chained up instruction." Yet the Christian Disciple and the Christian Examiner, published in Boston, United States of North America, volunteer apologies for the Venerable Company.

NOTE G. Page 74.

Matthew, iv. 1-11, 24. xii. 22-29, 43-45. xiii. xvi. 23. xvii. 14-21. XXV. iii. 11, 13, 14, 22-27. iv.

References to passages of the New Testament, exclusive of the Apocalypse, which relate to evil spirits. viii. 16, 28-34. ix. 32-34. x. 1, 8. 18, 19, 24-30, 36-39. xv. 21-28. 41. Mark, i. 13, 23, 27, 32, 34, 39. 14, 15, 24. v. 1-20. vi. 7, 13. vii. 24-30. ix. 17-29, 38-40. xvi. 9. Luke, iv. 1-13, 33-36, 40, 41. vi. 18. vii. 21, 22. viii. 12, 26-36. ix. 1, 37-42, 49, 50. x. 17–20. xi. 1426. xiii. 16, 32. xxii. 31. xiii. 2, 27. xiv. 30. xvi. 11. Acts, v. 3. xix. 12-16. xxvi. 18. On the narrative contained xvi. 16—18, see Storr, vol. ii. p. 26. Romans, xvi. 20. 1 Cor. v. 5. vii. 5. x. 20, 21. iv. 3, 4. vi. 15. xi. 3, 14, 15. xii. 7. Eph. ii. 2. 10-18. Coll. i. 13. ii. 15. 1 Thess. ii. 18. iii. 5. 1 Tim. iv. 1. v. 14, 15. 2 Tim. ii. 26. Heb. ii. 14. IV. 7. 1 Peter, v. 8. 2 Peter, ii. 4-11. v. 18. Jude, 6-9.

John, vi. 70. xii. 31. viii. 7. x. 38. xiii. 10.

2

2 Cor. ii. 11.

iv. 27. vi.

Thess. ii. 9.

James, ii. 19.

1 John, ii. 13. iii. 8-12.

By Christ himself, by the eight writers of the New Testament, in sixty-seven different chapters, and in more than two hundred verses, the personal existence and agency of "the devil and his angels" are distinctly asserted. Are the united, explicit, and often repeated declarations of Christ and his apostles worthy of credit? Whose decision is authoritative and final, in the land of the Pilgrims, that of divine inspiration or that of a self-styled rationalism?

NOTE H. Page 75.

REASON-ITS PROVINCE AND USE. JUDGE STORY.

It is a common assertion with Unitarians, that their system is more rational than the Orthodox. If this be true, it is more worthy of credit, and the sooner its claims are substantiated, the better. The following remark is a fair specimen of Unitarian assertion on this subject. "In addition to novelty, it has the advantage of claiming a

more intimate alliance with reason than those systems, which require a belief in doctrines that are incomprehensible." Month. Rep. 1806, p. 434. Let us examine the validity of this claim. Do the Orthodox discard reason? Who dare assert it? Do they undervalue reason? To answer this question we must ask another, what is the legitimate province of reason? To this the Orthodox reply, that reason is properly employed, 1. In examining the evidence of the existence of the Divine Being. 2. In examining the evidence on which a professed revelation of the divine will rests. 3. In ascertaining the authenticity and genuineness of the documents, which contain the truly divine revelation. 4. In investigating the meaning of these documents according to the established principles of language.

The Orthodox, believing the Bible to be the Word, and to contain the will, of God, profess to use reason simply for this purpose, to discover what the will of God is, as revealed in his Word. They conduct the investigation on principles similar to those applied by the classical critics to Homer, Hesiod, and Euripides. These critics, however, do not feel bound to defend the sentiments of those writers as true or rational. They merely state them as they find them. The Orthodox, on the other hand, adopt this argument of an able reasoner, "no demonstration can be stronger than this, GOD HATH SAID SO, THEREFORE IT IS TRUE." And what is true, they hold to be rational. The Orthodox, then, use their reason to discover what God hath said, not what he ought to say. Unitarians, practically at least, adopt the latter course, or there is no dispute between them and the Orthodox as to the principle of reasoning in this instance. The course practically adopted by Unitarians, their opponents consider both irrational and presumptuous. Reason with the one party acts as a judge, deciding what the law is; with the other, it is too often a legislator, declaring what the law shall be. The Orthodox found the reasonableness of their belief, chiefly, on the declarations of that God, who gave them reason, who knows the truth, and cannot lie. What firmer foundation for a truly rational belief does the Universe afford? Who, then, make the proper use of reason,-those, who submit their reason to the declarations of the omniscient Jehovah; or those, who subject the declarations of the eternal God to their mole-eyed reason? If it be irrational to trust God rather than man, the Orthodox cheerfully submit to the imputation. It should be kept distinctly in mind, that the question here, relates not to the interpretation put upon any passage, but to the principle of interpretation, applied to the whole sacred

volume. Whether the Orthodox interpretation be true, is a question of grammar and philology. Not only the lexicons of Gesenius and Schleusner, but the dictionary of Calmet, may be properly studied. But human philosophy is to be silent, when the question relates to subjects on which the human mind never had experience. In this case, real philosophy listens, but does not speak; questions, but cannot answer.

I have wished here to reduce the subject to its elements. A full discussion is unnecessary. Those, who have reason and are disposed to use it, will find this subject ably discussed in the appendix to the first volume of Storr, by Prof. Schmucker. See also the review of the Evangelical Church Journal, in the Spirit of the Pilgrims for April, 1828. The same subject is also discussed in Dr. Beecher's sermon, entitled, "The Bible a code of laws."* Intelligent, reasoning minds, of every denomination, who are willing to examine the foundations, not only of the Orthodox, but of all religious faith, for themselves, will find matter for deep and satisfactory meditation in the works just mentioned.

Though somewhat acquainted with Unitarian writers,. I know not the book where the Unitarian views on this subject are presented in a simple, coherent, dispassionate, and intelligible shape. The fact is, that Unitarian writers, when they refer to this topic, are generally not a little confused, from their forced admission of the inspiration and authority of the scriptures, and their wish to appeal to human reason, separated from, and in contradiction to those scriptures. A confusion arising, not from the want of talent or general learning, but from the contradictions inherent in their system.

The proper use of reason in matters of religion is, surely, a subject of great importance, deserving serious thought. Bretschneider has said, in reference to the Supernaturalists, or believers in the plenary inspiration of the scriptures, of Germany, that " 'they believe that reason furnishes the proofs of revelation, and that revelation cannot possibly contain any thing contrary to reason, though it may contain much that rises above reason." This, he adds, was the ground taken by Döderlein, Morus, and Reinhard; and it is the ground now held by Ammon, Schot, Niemeyer, Bretschneider and others. To this the Orthodox of this country would subscribe without a dissenting voice.

At the annual meeting of the Unitarian Association in May of the present year, a learned Judge addressed the audience on a variety of topics, among others, dwelling at some length on the * Occasional Sermons, p. 138.

subject of this note. The original talents, the general acquirements, the unwearied application to his chosen science, and the laborious duties of his office, the judicial uprightness and intentional impartiality of Judge Story, to say nothing of his private character and social virtues, no one is more willing, or more happy to admit, than the writer. He honors a station that would honor any man. But that honorable gentleman will pardon me for reminding him, that there are legal subjects, and others besides legal ones, that require to be studied, in order to be understood; and he need not be in doubt as to the hint, that fluency of remark does not always indicate intelligence of the subject professedly discussed. Instruction from laymen, upon subjects bearing more or less remotely upon religion, is desirable. It will not, however, be thought asking too much that it be instruction, and not ignorant declamation. The assertions of even a Sir Matthew Hale, will not now pass for argument. There was propriety in the proverb adopted by the Latins from the Greeks, which it is not necessary to apply, "Quam quisque nôrit artem, in hac se exerceat." Will the learned Judge pardon me for asking, if it be judicious to decide, in a popular meeting, a legal question that may come before him for legal adjudication? Whoever listened to the earnest remarks of the Judge, must have perceived that the zealot had got the better of the man, that the partizan had supplanted the judge. The rights of Mr. Story to the Unitarian belief, and to advance the Unitarian cause by proper means, personal, pecuniary, or other, are undoubted. But great legal questions (one of which has not yet been argued, or even started, in our courts*) with due deference to the Judge, I shall take the liberty to remind him, (though he long since knew, but seems recently to have forgotten it,) are to be presented in open court, where both parties may be heard; to be thoroughly investigated, by the judge or judges, in moments of cool, unbiassed reflection; and to be decided, without the impulse of passion, without the influence of prejudice, and without the remembrance of party. When a judge, throws his decision, formed without examination, into one of those scales, which he is bound by his oath to hold with even hand, while we may respect his social virtues and not despise his talents, we shall not long fear his influence. If Judge Story should contend that he had thoroughly examined the question, we should like to know how this will mend the matter, or relieve the difficulty? Will he, or any one, say, "he is a judge of the United States' Court, and this is a question for the

*The rights of VOLUNTARY religious associations to hold property by "trust deeds" under the Constitution of Massachusetts.

State Courts, and so he is at liberty to give his private opinion"? Let us examine this plea. A. B., a merchant of Boston, brings, or may be supposed about bringing an action for 100,000 dollars, against C. D., also a merchant of Boston. The question is to come before, and to be decided by Judge Parker. Mr. Justice Story, in the course of a public address at Fanueil Hall, takes occasion to argue and decide the question. The gentleman in whose favor Judge Story might decide, would, no doubt, feel additional confidence in his cause. But what would Judge Parker, and the good people of Massachusetts, think of Mr. Justice Story? The truth is, Judge Story has, in this instance, (on reflection, I am convinced, he will think so himself,) descended from that lofty eminence of impartiality, where he usually resides, and from that perception of the proprieties of his station, in which he generally excels. He was indeed unfortunate in the time, place, and mode of his descent. What he said on human reason, has been said a thousand times, and a thousand times shown to be mere declamation and his argument about trust deeds, could be most easily shown to be of the same character. It was, in fact, but a repetition of the unfounded assertions of " A Layman," which had been a little before triumphantly refuted in the review of his famous pamphlet on trust deeds. Judge Story would do well to remember that the followers of Jonathan Edwards can reason; and that the descendants of the Puritans know to whom they owe allegiance, and of whom they may claim their rights.

Unitarians object to the term rationalism, as indicative of their system, though "it claims a more intimate alliance with reason" than Orthodoxy. But what is rationalism? Let Wegscheider define his own system. "It is an unquestionable fact, that in the canonical books of the New Testament, are contained the authoritative documents of the Christian religion, and of the divine truth, which it declares; and these documents are of the antiquity, which they purport, and are perfectly worthy of credit. This being the case, in conducting a system of instruction for mankind at large, it is our duty to employ the utmost attention and pains, that, laying aside those farfetched conjectures and questions, equally difficult and unprofitable, which have been brought up in later times, concerning revelation and the inspiration of the sacred books, we should evince that the Christian religion, as well as the Holy Scripture, originated in God as its author, and should urge upon men the truly divine contents of the scriptures, which become constantly better understood, as what has proceeded from God, and is the true word of God; and therefore