Version," and followed by most modern Unitarians, Dr. John Jones, a learned Unitarian observes,

"For eos, the Vulgate reading, Griesbach has introduced os, and endeavors to support the change by one of the most elaborate notes in his volumes. Yet I will engage to shew that he has proved nothing but his own incompetence as a critic, and his want of fidelity as a collater of the ancient copies. The new reading is erroneous, because it is neither good sense nor good Greek."

The discussion before us concludes with the following paragraph:

We have now brought our critical examination of this important passage to a close. The charge of corruption, alleged by Sir Isaac Newton, we have shewn to be unfounded. The reading, which he contends to have been that originally in the text, and used by the Church during the first five centuries, we have seen rejected by Griesbach, and all critics of any note, and abandoned even by the Socinians themselves. That adopted by the celebrated German editor, and the "Improved Version of it, have been proved to be as destitute of solid and sufficient authority, as they are contrary to the idiom of the Greek language, and at variance with some of the first principles of biblical philology and exegesis. And the reading of the received text has been established by a mass of cumulative evidence, derived from the sources to which an appeal is ordinarily made on questions of this nature. While, therefore, the enemies of our Lord's Divinity attempt to give eclat to their opinions, by mixing up with the publication of them the name of a great philosopher, it cannot but prove satisfactory to those who have cordially embraced that doctrine, to find that the passage which has been the subject of investigation, so far from suffering any detriment from the most rigid critical scrutiny to which it may be brought, only gains in point of stability and authority, and continues to demand an unhesitating reception of the great mystery which it proclaims: GOD WAS MANI

FEST IN THE FLESH."

2. Human Depravity, or Man a Fallen Being: A Sermon delivered in the Murray Street Church on the evening of March 21, 1830. By Thomas H. Skinner, D. D., Pastor of the Fifth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia. New York: Henry C. Sleight. pp. 24.

We know not why this Discourse was entitled 'Human Depravity, or a Man a fallen Being.' The discussion assumes, of course, that man is a fallen being; but the subject is, properly, the super-abounding grace of the Gospel over the evils of the fall; or the superior excellence of that constitution under which man is now placed to that under which our first parents originally existed. In order, however, that the superior excellence of the present constitution of things may be duly appreciated, it must be judged of in its connexions, as a whole.

"What architect would not deem himself wronged, if his ingenuity and skill should be estimated from a detached part of a most complicated and profound piece of workmanship? In this way of judging, things are apt to be pronounced against, which, considered in their relations to other things, evince the deepest penetration and wisdom. And shall we adopt this mode of judging, in regard to the ways of the Almighty? When He began his operations, He had a scheme of action before Him, too extended and vast to be comprehended by any other mind than His own. On the fulfilmeut of that entire scheme, not of any one single part of it, does He depend, so to speak, for the discovery of His perfection. The Scripture, reminding us that we now know only in part, counsels us to judge nothing before the time, but wait till the mystery of God be finished. The precipitancy, which, in opposition to this advice, not only refuses to wait, but will not take into view the whole of what has been donewhich grounds a sentence of condemnation on one detached measure, a measure which would never have been entered upon, but for the sake of what was and is to follow-such rashness it is, that leads men to raise their objections to the providence and ways of God: of which a thousand exemplifications might be mentioned, but none more unequivocal than that connected with our present

subject. For when God so ordered things that Adam's disobedience should be the occasion of his posterity's disobedience and condemnation also, did he there stay his ordering hand? Was nothing done toward mankind but just to condemn them? Then God had shown indeed his severity, but the glory of his goodness had not appeared. But find we nothing else revealed in the Scriptures concerning this subject? Have we not read that the second Adam appeared to undo the mischief perpetrated by the first; that the Son of man came to destroy the works of the devil; that His errand into this world who travailed and prayed in the garden of Gethsemane, was to counteract the evils let into the same world by that man's disobedience who dwelt in the garden of Eden? Nay, not only was the second Adam a restorer of that which the first took away, but Scripture has clearly sounded in our ears the most joyful intelligence, that he bestows inconceivably more than was lost."

3. The Province of Reason in Matters of Religion: A Sermon delivered, by request, in the Murray Street Church, in the City of New York, May 16th, 1830. By Leonard Woods, D. D., Professor of Christian Theology in the Theological Seminary at Andover, Mass. New York: Henry C. Sleight. pp. 32.

6

It is no part of the province of reason, says Dr. Woods in this discourse, to ' attempt to originate truth,' or to sit in judgement upon any of the doctrines or facts which God makes known;' but rather to learn what God teaches; to obtain the knowledge of the facts and doctrines which he exhibits, particularly those which he exhibits in his word;' (having first ascertained that the Bible is his word) 'to arrange them in a suitable order, and apply them to their various uses.' To confine reason within this province, it is insisted, is agreeable to ' its nature,' honorable to God, and most favorable to our own intellectual and moral improvement;' while to attempt pushing it beyond these limits must not only be useless, but will directly hinder the influence of truth,' prove an injury to ourselves, and endanger the peace and welfare of the church of God.

The subject of this sermon is one of great difficulty as well as importance; the plan is judicious; and in the filling up, there is much instruction and warning to ministers and churches, which we trust will not be without its effect. Two remarks have occurred to us, while reading the sermon, which we subjoin.

1. It is the duty of the religious teacher, not to attempt separating philosophy from religion, but to define its province and regulate its decisions, according to the unerring standard. In regard to this subject, there are extremes, and there is danger, on either hand;-danger of indulging in adventurous, fruitless philosophical speculation; and danger of denouncing philosophy, and divorcing it from religion, as unworthy to have any connexion with it. The province of reason in religion, as defined by Dr. Woods, is also the province over which a sound intellectual and moral philosophy may with propriety be permitted to traverse. Take, for instance, the work of applying the ascertained facts and doctrines of the Bible. These are to be applied to the human mind; but how so applied, without some knowledge of the philosophy of the human mind? These doctrines are to be applied to the understandings, the consciences, and the hearts of men; but who can determine, independently of all philosophical inquiry, what is the understanding, and what the conscience, and what the heart? The fact is, that every intelligent religious teacher, let him talk of philosophy as he may, is obliged to have recourse to it, more or less; and hence the propriety, instead of proscribing and denouncing it altogether, of endeavoring to define its province and regulate its decisions.-We admit, however, that the

greater danger is on the other hand—that of suffering our philosophy to overleap its barriers, and wander in vain conjecture and fruitless speculation. In view of our continual exposure in this respect, we remark again,

2. It is much easier for a vigorous, active mind to prescribe rules on this subject, than it is to keep them. For after all its rules, its efforts, and its prayers, such a mind will have more temptations than it can easily repel, to break away from the proper province of reason, and puzzle itself and others, and vex the church of God, with speculations which cannot profit. There is much faithful warning on this subject in the discourse before us, which we commend to the consideration of all our readers, and particularly of ministers. Let us ' trust in the Lord with all our heart, and not lean to our own understandings. In all our ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct our paths.'

5. The Life and Times of Richard Baxter, with a critical Examination of his writings. By Rev. William Orme, Author of 'the Life of John Owen, D. D., ' Bibliotheca Biblica,' &c. In two vols. Boston Crocker & Brewster. 1831.

This work presents strong inducements to the reader on account both of its subject and its author. Baxter was one of the most remarkable men of his time, and his times were the most remarkable in English History. The circumstance, also, that this is the last work of the lamented Orme, with which he closed his labors and his life, will cause it to be read with a melancholy interest. A Review may be expected in a future number.

Extract of a Letter to the Secretary of the Massachusetts Mis

sionary Society.

The following Extract exhibits the trials which some of the feeble churches of Massachusetts have been called to suffer, as also the artifices to which their adversaries are willing to descend in order to accomplish their favorite meas

ures.

"This people have passed through the same trials that have been so common of late to many Orthodox churches in this part of the commonwealth, to wit, they have been exiled from a beautiful church to make room for Unitarianism-have lost their church furniture and their church Records. The last oppressive act they have felt was the taking away of their Records. This was done since my ordination. The manner in which they were taken renders the case more aggravating. The circumstances were these. The Unitarian society requested of my church the privilege of looking at the Records for the purpose of taking a memorandum of dates, &c. Permission was granted them to call and see them at my study. Accordingly a committee of three called upon me, and stated that their 'only object' was that stated above. Accordingly I produced the book. As soon as they had the Records in their hands, one of their party steps out of the door, and returns immediately with a sheriff, who stood waiting and in readiness to seize the book. embraced the opportunity thus afforded him by stratagem, and took it by a writ of replevin. This took place about the first of October. Since then we have enjoyed repose.

He

Two LETTERS TO THE REVEREND MOSES STUART, ON THE SUBJECT OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. By Bernard Whitman. Boston : Gray & Bowen. 1830. pp. 166.

IN July last, Professor Stuart published a Letter to Dr. Channing, in which he sets forth the numerous and weighty charges of this latter gentlernan against the Orthodox, and calls upon him either to retract or prove them. More than half a year has now elapsed, and the Reverend Doctor has not seen fit to do either the one or the other. In the mean time, a feeble attempt has been made in the Unitarian Advocate, in part to explain away his allegations, and in part to justify them.* A more recent attempt of the same sort has been made in the Letters which lie before us. We gave a brief notice of these Letters on their first appearance, stating what we then conceived to be their true import and character. We must now go into a more extended examination of them, not because we think them entitled, on their own account, to further consideration, but because of the zealous efforts of the enemies of Orthodoxy to give them currency and favor with the publict-because of the use which is made of them in certain portions of the country-and because the justice of our first account of them has been directly impeached.

The conductors of the Unitarian Advocate, in their remarks on Professor Stuart's Letter, accuse him of misunderstanding, or at least of misrepresenting Dr. Channing.

"The language of Dr. Channing, and of liberal Christians generally, was never meant to be taken in that broad and gross sense which the Professor

*The Articles in the Advocate on this subject were noticed and replied to in our Numbers for Oct, and Nov. 1830.

Repeated and high encomiums have been passed on these Letters in the Unitarian Advocate, the Christian Register, and in several of the political papers, both in city and country. A writer in the Centinel speaks of them "as decidedly the most important publication that has appeared during the past year" !!—as "entirely disproving the solemn asseverations of Professor Stuart," and establishing "the justness and truth of Dr. Channing's charges"!

VOL. IV.-NO. III.

15

seems to attribute to it.” "He talks of 'conspiracies' and 'plots' in which he would have it thought that we accuse the Orthodox of having embarked, as it were, with malice prepense; and to this gross construction of the charge brought against them by Unitarians, the Letter owes whatever of plausibility it possesBut Professor Stuart knows, as well as we, that no such direct, formal, and wicked 'plot' or 'conspiracy' is meant to be charged on the Orthodox."

ses.

.

The conductors of the Advocate here couple themselves and “Unitarians,” and “liberal Christians generally," with Dr. Channing in this controversy; and they expressly deny, on the behalf of all concerned, that they have ever accused the Orthodox of any direct, formal, and wicked plot or conspiracy," in the gross sense of the terms. It is very unfortunate for some gentlemen, that they are not blessed with better memories. It would save them not a little self-contradiction, and consequent mortification, if they could remember from one year to another, what things they had said and published. To assist the recollections of these gentlemen of the Advocate, and at the same time to show more clearly the drift and bearing of Dr. Channing's accusations, and the points necessary to be proved in the Letters of Mr. Whitman, in order to a full justification of himself and his brethren, it will be needful to quote a few passages from certain Unitarian authors and publications.

Fifteen years ago, it was said by a noted Unitarian Layman,'

"The Panoplist may ridicule as much as it pleases the suggestion that they (the Orthodox) aim at Ecclesiastical tyranny. We perceive from their spirit that the power only is wanting. These new (Ministerial) Associations, if not watched and made the objects of jealousy, will soon become tremendous engines in the hands of skilful and ambitious men.

In a more recent publication, the same writer accuses the Orthodox of reviving "a spirit of intolerance which has had no example, from the banishment of Roger Williams, and the murder of Servetus, and the persecution of the followers of Arminius." "If the Orthodox party had now the civil power in their hands, for which they have shown of late a great hankering they would not permit a man to vote in civil concerns unless he was a church member."+

The Christian Examiner says, "There is to be a combination among the most powerful sects TO SEIZE THE CIVIL POWER, and the use they may hereafter make of it is to be sought in the calamitous history of Christendom for the last fifteen hundred years. In the same work, the Orthodox are charged with making a thousand efforts' to restore "a tyranny over the minds of Laymen, the loss of which to priests of certain sects of Pharisaical pretensions is as galling, as the simple doctrines of the despised teacher of Nazareth were to the high priests and scribes of Jerusalem.” Again, the Orthodox are charged, in the same work, with wishing

* Are you a Christian or a Calvinist ? p. 65.

+ The Recent attempt, &c. pp. 9, 17.