I know you will forgive me, if I intrude on your patience in this long epistle, since it proceeds from a heart full of tender concern for you. May God refresh you by it, and lift up the light of his countenance upon you. And I beg you to pray for me, that I enter not into temptation: for though I have for some time, through surprising grace, walked up and down in the light of God's countenance, I am yet in an enemy's country; a thousand snares await me from within and without: I have not yet put off the harness, and am perhaps comparatively but girding it on; and though the house, built upon the rock Jesus Christ, fall not, yet I have no expectation but that the rain will descend, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon it.-Oh pray that I may glorify God, in every condition and state of life, and all will be well.

This long letter I commit to your care and prudence, as the very secrets of my soul, and as a token of my sincere affection and esteem for you, as my very dear friend. Pray write to me as soon as you can. Yours heartily,

REVIEWS.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF INSPIRATION.-An Article in the Christian Examiner for July, 1830.

THE discussion commenced in the first number of our present volume on the question, "What constitutes Infidelity?" has evidently been a very embarrassing one to some Unitarians in this region. It has drawn them out on the important subject of Inspiration, and wrung from them disclosures which have shaken the confidence of not a few of their friends.

In determining the question, "What constitutes Infidelity?" our correspondent pursued the following plain, and, so far as we see, unexceptionable method: Certain writers, whose names were given, had, by common consent, been denominated Infidels. What made them such? What views did they hold and profess respecting the Bible and the Christian religion, which brought upon them the charge of Infidelity? It was found, on examination, that none of them" avowedly rejected Christianity," or " treated the character of the Saviour with open irreverence or disrespect." Some "admitted that that the Scriptures contained a revelation from God, and that particular portions were of divine inspiration;" some were professors of the Christian religion, and observed its ordinances; and some pretended to extraordinary zeal for the pu rity and advancement of this religion. Still, in the deliberate and

recorded judgement of the Christian world, they were Infidels. What made them such? What constitutes Infidelity? What are the characteristic marks by which to distinguish between an infidel and a Christian?—To these inquiries, the following answer was given :

"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 cord of God."

The distinction here made was illustrated at considerable length, and the line of division between the Christian and the infidel was drawn with precision, and we think in its proper place. It was then shown, by quotations numerous and authentic from the writings of Unitarians in this country and in Europe, that they fall on the side of the infidel.

It will not be denied by any, not even by Unitarians whose works were quoted, that, according to the distinction established by our correspondent, they fall on the wrong side. If any objection is to be made, it must lie against, not the application of this distinction, but the distinction itself. It is incumbent, therefore, on those who feel themselves injured at being found on the side of the infidel, and who mean to persist in their opinions, to show that the proper line of distinction has not been drawn. It is incumbent on them to draw another, if they are able, which, in point of principle, shall place such men as Herbert and Bolingbroke on the one side, and themselves on the opposite. It was not said by our correspondent, nor will it be by us, that American Unitarians have followed out their principles to so great an extent as some of those with whom they are classed. But, in point of principle, where is the difference? Both call themselves Christians; both profess to believe that the Bible contains a revelation from God, and that particular parts of it may be in some sense inspired ;* both are, in some instances, professors of religion, and come to its ordinances, and pretend to much zeal for its purity and advancement; and yet

Passages may be quoted from both, which seem to imply as much as this, though both talk variously and inconsistently on the subject.

both refuse to receive the whole canonical Bible as the word of God, and bow to it as a standard of truth and duty. One class may receive more of the Bible than the other, or may regard it with greater veneration; and there may be differences among individuals of either class in these respects. All may not apply leading principles in the same way, or carry them out to the same extent. But, in point of principle, where is the difference? For ourselves, we cannot see where; and if others have better eyes, or a better understanding of the subject, they will have the goodness, we hope, to inform us.

In relation to this whole argument of our correspondent, which is certainly a close one, and from which, as it seems to us, there is no escape, the reviewer in the Examiner has the following exclamation :

"What a notable argument is it, and what notable minds must it be expected to operate upon! Unitarians believe some things that infidels believe, and use some of the same methods of reasoning; therefore, Unitarians are Infidels!"'

We should do the conductors of this work far greater injustice than we ever have done them, were we to suppose that they did not know, when they consented to the insertion of these and the following sentences, that they were nothing to the purpose—that they did not touch the argument in question, or constitute any proper reply to it at all. "Unitarians believe some things that infidels believe, and use some of the same methods of reasoning; therefore, Unitarians are infidels"! Was this the argument of our correspondent? By no means. All Christians unite with infidels

in the belief of a thousand things that might be mentioned; but are all Christians on this account infidels? Or are infidels to be identified with all sorts of Christians?-It was inquired by our correspondent, first of all," What constitutes Infidelity?" and this being determined, it was shown, that those Unitarians, whose words were quoted, do agree with infidel writers, not in some indifferent things, but in that very thing which goes to make a man an infidel. They agree in pretending to respect Christianity, while they refuse to bow to the Bible as a standard, and receive it as the word of God. Such was the reasoning of our correspondent; and it is much easier to pass it with a sneer, than to grapple with it, and fairly to answer it.

It is sometimes said by Unitarians, that the English infidels were driven off from Christianity by its corruptions,* and that, had they lived in this age and been familiar with modern improvements in theology, they would not have been infidels. Now this, with a difference of phraseology, is just what we have been saying. Were

* "Lord Herbert was indeed an extraordinary man, a man forced off and driven away from Christianity by what we consider as the corruptions by which, in his time, it was surrounded." Norton's General Repository, vol. i. p. 6.

Lord Herbert or Lord Bolingbroke now citizens of Boston, beyond question they would not allow themselves to be denominated infidels. They would resent such an appellation as highly as any of their peers. They would doubtless connect themselves with some Unitarian society, and might go to the sacrament at some Unitarian church. To be sure, they would not believe all that was in the Bible; they would pronounce some portions of it unreasonable, and throw them aside as no part of the revelation; and their religious teachers would do the same.

On the day of our publishing the communication on Infidelity, an article appeared in the Christian Examiner, entitled "The Scriptures not a Revelation, but the Record of a Revelation." Of this, we gave our readers some account in our number for February, pp. 95-101. In the Examiner for May, the subject was again introduced, in an article entitled "Misapprehensions of Unitarianism." A leading object of this article seems to have been to show, that, although Unitarians do deny the inspiration of the Scriptures, still, they are very serious in doing it, and are, on the whole, a very serious, religious people. From this article, some extracts were given in our last number, p. 370. In the article now under consideration, the conductors of the Examiner undertake to tell us, as they had done before, what they believe.

"We lay our hand strongly upon the foundation-the Bible. We say, there There is light supernaturally communicated is a communication from heaven. and attested to those heaven-commissioned prophets and apostles, who, in their turn, have simply, naturally, each after the manner of his own age, his own style, his own peculiar habits of thought and feeling, imparted it to us. are truths recorded, beyond the human reach of the men who delivered them, and they are truths dearer to us than life.-Right or wrong in our conviction, this is what we believe."

There

Now all this is very well. A sense may be put upon these words which will make them express, perhaps, all that is necessary. A sense may also be put upon them which virtually nullifies them. And taken in connexion with all that has appeared in the Examiner on the subject, we are constrained, whether we will or "There, is a communo, to understand them in the latter sense. nication from heaven." Where? Contained in the Bible,-to "There is light be culled out at the discretion of the reader. supernaturally communicated," &c. How much? How large a portion of the contents of the Bible was supernaturally communicated? Only a part, as we shall presently see, and this part to be determined by the judgement of individuals; so that we have To the no standard, after all, except our own understandings. And to whom was this light supernaturally communicated? prophets and apostles; and by them imparted to us, without any kind or degree of inspiration; so that we have nothing on which to rely, in regard to the correctness of the record, except the unaided fidelity and ability of the writers.-That these

are the real views of the conductors of the Examiner, no one who has read their pages can entertain a doubt; and those who hold to the full inspiration of the Bible, and receive it as a perfect standard, can as little doubt whether views such as these go to nullify its declarations, and render the word of God of none effect.

The principal argument, in the several articles in the Examiner, to disprove the inspiration of the sacred writers, arises from the manner in which they wrote. Their "style is natural, and therefore is not supernatural." "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.” -Now we admit that the different writers of Scripture exhibit their characteristic differences of style. They were left, to some extent certainly, each to follow the bent of his genius, and to express his thoughts in his own natural way. The language is that of the age and country in which the writers lived, and we discover in each somewhat of the peculiarities of his own mind. So far, there need be no dispute. But what does all this prove? That these writers were not guided and assisted in what they wrote by a directing, superintending, unerring Spirit? Not at all. We are aware of no inconsistency, and we are confident that none can be made to appear, between the doctrine of inspiration, properly explained, and the fact that the sacred penmen communicated divine truth, each in that style and manner which to him was the most natural and agreeable. Admitting the fact of inspiration, we might expect beforehand that they would communicate after this manner, since, to secure such a manner, seems to have been a principal reason why men were selected as the instruments by which God should reveal his truth. Why did he not utter responses from a brazen oracle; or speak in an audible manner from the clouds? He saw it best, doubtless, that the communication should come to us through a human medium, and should possess, to our apprehension, the very property of naturalness which it does possess. And now shall we urge this intended and important quality to show that God had no concern in making the communication, and that men the appointed instruments, were not inspired?

The argument in the Examiner proceeds on the supposition that what is supernaturally communicated must be presented in a style altogether unique and peculiar. There can be no appear ance of naturalness, nothing seemingly human about it. If the style is natural, it cannot be supernatural; and, vice versa, if it i supernatural, it cannot be natural.-Now let us examine this assumption, on grounds which the conductors of the Examine themselves admit. They admit that some "portion of the Scrip tures" was "written from express dictation"—the highest kind o inspiration possible. Let them, then, select these portions, and show us that the style of them is manifestly supernatural-altogeth