leave the Scriptures to be received and studied, as Locke would recommend, the gentleman must also append, (we quote his own words,)

"The substance of two letters on Inspiration, published, and there is scarcely a doubt, written by Le Clerc. Le Clerc was the cotemporary and correspondent of Locke and Newton. He was a scholar of the most remarkable compass and variety of learning, and scarcely less distinguished for his clearness of mind, good sense, and acuteness. It may be doubted whether there is anywhere to be found a more perspicuous and satisfactory statement of the subject in question, than what this tract presents. In republishing, however, these two very valuable tracts, it is not intended to vouch for the correctness of every opinion and expression which they may contain. The general views are believed to be correct. But in a few comparatively unimportant respects, both authors might have written somewhat differently, if they had written in our day."

The qualification attached to this recommendation abates nothing from its force. It is one of those vague and pointless generalities that may mean anything, because it means nothing. The editor distinctly informs us that it is only in a few comparatively unimportant respects these men might have written somewhat differently, if they had written in our day. Not to dwell at present on the belligerent and unappeasable contradictions everywhere apparent between Locke and Le Clerc,*—contradictions relating to fundamental and all-important principles-we will adduce a few passages from the latter, in which he presents, as his editor tells us, "a more perspicuous and satisfactory statement of the subject of inspiration than is anywhere else to be found."

First, with reference to the Old Testament:

"No clear reason is brought to convince us, that those who made the Jews' canon, or catalogue of their books, were infallible, or had any inspiration, where by to distinguish inspired books from those which were not." p. 110.

This assertion is made to get rid of the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon and Job.

"It appears, methinks, hereby clearly enough, that there was no inspiration in this book, (i. e. Job,) no more than in the three foregoing.” p. 109. "These books, then, that we have spoken of, are not necessarily to be accounted divine for being in the canon, or catalogue of the books of the Jews, which Jesus Christ never called in question; and there is no reason to interpret the word canonical as if it signified inspired of God. The Jews put in their collection

* Were the game worth the chase, Le Clerc himself might be hunted down into contradictions and absurdities alike innumerable and irreconcilable. His assertions and his concessions are, like those of our Reviewer above quoted, directly at swords' points. To make contradiction consistent and absurdity reasonable, requires "a compass and variety of learning, a clearness of mind, good sense and acuteness," not to be met with either in Le Clerc or his editor. What can human learning and ingenuity avail against truth, beaming from the throne of God in her own radiant and eternal splendor? Men may put out their eyes: Will the sun forget to shine? They may close their ears: Will the harmonies of the heavens, will the songs of the redeemed, cease?

The following definition of the word canon is from the piece before quoted, entitled "Notes upon the Bible," published in the Christian Examiner, vol. i. 1824, p. 8. "The term canon is used by theological writers to designate those books which are received by Jews and Christians as of divine authority, and are understood to contain their rule of faith. The Jewish canon contains those books, and those only, which constitute the Old Testament. The Christian canon is properly limited to those writings of the evangelists and apostles which have received the title of the New Testament. Though, in a looser

all the fragments they had remaining of their ancient books; they left out none, because they had no others.... They pretended not at first that this collection consisted of no other but what was divinely inspired."

Thus, either by direct assertion, or unavoidable inference, Le Clerc strips the Old Testament of infallibility, or "divine authority," and sends us adrift on the sea of gloomy distrust and disquieting conjecture.

But, secondly, of the New Testament:

"By these words, The Holy Ghost shall teach you in that hour what ye ought to say; or, as St. Matthew has expressed it, It is not ye that speak, it is the Spirit of your heavenly Father that speaks in you; Christ meant only to say this, viz. The spirit of courage and holiness, which the Gospel produces in your hearts, will teach you what ye ought to say. That is to say, that the apostles had no more to do, but to believe in the Gospel, to be assured that the disposition of spirit which that heavenly doctrine would give them, would rever let them want words; not even when they were to defend themselves before the tribunals of the greatest powers."

In other and intelligible language, the inspiration and assistance here promised by Christ to his apostles, consisted in, and resulted from, their being good and courageous men. With whatever speciousness it may be disguised, with whatever ambiguity it may be cloaked, this is the purport and intent of Le Clerc's Letters upon Inspiration, which is pronounced by his American editor to be "a more perspicuous and satisfactory statement of the subject in question than is anywhere else to be found." Tell us not that there are passages in Le Clerc of a different and opposite cha racter from that just quoted. We know it. We know it. Is a notorious liar not to be called such, because he sometimes tells the truth, especially to accomplish his sinister purposes? Is a man not guilty of perjury because his story is inconsistent and self-contradictory! Is the absurdity of his story proof of his integrity? Is his disagreement with himself indubitable evidence of his honesty? Le Clerc tells us further, that,

"The apostles had no extraordinary inspiration for writing their epistles." p. 121. "An inspiration is attributed to the apostles to which they never pretended, and whereof there is not the least mark left in their writings." p. 123. "It is very plain that the historians of the Scripture were not inspired, by the contradictions that are found in the several circumstances of their histories." p. 66.

Our limits forbid us to remark farther upon Le Clerc and his American editor and voucher. We cannot forbear, however, adding that they have both outgone Wakefield, whose rashness of interpretation, and fearlessness of conjecture and consequence, have been seldom surpassed, but who, in his Essay on Inspiration,

sense, we may speak of it as comprehending both the Old and New; since Christians admit in common with Jews, the authority of their sacred writings, as well as their own. "When the canon of Scripture is spoken of, this catalogue of sacred books is meant; and when a book is spoken of as canonical, the meaning is that it belongs to this calalogue. The term was chosen to be thus used, as denoting that this collection of books is to be regarded as containing the complete and entire rule for the faith and practice of Christians; a rule being the original meaning of the word canon."

admits that supernatural assistance and influence were promised by Christ to the apostles in the passages above quoted.*

These selections exhibit a prominent feature in " the perspicuous and satisfactory statement" of Le Clerc.

The following sentences are from an essay entitled, "The Beginning and Perfection of Christianity," published in the Christian Examiner, 1826. This is a piece of elegant incoherence which we would specially recommend to the attention of those who would understand Unitarian incomprehensibilities.

"These extravagancies of credulity are owing to the false estimate which is so general of the nature and uses of the holy Scriptures; as if they were really written by the hand of the Almighty, and the essence of religion were left to be extracted from them alone and forever." p. 105.-" Christianity is a blessing, which is not in any sense to stand still, but to be improved. It has never yet shown itself in its entire purity, or its full perfection. It is not so much to be restored to any former standard of now tarnished excellence, as to be carried on and perfected."-"The Gospel. . . . . is a revelation intended to be progressive."-"If Christianity does not consist in the writings which only testify of it, its perfection is not to be found in any arrangement of words into theories and systems."

But enough. It is perfectly clear that this writer and the editors of the Christian Examiner, who published his crudities without note or comment, had no belief in the commonly received views of the inspiration and infallibility of the Sacred Writings.

We give another quotation from the Christian Examiner for 1827, p. 347.

"We know very well that there was a time in the dark ages, and afterwards, when it was maintained, we cannot say believed, for the proposition does not admet of being believed, that the whole Bible, including the historical books of the Old Testament, was a revelation." "It is a proposition which is so unintelligible in any sense which one unacquainted with the writings of the New Testament can for a moment admit to be true, that we have no disposition to discuss it. The revelation from God, the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, does not consist of the historical books and epistles which compose the New Testament, but of the sublime truths which God has taught us by Jesus Christ."

The conductors of the Examiner may have found it necessary for the uninitiated, the timid and the conscientious, who follow their enlightened but precipitate leaders with circumspect reluctance, to utter their opinions in ambiguous and contradictory language. But we submit it to an enlightened and discriminating public to decide, whether the quotations we have made from Le Clerc, approved as they were by the editor, and from the Christian Examiner,

As a proof of Wakefield's independence alike of truth, reason, authority, or probability, we will adduce but one sentence. On page 37th of his Essay, speaking of the apostles after the day of Pentecost, he says, "Nor shall I be afraid of advancing it as my opinion, that many Christians in succeeding ages have been possessed of dispositions more benevolent and godlike, of understandings more liberal and enlightened, and have walked, in all respects, more worthy of their vocation, than most of the twelve apostles." Wakefield had read Le Clerc's Letters on Inspiration before he published his own Essay but even his headstrong presumption shrunk back from denying that Christ had assured his apostles of assistance from on high in the texts above quoted. The classical tutor at Warrington could have received light, in our day, at Cambridge, N. E,

VOL. II.

72

do not bear us out in the strong ground we have taken, that the Reviewer of Stuart, and other leading Unitarians, have actually, for years, rejected the commonly received views of the inspiration and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. Our readers will now return for a moment to the quotations already made from the Disciple and Examiner, in which the writers profess to receive the Scriptures, as Christians generally receive them, and to consider it "extremely presumptuous" to charge them with rejecting those Scriptures, and then decide for themselves on the integrity and trustworthiness of those, who represent themselves as almost the only rational and enlightened theologians" on the American

66

continent.

Let it not be forgotten, that the Reviewer under consideration fills the highly responsible station of a teacher of those who are expected to occupy the pulpits of the Pilgrim Fathers of New Eng land. It is with him, in a special manner, to mould the opinions of the liberal Clergy. His opinion is with numbers authority, and his decision law. But we ask the people of Massachusetts if they will receive their religious teachers from the guidance of infidelity, and with the stamp of skepticism? Would you suffer Hume to shape the minds of your clergy? Shall Cicero and Seneca, Bolingbroke and Lord Herbert be of equal authority in the pulpits of Boston with John and Matthew, Paul and Peter? People of Massachusetts, for what purpose have you founded and cherished Harvard University? Why have you reared those magnificent structures? Why have you collected those libraries of various learning, and apparatus of curious contrivance? Why have you liberally endowed those numerous professorships? Why have public patronage and private munificence poured their combined and accumulated treasures upon this favored spot? Have the people of Massachusetts of all denominations thus munificently endowed this ancient institution to make it "the bulwark," "the pure and uncorrupted fountain-head of Unitarianism?" Have all parties combined thus liberally to pour out the treasures of the State for the exclusive use and behoof of a sect, composing but a fraction of the Commonwealth? Citizens of Massachusetts, have you known and reflected that your tions, and the benefactions of the pious dead have been, and are still employed, to support men and advance principles that go to an entire subversion of the Word of God? Are you ready to renounce Revelation, and take in its stead the evanescent phantom of Ration alism? Have you given up your confidence in God's Word? If not, can you trust your sons to the guidance, and bestow your wealth to the support of those, who declare that "the Scriptures are not a revelation"? Spirits of the sainted dead, Hopkins, and Hollis, and Henchman, gave ye of your treasures, offered ye your prayers, to advance the cause of Infidelity, and to raise up enemies to the Word and the Son of God? We call upon the Overseers and the

dona

Corporation of Harvard University, in the name of the State, whose most cherished Institution is entrusted to their care, and we ask them if it is by their consent, their sanction, and their authority, that the Scriptures are rejected as God's revelation? We ask them if they will continue in office a man who openly rejects the Scriptures, and teaches professedly religious teachers "that the Scriptures are not a Revelation?" These are solemn questions and we wish them to be solemnly considered. If the Overseers and the Corporation are prepared to sustain such principles as have been openly avowed in the late developements by this Reviewer, let the people of Massachusetts know it, and act accordingly.

In closing, we will suggest for the Reviewer's meditation, a passage which Hume introduced into his first edition of his "Treatise of Human Nature," though he expunged it from the later editions. "I am affrighted and confounded with that forlorn solitude, in which I am placed by my philosophy. When I look abroad, I forsee, on every side, dispute, contradiction and distraction. When I turn my eyes inward, I find nothing but doubt and ignorance. Where am I, or what? From what causes do I derive existence, or to what condition do I return? I am confounded with these questions; and I begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable, environed with the deepest darkness." De te, fabula narratur.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE CONTROVERSY IN THE FIRST PARISH IN CAMBRIDGE; 1827-1829. Published pursuant to a vote of the Church. Boston: T. R. Marvin. pp. 58.

CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE FIRST PARISH IN CAMBRIDGE AND REV. DR. HOLMES, THEIR LATE PASTOR. Published by the Parish Committee. Cambridge: E. W. Metcalf & Co. pp.

103.

Most of our readers know that differences have existed, for a considerable time past, between the venerable pastor of the first church and society in Cambridge, and a portion of the people of his charge. In the publications, whose titles we have given, the origin and progress of these differences are detailed. A Committee of the Church first published their "Account," &c. consisting of documents, or impartial abstracts of documents, with such notes and observations as were deemed necessary, in order to a full understanding of the subject. A committee of the parish, not satisfied with what the church had published, have followed with another and larger pamphlet, in which all the documents are said to be given entire, with explanatory paragraphs and remarks, intended as a reply to the representations of the church.