The text is that of the Common Version, conformed to Griesbach's edition of the Greek.' A Calendar of our Lord's ministry is affixed to it, taken from the last edition of Carpenter's Geography. Whatever may be thought of some of the principles of Carpenter's plan, the editor of this work has rendered a valuable service to the public, by carrying out these principles in the arrangement of the Gospel narratives, and furnishing us with a Harmony, decidedly preferable we think to any other, in a much more convenient form, and combining all the advantages which arise from an orderly distribution of events, and a juxta position of parallel passages. The several narratives, when read in this close connexion, throw light upon each other; and, though we may doubt respecting the actual position of some of the events, or the length of the period that elapsed, a more distinct impression of reality is produced, than possibly can be when the accounts are separately read. Without some orderly arrangement, and the necessary associations of time and place, the ideas we have of the events in our Saviour's life will be vague and floating in the mind.

Most other Harmonies are in an unwieldy form, and many are encumbered with paraphrase, commentary, and notes. It is no inconsiderable recommendation of the publication before us, that it is strictly what it purports to be a Harmony of the Gospels.' It appears to be executed with all the accuracy and fidelity to the principles of arrangement which Dr. Carpenter proposed, that we should expect from the gentleman who prepared it. 'Having undertaken to exhibit the plan of Dr. Carpenter,' the editor did not think himself at liberty to make any change'; though in a few instances, in which Dr. Carpenter deviates in the arrangement from the order of Matthew, the editor seems to think the deviation not to have been required. We cannot but think there is considerable force in the remarks of the editor, and that in these cases, not less than elsewhere, the order of Matthew deserves the preference. We would take the liberty, however, to suggest, in reference to Matthew xii. 1, that February 18th, the time assigned by Carpenter for the death of the Baptist, would seem to be early for barley to be in ear, and that the expression of Luke, vi. 1, rubbing them in their hands,' would seem to imply that the kernels were full-formed; and not merely in the milk, but sufficiently firm

and dry to be separated by this operation from the husks. Dr. Shaw says, that 'barley, all over the Holy Land, was in full ear in the beginning of April; and about the middle of that month it began to turn yellow.'* If there be ground then for these remarks, the plucking of the ears of corn must imply a later season than February 18th, and, without deviation from the order of Matthew in this instance, will prove, perhaps, a Passover to have occurred, distinct both from the first and the last.

We have noticed that a few inconsiderable alterations in the arrangement have been made by Dr. Carpenter, in the last edition of his Geography. Christ's visit to Nazareth, and the miraculous draught of fishes, he would now place soon after the Pentecost, about the 28th of May, instead of the position they occupy in the Harmony, after the imprisonment of John. Four parables also, viz. of the Unjust Steward, the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Unjust Judge, and the Pharisee and Publican, placed at the end of the Harmony, ' among facts and discourses of uncertain date,' Carpenter in his last edition refers to the period of Christ's stay at Bethany in Peræa. We think it desirable to assign a date, if it have any probability in its favor, to as many of these facts and discourses as possible. They make, at best, but an unseemly appendage to a Harmony.

Receiving every thing, as we do, with respect, which comes from the author of this arrangement, we are much gratified to learn, from the preface to his Geography, that he intends yet to state the grounds of it more fully and critically.' We shall be happy to be convinced that the peculiar principle of his arrangement is free from some difficulties, which seem to us to press upon it. If we are not mistaken in our conjecture respecting the writer of some late articles, On the Chronology and Arrangement of the Gospel Narratives,' in the Monthly Repository, a Harmony, constructed upon these very principles by the author himself, has been long prepared, and will shortly be committed to the press.

* Shaw's Travels, 3d edit. Vol. ii. p. 137.

ART. VII.1. Review of Mr. Whitman's Letters to Professor Stuart, on Religious Liberty. [From The Spirit of the Pilgrims.'] With an Appendix not before published. Boston. Peirce & Parker. 1831. 8vo. pp. 84.

2. A Reply to the Review of Whitman's Letters to Professor Stuart in The Spirit of the Pilgrims' for March, 1831. By BERNARD WHITMAN. Boston. Gray & Bowen. 1831. 8vo. pp. 84.

THERE is something unspeakably ludicrous in the idea of receiving from 'The Spirit of the Pilgrims' a moral lecture on the decencies of controversy. Knowing the extreme aversion, which Unitarians have always felt and expressed for discussions necessarily involving direct and offensive personalities, the conductors of that work probably hoped and expected, that Professor Stuart's demand for the facts, with the names and dates, on which the charges against Exclusionists were founded, would be passed over without notice. In that case they would have been among the first to interpret the silence into a confession, that those charges could not be sustained; and not a few of their well-meaning readers might have thought the inference a fair one, and been misled. If Professor Stuart and his friends were sincere in demanding a specification of the crimes and misdemeanors imputed to the Exclusive party, they can hardly be so now in the pain and disgust, which they affect at the turn the controversy has taken. As for others, it will serve to correct an excessive sensitiveness to discussions of this nature, if they reflect that nothing, perhaps, is so likely to inculcate moderation, both of language and measures, on the leaders of the dominant sect, as a thorough and fearless exposition, like that which Mr. Whitman has given, of their intrigues and usurpations.

Of the general merits of the Review considered as an answer to Mr. Whitman's Letters we have heard but one opinion expressed from any quarter.* The childish array

* We stand corrected. Since writing the above, we have looked into 'The Spirit of the Pilgrims' for June, and find that the Reviewers themselves think very highly of their former effort. The general character of their review of Mr. Whitman's Reply is the same with that of their review of his Letters.

VOL. X. N. S. VOL. V. NO. III.

49

which it makes of pretended corrections, those being rejected that originate in mere quibble or evasion, or relate to trifling verbal inaccuracies not affecting in any way the argument, dwindles to some ten or twenty. These have called out Mr. Whitman again, who in the Reply not only establishes incontestably the substantial truth and accuracy of his previous statements, but brings forward several additional facts, and a mass of entirely new evidence in support of the same general positions. It is but justice to the sagacity of his Reviewers to say, that, so far at least as respects the proof of the material facts, they appear to have foreseen, that this would be the result of the investigation. Accordingly, we find them asserting or intimating, in repeated instances, that, even if most of Mr. Whitman's statements and charges could be shown to be well founded, it would not convict them of any thing, which they are not prepared to defend and justify. This, as it seems to us, is beyond question the most serious and alarming aspect, under which the present controversy can be viewed; not that the conduct of Exclusionists has been as Mr. Whitman represents it, but that they now think to justify such conduct, and intimate a determination to persist in it. At the risk, therefore, of repeating ourselves, and of being accounted needlessly minute, we shall proceed to analyze, and thoroughly disentangle and expose the commonplace sophistry on this subject.

'It will be insisted, doubtless,' say the Reviewers,' that in the use we make of creeds," in our "Ministerial intercourse," Our Ecclesiastical tribunals," &c. &c., we have shown ourselves the determined enemies of religious freedom, and have manifested even a persecuting spirit. It will appear, however, on examination, that were we to admit the correctness of no small part of Mr. Whitman's statements (which we do not admit) we have done no more than is perfectly consistent with our religious principles, our liberty, and rights.

'We certainly have the right to study the Scriptures for ourselves, to form our opinions in view of them, and to speak and act agreeably to these opinions, so long as we do not interfere with the rights and liberties of others. Mr. Whitman

has no more right to think for us, than we for him - to prescribe and dictate our opinions, than we his. Suppose, then, that after long and careful attention to the Scriptures, we satisfy ourselves of the correctness of the Orthodox faith. We believe, that the Scriptures contain and teach the doctrines of

the Trinity, of Divine sovereignty, of human depravity, of the atonement, of regeneration by the special influences of the holy Spirit, of justification by faith, of the perseverance of saints, of a general judgment, and of eternal retribution. Have we not a right so to believe? Have we not a right to retain and cherish our honest convictions in regard to these most important subjects? And if we have a right so to believe, have we not a right to sum up our belief on paper, and form a written confession of our faith? And if we find two, three, or half a dozen, who have come to the same conclusions with ourselves, have we not a right to associate, on the basis of a common faith, and constitute a society, a church? If we are pleased thus to associate, and do it in a peaceable manner, who shall hinder us? Have we not as much right to associate with a creed, as others have to do the same without one? May not we as properly dictate to them on the subject as they to us? And when we have associated, on the express understanding of a common faith, suppose one of our number widely departs from this faith; have we not a right to call him to an account? And if he chooses to exercise his freedom in wandering from us, and violating the express principles of the association, have we not a right to exercise our freedom, in excluding him, or withdrawing from him? Do not all voluntary associations for civil purposes consider themselves entitled to treat delinquent members after this manner? And why should religious associations be an exception? We have, indeed, no right to injure our erring brother, in his person, property, or good name, any further than to call things by their right names, and tell the truth about him when occasion requires it; and who shall deny us the liberty to do this?' Review, pp. 10, 11.

The Reviewers know, that their right to study the Scriptures for themselves, to form their own opinions on religious subjects, and to speak and act agreeably to these opinions, so long as they do not interfere with the rights and liberties of others, has never been disputed by Unitarians. The truisms and solemn interrogatories with which the discussion is introduced, are adapted, and perhaps were intended, to blind or mislead the reader as to the real question at issue. The question is not, whether Exclusionists have a right to speak and act agreeably to their opinions, so long as they do not interfere with the rights and liberties of others; but whether they have a right to speak and act agreeably to their opinions, when, as it is believed, they do interfere with the rights and liberties of others.