and there are very cogent reasons, therefore, why he shou procure and read the whole book.

Mr. Norton will also perceive, that widely as I suppose m self to differ from him in regard to some points of theolog and perhaps even of criticism, but certainly of exegesis, yet am not disposed in any measure to underrate his efforts on t common ground in which we are agreed. He has achieved service which was very important in the present state of cri cism and of skepticism.

has a

As I have but a very moderate appetite for heresy-huntic so I have not endeavoured to record every expression in M Norton's book, which indicates a mode of thinking differe from that which is generally called, and which I believe to b orthodox. I fear that Mr. Norton rejects altogether the idea inspiration in respect to the Gospels. I hope it is not so; he sometimes speaks in such a way, that the belief of this forced upon me. He tells us of things "erroneously referr by Mark;" that "Luke confounded the discourse;" that "did not sufficiently discriminate" certain things; that misplaced" the words of John on a certain occasion; that "misplaced" another discourse of the Saviour; that he "n apprehended" his meaning on another occasion; that Luke i "fabulous hue," and that "fiction and miracle are ble ed" there. On p. clxx. he gives an account, in a Note the manner in which Paul became informed of the truths Christianity, in which he does not even advert to the fact peatedly asserted by Paul, that the Saviour had appeared him and had instructed him, and that on this very ground apostle could claim a precedence over him. From a few thi of this nature in the work before us, I am reluctantly obliged believe, that the author does not admit the idea of inspirat in respect to the Gospels. He evidently views them as credi books, and worthy of all acceptation; with the exception some few passages which he deems to be spurious, but which shall not particularize, since they have already been noted the preceeding pages.

It is a matter of sincere regret to me, that such passages the above should be found in a work the tone and temper which, at large, are truly worthy of imitation. The auth seems to have set out with the full design not to give unnecessa offence to any class of his readers, and to present to the pub a specimen of writing similar in its tone and manner to that

Lardner. He should have full credit for this. And if now and then he has expressed himself without a recollection of this his general design, it would be foolish in the reader to reject the mass of good there is in the book, because of the few things of this kind which he may deem to be blemishes. I indulge the hope, that when this book comes to a second edition, (and if it meet its just deserts it certainly will), the author will sacrifice even the few remnants of his peculiar theology, which now and then gleam upon us, to the hope and prospect of the greater good which may be evidently achieved by his book in case they are omitted. To his own individual sentiments he of course must have a right, which none but his Maker can lawfully call in question. But it is not necessary that he should insist on the declaration of them in this valuable book, and especially it is unnecessary to declare them on a point, where, if he believes as I fear he does, the conviction that the Gospels are genuine would add little or nothing to the obligation which the world at large would feel, to admit them as their Lex Suprema in all cases of moral action.

I should decline the task, if it were in any way assigned to me, of undertaking to shew, that minds of a certain cast might or might not truly and sincerely believe in the Gospels, and receive them as the rule of faith and practice, although they rejected the idea that these Gospels were composed by writers under the influence of divine inspiration. I suppose it might be rendered probable to an enlightened mind, that the actual admission of the essential truths of the Gospel, as a rule of faith and practice, would belong to the substance of faith; a belief as to the manner in which the books had originated which presented these truths, would certainly be only a secondary ingredient in faith, when placed at its highest just estimation. Mr. Norton may say, perhaps, and it seems probable to me that he would say, that he admits the first, while he doubts about the last. But still, with all the respect that I cheerfully accord to the serious manner in which he presents and views the Gospels, I cannot help entertaining the most serious doubts, whether general skepticism, or rather practical infidelity, would not at last be the result of inculcating principles such as he holds, in regard to the authority, or rather I should say, perhaps, the origin of our sacred books. I do not take upon myself to determine, how minds like Mr. Norton's might decide respecting the authority of the Gospels, when they had been trained and

chastened in the school of moral philosophy and in all the cipline of a theological school; but it is unnecessary to de this, because the proportion of men in our community who thus trained is so small. One thing, however, we may sa aver, viz., that any mere conviction of the genuineness of gospels-any mere intellectual admission that they are con and credible accounts of the life and doctrines of the Saviou can and will never move the mass of men to yield to their thority. Does not Mr. Norton see, that this last point i necessary, that all the rest being gained, nothing importar gained unless this follow as a sequent to the others? Bu king men as they are, with all that worldly spirit and all t desires of carnal indulgence which they possess and which are for the most part heartily set upon gratifying, is there manly speaking) any chance to make real practical conve Christianity, when the Scriptures are divested of divine au ity, and made to extend no further than fallible human au ity can go? The hope of converting a sinful world on grounds, does appear to me absolutely desperate. Wi undertaking positively to decide, what a few minds tr like that of Mr. Norton might possibly admit, and how might be influenced, can I hesitate to believe, that whe divine authority of the Gospels is given up, all is give which gives them (if I may so speak) any chance of succ a world like this?

Mr. Norton needs not to be informed, that theoretic lievers are not such as the apostle James thinks ought ranked among Christians, whose faith is well-anchored. portant as his own book is, therefore, (and he must see deem it to be a performance of great merit in many res and deserving of very general attention), yet the com might go where his performance would carry them, and any thing more than theoretical believers. What is th and the ultimate appeal then? Mr. Norton does not eve tend to be an authority. And if his readers should lay his book, with a conviction that his positions are well sus and still be inclined to ask, as many of them doubtless wi Why am I obliged to receive the gospels as my rule o and practice? what other answer can be given on Mr. N ground, than that they have the honest opinion of fallib respecting the life and doctrines of Jesus Christ, and th they ought to adopt it? If now such readers should

and say to Mr. Norton; We have indeed their opinion or their account of these matters; but inasmuch as you admit that they have "misapprehended" some things, "confounded" others, "misplaced" some, and "not sufficiently discriminated" in respect to others; while you even admit that they have “blended fable and fiction together;" how can we, who are not, like you, well-read critics, and have no knowledge of the original Scriptures, in any way distinguish between the cases which you thus present to our view, and those where you admit that mere and simple facts and truths are stated?-if, I say, such questions should be asked, (and they certainly will be), then will Mr. Norton tell us what answer is to be given that will "stop the mouths of such gainsayers?" I know of none. Where Mr. Norton doubts, he can be appealed to in many ways which are closed up with regard to such individuals as I have just described. But when they doubt, even after reading his book, whether to give their practical assent to Christianity, how are they to be made to feel the awful responsibility under which they place themselves by rejecting the word of the living God? But I am not writing against Mr. Norton's theology, nor composing a polemical essay against skepticism. I will therefore desist. The importance of the subject; the attitude in which Mr. Norton's remarks have placed it; and the obligation which lies upon every conscientious reviewer not to conceal things in a work the tendency of which he believes will be exceedingly hazardous; have induced me to say thus much. I am sure Mr. Norton, with his desires of canvassing all subjects, and with his strenuous sentiments as it respects liberty to speak our opinions, will neither misconstrue nor take amiss what I have now said.

I have only to add, that the book is printed throughout with great correctness and elegance. A small number of mistakes in the typographical execution, an attentive perusal of the whole has discovered; but they are too trifling to deserve mention. The press at Cambridge has few rivals indeed in this country, as to the correctness with which it executes its publications.

ARTICLE II.

THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH, HEAD OVER ALL THINGS; ILLUSTRATED BY ANALOGIES BETWEEN NATURE, PROVIDENCE, AND GRACE.

By W. S. Tyler, Professor of Languages, Amherst College.

THE Head of the church is likewise "head over all things" —sovereign alike in the kingdom of nature, the kingdom of providence, and the kingdom of grace. He is "God over all" the God of nature, of providence, and of grace. This is evidently a doctrine of revelation, directly asserted in many passages, and clearly implied in the whole tenor of Scripture.

It is my present design to show, that reason teaches the same doctrine that a rational and candid examination and comparison of the kingdoms of nature, providence and grace will lead us to the conclusion, that they have the same head. My arguments will be drawn from Analogy, "that powerful engine, which" as has been well said, " in the mind of a Newton, discovered to us the laws of all other worlds, and in that of Columbus, put us in full possession of our own;" and which, it might have been added, in the mind of a Butler disclosed to us the indissoluble ties, that pervade the economy of the natural and the spiritual worlds. The analogies which run through nature, providence and grace, are such, as if not to establish the proposition, yet to create a strong presumption, that they have the same head, and are in fact but different provinces of the same empire-distinct departments of the same government.

The principle involved in this argument is so fully elucidated and so powerfully enforced by Butler in his "Analogy," as to be familiar to the memory, and convincing to the judgment, of every reader of that important work. He has left little for those, who come after him, to do, but to gather new instances of analogy and thus furnish fresh illustrations of the principle and additional confirmations of the argument. This field of investigation, which Butler merely opened to our view, is as boundless as the universe; its treasures and wonders will be

• Eph. 1: 22. Rom. 9: 5.