6

men are commonly liable; and we should think ourselves perfectly justified in undertaking to charge them with real errors and faults as to style, and to show how their language might have been improved; and, in short, to treat their writings just as we treat the writings of Shakspeare and Addison. Here,' we might say, Paul was unfortunate in the choice of words; and here his language does not express the ideas which he must have intended to convey. Here the style of John was inadvertent; and here it was faulty; and here it would have been more agreeable to the nature of the subject, and would have more accurately expressed the truth, had it been altered thus.'"

We hear it questioned, in the article before us, whether "some of the illustrations" of Scripture "are judicious," and whether some "of the arguments of Paul are logical.” "Some things in the Bible, it is said, "were hastily written, some things negligently," and "some things not in the exact logical order of thought." "The light" of revelation, "in its visitations to the earth, has struggled through the medium of human imperfection, through mists of prejudice, and clouds."-It is plain from this specimen, as well as from the nature of the case, that were the language of Scripture wholly uninspired, there would be no end of cavilling in regard to it, and the Bible itself could no longer be regarded as an infallible directory in the things of religion.

The Bible, it should be remembered, was not given us as a philosophical speculation, with which to exercise and amuse the understanding; but as a system of rules, "a code of laws," which men are to obey in this world, and by which they are to be tried and judged hereafter. Suppose, then, that the Congress of the United States should enact a code of laws for the government of the nation, but should neglect to reduce them to writing, leaving it to the auditors and reporters in the halls and galleries to publish them in such form and manner as they thought best. Who would feel the least confidence in such laws? Who could tell, for certainty, what the laws were? Who could know whether he had kept them, or transgressed them? And if arraigned for trial on such laws, who could more than conjecture whether he ought to be acquitted or condemned? The truth is, that such laws would be no laws at all. They would not come authenticated to the nation, and not an individual would be under the least obligation to regard them.-So, in the case before us, if the Bible, as to the language of it, is not from God, then we have no authenticated revelation from God. All we know of his laws, his purposes, his promises, his threatenings, the way of life, and the way of death, we are left to gather from mere human testimony-the testimony of those who were as weak, as ignorant, as forgetful, and as liable to mistakes and prejudices, as ourselves; and what confidence, on such ground, can be reposed

in the Bible? We have not the word of God, but the mere testimony of men, on which to rely; and who can pretend to determine whether the foundation of his hope is sure?

These remarks go to show, that, were the question between the Orthodox and Unitarians such as has been pretended-did it respect merely the language of Scripture, it would, in that case, be a momentous question, going to the very foundation of our faith, and of our everlasting hopes. But the question, thus stated, great as it may be, is not the sole, or perhaps the principal one in this controversy. For in regard to some portions of the Bible, Unitarians no more believe the ideas inspired, than they do the words. This is evident from the article before us.

"The inspired penmen usually wrote in conformity with the philosophy of their respective ages-in conformity, therefore, with some portions of natural and metaphysical philosophy that are false."

"It cannot be denied that there are some slight discrepancies in the evangelical narratives."

"There are among our sacred books, mistakes in philosophy, and discrepancies in statements of facts."

But in these "mistakes in philosophy, and discrepancies in statements of facts," the fault must have been, not in the language only, but in the ideas intended to be conveyed. Again,

"Unbelievers have derived more plausible and just objections from the prevailing theological assumptions with regard to our sacred books, than from any other quarter. The attacks which are usually made upon the philosophy of Moses, the imprecations of David, the differences among the apostles, the obscurities of Paul, and upon instances of puerility, coarseness and indelicacy in style, or inappositeness in illustration, are all of this nature."

But in "the philosophy of Moses, the imprecations of David," and "the differences (contradictions) among the apostles," the fault could not have been in the mere words, but in the sense, the meaning, which the words expressed.

The writer before us makes a similar distinction to that of Dr. Ware, between "the doctrines" of the sacred writers, and their "arguments, illustrations, and topics of persuasion," considering the former as of divine inspiration, but the latter as "the suggestions of their own minds." This distinction he illustrates in the following manner :

"Whoever appeals to reason,' it has been very justly said, 'waves, quo ad hoc, his claim to inspiration.' When an inspired teacher says to us, 'This doctrine is true'-that is one thing-we receive the declaration on his simple authority. But when he says, 'I can prove this to you by a series of arguments' that is another thing. When he says, 'this is true, because the utterance of that word arouses our reason. It is not implicit faith that is then demanded, but an attentive consideration of the force of arguments. The thing argued demands faith; but the argument, from its very nature, appeals to reason; and it is the very office of reason to judge whether the argument is sound and sufficient. And so when a sacred writer says, This doctrine is true, and it is like such a thing, or it may be so illustrated,' he appeals to our judgement and taste, and we may, without in the least questioning the thing asserted, inquire into the fitness, force, and elegance of the illustration, allegory, or figure by which it in set forth."

But if the arguments and illustrations of the sacred writers were from their own minds, then the ideas conveyed in these arguments and illustrations were not inspired, any more than the words used to express them.

According to the theory advanced in this article, it does not appear that the office of a prophet or an apostle differed materially from that of the ordinary preacher.

"When prophet or apostle presents himself to us as a messenger from God, we receive him in the simple and actual character, which has been marked out in this discussion. We consider him as saying, 'I bear to you, a message from God, to which I demand reverent heed; I give you, from divine inspiration, assurance of certain solemn and momentous truths; but I do not say that every word and phrase I use, every simile, and allegory, and consideration by which I endeavor to explain or enforce my message, is divine, any more than that my countenance, speech, and action are divine. The distinction is easy, and you ought not to misapprehend it. I speak to you from God; but still I am a man. I speak after the manner of men, and for the peculiarities of my own manner, mind, country, and age, I do not presume to make the Universal and Eternal wisdom answerable.' It is as when an earthly government sends its ambassador to a revolted province. The person invested with such a character has a two fold office to discharge. He has to lay down propositions, to make offers of forgiveness and reconciliation. These are from the government. He has to explain and urge these propositions and offers, by such language, illustrations, and arguments as the exigency requires. These are from himself. It is thus,' might the ambassabor of God say, 'it is thus that I address the children of men. My message is divine; my manner of delivering it, is human.''

But is it not true of every authorized preacher of the Gospel, that he is an ambassador from God to a revolted world? His message is divine;-received, not indeed by immediate inspiration, but from those who were inspired. But his language, illustrations, and arguments are human. These are from himself. In what important respect, therefore, does he differ from an apostle ? And why may we not, on this ground, censure the style, the language, the illustrations, the arguments, and, to a certain extent, the sentiments of the apostles, with as great freedom and with as much propriety, as we do those of an ordinary sermon ?

The views of Unitarians respecting the Bible, as disclosed in the article here considered, are briefly these:-No manner of inspiration, not even a general superintendence, attaches to the language of Scripture. It is the word of man, and not of God, and is to be regarded, entirely and throughout, as a human composition. And as to the ideas conveyed by this language, though some of them are inspired, others are not, and every one must judge for himself, (though he has no certain means of judging) how much to receive as a revelation from God, and how much to impute to the ignorance, the prejudice, the ingenuity, or the device of man.

* The Christian Register, remarking on this article in the Examiner, says, "It is unanswerably shown that they (the Scriptures) make no claim to be the work of a literal inspiration." With this assertion, let the reader compare 2 Peter i. 21. 2 Tim. iii. 16. Gah i. 11. 1 Cor. ii. 13. and xiv. 37. 1 Thess. ii. 13.

The course which this discussion has taken, and the disclosures to which it has led, are, in our view, deeply serious. It was introduced by us, not lightly, nor with a wish to injure, but under a high sense of responsibility, and with the most solemn convictions of duty. That an outcry would be raised, and that hard things would be said of us, with a view to prejudice the public mind, and turn it off from the momentous question in debate, we had no reason to doubt. But we are not to be thus intimidated or restrained. The Bible is too dear to us to be given up-as a whole, or in part-without a struggle. The eternal interests of myriads now living, and of generations yet to live, are of too much consequence to be, at once and so readily, abandoned. When we see efforts making which we sincerely believe, so far as their influence reaches, go, not to bedim, but to extinguish the light from heaven, we cannot cease to warn our fellow travellers through a dark and treacherous world of the dangers that await. them.

The conductors of the Christian Examiner, if we understand their allusion, regard us as exulting with apparent delight over what we profess to think their fatal skepticism.' But that we exult or rejoice on account of their skepticism, (we fear their fatal skepticism,) is far from the truth. We rejoice, indeed, that the cloak of concealment is beginning to be thrown off, and that they are disposed to explain to the world their views. We commend their frankness in so doing, and entreat them to keep nothing back. But that we rejoice on account of their adopting such views, is most untrue, and to throw out insinuations to that effect we think uncharitable. We are conscious of no unfriendly feeling towards the conductors of the Unitarian periodicals, or those associated with them. They are our fellow mortals, hasting with us to the judgement, and our heart's desire and prayer to God for them is, that they may be saved.' That we regard their system generally, and especially their views of the Bible, as of destructive tendency, we have never attempted to conceal. They are views which we shall endeavor, by all fair methods, to expose and refute. We shall continue to warn our fellow men against them, and do all in our power to limit their prevalence. But so far from rejoicing that any around us have adopted such views, and such a system, we should rejoice with joy unutterable to see them abandoning it. We would go forth to meet them with tears of gratitude and joy, could we see them returning to the religion of their fathers, acknowledging the Bible as the word of God, and humbly embracing those holy doctrines, which he has revealed for their instruction in righteousness.'

THE FIRST SETTLERS OF NEW ENGLAND; OR CONQUEST OF THE PEQUODS, NARRAGANSETTS, AND POKANOKETS. As related by a Mother to her Children. By a Lady of Massachusetts. Boston: Munroe and Francis. 1829.

pp. 282.

We know nothing of the writer of this volume, except that she is a professed believer and admirer of modern Unitarianism, and consequently a violent opposer of that "system of religion which was planted on this soil by the first settlers of New England." The result of her inquiries, as here exhibited, and as they stand connected with the subject of religion, may be stated in the following propositions.

1. Our pilgrim fathers, "the first settlers of New England," were monsters of injustice and cruelty.

They "rent asunder the bands of humanity and brotherhood, thus destroying social happiness and confidential intercourse, and giving force and scope to the most hateful passions." p. 94. They destroyed the natives "with as little compassion and compunction as they would the wild beasis of the forests," and manifested "a hard and merciless disposition, truly unnatural and deplorable." pp. 32, 37.

2. The horrid cruelties, practised by the Pilgrims, were the necessary result of their Calvinistic principles.

"We may in truth imagine, that a sect-who ascribe to God passions highly vindictive and unjust,-who represent this universal Parent as having formed rational creatures for the express purpose of inflicting on them torments the most excruciating and endless, without allowing them any chance or power to escape, and who also believe, that the small number whom he has ordained to be happy, have been redeemed by the sufferings and blood of a benevolent and perfect being, who has given himself a willing victim to satisfy divine vengeance, may have believed themselves authorized to inflict all the evil in their power on wretches who are born to suffer."* pp. 30, 31.

3. The Calvinistic principles of the Pilgrins, which instigated them to such shocking barbarities, were derived from the Old Testament.

"The conviction of the Jews having been set apart from all other nations by God to preserve a knowledge of his true character and attributes, and authorized to destroy the Canaanites, whom he had purposely left to follow their own wicked devices, is assuredly the strong hold of Calvinism; for, if it be admitted that God had chosen a people who were commanded to punish and exterminate a portion of His creatures who had been blinded and kept in ignorance of the truth, then is the doctrine of election firmly established."

P. 95.

"The main prop of Calvinism is found in the election of the Jews, with all their vices, to be the peculiar favorites of heaven." p. 110.

Our fathers had "the vain belief of their being a chosen people, and, like the Israelites, authorized by God to destroy or drive out the heathen, as they styled the Indians." p. 32.

4. The Old Testament, though "highly valuable," as contain

This is a specimen of the manner in which the religious principles of our fathers are misrepresented and caricatured throughout the volume.