they are so numerous. But who are the persons that love God, and thus prove that they are susceptible of love? Are they persons in their natural state,-unrenewed by the Spirit? No. They are those who are "born again,— created anew in Christ Jesus." But the question does not at all relate to such persons. Undoubtedly those who are regenerated, are susceptible of holy affection. All agree that the susceptibility belongs to them. The question before us relates to the unrenewed; relates to them exclusively. The two cases are essentially different: and we cannot reason from the one to the other. Because the regenerate love God, it surely does not follow that the unregenerate love him. And because those who are renewed by the Spirit, have a susceptibility to love, it surely does not follow that those who are unrenewed have the same. For it may be that the regenerate, in whom "old things are passed away, and all things become new," have a new susceptibility.

But are not sinners susceptible of spiritual renovation, and so of becoming the subjects of holy affection? Unquestionably they are susceptible, or capable, of being renewed by the influence of the Holy Spirit. But because they are susceptible of a spiritual change in this way, it does not follow that they are susceptible of it in any other way. In other words, because they may be renewed to holiness by the Spirit of God, it does not follow that they may be renewed without it. Just as it was in regard to Paul. He says, "I can do all things through Christ strengthening me." But did it follow from this, that he could do all things without Christ strengthening him? Christ himself answers this: "Without me ye can do nothing."-Men are undoubtedly susceptible of love to God, when renewed. And they are capable of being renewed by the Holy Spirit. But they are neither capable of the change implied in renewal, nor of that holy affection which results from it, except through the power of the Holy Ghost. This is the doctrine of Scripture and experience.

If by our being susceptible of love to God, any one means merely that we have all the powers and capacities necessary to moral agency, that we are under perfect obligation to love God, and are hindred from loving him, not by any want of natural or moral faculties, but by our criminal disinclination, by our inexcusable sinfulness; I agree with him as to the thing intended, but object to the language by

which he expresses it. At best the language has the fault of ambiguity, which is no small fault in a discussion of this kind. And I cannot but think the language calculated to lead men astray, and to make an impression on their minds directly contrary to the Bible, as to the moral state of man, and the necessity of his being renewed by the Spirit. And go where you will, you will find, that the practice of representing unrenewed sinners as having all the susceptibilities which belong to the renewed, and as fully sufficient of themselves to love and obey God, does really make an impression which is at variance with the Scripture doctrine of our depravity, and the necessity of our being born of the Spirit. And the impression of this kind which men sometimes make, is so extensive and strong, that they find themselves obliged to affirm, and to reiterate the affirmation, in opposition to what would seem naturally to flow from their language, that they do not deny the doctrine of divine influence. Such an affirmation could never be necessary, if they exhibited the truths of revelation in their just proportions, and in proper language.

To conclude. Man, in his present fallen state, has indeed a variety of susceptibilities, even in relation to the subject of religion. This we know from experience. And these susceptibilities, connected with what are called the faculties of his mind, constitute him a complete moral agent, put him under perfect obligation to obey God, and render it suitable and important that all the divine commands, invitations, promises, and threats, should be addressed to him and urged upon him with the greatest earnestness. But a susceptibility or aptitude of mind to holy emotions is not a necessary attribute of a moral agent. If you say that it is; I demand the proof. Among all the millions of moral agents who have existed since the fall, point me to one who has shown himself susceptible of true love to God, without the renewing of the Holy Ghost. And among all men now living, except those who have been born again, point me to one, who shows that he has this susceptibility, by exercising the affection;-which is the only proper and satisfactory evidence. You can produce instances without number, in which unrenewed men show themselves susceptible of convictions of conscience, and of various kinds and degrees of feeling in relation to divine things. But where is the man, however clearly and forcibly the truths of religion may be pre

sented before him, who shows himself susceptible, while unrenewed, of true love to God? Whatever susceptibility the unrenewed sinner may have, there is not the least evidence that he has this. If any one says, he is conscious of having this susceptibility while in his natural state; let him test the truth of his consciousness by a fair and thorough experiment. Surely if he has the susceptibility, he can prove that he has it. The proof is what I ask. Our being unsusceptible of holy emotions is, in my view, one of the forms of our depravity. It is hardness of heart. To remove this, is the object of that new-creating influence of the Spirit, which is one of the grand provisions of redeeming grace. The "heart of flesh" which the Spirit gives, is a feeling heart. It is an aptitude to pious emotions. And according to the common apprehension and the common phraseology of Christians, a man's having or not having this susceptibility, determines, not whether he is or is not a moral agent, but whether he is, or is not, renewed by the Holy Spirit.

ART. II.

LANGUAGE OF SIGNS AUXILIARY TO THE
CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY.

By Rev. T. H. GALLAUDET, late Principal of the American Asylum for the education of the Deaf and Dumb.

SOME years since, I was led to reflect upon the possibility of employing the language of signs, made use of in the instruction of the deaf and dumb, as an auxiliary in the intercourse between Christian Missionaries and those heathen nations which have no written or printed language; and I then published some thoughts on this subject in the CHRISTIAN OBSERVER of London. Subsequent reflection and observation have led me to regard the principles which I then adopted, as strictly correct.

I communicated my views on this subject to the Rev. Mr. Bingham, who went as Missionary to the Sandwich Islands, and afterwards received a letter from him, confirming my previous convictions. I have also stated these views to two other distinguished Missionaries, one of whom has laboured in Hindostan, and the other among the native Indians of this country; and from both of these individuals, after they had enjoyed the best advantages from their own

personal experience, for judging on such a subject, I received the fullest confirmation of the theory I had adopted, and of the useful practical results to which it might lead.

In this day of extending Missionary enterprise, in which our own country is bearing so conspicuous a part, I have thought the discussion of this subject might not be without interest to the readers of the Literary and Theological Review.

In the summer of 1818, a Chinese young man passed through Hartford, Connecticut. He was so ignorant of the English language, that he could not express in it his most common wants. As the principal of the deaf and dumb Asylum in that place, I invited the stranger to spend an evening within its walls, and introduced him to Mr. Laurent Clerc, the celebrated deaf and dumb pupil of the Abbe Sicard, and at that time an assistant teacher in the Asylum. The object of this introduction was, to ascertain to what extent Mr. Clerc, who was entirely ignorant of the Chinese language, could conduct an intelligent conversation with the foreigner, by signs and gestures merely. The result of the experiment surprised all who were present. Mr. Clerc learned from the Chinese many interesting facts respecting the place of his nativity, his parents and their family, his former pursuits in his own country, his residence in the United States, and his notious concerning God and a future state. By the aid of appropriate signs, also, Mr. Clerc ascertained the meaning of about twenty Chinese words. When the conversation began, the stranger appeared to be bewildered with amazement at the novel kind of language which was addressed to him. Soon, however, he became deeply interested in the very expressive and significant manner which Mr. Clerc used to make himself understood; and, before one hour had expired, a very quick and lively interchange of thought took place between these so lately entire strangers to each other. The Chinese himself began to catch the spirit of his new deaf and dumb acquaintance, and to employ the language of the countenance and gestures with considerable effect to make himself understood.

About a year afterwards, the principal of the Asylum visited Cornwall, in Connecticut, where upwards of twenty heathen youths were at that time receiving education under the patronage of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. With the consent of the principal of that VOL. I.

25

institution, I one evening gathered round me several of these interesting strangers, from the islands of the South Sea, and from different tribes of the North American Indians. The object of the interview was, to ascertain how far a conversation could be conducted with them merely by signs and gestures. The result was similar to that in the case of Mr. Clerc's intercourse with the Chinese. Questions were proposed to them on a variety of topics relating to their own individual history and that of their families, to the state of manners and morals in their respective countries, and to their early religious knowledge.

For example, Thomas Hoopoo, a native of Owhyhee, was asked if his parents were living; how many brothers and sisters he had; when he left his native shores; whether his countrymen worshipped idols, and sacrificed human victims; how the women were treated by the men ; what was the climate of his country; what its productions; with many inquiries of a similar nature, all of which he well comprehended, and to many of which he replied by signs. The meaning, too, of a number of Owhyhean words was ascertained by signs merely, and found to correspond with the import which had been previously assigned to them in a dictionary which had been for some time preparing in the school; and indeed, in a variety of instances, the most correct meaning of such words was established, by the medium of signs, in a more satisfactory way than had been previously attempted. Throughout this conversation, the heathen youths appeared to take a deep interest, and to have a peculiar aptitude, both in comprehending the signs which were proposed to them, and in inventing such as were necessary for a reply.

On the testimony of several of the South Sea islanders, it appeared, that not a few of the signs employed in the instruction of the deaf and dumb, are precisely the same which their countrymen use to supply the deficiency of, or to give emphasis to, their own comparatively barren language;—a fact which had indeed been anticipated, from the singular circumstance so often observed by the teachers of the deaf and dumb among their pupils, that mutes who meet for the first time are able to understand each other fully on many common topics; the Author of nature having laid the foundation in the very constitution of our species, and in the structure and processes of the visible creation, for a univer