"the great mystery of godliness," and exclaimed in view of them, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"

Having favored the world with the above epitome of Unitarian belief, Mr. Norton adds,-

"This religion of joy and consolation will, it is contended, lose its value, unless it announce to us, that we are created under the wrath of God; that it is impossible for us to will, unless our moral natures be created anew; and that this is a favor denied to far the greater part of men, who are required to perform what he has made it morally impossible they should perform, with the most unrelenting rigor, and under penalty of the most terrible and everlasting torments."

We should like to inquire of Mr. Norton, whether he ever saw or heard an individual "contending" for doctrines such as these-whether he supposes there is an Orthodox minister in New England who would contend for them;-and whether, as he assures us, he actually wrote this miserable caricature of the religious sentiments of his neighbors, "as it were on the tombstones of these who were most dear to him." and "with feelings of the character, purposes, and duties of life, which his own death-bed will not strengthen." One might think it enough for him to write books to refute the Trinity-a doctrine which he affirms no man ever did or can believe-without undertaking to refute other doctrines which none perhaps in the world, certainly none in this vicinity, do believe.

We have intimated already, that Mr. Norton is not satisfied to receive all our sacred books as of canonical authority. It may be gratifying to our readers to know what portion of them is rejected.

In the first place, the Epistle to the Hebrews is rejected, as not being the production of Paul, and consequently as not "a canonical book, in whatever sense that word may be used."* Christians have long loved and studied the Epistle to the Hebrews, and regarded it as a precious portion of the word of God. But it seems they have been mistaken. They have been imposed upon. The Epistle to the Hebrews, it is at length dis covered, is no part of the Bible, and ought never to have been included in the sacred volume.

The second Epistle of Peter is also rejected, as not being the production of the Apostle whose name it bears. But if this Epistle was not written by Peter, it certainly was written by a gross deceiver, a wilful falsifier. For the writer declares himself to be "Simon Peter, a servant and an Apostle of Jesus * See Christian Examiner, vol. vi. p. 343.

Christ" and speaks of having been personally with Christ in the mount of transfiguration, "when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory. This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," chap. i. 17. There is no alternative, therefore, but either to regard this Epistle as the production of Peter, or to reject it, not merely as uncanonical, but as the production of a vile deceiver.

Our author furthermore discards the Apocalypse, as not being the work of the Apostle John. He speaks of "the imperfections of its language," and "regards it as the production of some early Jewish Christian whose imagination was highly excited by the expected coming of Christ."-If those who "take away" aught from this mysterious and awful book, shall have "their part taken away out of the book of life, and out of the holy city;" then what must be the portion of him who does not hesitate to reject it all-putting it on a level with the Visions of Hermas, or the dreams of John Bunyan!

Our readers will perceive, from what is here said, that the work of expurgating the Bible has been commenced, in sober earnest, at the fountain head of Unitarian influence. How much further it is to proceed, time only can disclose. We think it of little importance, however, so far as the authority of Scripture is concerned, how far it does proceed. There is manifestly no great difference, in the mind of Mr. Norton, between books canonical and uncanonical; since in the canonical books, those written by the Apostles and Evangelists, there are frequent mistakes and errors, and these books have need to be corrected, in many things, by the superior light of Unitarian Expositors. The object of Mr. Norton's Appendix is to expose some of the mistakes of the Apostles, and to assign reasons why they were not more fully instructed by their great Master. The first he mentions is the belief, which he supposes they all entertained, that Christ would shortly appear to judgment. "They all appear to have expected his personal and visible return to earth, as an event not distant, and to have believed that he would come to execute judgment, to reward his faithful followers, to punish the disobedient, and to destroy his foes." p. 310.

In regard to this subject, we would remark, in the first place, that if the Apostles were mistaken respecting the coming of Christ, and have recorded their mistakes in the Bible, then the Spirit was not given them, agreeably to promise, to "guide them into all truth" (John xvi. 13;) and the words which they spake were not, as the Apostle Paul avers, the teachings of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. ii. 13. If they were mistaken in this matter, and have recorded their mistake in the Bible; then who can

tell how many other mistakes are recorded in the Bible? And if this blessed book must be subjected to our revision and correction; then what is to be the ultimate standard,—our reason, or the word of God?

But we observe, in the second place, there is no evidence that the Apostles expected a speedy return of their Master to judge the world. Indeed, there is satisfactory evidence to the contrary. To be sure, they used expressions, which imported that Christ was to come quickly, that the day of the Lord was at hand, &c., much as ministers do at the present day; but it is evident that they used this language in a comparative sense, believing that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years," and that all time is as nothing compared with eternity. The Apostle Paul seems to have written his second Epistle to the Thessalonians, for the express purpose of instructing his Christian brethren there, in regard to this important subject. "We beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. Remember ye not that when I was yet with you, I told you these things," chap. ii. 1-5. We know not how any person can read this whole passage, and maintain, as Mr. Norton does, that Paul lived in expectation of the near approach of that day, which he here expressly refers to as not at hand-as to be preceded by great changes in the church and world-as appointed to be ushered in at some distant but unknown period.

But Mr. Norton does not believe that Christ will ever come to judgement, or that he gave any intimations of such an event. "He did not predict his visible return to earth to be the Judge of men. There is nothing in his words which requires or justifies such an interpretation of them." p. 328. We shall not trifle with the understandings of our readers, by referring to passages in which Christ did predict his return to judgment. If Mr. Norton cannot find such passages, there are thousands of children in our Sabbath Schools who can. If our Lord is never to come in the clouds of heaven to judge the world, and if he never intended to come in this way; it is not enough to say that he forbore to correct the errors of his disciples in regard to this matter;--he directly led them into error. He used language which he must have known would excite expecta

tions, which, on this supposition, he never intended should be realized.

Another of the alleged mistakes of the Apostles is thus introduced by Mr. Norton :

"The Jews had adopted what is called the allegorical mode of interpreting their sacred books; and had found many supposed predictions and types of their expected Messiah in factitious senses which they ascribed to particular passages. This mode of interpretation was adopted by some of the Apostles. We find examples of it as used by them in the Gospels of both Matthew and John, and in the Acts of the Apostles. One is surprised, perhaps, that this mistake was not corrected by Christ. Nothing may seem more simple, than that he should have indicated, that this whole system of interpretation, and this method of proof, so far as the supposed prophecies were applied to himself, were erroneous.'

Mr. Norton does not inform us whether he regards any of the predictions of the Old Testament as referring to Christ; or if so, what these predictions are.* Indeed, it is manifestly impossible, on his principles, for any person now to lay his hand on a particular passage in the writings of the prophets, and say, This refers to Christ; for if the inspired Apostles and Evangelists were in ignorance on the subject, and fell into frequent mistakes, who, at this distant day, can pretend to be better informed?

When the risen Saviour walked with the two disciples to Emmaus, and saw their despondency, and heard their complaints, he said, "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, he expounded unto them, in all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself." Shortly after this, standing in the midst of his disciples, he said, "These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day." Luke xxiv. 25-46. Our Lord here informed the disciples, in person, concerning the Scriptures which related to himself; and opened their understandings, that they might understand the Scriptures. But it seems, after all, that they did not understand them; and the knowledge which they acquired they soon lost. For Mr. Norton will have it, that they adopted the fanciful interpretations of

Respecting the celebrated passage in Is. ix. 6, "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given," &c. Mr. N. says, "There is no evidence that it relates to Christ."

the Jews, and fell into frequent and great mistakes in regard to this important subject.

On a certain occasion our Lord directed the Jews (and may be understood as directing us) to "search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me." "Had ye believed Moses, ye would have be lieved me; for he wrote of me." John v. 39, 46. Our Lord here expressly speaks of the Scriptures of the Old Testament as bearing testimony to himself. But to what part of these Scriptures does he refer? What passages did he wish those whom he addressed to consult? The Jews, according to Mr. Norton, did not know; and the disciples, with all their advantages, did not know; and how shall we know? How shall any person, not excepting our learned author himself, acquire, at the present day, this important knowledge?

Still another mistake of the inspired Apostles is introduced in the following manner:

"In the time of Christ, and for a long period before, the doctrine of demoniacal possession prevailed among the Jews, and many diseases were ascribed to this cause. Our Saviour never taught that this was a false doctrine. He occasionally used language conformed to the conceptions of those who believed it to be true. Why was he silent on this subject? Why did he leave some, if not all his Apostles, in error concerning it, as appears from the common belief being expressed in the first three Gospels, though not in that of St. John?"

If the doctrine of evil spirits is an error, it surely is not enough to say of Christ that he left his disciples in the belief of it. He directly led them into this belief. Or, if they entertained it previous to their acquaintance with him, his teachings all went to confirm them in it. He taught the existence and agency of fallen spirits as fully and plainly as he ever taught any thing. He taught it before the multitude. He taught it to his disciples in private. The doctrine is so interwoven with the instructions, the history, and sufferings of our blessed Lord, that it can never be rooted out.

If the doctrine of evil spirits is an error, there is just as much evidence that Christ was in the error, as that his disciples were; --or if he was not, he continually countenanced and taught what he knew to be untrue. It is impossible to clear the character of the Saviour, and exhibit him as a competent and faithful teacher, on the theory adopted by Mr. Norton, and by Unitarians generally. Accordingly, not a few leading Unitarians have expressed doubts as to the entire perfection of our Lord's character. One charges him with "inconsistency," an account of his exclamation on the cross, "My, God, my God,