resentations or pictures of the Apocalypse: just as if the mind of John must be taken up with the care of these artistic rules. Thus when the Lamb is represented as advancing to take the sealed book from the hand of Him who sat on the throne, Mr. Stuart supposes there is something incongruous, and asks, "how could a lamb take the book?" "Shall we suppose that he took the book in his mouth or with his feet? This would be to degrade the whole representation." This subject he discusses at some length, and concludes that what at first seemed a lamb afterwards took a human form. This uniting of the poet and the mathematician is altogether unworthy a mind whose ideas are in the main so just and correct. We wish there were no greater difficulty in the book than these incongruities.

A more prominent fault is a disposition to attach too much importance to the meaning of particular words, and to tie them down to some particular sense gathered from the lexicon or concordance. When he speaks of the folly of explaining symbols so as to make every part mean something, we cordially agree with him. But we would apply a similar principle to words. The writers of the Bible wrote in popular language for the people, and their words should not be tortured to make them speak scientifically. An instance of what we mean is found in the explanation of ¿uagtignσe (1, 2) which in the common version is translated "bare rec

ER Tyla

ord." Mr. Stuart labors to show that it means "proclaimed," but we think unsuccessfully. The idea of "bearing witness," is also embraced. Another instance occurs in his exegesis of ch. xx: 4, where he grounds an argument for the actual resurrection of the martyrs on the word nov, claiming that it signifies "revived," and not "lived" as in the common version. Other examples might be mentioned.

The Professor's old fault of employing outlandish words, as brachyology for brevity, is very prominent in these volumes. But all these blemishes are quite pardonable, on the principle of a balance of goodof the very many excellences of the work.

We regret that its size should be such as to interpose an obstacle to a general circulation among gentlemen of the sacred profession. When it is considered how many pages are devoted to the trichotomy, the use of the number three-and to the numerosity, as the Professor calls it, the general use of symbolical numbersall of which might have been disposed of in the space of a few pages-we can only guess at the extent to which it might have been profitably condensed and abridged. One volume instead of two, would in our opinion have embraced all that is properly relevant and important in the work: a point of some moment in these days of book-making, when money to buy and time to read, are things to be considered.

No sooner had Professor Stuart returned the last proof-sheet of his

*Critical History and Defense of the Old Testament Canon; by M. Stuart, Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass. Andover: Allen, Morrill & Wardwell. New York; Mark H. Newman.

Commentary on the Apocalypse, than he commenced the preparation of this work on the canon of the Old Testament, a most timely production, in which the authority of the ancient Scriptures is maintained with great learning and ability. The vivacity and vigor of his style,

the force of his arguments, the copiousness of historical facts, the pith and pertinency of his observations, make the work one of deep interest to the reader, notwithstanding the triteness of the general subject. We regard it as the most valuable of the author's works, and as likely to be the most useful, if we except his Letters to Unitarians.

To give a synopsis of the book at this time, is beyond our power; and our sole object in the present notice, after commending it to our readers, is to vindicate the author, in respect to certain admissions which he is said to have made, and which are alleged to be incompatible with the authority of the Bible as itself a revelation from God.

We take the following extracts from an able Unitarian journal, the "Christian World," published at Boston by Geo. G. Channing, No. 43, Vol. III.

"What is the inspiration of the Scriptures? He, (Prof. S.) indeed, intimates, and justly too, that the answer to this question would more properly come from the theologian, than from the biblical critic. But is not this, in some sort, dodging the question? His work, it is true, does answer this question negatively. It proves, beyond all doubt, that the inspiration of the Old Testament is not verbal,-not plenary; but he does not inform us what it is, nor what he thinks it is."

"Is not this the most that can be deduced from Prof. Stuart's reasoning, that the Old Testament not is, but contains a revelation from God?

"But the great question, which returns and presses upon us, is, What, according to Prof. Stuart, is the inspiration of the Old Testament? What is the inspiration, which he claims for the Chronicles,' the 'Song of Solomon,' the 'book of Job,' of Esther,' for 'Ecclesiastes,' and some parts of the Levitical law? He admits, that these and other parts of the Old Tes tament contain palpable mistakes in his tory and gross misapprehensions of moral and religious truths, and no well informed mind can deny this."

The main point of difference between Unitarians and the Orthodox, on this subject, relates to the question, in what manner have the sacred writers recorded religious truth re

ceived from God for the use of man? That God has in some supernatural way communicated his will to chosen men, and that they have transmitted it to others in the Bible, is virtually admitted in the passage just cited, and by the great body of Unitarians. But how has this revelation been made? Have we any infallible record of it? The Orthodox Christian answers, yes; the Unitarian, no. The one believes the Bible to be a revelation-the other, that it merely contains a revelation. Observe the difference. One regards the Bible as an inspired book; the other, as a bare depository of some inspired things: one, as an authoritative rule in all duty; the other, as having no authority whatever. The contrast is perfect. The Orthodox Christian has but 'one step to take to ascertain the truth, namely, the exegesis of the text; the Unitarian has another more difficult task, namely, to determine whether the particular text is inspired, or whether the sentiment which it embodies is true. The assertion of the sacred writer, the Unitarian thinks, is not enough to settle this point. He may have been mistaken. Whether the text contains the truth or a part of divine revelation, is, therefore, to be tested by an appeal to other sources of information. Since inspiration does not extend to every sentence of the Bible, this may be only an expression of the writer's private opinion—a prejudice of the Jews-an error of the times. But what are these other sources of information? Whatever they may be, they are not found in the Bible. They must be independent of revelation, for every part of revelation is to be tried by the same tests. The Orthodox interpreter compares scripture with scripture; and if he finds an obscure passage, which conflicts with plain declarations, he may look further for a consistent sense, or even regard it as an interpolation. But to the Unitarian, the plain passages are as far from

being authoritative as the obscure. No matter how obvious the sense is -it does not follow that the word was inspired, nor that it is true. He must test every thing from his other sources of information. He is not allowed to compare text with text; for he knows not that any text contains a part of divine revelation, until he has subjected it to his independent tests. And what, we may ask, is a book containing a revelation, but not one itself, worth to man? What knowledge does it convey? What new ideas? We can confide in none of its declarations, unless we can verify them from independent sources of information. And whoever has such other means of ascertain ing the truth, needs no revelation. We have what is called the light of nature as a source of religious know ledge. If the Bible simply contains a revelation, mingled with many errors, we can discriminate between the true and the false only by comparing them with the doctrines of natural religion. It comes then to this, that the Bible contains an infallible revelation from God of those truths only which the light of nature discloses. Other doctrines of Christianity can not be tested and established from natural sources of information. It amounts to nothing that they are contained in the Biblethey may be the errors of the writers. In short, the Unitarian hypothesis is reduced to this absurdity, that the Bible does not even contain a revelation for that part of its contents only which the light of nature first reveals, can be known to be true. But here we are met, in this criticism of Stuart on the canon, with an argumentum ad hominem-a retort of his views of inspiration upon himself and those who agree with him. You, says the critic, admit the Bible contains scientific and historical errors-which of course are not inspired truth-and which you distinguish from the inspired parts of the Bible, while you claim

the Bible to be a revelation from God! You are inconsistent with yourselves. You admit my position that the Bible contains false statements and direct contradictions; whence it follows that it may be full of such errors. You further maintain, that you can discriminate these errors from the truths of revelation. This is all I do. The argument which would reduce my views of inspiration to an absurdity, carries your own along with it to the same refutation?" This is a plausible, imposing retort; but it has no real force. There are three theories of inspiration which have been advocated by orthodox writers, all of which avoid this retort, and either of which is preferable to the pernicious hypothesis that the Bible is a mere depository of a revelation, a deep dark abyss, where nothing can be distinguished. One theory maintains a verbal inspiration, extending to every word of the Bible. Another asserts only such a supervision and guidance of the writers as effectually protected them against every mistake. These two hypotheses require their advocates to reconcile all the apparent discrepancies and erroneous statements of the Scriptures; in other words, to prove that no such imperfections are contained in the Bible. Professor Stuart does not attempt this. He admits that the writers were sometimes mistaken as to facts of certain classes.

But do these admissions bring him upon Unitarian ground, and implicate him with them in holding an hypothesis which runs to the conclusion, that the law of nature is our only authoritative guide in religion? Far from it. There is another theory of inspiration, which without denying errors of a certain description to be in the Bible, saves the Book to us as an authoritative rule of faith and practice in all matters of religion and morality. The Bible is designed to teach man his

moral obligations-not history, not geography, not astronomy, not any branch of secular knowledge, but simply the duties of his several relations to God, to man, to himself; to convey to his mind that kind and amount of information which he needs as an accountable and immortal being. In preparing such a book, what is requisite ? Must the writer be inspired to perceive and reveal the secrets of nature; to detect every error in chronology; to state accurately every historical fact; to be a man of universal knowledge in respect to all that enters into his narration? Certainly not. A Bible written in conformity with the discoveries of modern science would have been incredible in the days of inspiration. And if it would have been unwise to make the sacred penmen philosophers and men of science, in advance of their age, it were equally unnecessary to make them infallible historians and geographers. So long as they were fully furnished with religious and moral truth, and protected against the possibility of any admixture of error with these moral and religious teachings, would not the book they wrote be an authoritative guide? Would it not itself be a revelation from God, and not a mere depository of a revelation? The errors in the book, if any, would not be a part of its religious instruction. Every passage which relates to the great object of the record, is thence known to be inspired-every declaration relating to man as a moral being, or to God, his moral governor, is a part of revelation; and bears the highest possible credentials to its truth. This hypothesis is surely far enough from leaving man without a written revelation-far enough from denying the existence of such a revelation by pronouncing

the Bible a record of promiscuous error and truth which can only be distinguished by the light of nature. It binds our consciences by every word which has any thing to do with conscience, teaching us to venerate it as the word of God.

Many good men attach a great value to the doctrine of a verbal inspiration of the whole Bible, or of such a supervision as infallibly excludes every error. Yet it is worthy of consideration, whether it is best to contend for a plenary inspiration, in the face of apparent discrepancies, when an easy expla nation of them is found in the fact that they belong not to the proper matter of revealed religion, but to things of a secular nature. This ground, which perhaps Mr. Stuart occupies, though he does not expressly say it, seems to us to be impregnable. Here we can defend the inspiration of the Bible-here we can defend the Bible itself as an authoritative record of religious truth. But if we stand with Gaussen on the assertion of a verbal inspiration, and act as if an unexplained historical or scientific statement were fatal to the claims of the Bible, are we not in danger of riv eting the chains of unbelief on all whose minds we fail to satisfy?

But is this all that Professor S. admits? Does he not concede that the Bible contains " gross misapprehensions of moral and religious truth?" Not on the part of the sacred penmen. They record historically the crude and false notions of many uninspired persons, as they do the declaration of the serpent, "thou shalt not surely die," but in all that they teach in the name of God, or as his messengers, they are above mistake. The passage where any of them has taught falsely is yet to be pointed out.

THE endowment of the Royal College of St. Patrick, Maynooth, by a parliamentary grant, has awakened so much interest in Great Britain, that we presume our readers would be glad to be informed of the leading facts in the case. We have before us no less than eight pamphlets, presenting as many different aspects of the question, all published in London within a few months past, and yet constituting but a small part of the publications which the discussion has elicited. From these we have culled the following facts.

Maynooth is a market town in the province of Leinster, county Kildare, about twelve miles northwest of Dublin. It is the seat of a Roman Catholic college, which is its chief attraction. The college buildings are separated from the town by a large open area. They form three sides of a quadrangle, and contain a chapel, a refectory, a library, lecturerooms, and the apartments of the professors and students. Though they present in the distance rather an imposing front, yet when approached, they are a mean, roughcast and whitewashed range, standing without one architectural recommendation, on a dull and gloomy flat.* The design of the institution is the education of candidates for the priesthood, of whom there are now about five hundred within its walls.

This institution is of comparatively recent origin. The intrigues of the Romish priests against "that vassal of iniquity, the pretended Queen Elizabeth of England," (as she was termed by Pius V. in his bull of excommunication,) led to prohibitory enactments against Roman Catholic seminaries. By the statute 27 Eliz.

*Hon. and Rev. Baptist W. Noel's "Ireland in 1836."

c. 2, "it was not only penal to educate in the Romish faith at home, but residents at a foreign seminary for six months, were, on their return, liable to the charge of high treason, and those who gave or sent money to the alumni of Romish colleges beyond the seas, were subject to premunire."

The foreign seminaries here referred to, were such as were founded by Philip II. in Spain and the Netherlands, at the instance of Dr. (afterwards Cardinal) Allen, Regius professor of divinity in the University of Douay, founded by the same monarch. These laws were no less injudicious than intolerant. Their sole effect was to keep both priests and people in a state of ignorance and insubordination.

The wars consequent upon the French revolution, made it perilous for candidates for the priesthood in Great Britain and Ireland to visit the Roman Catholic countries of the continent, to complete their scanty education. Accordingly an act was passed by the Irish parliament, May 8th, 1795, making it "lawful to establish, endow and maintain one academy for the education only of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion.' By this act, the commissioners of his majesty's treasury were authorized to issue any sum or sums not exceeding £8,000, "towards establishing the said academy.'

It is claimed, however, and we think with propriety, that this act involved no pledge to maintain the proposed seminary at the public expense. Its chief benefit was that it conferred upon Roman Catholics the privilege of establishing a college of their own. The college buildings were erected mainly by private munificence.