whole argument, as that just quoted. This writer understands perfectly the force of language, and if he adopt a peculiarity of expression, it is not without reason. Allegorical interpretations are found in the speech of St. Paul, as it is given by St. Luke, in the thirteenth chapter of the Acts. This speech was delivered a considerable time" [how long is a considerable time?] "before the composition of the earliest of his epistles, which was, probably, (?) that to the Galatians."* Those words, "as it is given by St. Luke," are very innocent and very true in themselves. Whether they have a hidden meaning, the author has not told us. In the absence of positive, we must cast about for circumstantial evidence, which, though often inconclusive, is sometimes irresistible. The same Luke, who wrote the Acts, it must be remembered, is one of the evangelists, "all of whom are allegorists." If "they unconsciously and through inadvertence may have given an allegorical interpretation to the words of Christ, which as uttered by him, were used only by way of application," as this writer avers, Paul surely could not expect to fare better than his master. It might very naturally be expected, that "by a slight change of expression," Paul's words, "used by way of application," would receive from the pen of the allegorizing historian "an allegorical turn." This will appear still more probable, when we recollect that no passage in the epistles of St. Paul seems to afford any foundation for the opinion, that he ever used the allegorical interpretation, that he had not" entirely disengaged himself from this error of the learned of his nation."

The inference from all this is, the moral certainty that "the speech, as it is given by St. Luke," is not the speech as it was delivered by St. Paul. Should, however, any " doubts or difficulties" remain after this logical demonstration, the reader must further consider, that "this speech was delivered a considerable time before the composition of his earliest epistles." This is plainly the writer's resort

*If this writer will permit, I would suggest another probability, at least equally as great as his. I would say that the apostle Paul, after addressing the "men of Israel" at Antioch, his heart glowing with affection to "his kinsmen according to the flesh," expanded into this circular epistle the doctrine he had just been teaching in the synagogue. This was "a considerable time" before he wrote his epistle to the Galatians. Some years after this, "the mind of the apostle might have been but little affected by the errors of his age." Would not such a supposition avert the disagreeable necessity of rejecting this epistle, and even allow this writer's argument to be of some weight? For the real probability in this case, see Prof. Stuart's Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Whether this writer "is able so far to accommodate his mind to the conceptions and principles" of this orator and his auditors, "as to perceive how it was adapted to produce the intended or any effect at the time it was delivered," he has not informed us. Before he decides ultimately and forever to reject the epistle to the Hebrews, on such ground as that above stated, might it not be well for him to

to rid himself from any difficulty arising out of this early speech, as it is given by St. Luke. Whether a really inspired argument ever becomes superannuated, I am not aware that the omnivorous Germans have discussed. These facts combined,—that Luke may not, and most probably has not, correctly reported the speech of Paul, and the very natural fact that Paul, growing wiser as he grew older, outgrew his own early prejudices, if he had any on this subject, and the certain fact, that in the epistles, written "a considerable time," even the earliest of them, after this speech, the apostle appears to have entirely disengaged himself from this common error of the most learned of his countrymen,-will leave the argument, as I have stated it, and as this essayist has contrived to present it, valid and irresistible.

"Look before you leap," is a plain maxim, of some age and much wisdom. Let us see where such reasoning would carry us. This writer being judge, “all the evangelists are allegorists." But allegorists are unworthy of credit. Therefore the evangelists are unworthy of credit. Something of a step this, to begin with. The allegorizing evangelist, John, wrote three epistles and the apocalypse, wherefore these are unworthy of credit. Luke, in addition to the gospel, wrote the Acts, wherefore this is unworthy of credit. After this, one would think that Paul need apprehend no more danger from the speech, "as it is given by St. Luke." But to proceed. The inspiration and authority of the gospel by Mark, have universally been deduced from the sanction given this book by Peter. Peter, then, having sanctioned the allegorical gospel of Mark, (to say nothing of his own speeches as given by St. Luke,) must be involved in the same condemnation with this allegorist; wherefore his two epistles are unworthy of credit. What has just been said of Mark and Peter, applies also, in the same way, though with still greater force and certainty, to Luke and Paul. The gospel, and the Acts of the apostles, written by this allegorist having been sanctioned by this apostle, the latter falls into the same condemnation with the former; wherefore the epistles of Paul are unworthy of credit. Q. E. D. Truly this is an expeditious mode

of despatching business. The Unitarian canon of inspired books, will consist, then, of the epistles of James and Jude. But these, it is well

reconsider the apostle's speech, from the thirty-first verse to the end? In this inspired argument, the apostle "adopts the same principle of reasoning, employed in the epistle to the Hebrews." "A considerable time" after it was delivered, even "as it is given by St. Luke," it came before the mind of the apostle, who not only inconsiderately failed to correct the errors of his reporter, but actually restamped upon it the seal of his inspired authority. This consideration I seriously suggest to the attentive thought of this learned and ingenious essayist, whose system, and not his intellect, is answerable for these unavoidable absurdities.

known, were not among the universally received books in the primitive Christian church.* To reject the epistle of Jude, considering the obscurity, not to mention "the fabulous legend, the contemptible story, found in the most ancient manuscripts," cannot be considered presumptuous, but rather a proof of earnest desire not to receive for the Word of God, the mere word of man. Much the same may be said of the epistle of James, which even Luther, in the very infancy of biblical criticism, thought of doubtful authority; a fortiori, liberal interpreters must reject it. A doubtful book cannot be received as undoubtedly inspired. This is " clearing the wreck" quite effectually. Whitfield is said to have told his hearers that, were they permitted to tear out, one by one, a leaf from the Bible, such as they individually disliked, they would leave him "only the covers." Whether the biblical critics in our ancient University, early dedicated to "Christ and the Church," are not in a fair way to leave us only the covers, let the intelligent reader decide. The appeal is here made to those capable of discrimination, who can distinguish between logic and rhetoric, between argument and assumption, who can trace the connexion, if it exist, between premises and conclusion, whether, allowing the evangelists to be allegorists, according to the concession of the essayist, and his argument, as he has contrived to present it, to be valid, the conclusion is not irresistible, that all the New Testament, excepting the epistles of James and Jude, is unworthy of credit, as of divine inspiration, and of infallible authority? "The intelligent reader" will bear in mind, that this question does not relate simply to the honest endeavors of the evangelists and apostles to tell the truth, "to the best of their knowledge," but to their inspired, infallible authority. How the epistles of James and Jude could be proved inspired after the rejection of the rest of the New Testament, and whether the dispute about them would be "worth the candle," I shall not stop to inquire.

The great importance of this subject warrants an extended and varied illustration. The essayist thinks the epistle to the Galatians, the first epistle written by Paul. p. 53. His reasons for this opinion he has

*To prevent misapprehension on the part of any, it may be stated, that of the twenty-seven books, which now compose the New Testament, twenty were received by all the early Christian churches with unanimous consent from the apostolic age. These are called universally received books. The remaining seven, were generally received by the churches, but not, at first, universally. About the first class, there was no doubt on the part of any. About the second, there was very little, resulting generally from circumstances easily understood. The latter class consists of the epistles to the Hebrews, of James, second of Peter, second and third of John, Jude, and the Revelation. As the attack has recently been commenced on the first named of this latter class, it may safely be presumed that is this but the opening of the campaign, a war of extermination having been resolved upon. At all events, when war begins, who can tell when and where it will end?

not stated. Among these he would probably put this, the manner of reasoning employed in this epistle bears a greater resemblance to that of the speech in the Acts, than that employed in his other epistles. Paul was a young man when that speech was delivered, in which he uses the allegorical mode of interpretation and reasoning. This epistle shows that he still cast a lingering look back to the favorite mode of argumentation, employed by the most learned of his countrymen. Though he had not as yet divested himself of every prejudice, he does not suffer his argument to be marred by it. After this, he manifests no trace of this error of his countrymen, as is apparent from his other epistles, in which "he nowhere attempts to accommodate to Jesus, any of the allegorical expositions, by which so many passages were made by the Jews to refer, in a mystical sense, to their expected Messiah." p. 69. The essayist would argue, and with apparent logic, this epistle, more nearly resembling the allegorical argument, as given by St. Luke, than any other of Paul's epistles, though written "a considerable time" after that speech, was probably written before the other epistles. The whole force of this argument (the strongest I can imagine to support the essayist's extraordinary position) rests on the assumed state of the apostle's mind at different periods, as either disposed or not disposed to use the allegorical mode of reasoning from and appealing to the Old Testament. The apparent weight of this argument, which is all it possesses, may be soon made to disappear.

Dr. Carpenter, no mean critic for a Unitarian, and the Unitarians and Orthodox generally, think it probable that the first epistle to the Thessalonians was the first epistle written by Paul, about A. D. 52. I assume the position, that the concurrent opinion of the great body of the Unitarian and Orthodox critics is quite as probable, as the opinion of this essayist, learned as he is. They generally think this epistle to the Thessalonians was written, at least five, and perhaps ten or even fifteen years before that to the Galatian churches. But in this epistle to the Thessalonians, as all allow, Paul does not employ the allegorical mode of reasoning; he does not quote nor even refer to the Old Testament. He was at least five and, perhaps, fifteen years ("a considerable time," this!) younger, than when he addressed the Galatian churches. How should this happen, that, in the epistle generally believed to have been the first he wrote, there is no trace of an allegorizing spirit, when in his epistles to the Galatians and others, written a considerable time later, there are many passages, which, the essayist allows, "seem to require some explana

tion "? Is it not possible that his opinion and argument are alike without foundation? With the Orthodox, the explanation is easy and satisfactory. The Thessalonians were chiefly converts from paganism; few, perhaps none of them, knew any thing of the Old Testament. The allegorical interpretation would have been wholly out of place in an epistle to such converts, and the occasion did not so much call for argument as exhortation. The epistle to the Galatian churches, was occasioned by Judaizing teachers, who had crept in, corrupting the truth. In these churches there seems to have been a mixture of Jews and Gentiles, the latter, probably, much the most numerous. This epistle was addressed to just such persons. Is there any thing wonderful in this, that an inspired and divinelyguided apostle, whether in the earlier or in the latter part of his ministry, should adapt his speeches, letters, and arguments, to the character, condition, and capacity of those addressed? That in addressing an Athenian audience on the Areopagus, he should appeal to a Grecian poet, in confirmation of his own sentiments, while Isaiah and David are left unnoticed? That in addressing the "men of Israel" in their own synagogue at Antioch, he should appeal to the scriptures which were there read every Sabbath day, and with which he had been familiar from childhood? That he should appeal to these scriptures in the very manner in which his auditors were wont to appeal to them? That in addressing the Thessalonians, he should write to them " as without the law"; while, in addressing the Hebrews, he should write to them as those who had been under the law, and knew all its rites, its ceremonies, and its observances? That he, who at one time could claim his right by avowing, "I am a Roman," should also at another, addressing “his kinsmen according to the flesh," prove that he was "an Hebrew of the Hebrews"? If an author is not to be confined to one class of topics, and one mode of illustration, if he may adapt his mode of reasoning to the persons and the circumstances of the persons addressed, then the wide difference, on which the essayist reposes his argument, is a dream of his own imagination, and nothing else. For it is generally believed, that this difference is most wide between his speech as recorded in the Acts, and the first epistle he ever wrote; and the argument, if it prove any thing, (I beg the reader to mark this,) will prove, either that he did not write the first epistle to the Thessalonians, or did not deliver the speech recorded in the thirteeenth of Acts. The essayist can take his choice, which he seems already to have done by implication, and necessary inference, rejecting the latter. Unless I greatly err, the unprejudiced reader will believe that he delivered the