pipes of God's own providing, they might receive an infusion of living water; in hope that in a diligent use of means, God would meet them, and bestow upon them converting grace. In consequence of instructions such as these, the churches came to consist very considerably, in many places, of unconverted members, of those who regarded themselves as unconverted, and who came to the Lord's table as a means of regeneration. And when the door was once opened for persons without piety to enter the church, there was no let or hindrance to their entering the ministry. And unconverted ministers (whatever creed they may profess for a time) are prepared, in the spirit and temper of their minds, for just such errors as ere long began to show themselves in New England.

There was no marked division among our ministers till near the close of the Whitefieldian revival, somewhat more

than a hundred years ago. The revivalists of that day were those who imbibed the views and adopted the explanations of President Edwards. And their pupils and successors constitute at this day, and have ever constituted, the great body of the orthodox Congregational clergy of New England. While those in general who opposed the revival, old Calvinists at the time by profession, but holding a lifeless and perverted Calvinism, and giving little evidence of true spirituality,- ere long came to be known, first as Arminians, then Arians, and then Socinians or Unitarians of the lowest stamp.1

Such, in brief, is the manner in which Unitarianism gained footing in New England. Its course can be traced as surely, from step to step, as any historical sequence whatever. We see, then, how unjust it is to ascribe its entrance and prevalence here to what has been called the New England theology. It entered in spite of this theology, rather than by its means. The advocates of this theology constituted

The late Dr. Chauncy, for some sixty years pastor of the first church in Boston, was the great opponent of Whitefield and the revival. At the close of the revival he professed to be a Calvinist; but he lived to become an Arian and a Restorationist. A similar course was pursued by many others.

They are the men, have withstood its

the chief barrier which opposed it. almost without an exception, who progress, obstructed its influence, and brought it, under God, into its present disorganized and decaying condition. From the want of a thorough acquaintance with our religious history, the reviewers of Dr. B. may be sincere in what they have said as to the influence of our particular views of the atonement in promoting the spread of Unitarianism in New England. But can they be justified in affirming, as they repeatedly do, that our doctrine " is even below that of Socinus," and that "the Socinian view is, in some respects, much easier reconciled with scripture than that of Dr. Beman" (pp. 95, 113). We hold all the great facts of the atonement as firmly as these reviewers themselves; as firmly as any class of Christians have ever done, since the crucifixion of Christ. Socinians reject the atonement in everything, unless it be the name. We build upon the atonement all our hopes of justification and final salvation. They build their hopes on an entirely different ground. We differ from our brethren at Princeton, as has been proved in the foregoing discussion, in very little except the meaning of words. Socinians differ from us both in everything that is essential to the gospel of Christ. And now in view of these facts, which the reviewers understand as well as ourselves, we ask again whether they can think themselves justified in representing the faith of Socinians in this most important article of our religion — which really is no faith at all—as in some respects better and more scriptural than our own? The answer to this inquiry we leave to their own consciences; and conclude with suggesting, whether it may not be better for both of us to unite in defending this fundamental article of our creed against those who deride and oppose it, rather than waste our energies in magnifying differences and widening divisions between those who agree in this life, in everything essential to the doctrine, and who expect to rest upon it the salvation of their souls forever.

ARTICLE II.

THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATIONS AND BENEDICTIONS.

BY JOHN J. OWEN, D.D, FREE ACADEMY, NEW YORK.

FROM the earliest days of the Christian church, widely different views have been taken respecting the meaning of the apostolic salutations and benedictions, and their significancy in the position assigned them in public worship. They who invest Christ's ministers with sacerdotal powers and functions, regard these formulas as the actual conferral from priestly lips of spiritual blessings; and by implication, if not by express statute, they argue that the power to pronounce maledictions belongs in like manner to the ministerial office. Others go to the opposite extreme, and consider them mere expressions of earnest desire that blessings may descend upon God's people, and implying no such official power or prerogative, as to render them unsuitable to be uttered by private Christians at the opening and close of religious services. Between these extremes lies a third view, that they are solemn declarations of the permanent possession and enjoyment of the grace of God by all who are embraced in the covenant of redeeming love.

We believe that very few persons in evangelical churches are disposed to attach a priestly significance and potentiality to these sacred formulas, and we dismiss therefore, as irrelevant to the special object of this Article, any refutation of this belief, and confine ourselves to the simple question, whether they are to be regarded as expressive of strong desire, or as declarative of a great truth, applicable to all of Christ's family, and in all time. That they are not prayers, in the proper acceptation of the term, is quite evident from the fact that they are not addressed to God, and have not the usual form of supplication. But as might be expected from such short, elliptical, and independent formulas,

it is a matter of doubt whether they are to be interpreted as earnestly expressed wishes or positive declarations.

That a difference of opinion exists on this point, is manifest from the variety of form employed by ministers of the gospel in pronouncing the benediction. It is the practice of some to say: May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all;" others adopt the same form, but substitute "us" for "you." Many drop the potential form, but, nevertheless change the pronoun from the second to the first person plural: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with us all." Another class adhere precisely to the language of scripture, and say: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all."

It is our present purpose to inquire, whether the last-mentioned form of the benediction does not express its true and only meaning, or, in other words, whether the official act is not nuncupative of that which really exists, rather than the expression of a wish that the blessing of God may be bestowed upon his people. To maintain the former of these views is by no means to deny that a strong and earnest desire, on the part of the person who pronounces the benediction, may accompany this official annunciation of the abiding grace of Christ with believers. But our design is to show that the benediction is an announcement of the possession of a blessing promised in perpetuum to the church of Christ, and not a simple wish or desire, as some think it to be. The same sense we would also assign to the salutations when employed according to apostolic

usage.

The usual form of salutation in Paul's epistles, is xápis ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστ τοῦ. This is the form employed in the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, and Philemon. In the Epistle to the Galatians, ἡμῶν is omitted after πατρός, and supplied with Κυρίου. In the First Epistle to Timothy, μv is found in both clauses, and ἔλεος is added to χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη, in the order χάρις, ἔλεος καὶ εἰρήνη. The form in 2 Timothy is the same,

except that nuv is wanting in the first member. In the Epistle to Titus we also find χάρις, ἔλεος καὶ εἰρήνη, but ἡμῶν is omitted in both members; while to the words Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, is added epexegetically, τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, even our Saviour.

No form of salutation is found in the Epistle to the Hebrews. In accordance with his brief, pointed, straightforward style, James employs the simple infinitive xaípew. In his first epistle, Peter uses the form χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη TANDvvein. It is noticeable that in this salutation a verb is employed, the writer wishing to express a fulness of blessing, which the verb of existence, understood in the other salutations, would not have denoted. The same form of salutation, except that the verb is omitted, is used by Peter in his second epistle, to which, however, he adds the words ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, in the knowl edge of God and of Jesus Christ our Lord. In John's first epistle there is no form of salutation. Quite an expanded one is, however, found in his second letter, čoтaι μed' vμôv χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη παρὰ Θεοῦ πατρός, καὶ παρὰ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ πατρός, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀγάπῃ. This is the only instance in the salutations, where we find the verb of existence expressed; and it will be noticed that, instead of being in the optative ein, may grace, mercy, and peace be with you, or the imperative eoTw, let grace, mercy, and peace be with you, it is the indicative future; the realization of the promised blessing being rendered emphatic by the position of the verb at the very commencement of the sentence, "shall be with grace," etc. John's third epistle has no form of salutation. In the epistle of Jude, we find a form similar to that in Peter's first epistle, except that ȧyán is added. In the salutation of John to the seven churches in Asia, the usual form, ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν κ. τ. λ. is varied to ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος· καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων ἅ ἐστιν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός, ὁ πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς.

It will be observed that in all these apostolic salutations, VOL. XIX. No. 76.

60