one, and wrote the other, and that the essayist's elaborate argument is straw-built, and tumbles not so much through its weight, as its weakness; not so much through the strength of its assailant, as the insufficiency of its foundation, and the feebleness of its defence.*

In that state of things to which the essayist's argument would bring us, to whom, to what, can we go, "having the words of eternal life"? To this question, another writer in the same Examiner has, by rather a noticeable coincidence, unwittingly supplied an answer. I look upon this essayist and this reviewer, (whom I thus name for distinction sake,) as having given us the strength and the set of the Unitarian current, far more fully and unequivocally, than has before been done, and more so than they individually intended. But opinion, like murder, will out. In the review of Dick's Christian Philos ́opher, there is much truth, beautifully expressed, happily illustrated, and forcibly applied. There are also expressions symptomatic of a disquiet spirit, of a heart ill at ease, as yet all unconscious of the heights and the depths, the length and the breadth of the unsearchable riches in Christ Jesus, which break upon the soul that receives and loves the Saviour as participent of our nature, and "God manifest in the flesh," at once "the root and the offspring of David,” a descendant of Abraham as to his humanity, and "God over all, blessed forever."

Nature, without revelation, has always been considered "a sealed book." But according to the argument of the essayist, just examined, we have little or no revelation, or at all events, we must be in great doubt as to what this revelation is. I do not wish to overcharge this statement. Is it not the truth, and is it any thing more than the truth, that a Unitarian, who adopts the opinions and the reasoning of the essayist, must be in great doubt as to what revelation is? In this state of darkness, into which one Unitarian writer leads and leaves us, another takes us. He says, page 24 of the same Examiner, we often need something more direct, and immediate, and palpable, than the feelings and sentiments, which we have derived from written knowledge, which, however sublime and glorious in itself, has been conveyed to us, through the fallible medium of written languages and translations of languages." Let not this writer

In replying to the argument of the essayist, and showing its fallacy, I have not thought it necessary to call in question his assertions relative to the allegorical use. of the Old Testament, &c. by the writer to the Hebrews. Granting all that he assumes on this subject, his argument is still entirely without weight. The reader, desirous of understanding the manner in which passages are quoted from the Old Testament by the writers of the New Testament, will find much valuable information in the Commentary by Prof. Stuart, especially in the last Excursus. Consult also a Lecture delivered and published by Dr. Woods on this subject. See also The Spirit of the Pilgrims, Vol. I. No. 9. p. 478.

think that any objection is raised against the study of the works of God, while a solemn protest is entered against such a view of the Word of God. Chalmers would have written thus, when abroad on his botanical excursions, or engaged in his laboratory, for the first ten years of his ministry. During the last fifteen years, he has not forgotten his previous acquisitions, nor overlooked the obligations of science to Christianity, while he has found the Bible to be "a storehouse of unworked materials," from which to bring out, for the certain instruction of man, and the glory of God, "things new and old." Dwight, and Payson, men of no ordinary grade, in whom taste and learning and piety were happily blended, would have given their right hand to the flame, ere a sentence like that should have dropped from their pen. What? Has it come to this? For the instruction of our ignorance, for the strengthening of our faith, for the consolation of our sorrows, for the support of our spirits when hovering over the unfathomable abyss, whence none return, are we to quit the written word of God, the everlasting gospel of his Son, which shall not fail though heaven and earth pass away, and take in its stead the hieroglyphics of nature, which the wisest and the best of heathen sages pronounced indecipherable? No wonder this reviewer should elsewhere add, "there are hours, we suspect, in the life of every man, in which it seems to him as if the foundations of truth and faith were breaking up around him, and his hopes were to be confounded and defeated.* These are indeed sad and gloomy hours, when all that we have believed, and all that we have hoped, seems fading away in dim and distant uncertainty. Yet he must be either a very firm and enlightened, or else a very thoughtless man, who does not sometimes experience feelings like these." p. 19.

"What can we reason but from what we know?"

If such be Unitarianism, that it unsettles the canon of sacred books, and shakes the foundations of faith, and truth, and hope, as it would seem from the concurring testimony of the essayist and the reviewer, truly may the poor and ignorant, aye, and the wise and the wealthy, and the great of the world too, say, "O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honor, be not thou united!"

In concluding this note, I will only add, that whatever may be thought of the essayist's argument, of the analysis here given of it,

*It is necessary to state a distinction of great importance, which the Reviewer has not noticed. The truly pious man may, and often does tremble, lest, a promise being left, he should fail, through his own fault, of attaining to the heavenly rest. But the foundations of truth and faith remain unshaken, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail.

or of the reviewer's assertions, this is plain, the epistle to the Hebrews is no longer to be received by the Unitarians as a part of the inspired Word of God. It has been pronounced, ex cathedra, uncanonical, unintelligible, absurd. No Unitarian has yet whispered a surmise that the argument, so called, of the essayist, is not conclusive and satisfactory. The Orthodox, be it known, are not prepared to renounce this "foundation of truth and hope "; they do not feel that it has been shaken; knowing the ground on which it rests, they have no fears that it ever will be. But, we may be permitted to ask, will Unitarian clergymen continue to read this apocryphal Bel-andDragon epistle from their pulpits, and in their families, without informing their hearers distinctly, that it is not properly a part of the Word of God, is not of inspired authority, and is read only as the Shepherd of Hermas might be, or any other merely human production? After such an explanation, it might be read honestly. Can it be without it? Do Unitarians read 1 John, v. 7? If they do, are they not careful to tell their people that "it is an interpolation," though something may be said in its behalf? Is it not required of them, if they would sustain a character for consistent honesty, to inform their hearers that the whole epistle to the Hebrews is of no more authority than this much disputed verse, since the Corypheus of the Unitarian chorus has informed a select literary audience that nothing can be said in favor of the Pauline origin or canonical authority of this epistle?

و,

Why, it may be asked in sober earnestness, should not this epistle give place to Robinson Crusoe, "the reasoning of which can "be regarded as of great force by an intelligent reader of the present day"? "It is, moreover," not " difficult so far to accommodate our minds to the conceptions and principles of the writer, as to perceive how it was adapted to produce great effect at the time it was written;" all of which is denied by the essayist in regard to this mystical, illogical misplaced epistle. Surely Unitarians, coinciding in the views of this writer, must allow that Robinson Crusoe or Gulliver's Travels have a better right, have a stronger and more rational claim, to be read from the pulpit, being written on rational principles and for intelligible purposes, than this incomprehensible jargon, so long and ignorantly revered as an inspired epistle to the Hebrews. In the next "Improved Version" shall this epistle have a place? Will not Mr. Palfrey exclude it from his text according to Griesbach? No matter for opposition from the ignorant, and the bigoted, and the irrational. Truth, truth will finally prevail. Let this be the course with those, who profess to hold in their hands the torch of science, and to gaze

with undazzled, eagle eye, on the Sun of Truth. Let not the modern Reformers, emulous of perfecting the work of Luther, shrink from the task.

We have now an entering wedge by which we may hope to obtain Unitarian notions of the inspiration and authority of the several books of the New Testament. Though, according to the argument of the learned essayist, the epistles of James and Jude compose the Unitarian canon, it may be doubted whether the latter of these will not be the very book first to follow the fate of that to the Hebrews. The reverence of English Unitarians for the epistle of Jude has been already seen. The Christian Examiner will not yield to the Monthly Repository in intelligence, and will not long continue more "illiberal,' or less "rational." It may be questioned whether any further benefit is to be obtained by the longer concealment of Unitarian views. Unitarians must feel that the time has come, when strength of argument and not ingenuity of artifice must decide where is truth and what is This reflecting community requires reasons, and not prejudices; arguments, and not assertions; proofs, and not assumptions of the points to be proved. It may be said, then, with propriety to all parties, bring forth your strong arguments plainly, fairly, and forcibly. If Unitarianism be true, let Unitarianism prevail; if Orthodoxy be true, let Orthodoxy prevail; or if any intermediate system be true, let that prevail.' In the mean time, it need only be said, that Orthodoxy, like Revelation, does not fear examination of any kind. It invites, it has endured, and it can endure, the severest test. It only asks that men will examine it, will do it justice without prejudice, without partiality, and without favour.

error.

Fiat veritas, ruat cœlum.

NOTE E. Page 64.

The first step to become a "rational" believer would seem to be, to renounce reason; after that, one can reason himself into the belief of any thing however absurd, and out of the belief of any truth however certain. The freethinkers of England, the atheists of France, and the philosophizing divines of Germany, would afford abundant evidence of this. Whether cis-atlantic rationalism has altered its character by changing its place, those who are competent

can decide.

The philosophers of Germany are waiting, it is said, with an anxiety unusual to that meditative race, for a full developement of Schelling's philosophical system. In this vicinity, a some

what similar anxiety is felt by many, to know what course "rational" opinion is ultimately to take. The young divines are placed in a predicament, which they must, at times, feel to be awkward. To go back, they cannot; "facilis descensus averni; sed revocare," &c: to stand still is impossible, amid the increasing light of an improving age; to go forward is perilous. Many eyes are upon them. Hitherto the wind has been what the sailors call baffling; whether, hereafter, we are to have "steady gales," setting from "the frozen zone of Christianity," on the icebergs of avowed rationalism or open infidelity, it were premature to say. Time will show.

NOTE F. Page 67.

PRIESTLEY, EICHHORN, CALVIN.

The celebrated Cuvier pronounced the eulogy on Dr. Priestley before the National Institute. The following estimate of his character is accurate, and, considering the person who made it, and the audience before which it was delivered, wonderfully so. "In fact, his history will exhibit, if I may so speak, two men of distinct and almost opposite character. The first, a circumspect philosopher, he examines those objects alone which come within the limits of experience; employs only a strict and cautious mode of reasoning; fosters in his mind no prejudice, no love of system; seeks truth alone, whatever it may be, and seldom fails to discover truth, and to establish it in the most solid and lucid manner. The other, a daring theologian, rashly pries into the greatest mysteries; contemns the faith of ages; rejects the most revered authorities; commences disputant with preconceived ideas, which he endeavors to extend rather than to examine, and to support which, he falls into the most contradictory hypotheses." The whole character is drawn in the same discriminating manner. Had it been Dr. Chalmers, instead of Cuvier, who gave this view of Dr. Priestley's character and efforts, it would have been branded as Calvinistic bigotry. As it is, we believe the admirers of Dr. Priestley are quite willing to forget the impartial estimate of the