"It is also my desire, that my dear brother, the Rev. Mr. Fawcett be sent for, to preach my funeral sermon, about a month or six weeks after my decease, as shall suit his own conveniency. I would not have him say a word in praise of me, but tell the people, that having loved them, I loved them unto the end; and as a proof of it, have made choice of this word. Therefore, my brethren, dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, dearly beloved.' Phil. iv. 1. God will help my dear brother to carry home the exhortation upon their hearts, and that they will carefully attend to all the affectionate arguments by which the exhortation is urged. My further desire is, that the sermon may be printed, and that my dear people would not fail to have each of them one, to be with them when they will see my face no more."

The funeral was conducted according to Mr. Darracott's directions. But though he evidently designed to avoid attracting a crowd to his grave, the time could not be kept entirely secret, and immense multitudes attended at that early hour. The darkness was dispelled by their numerous torches, and its silence broken by their sighs, intermingled with praises of their deceased pastor.

The funeral sermon, which Mr. Fawcett preached at Wellington, April 15, exactly a month after his friend's decease, was, by his command, silent concerning his praise. The attentive multitudes, their sighs and tears, sufficiently proclaimed the worth of their departed shepherd. And in the picture of a faithful pastor, which Mr. Fawcett drew, he manifestly intended to give the likeness of his friend.

The concluding chapter of the book, from which we have already made so many extracts, contains a very well written summary of Mr. Darracott's character. We trust our readers will pardon us for inserting a few passages.

"His disposition, says his biographer, whether it should be ascribed wholly to religion, or in some measure to natural temperament, was very lovely. For, with all that ardor which endeared him to the church and to his friends, he was gentle and forgiving to his enemies. It was frequently observed of him, that, bold as a lion in the pulpit, he was, in the intercourse of life, meek as a lamb. Amidst considerable opposition, he was never roused to anger. In all his letters, he wisely abstained from any mention of his enemies; and when a member of his family expressed a resolution to have no dealings with a tradesman who had injured him, he strongly censured the spirit, insisting that no difference should be made, except in favor of the offender.

"Though he was a very captivating preacher, he would not, as a writer of sermons, have acquired celebrity from the press. The fire of his heart, the light of his eye, the affection of his tone, and the solemnity of his manner, communicated an inexpressible interest, and made common thoughts appear striking."

"Mr. Darracott was still more distinguished as a pastor than a preacher. He was far from resembling those whose neglect of their flocks reminds us of what the sacred writer says of the ostrich, that leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in the sand, and forgetteth that the foot of the traveller may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them. Mr. D. watched with unwearied diligence, for the fruit of his preaching."

"If those who are entering on the work of the ministry may here learn that with moderate abilities they may indulge the hope of distinguished usefulness, they see also, that to consecrate themselves to this object, is to secure a life of happiness. While many are fretting at the weight of their labors, the obscurity of their station, or the smallness of their income; this good man esteemed it his felicity to have no time to spare; his honor to hide himself where he might

best promote the divine glory; and his wealth to put others in possession of the durable riches of righteousness."

"Far from repining that he was exiled to the narrow sphere of a little country town, his enlarged heart told him that his station demanded more than he had time or strength to accomplish. The pecuniary embarrassments, which he felt, were but momentary, for his wants were soon supplied; and while they lasted, the strength of his faith and the ardor of his zeal prevented them from doing more than proving to his own conscience, and to others, that he could willingly make any sacrifice for Christ and his cause. The care of his family, he cheerfully devolved upon Him whom he had served in the Gospel ;-nor was his confidence vain."

The last fifty pages of this work are filled with extracts from Mr. Darracott's correspondence. We do not think they add

greatly to the value, or to the interest of the volume.

A reflection obtrudes itself, on closing this little book, respecting the doctrines of which God is pleased to bless the preaching. Ministers may describe forever the beauties of virtue, and the rewards of self-respect-may portray the vulgarity of vice, and exhort to aspirations after the elevated consciousness of an unreproaching heart-but the effects of Darracott's preaching will not

ensue.

"Ah, tinkling cymbal, and high sounding brass,
Smitten in vain! Such music cannot charm
The eclipse that intercepts truth's heavenly beam,
And chills and darkens a wide wandering soul."

The course of action also, which secures success to a pastor, is strikingly exhibited in the book we have been examining. The mere routine of ministrations on the sabbath will not satisfy the conscience or the wishes of a minister who is worthy to be accounted a descendant of the pilgrim fathers of New England.

He must be instant in season and out of season-must attend personally and thoroughly to the welfare of his charge, or he cannot anticipate nor receive the reward of a faithful servant. So thought Darracott, and he acted accordingly. So thought and acted the clerical fathers who nurtured the churches of this land. And so think and act their legitimate children in the ministry.

ter.

A tear will escape from the pious reader, as he recalls the history of the school of Doddridge, while perusing the narrative of the life of so lovely and so successful a pupil of that sainted masAnd more bitter tears will flow, if he turn his thoughts to an institution in our own vicinity, originally consecrated "to Christ and the Church," but now the boasted "bulwark" of a system of religion which its founders would have deemed treachery to the Captain of their salvation to adopt or countenance.

THE SCRIPTURES NOT A REVELATION, BUT THE RECORD OF A REVELATION: An Article in the Christian Examiner for January, 1830.

OUR last number contained an article on the question, What constitutes Infidelity?, in which, after meeting this inquiry, the writer shows, by numerous quotations from standard Unitarian authors in Europe and America, that they fall clearly on the side of the Infidel. We deem it a striking coincidence, that on the day of the issuing of our number, an article was published in the Christian Examiner, with a running title, "The Scriptures not a Revelation but the record of a Revelation," making fuller disclosures of the views of the conductors of that work on the subject in question, and confirming the conclusions we had published. We shall occupy a few pages in examining and exposing the contents of this article, so far as they relate to the inspiration of the Scriptures.

"The question," says the Examiner, " between the believer and the unbeliever is, whether God has made special and supernatural communications of his wisdom and will to man, and whether the Bible contains those communications:" "Not whether the words of this communication are grammatically the best words; not whether the illustrations are rhetorically the best illustrations; not whether the arguments are logically the best arguments; but the question is, whether there is any communication at all.”

Now we deny that the question, as here stated, is the proper question between the believer and unbeliever, or the Christian and the Infidel. We do this for two reasons. In the first place, many

acknowledged Infidel writers would answer this question in precisely the same manner as the Christian. Lord Bolingbroke professed to believe that "God had made special and supernatural communications of his wisdom and will to man," and that "the Bible contains those communications." "Genuine Christianity," says he "is contained in the Scriptures. It is the word of God." The same remark may be extended to Hobbes, Tindal, Morgan, Dodwell, Gibbon, and perhaps others.* But, secondly, any person may believe that "God has made special and supernatural communications of his wisdom and will to man," and that "the Bible contains those communications," and still not receive the Bible as the truth of God, or bow to it as a standard. God has made a revelation to men, and the Bible contains this revelation; but whereabout in the Bible is it? and how much is there of it? and what particular parts are to be considered as revelation, and what not?' These are points which none can satisfactorily determine, and concerning which there must be great and endless diversity of opinion. One throws away this chapter or verse, as no part of the revelation; another that; and another that; and thus the whole Bible is virtu

6

* See our number for January, 1830, pp. 5, 6.

ally discarded, while in appearance and profession it is retained. 'There is a revelation in the Bible ;-but no mortal can decide infallibly, without a new revelation, what it is, or where it is, or how much there is of it; and hence every one is entitled to receive such parts, and such only, as to him appear consistent and agreeable.'*

The real question between the believer and the infide! was properly stated and settled in our last number; pp. 7---10.

"The Christian receives the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, as coming from God-as of binding authority-as the standard of his faith, and the rule of his conduct; but the infidel, whatever he may profess or pretend, never in reality does this-The intelligent Christian is not averse to sober and just criticism, in application to the Scriptures. He wishes the canon of Scripture to be investigated and established, and that whatever is included in the canon may be properly explained. He wishes to possess a correct copy, if possible, as the inspired writers left it; and he wishes this copy to be correctly interpreted, if possible according to the mind of the Spirit.' But when all this is done to his satisfaction, he has no further questions to ask. He receives it all. He says, with Chillingworth in his better days, "No demonstration can be stronger than this: God hath said so, therefore it is true."

But the infidel is not satisfied with having a correct copy of the Scriptures, and with having it correctly interpreted. He does not then bow to it, as a standard. There is a certain part of it, if not the whole, which, in his estimation, is not the authoritative word of God."

Brought to this test, it was shown in our last, that the conductors of the Christian Examiner fall clearly on the side of the infidel. The same more evidently appears from the disclosures in the article now before us. No manner of inspiration, not even a general superintendence, is here admitted as extending to the language of the Bible.

"Many of the most learned and profound Orthodox scholars have given up the doctrine of immediate suggestion, and retain only that of a general superintendence.t But we surely may remind them, that the Scriptures themselves furnish as little warrant for the doctrine of superintendence as for that of suggestion.

The doctrine of superintendence, undoubtedly, comes not from the Scriptures, but from what is thought to be the exigency of the case. It is introduced to save the sacred writings from the charge of possible error; a charge which we shall by and by undertake to show, does not, in ANYTHING MATERIAL, attach to them, on what we think to be a more rational and unincumbered theory. We see no need of supposing the apostles, for instance, to have spoken and written under any other influence than that of truth and goodness-truth supernaturally communicated to them, but not by them supernaturally taught.

The Examiner insists, that the sacred writers had no need of inspiration, in composing and publishing the sacred volume.

Rammohun Roy, whom the Christian Register places "in the very first rank of Christian Theologians," selected and published, a few years since, such passages of the New Testament as he thought proper for circulation among his countrymen. This work has been republished, with high encomiums, by Unitarians in this country. Mr. Jefferson, who claimed to be a Unitarian, and whom Dr Priestley represents as " almost, if not altogether, such an one as we (Unitarians) are," also made a selection, from the New Testament, of such of the precepts of Jesus" as he thought to be genuine, and worthy of so distinguished a Reformer.

This representation of the views of "many of the most learned and profound Orthodox scholars" respecting the Bible, we believe is wholly unfounded.

"What is a revelation? It is simply the communication of certain truths to mankind; truths, indeed, which they could not otherwise have fully understood or satisfactorily determined; but truths nevertheless as easy to be communicated as any other. Why then is there any more need of supernatural assistance in this case, than in any other ?" "What particular truth, that either does belong to revelation, or has been conceived to belong to it, requires an infallible style, or a supernatural influence for its communication ?"

Accordingly, it is urged, with a variety of illustration, that the Bible is a human composition.

"The composition of the Bible is looked upon as a human work-a work produced by the natural operation of human thought and feeling."—" These writings (the Scriptures) so far as their composition is concerned, are to be regarded as possessing a properly and PURELY human character."-" The record was human. It was, strictly speaking, and every way, a human act. The manner, the style, the phraseology, the choice of words, the order of thought, the selection of figures, comparisons, arguments, to enforce the communication, was altogether a human work. It was as purely human, as peculiarly individual in the case of every witness, as his accent, attitude, or gesture, when delivering his message."

The writer of this article speaks in some places as though the question between Unitarians and the Orthodox respected merely the language of Scripture-as though he believed that the thoughts, the ideas, were of divine inspiration.

“We see ideas, that we ascribe to inspiration; but we see no evidence, we can discern no appearance of any supernatural influence created upon the style either to make it perfect, or to prevent it from being imperfect.

“If such, then, be the natural impression arising from the perusal of the Scriptures, we are so to receive them, unless they themselves direct us otherwise. Do they direct us otherwise? Do they anywhere tell us that the manner of writing, the style, the words, came from immediate divine suggestion, or were subject to miraculous superintendence?"

The same writer asserts, in another place, that Unitarians do not deny the inspiration "of ideas" in the New Testament, but "only of words.' p. 355.

Now if the question between the two parties respected merely the language of the Bible, it would be one of vital importance. Our Saviour promised the Spirit to his disciples to teach them, as well how, as what they should speak. And Paul thought it important to acquaint the Corinthians, that he spake, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.' "If we should admit," says Dr. Woods, "that the divine superintendence and guidance afforded to the inspired writers had no relation at all to the manner in which they exhibited either doctrines or facts; how easily might we be disturbed with doubts, in regard to the propriety of some of their representations? We should most certainly consider them as liable to all the inadvertencies and mistakes, to which uninspired

It is implied here, as it is in other parts of the article under examination, that the characteristic differences of style in the sacred writers goes to disprove their inspiration. We have no time to discuss this old infidel objection to the Word of God; nor is it necessary. Those who wish to see it removed may consult Dr. Woods' Lectures on Inspiration, pp. 25-28, and Wilson's Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity, pp. 317–331.