kingdom of heaven; but it was begun when Leo acted upon the claim, and commissioned Tetzel to raise money by the sale of indulgences. This called forth the theses of Luther, and the people were ready to sustain them; for the doctrine had become a fact. We have seen too in our own day how differently men feel towards a theory, before and after it becomes a reality in history. This dif ference alone has been sufficient to lead forth a free church from the ancient sanctuaries and manses of Scotland; and the settlement of the question of baptismal regeneration may yet lead out a free church from the hoary piles of the English establishment. The union of church and state in theory is one thing; but when it forces a minister upon a protesting people, or decides a doctrine of Scripture by the statute book, it is another. In a word, as human nature is constituted, and as men are wont to act, truth, to be seen and felt and obeyed by the masses, must be bodied forth in facts and visible results.

It follows from this that the practical forms in which God has given us his revelation, are the wisest and best possible. Precept and doctrine mingle together in one. The most fundamental truths respecting God and Christ and the way of life, come out in forms of prayer and praise, of confession and worship. To many this has seemed a defect; their pride of science has been offended. They had thought that they were doing God and the church service, by recasting the truth into philosophic molds, and our pulpits consequently have been made to resound with the din of rival systems and philosophies: each claiming to present the very substance of Christianity and to be a more lucid and convincing exposition of it than the Gospel itself. The result has been that the Gospel has been presented to the people under human aspects, a speculative spirit has been engendered, and in the train have followed schisms, heresies, and all uncharitableness. Is it not reasonable to refer this sad experience of the church in no inconsiderable measure, to the administration of a scientific theology from the pulpit, in place of a simple Gospel? And is there not in this experience a lesson, which, if it were properly heeded, might hush the angry contention of Christian churches, and join in a living union those who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity? The unity of Christ's church is better declared by acts than by

words, by exercises than by professions. The worship of Christ is at once the least objectionable, and the most evangelical mode of confessing Christ's divinity. The truth, living in the practical issues of the Christian life, is a stronger and more flexible bond of Christian union than the bare truth itself in its spoken form.

In the popular and ordinary administrations, of religion therefore, we think the distinction ought never to be lost sight of, between the Gospel as we have it in the Scriptures, and as it is reconstructed, in our confessions of faith. He who imagines that the two are equivalents, is ignorant both of the lessons of experience and of the secret and inexhaustible energy of God's word. The teachings of Scripture, when presented in their original form and pressure, can much more easily be turned into prayer and praise, than into questioning and disputation. Even many of those texts, which are the favorite weapons of controversalists, when examined in their places and under the limitations imposed by their connections, will be found to lie altogether on the hither side of the hazy line of speculation; their meanings will come forth radiant with light and beauty, and carry them above the dust of controversy and the heats of passion, directly to the conscious wants of men. It has been justly observed, as an evidence of the superintendence of God over the sacred writers, how wonderfully they have avoided committing themselves, age after age, to any of the false theories, which were at the time most surely believed, but which modern science has exploded. Not less indicative is it of the power and presence of God, that the Scriptures throughout, are so true to their practical aims, and keep themselves free from mere matters of speculation; matters upon which it is the nature of the human mind to differ, and more and more, as culture increases and those specific differences of character are developed which belong to families, to nations, and to races. The first, the original lessons of God are characteristically plain, practical and wholesome, level to the common capacities of men, and suited to their common wants. But when we come to apply the Scriptures to scientific purposes, to the determination of questions rather of interest and curiosity than of necessity and immediate use, we find ourselves in the midst of difficulties not less numerous and perplexing than those which obstruct our inquiries into the arcana of nature: and then, these secondary lessons, these inferences of science, are in spiritual uses as much less fruitful as they are remote and inaccessible to common minds. Says Bacon, in the chapter from which we have more than once quoted already, "as the wine, which runs gently under the first pressure of the grape, is sweeter than that which is expressed by the screw, and thus made to taste of the seed and the skin; so those doctrines are sweetest and wholesomest which come to us most readily, as the first expressions of Scrip

ture, and are not drawn out into controversy or scientific propositions.'

To draw this discussion to an end, it is obvious that the method of Chalmers has a double blessing. It is blessed at each end of the line for it begins amid the acknowledged verities of Scripture, and regards them with profoundest reverence, as the sacred deposits of heavenly wisdom; and it ends in a theology alone deserving of the name, which instead of being brought, like some philosophical theory, to the interpretation of Scripture, is derived from it, and is the philosophy of the facts and truths of Scripture. We do not believe that such a theology, a system, built upon the facts of revelation, and proceeding to generalities by the induction of particulars, would ever have awakened the suspicion and dislike, with which systematic theology is now regarded in many sections of the church and by numberless Christians. These feelings are to be credited rather to a science, falsely so called, which enters the domain of revelation from without, and usurps dominion where it has no rightful authority, making the Scriptures to utter its language, and train behind it in bands of proof-texts, or else be silent. This a priori theology is necessarily dogmatical and bigoted. It takes its origin, not with the darkness and pupilage of those to whom revelation is sent, but with the light and prerogative of the great Revealer himself. Hence it has not scrupled to impart a meaning to the Scriptures, where it has failed to find one. True science on the other hand, is humble in its beginnings and modest in its approaches towards a knowledge of the great Unknown and his works. It plants its foot firmly upon the things commonly acknowledged in every-day life, be they observations of nature, or declarations of Scripture; it begins in cognitions or consciousness, and from these firm foundations it builds for itself the steps by which it ascends. As a consequence, a truly scientific theology, presupposes the spirit of piety toward God, and of a liberal and generous fellowship toward men. It recognizes communion with all who receive the dicta of Scripture, as the truth of divine revelation, just as the natural philosopher allies himself with all true observers of natural phenomena, and it advances as fearlessly to all the deductions which right reason authorizes. Such a theology as this will silence and dissipate the wordy disputes of rival sects. It will begin its mission by laying the broad foundations of Christian union and communion in the common sympathies and plain lessons of Christianity, and it will consummate its work by binding together again in a better, because a more vital and lasting unity, the dissevered fragments of Christ's body.

Certe, quemadmodum vina, quæ sub primam calcationem molliter defluunt, sunt suaviora, quam quæ a torculari exprimuntur, quoniam, hæc ex acino et cute uvæ aliquid sapiant; similiter salubres admodum ac suaves sunt doctrinæ, quæ ex scripturis leniter expressis emanant, nec ad controversias aut locos communes trahuntur. De Aug. Scien. Lib. 9, cap 1

ART. IV. THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY IN LAND.

Speeches of Messrs. Hayne and Webster in the United States Senate, on the resolution of Mr. Foote, January, 1830. New Haven J. H. Benham. 1850.

ONE of the great questions in our national legislation, is that of the public lands-a question constantly returning and never settled. "Mr. Foote's resolution," twenty years ago, gave occasion for a long and excursive debate, of which the most memorable part is republished in the pamphlet named at the head of this article. In 1830, it was charged upon the statesmen of the Northeastern states, that they were designing to obstruct the growth of the west by obstructing the sale of the public lands. In 1850, Mr. Webster of Massachusetts, moves in the Senate a resolution which at the former date would have been considered almost revolutionary.

"Resolved, That provision ought to be made by law that every male citizen of the United States, and every male person who has declared his intention of becoming a citizen according to the provisions of law, of twenty-one years of age or upwards, shall be entitled to enter upon and take any one-quarter section of the public lands which may be open to entry at private sale, for the purposes of residence and cultivation; and that when such citizen shall have resided on the same land for three years, and cultivated the same, or if dying in the mean time, the residence and cultivation shall be held and carried on by his widow or his heirs, or devisees, for the space of full three years from and after making entry of such land, such residence and cultivation for the said three years to be completed within four years from the time of such entry, then a patent to issue for the same to the person making entry, if living, or otherwise to his heirs or devisees, as the case may require: Provided, nevertheless, That such person so entering and taking the quarter section as aforesaid shall not have, nor shall his devisee or heirs have, any power to alienate such land, nor create any title thereto in law or equity, by deed, transfer, lease, or any other conveyance except by devise by will."

Other resolutions of a similar character have been recently offered in the Senate. Some, as that of Mr. Seward of New York, ask the gratuitous bestowment of portions of the public domain upon the exiles from Hungary and from other lands of oppression and poverty. Others, like that of Mr. Houston of Texas, require the same generosity to be extended to all actual settlers, whether foreigners or Americans. Some measures of this nature are likely to attract the marked attention of our leading statesmen. And such attention their importance imperatively demands. The surface of the earth constitutes the greatest portion of the wealth of its inhabitants. The disposition to be made of two millions of square miles of virgin soil, involves, therefore, momentous interests. In these lands, will inhere, in the course of a century, no small proportion of the wealth of the whole continent.

The proposed distribution of a quarter section to every actual settler, must also have an immediate and powerful effect upon the