It is evident, on the whole, that leading Unitarians in this region are intending to persist in rejecting the inspiration of the Bible, and in refusing to receive it as the word of God. The result to which they have come has not been adopted suddenly, or without opportunity for consideration. In some minds it has been matured, and the way has been preparing for a disclosure, for several years. The following views respecting the old Testament were expressed by Professor Norton, as early as A. D. 1818.

"While we believe that God gave the Jews the knowledge of himself, and taught them some of the great truths of religion by a miraculous revelation, and miraculously superintended their concerns; we at the same time believe that the records of their history were composed by men. We must, therefore, warn those whom we instruct, from attributing to God the human passions, the imperfect views, the national prejudices, and the false moral judgements of actions and character which belong only to the historian."—" We believe that God made to his ministers, under the Jewish dispensation, most sublime communications respecting his nature and works; but that the language in which these truths were expressed by them was their own." "We may further, I think, rationally teach, that many of the particular laws of the founder of the Jewish State are attributed to Jehovah, ONLY because Moses was appointed and commissioned by God as the lawgiver of that State, and might, therefore, be considered as acting throughout under his authority."*

From this extract we gather, first, that in the judgement of Professor N. certain portions of the Old Testament, those particularly in which he thinks are exhibited "imperfect views, national prejudices and false moral judgements of actions and character," constitute no part of the revelation, but, both in thought and language, "belong only to the historian." Secondly, that in other portions, containing "sublime communications," from God, "respecting his nature and works," the language is to be attributed to the writer exclusively. And thirdly, that "many of the laws" which Moses gave to Israel, and which he declared he received from God, were the result of his own wisdom, while acting under a general commission from Jehovah.

It is urged by Dr. Woods, that unless the inspiration of our sacred books extends to the language as well as the thought, we may be disturbed by continual doubts as to the propriety of some of the representations of Scripture.

"Here, we might say, Paul was unfortunate in the choice of words; and here, his language does not express the ideas he must have intended to convey.

hicle of communication, about style, about the manner of writing." But on another page the writer carries the question much farther than this, and demands of us whether we "believe in the inspiration of every idea that is contained in the Bible." And after quoting a part of the second Epistle to Timothy, he asks," Can any sensible man believe that these ideas were inspired? We presume not."

Again, he represents it as "the great difficulty" with us, that the Bible must be regarded as "a perfect book,"-necessarily implying that he does not thus regard it. But with all its imperfections, he speaks of it on the opposite page as "just what God saw to be suited to the ends of revelation," and believes "it was best that the communication should be left to be made just as it was made."

* Discourse on Religious Education, pp. 21-25.

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."

The reviewers in the Examiner admit the force of this objection, but insist that they "seldom find occasion" to use such language respecting the Bible; implying that in some instances they "do find occasion" thus to criticise and censure our sacred books, and that when they think there is occasion, they have no objection to doing it.

Taking the whole subject in connexion, we come to the same conclusion respecting the views of leading Unitarians, to which we were brought in a former number, and which we must be allowed to repeat.

"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."

Unitarians have not yet informed us definitely and fully what portions of the Bible they mean to set aside as forming no part of the revelations of God. They have, however, told us some things; and it may be interesting, before we close, to trace the progress of developement on this subject, up to the present period. We learn, then, in the first place, that "many of the particular laws" which were given to Israel, came not, as the Scriptures assert, from God, but from Moses. We further learn from Dr. Ware, and the sentiment has been more than once expressed in the Examiner, that all "the arguments, illustrations, and topics of persuasion employed" by the sacred writers to enforce their instructions, "were the suggestions of their own minds." The Epistle to the Hebrews is formally discarded as uncanonical, and, in many parts, unreasonable. We must also reject all those portions which seem to us trivial or unimportant; as 2 Tim. iv. 10-13. "Can any sensible man believe that these ideas were inspired? We presume not." We must reject, too, those parts which to be founded on the writer's "private notions of fitness and propriety;" for instance, 1 Cor. xi. 1-16. "No Christians," we are falsely told, "not even the most Orthodox, believe" these verses "to be. . . . inspired." Those parts are also to be rejected, in which the writer seems to be "giving utterance to feelings entirely natural, in words and arguments purely human ;" for instance, í Cor. ix. 1-7. We are further to reject all "the imprecations" of the sacred writers, their "imperfect views," their "false moral judgements," their "mistakes in philosophy and discrepancies in statements of facts," all that is "local," all that is "temporary,"

appear

in short, everything that seems to us unreasonable; for it is said expressly,

"If we are asked how we distinguish between the private opinions of the writers, and the essential principles of their religion, between what is of partial and temporary, and what is of universal and constant obligation, we answer, that we do it, as we would do everything else of a similar nature, by the sober exercise of our reason." Vol. viii. p. 139.

Our readers will learn from the statements here made what havoc is coming to be made of the Scriptures, and the importance of guarding them with a vigilant eye and a strong hand. We need say nothing to impress the importance of this discussion. If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?' And if the inspiration of the Scriptures, their plenary inspiration, does not lie at the foundation of the Christian's hope, we know not what subject or doctrine is entitled to such a distinction. The points at issue in this discussion may appear to some a small matter; but only suffer these questions to be carried on the wrong side, and we hazard nothing in saying that the Bible, as to all essential purposes, is gone. Only yield to our opponents the full range of their principles, and there is not a sentence of the Bible, on which the advocate of revelation can lay his hand, and say, This is authoritative-this is the word of God.' For if he appeals to the Penteteuch, much that Moses pretended to have received from God was of his own invention. If he refers to the historical parts of the Old Testament, no small portion of these "belongs only to the historian." If he quotes from the Psalms, many passages here are to be rejected. If he quotes from the alleged discourses of Christ, these were "reported by the Evangelists from memory, and not always with perfect accuracy." If he quotes from the writings of the apostles, they in some instances were mistaken. Or let him quote from what part of the Bible he may, the language is "purely human," and is as likely to be faulty as any other language. Suppose he quotes the introduction to John's gospel, in proof of the Divinity of Christ; but who can be sure that the old apostle did not Platonize, and conform his language, if not his theology, to the false philosophy of the times? Or suppose he quotes the strong language of Paul, to prove the doctrine of atonement by the death of Christ; but Paul, it must be remembered, was a Jew, had been cradled and nurtured among victims and sacrifices, and we must be careful not to mistake his private opinions and Jewish notions for the revelations of Jehovah.

It will be perceived at once, that under the application of principles such as these, the Bible is of no value, as a common and authoritative standard of appeal. For what can be proved by it? And why should any be at the trouble of quoting and interpreting proof-texts, if, after the meaning is ascertained, there is still another

question to be decided at the bar of reason, viz: Is this meaning true or false?

We commend this subject to the consideration of Christians of all denominations who love the Bible, and call upon them to unite with us, in defending the full inspiration and the divine authority of the word of God. The authority of this sacred word is now assailed; and what renders the assault more fearful, it is made (as it has been before) under a profession of regard, and a cover of friendship. Of the spread of open, scoffing infidelity our apprehensions are comparatively feeble. But when we see infidelity in the high places of the church, and hear it from lips which ought to be among the first to defend the unerring standard of the word of life, we cannot but lift a note of warning, and call upon all who love the Bible to unite in its defence.

We commend this subject to the consideration of sober, reflecting Unitarians-fathers, mothers, and heads of families. Are such persons aware of what is doing under their patronage, and with a reliance on their countenance and favor? Are they prepared to give up the Bible, as a standard of appeal, and a rule of duty? Are they willing that their children should be educated under the influence of principles in regard to the Bible, like those on which we have here remarked? Are they sure that they shall not themselves need the Bible, the whole Bible, for their instruction and comfort, as they travel through this vale of tears? And are they willing to turn away from that sure word of prophecy,' that 'light shining in a dark place,' by the beams of which the holy of other ages have walked to heaven?

6

We would commend a further consideration of this solemn subject even to those Unitarians on whose writings we have felt it our duty to remark. It may be they are not fully aware of the nature and influence of those results to which they have come. We call upon them, therefore, to pause, and consider, and retrace their steps. Our consciences bear us witness that we have not pursued this discussion with feelings of bitterness or hatred. Had we writ ten a line under the influence of such feelings, most gladly would we blot it out with tears. But we do feel the importance of the subject, and under a sense of its great importance, we feel impelled to expose impending dangers, and warn our fellow travellers to the judgement to beware. For whether received or rejected, the Bible will stand. Having "God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter," it has sustained and outlived a thousand assaults, and it cannot now be overthrown. But those can be overthrown who dare to trifle with it, and who refuse to receive it, and walk by it, as the standard of truth and duty, the word of the living God. Let impetuous mortals, then, beware; and instead of exalting their own powers, and proudly leaning to their own understandings, let them in meekness receive the engrafted word, which is able to save their souls.

MISCELLANEOUS.

EDUCATION REPORTER AND BOSTON RECORDER.

THE subject of Education is one of paramount interest and importance, in relation to individuals and communities, to this life and the future. Of its advantages, when wisely directed, no one entertains a doubt, and the power which it is capable of exerting is immense. If it cannot literally create new faculties, it can transform, expand, and invigorate those with which the Creator has endowed us. If it cannot infuse the living soul, it can enlarge and elevate the soul, and bear it onward in its eternal course beyond any assignable limits. It is one of those subjects which commend themselves to all classes and descriptions of persons-to the aged and the young, to parent and child, to the friend of his country, of the church, and of the souls of men.

It should be regarded as among the favorable omens of the present age, that the subject of education, so great and interesting always, is now exciting unwonted attention. Not only is the old established system of school education continued, we hope with increased facilities and power, but the Infant school, the Sabbath school, the Bible class, the Lyceum-names and institutions formerly unknown-have come into notice, and multitudes of every age, from lisping childhood to those in the busy scenes of active and professional life, are drawn frequently together, to enjoy their benefits. A system of general, popular education has been adopted, the results of which, if wisely and perseveringly pursued, can be hardly estimated.

But here, we apprehend, is the danger: These frequent meetings for general instruction may be so conducted as to excite little interest, and then they will soon grow stale and be neglected; or they may fall under a corrupting influence, and then they will prove a curse, rather than a blessing. They need, therefore, to be fostered and encouraged, and to be furnished with a continual supply of new, interesting, and profitable topics for investigation and discussion. They need also to be looked after and watched over, not with the stern eye of a censor, but with that of an intelligent and faithful friend.

But how shall this important service be rendered?-It may be rendered in a variety of ways;-by the stately periodical, like the Journal of Science, or the Journal of Education;-or by means of Scientific Tracts ;*-or perhaps more efficiently by a weekly paper, devoted to this specific object, and designed to circulate among the School committees, and teachers, and lecturers, and lyceums, and institutions for popular instruction, with which our busy land is coming to be filled. Such a paper is the EDUCATION REPORTER, a few numbers of which are before the public, and to which we feel a pleasure in directing the attention of our readers. In the principles and talents of the editor, (Rev. Mr. Rand,) his long experience in a kindred employment, his industry and perseverance, in the attention which he is known to have paid to the general subject of education, and in the character of the numbers already issued, the public have every assuranee which the nature of such an experiment admits, that the paper will not disappoint its patrons, but will meet and answer the important

* A series of "Scientific Tracts," to be "conducted by Josiah Holbrook and others," has been commenced, which, if properly prepared, may be very useful.