desolation from rolling over the churches of the Pilgrims, and greatly restricted its ravages when, at length, it came; - the man to whom New England is more indebted, ecclesiastically and civilly, than to any other individual who ever lived in it; who, when he died, was "honored with a greater funeral than had ever been seen in these parts of the world ;" and in consequence of whose death, "the pulpits, throughout the country, rang with mingled eulogies and funeral lamentations."*

One of the most painful effects of President Quincy's revilings is the impression which they left on the mind of the late learned and estimable Mr. Grahame, author of the History of the United States. Though not a Puritan by descent, Mr. G. was evidently one in feeling. He was a Calvinist of the Scottish church, and seems to have been a truly pious man. He had a strong sympathy with the early settlers of New England, and in his History had spoken in the most favorable terms of the Mathers. But, after reading President Quincy, he hardly knew what to say or to think. We find the following passage in his Journal: "He (President Quincy) wounds my prejudices by attacking the Ma thers, and other persons of a primitive cast of Puritanism, with a severity the more painful to me, that I see not well how I can demur to its justice." (Memoir, p. 24.) And in a Note, in the last edition of his History, Mr. G. says: "From President Quincy's History of Harvard University, it appears to me, much more clearly than agreeably, that, in the instance of Cotton Mather, as well as of his father, a strong and acute understanding, though united with real piety, was sometimes corrupted by a deep vein of passionate vanity and absurdity." Vol. i., p. 289. Had Mr. Grahame lived long enough to learn the real character of President Quincy's History, and the little credit which is due to it, more especially on points which conflict with his religious prejudices, his good opinion of the Mathers would not have been at all affected by such an authority.

But we leave the venerated Increase Mather to his rest. It will not be disturbed, nor will his reputation permanently suffer by any attempts, at this late day, to tarnish and reproach it. The shafts of his revilers will recoil and fasten on themselves, rather than fall with lasting injury on him.

* Remarkables, &c., p. 211.

.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.

IN the last number of the "New Englander" is an article by Rev. Horace Bushnell, Hartford, Ct., on the Evangelical Alliance. It is well written, bold and manly. The spirit of the article is good, and its principles are of vast importance. They are, for the most part, correct; and if the Alliance had acted upon them, or some of a kindred character, it would have accomplished much more than there is any reason to think it has now accomplished. By this, however, we would by no means be understood to say that it has accomplished no good. If it has done no more, it has demonstrated the wide-spread sentiment among Christians of the necessity of more concentrated action. It was a development of a deep under-current of feeling, or, perhaps, we should say, an over current, among all lovers of the truth, far above the low grounds of denominational distinctions. Protestant Christendom has never felt so generally the need of an outlet for its common sympathies, never, perhaps, has the conviction been so general and deep, that it is quite time for the adherents of a common faith to cease contending with one another, and unite in combat against a common foe. But it is apparent that the London Alliance ha failed to develope the great idea which the Christian world is laboring to bring forth; and for the reason suggested in the article alluded to, that its basis proposed nothing to be done.

The feeling or sentiment, however, which the Alliance attempted to evolve, is still in existence, and unsatisfied. It has not yet found vent. It is hampered by handcuffs and fetters. What is wanted, is religious liberty; -a liberty as heavenwide from licentiousness or jacobinism as it is from despotism. Religious liberty is yet a principle to be fully understood and practically applied. This is distinctly and forcibly maintained by the article of Dr. B. The Bible also he most correctly recognizes, as the foundation of the principle, and the only instrument to be depended on for its final realization. We most heartly coincide with the able writer upon these points. And it is with diffidence that we dissent from him in any respect. We must, however, make it a question, whether the application of the principles which he advocates, or rather the manner of their application, is entirely unobjectionable. He is evidently a strong friend of the American" Christian Alliance," which, as he

thinks, has got nearer to the great desideratum, than the world's Evangelical Alliance." He thinks that the "Christian Alliance," which aims at the spread of Protestanism in Italy, is common ground, upon which all who really sigh for religious liberty may unite in doing something; and, in doing so, find a spirit of union secured and cherished, as a matter of course, by which the strong-holds of spiritual despotism will be made to tumble and fall. Admit it. Now the question arises, is it the most expeditious mode of securing the object to make an attack upon the grand citadel of Rome as the head quarters of spiritual thraldom? That is, no doubt, a strong citadel, the very Gibraltar of the tyrant. But, after all, is there any propriety in considering Rome as the head quarters of spiritual despotism? Is it not rather a principle indigenous in the human heart? Can a principle of human nature be said to have locality? Is it certain that it is more strongly developed at Rome than elsewhere? Is not Rome all over the world? Is she not in the United States? Is she not in Worcester?-in Cincinnati ?-in St. Louis? And, if so, may it not be well for the American branch of the Alliance to propose, in the first place, to take some of these redoubts, before it makes an attack upon the main citadel?

Then, again, is there not another system as spiritually as it is civilly despotic in the United States, which effectually deprives millions of the great charter of religious liberty? How much worse is Romanism, in this respect, than the "peculiar institution" of the South? It is granted that Dr. B. recognizes the claims of the slaves of the South, as well as of the followers of the Pope. But in carrying out his principles, in order to secure liberty for the slaves to worship God, it would seem that we must go round through Rome. Are we mistaken? Our question is, Whether we could not actually reach Rome quicker and more effectually through Baltimore, Washington, Charlestown and New Orleans? Is there not such a thing as failing to accomplish our object, not by undertaking too much, but by beginning at the wrong place? At least, if we begin at the wrong end, shall we not labor to great disadvantage? If we go to Rome, without first setting our machinery at work here, at home, could not the Pope, with very good grace, say: Physicians, heal yourselves! go home: go home, and disenthrall your own oppressed victims! Cease to accuse me as withholding the Bible from my vassals, till you have first given

VOL. I.

66

15

it to your own!" Do we not strike at Rome as effectually by demanding an investigation of the college of the Holy Cross in Worcester, as by thundering at the doors of the Vatican itself? Will not the principle of spiritual despotism be as strongly rebuked, by demanding the Bible for the slaves of the South, as for the lazzaroni of Italy? Would not Rome look on our efforts with more charity, should our first and hardest blows be dealt at home? Would not our attack upon despotism seem more honest and sincere, and not as the result of prejudice against Rome? By undermining spiritual despotism, first at home, then abroad, Rome must of course fall.

In these observations, we wish to be distinctly understood as not meaning to undervalue the great objects of the "Christian Alliance," or as intimating that those Christians engaged in it are not just as much interested in any other judicious and feasible plan for the overthrow of spiritual despotism in any other direction. What we aim at is, that those who are really, honestly and faithfully at work, for the overthrow of oppression everywhere, should see eye to eye, and cordially coöperate. All such should feel and act together. Let them do it. The times demand it. For, in the language of Dr. B., "A general reformation must ensue; and truth, liberated at last, must come forth to reign."

THE BIBLE, THE WORD OF GOD.

We have been forcibly impressed of late, with the characteristic name applied by John to that symbolical shape which rose out of the sand of the sea. On its seven heads was the name of BLASPHEMY. Much evil speaking against the word of God is now heard from men bearing the name of Christian ministers. A denomination which applies to its faith the designation, "pure Christianity," is the source of this injurious influence. Ministers are permitted to retain their standing in that denomination, while they speak against the word of God in bold unqualified terms, taking from it all its divine authority.

This is no new thing with Unitarians. It may be useful to show, from their standard writers, that low and unworthy views of the Bible are characteristic of Unitarianism, if the standard

writers of a denomination can properly be regarded as indicating its views.

We shall here present extracts from some distinguished Unitarian authorities, to show that Unitarian writers, generally, agree in degrading representations of the Bible. These extracts are taken from a numerous collection, of the same general character, printed, with full references to the books and pages where they are to be found, and entitled "Exhibition of Unitarianism in 1830." Our first quotations are from the celebrated Dr. Priestley:

"The writers of the books of Scripture were men, and therefore fallible."-"I have shown that the Apostle Paul often reasons inconclusively, and therefore that he wrote as any other person of his turn of mind and thinking, and in his situation, would have written, without any particular inspiration."-"The Scriptures were written without any particular inspiration, by men who wrote according to the best of their knowledge." "That the books of Scripture were written by a particular divine inspiration, is a thing to which the writers themselves make no pretensions. It is a notion destitute of all proof, and that has done great injury to the evidence of Christianity."

The next quotation is from Mr. Belsham:

"The Scriptures themselves contain a very faithful and credible account of the Scripture doctrine, which is the true word of God; but they are not themselves the word of God, nor do they ever assume that title, and it is highly improper to speak of them as such, as it leads inattentive readers to suppose that they were written under a plenary inspiration, to which they make no pretensions."

In the Memoirs of Gilbert Wakefield, a distinguished English Unitarian, he represents his own sentiments in these terms:

"It has always been deemed by me a reasonable postulatum, that some qualifications and softenings in the case of many relations and occurrences in the Bible history may be very properly applied, without any danger to the main fabric of revelation, upon the ground of exaggeration from national vanity, and the pride of individuals.”—“ I believe no more than Thomas Paine, that the sun and moon, either in the apparent or philosophical acceptation of the phrase, actually stood still on this occasion at the command of Joshua."

A Unitarian periodical published in Scotland, the "Christian Pioneer," says:

"The idea of the evangelists being inspired writers, is quite inconsistent with what Luke says, i. 3. 'It seemed good to me also,