Does any feel as if an individual had authority to judge the world, assigning himself and his friends to heaven, and those who do not think as he does, to destruction? If such pretensions are regarded as proofs of weakness and folly in individuals, we do not know why they should be more respectable in churches, or any more likely to be affirmed on high.

The work before us, beside discussing the rights and duties of churches, contains a distinct and powerful statement of the principles of religious freedom. As it is directly addressed to an Orthodox church, the writer has established his positions by passages from Orthodox divines. It was a happy thought thus to appeal to them, in the words of those whom they have been used to reverence, and to make them feel, that to profess respect for the memory of great men is one thing, and to follow their example is another. It is delightful to see, that men, like those quoted in the work before us, who were in the habit of thinking clearly on religious subjects, saw these questions in the same light that we do; regarding it as the right and duty of every Christian to make up his own mind, and protesting against all measures which tended to control, abridge, or take away that power. We firmly believe, that there is not a society of Christians in the world, who would pursue intolerant systems, if left to themselves. It is only by constant exertion that they can be kept in a state of vassalage, and made the slaves of party. It is by the authority of leading men that they are thus subdued. If they can once be made to see, that the truly great men of their own sect, and every other, have detested this narrow and exclusive spirit, it will aid them to throw off a bondage, from which they will rejoice to be free.

We give the following as a single specimen of the calm and powerful reasoning in the correspondence.

"You glory, equally with us, in the name and character of Protestants. And what are the obligations implied by this? Are you not bound to allow us the same right and privilege, which you claim, of searching the Scriptures, and ascertaining for ourselves the truth of Christian doctrines, be they fundamental or not? Are you not bound to treat us as being accountable, not to you, but, in common with you, to our final judge, for the manner in which we discharge this duty? How then can you presume to judge and condemn us, for being led

by our inquiries to differ in opinion from you, upon this momentous subject? It may not be possible for us, you must be aware, to avoid this, without unfaithfulness to conscience and to God. And will you pretend that a conscientious adherence to his unerring word, as the standard of faith and duty, can justly expose us to your condemnation? Will you say, as others have said, that your conscience requires you to denounce those whose religious opinions you consider as essentially wrong, and consequently proceeding from a perverse interpretation of Scripture?

"But who made you judges of your brethren in the interpretation of Scripture? Is not this an assumption of infallibility? 'All that infallibility,' says Robert Hall, which the church of Rome pretends to, is the right of placing her interpretation of Scripture on a level with the word of God; she professes to promulgate no new revelation, but solely to render her sense of it binding.' While you are content to enjoy your interpretation of Scripture in the regulation of your own faith and practice, and accord the same to others, you act a truly Protestant part; but when, not satisfied with this, you insist upon forcing your interpretations upon the conscience of your brethren, and treat them as though they avowedly contradicted Christ and his Apostles, that moment you assume infallibility, and become aggressors. We have shown you, from an inspired Apostle, what are the true rights of conscience in such cases. According to the rule laid down by him, you may claim every indulgence for your own conscientious opinions, though they should be erroneous; but not the least favor, when you deny the same indulgence to your brethren, and proceed to denounce them for opinions or interpretations of Scripture, which may be equally conscientious with your own. To do this is not a right of the conscience, but a wrong of the will. In the language of the author just quoted, it is not a defensive, but an offensive measure; it is not an assertion of Christian liberty by resisting encroachment, but is itself a violent encroachment on the freedom of others.' Is it not, indeed, that rash, uncharitable, sinful judging of others, the very offence so pointedly condemned by our Saviour and his Apostles? And must not the commission of this great offence, like that of every other sin, be at the peril of those who are guilty of it?" pp. 81, 82.

It is auspicious to the cause of Christian freedom to find men, like the author of this work, coming forward as its advocates, not leaving such discussions to the clergy alone, but giving a practical proof to the world, that they think the

interests of liberality worth defending. The difficulty is not, that our thorough-bred scholars, learned jurists, and accomplished writers are opposed to the cause; on the contrary, they are generally interested in it, and desirous to behold its success; but from aversion to controversy, or a fancied unfitness for such pursuits, they are apt to give a silent vote in favor of liberality, when they might do much more to advance it. We feel grateful to this person and others of their number, for the fine example of interest and exertion which they have given; for if any thing can reconcile us to these invasions of the right of private judgment, it is the assurance which we have here, that the right will be ably and successfully defended.

It gives us great pleasure to insert the following communication from Dr. Carpenter, of Bristol, England, respecting our review of "A Harmony of the Gospels," on his plan, published in the Number for July, 1831. No one is better fitted than himself, to elucidate this difficult and important subject; and the character of these remarks leads us to expect high satisfaction from the Harmony which he has long been preparing, and is about to publish.

To the Editors of the Christian Examiner.

GENTLEMEN,

THE EDITORS.

Bristol, 26th April, 1832.

Ir it be not inconsistent with the plan of your truly valuable and interesting publication, I would gladly offer a few remarks to your readers, in reference to the review of the "Harmony," lately published at Boston, inserted in your Number for July, 1831.

It gave me great satisfaction to see the system of arrangement which, I doubt not, will, in the main, be one day prevalent, so promoted, as it must be, by the beautifully executed volume to which I have referred; and I am happy in the aid and coöperation of the able and respected friend who has honored me by the construction of the "Harmony." It was not known to him, and indeed could not have been, that I had myself had the object in view for many years; and that, after having repeatedly read the Gospels with a

specific view to the arrangement of them in the order of time, I had constructed a Harmony, according with the principles of arrangement stated in my "New Testament Geography." This I have several times reviewed with great care, and with (I think) no other desire than to render it as accordant as possible with reality; and a recent examination of it, and of the phenomena of the Gospels individually (to which I have been led by the consideration of Mr. Greswell's "Harmony" and "Dissertations"), has given me the opportunity of more critically weighing objections that might be urged against it, and of making it, in several points, more satisfactory to my own mind. It is my hope that, during the ensuing year, I may carry into execution the printing of my "Harmony"; and I shall be particularly obliged to the learned editor of the Boston "Harmony," and to its Reviewer, as well as to any other of your critical friends, for additional observations.

The Reviewer (p. 381) considers it as a great difficulty on my arrangement, that so short a time is allowed between our Lord's setting out from Capernaum, after the miracle of the Five Thousand and the miracle of the Four Thousand; and observes, that I do not appear to have made any allowance for the "three days," mentioned by St. Matthew. (See ch. xv. 29-32.) Perhaps too little time has been allowed; but to rectify this error (if it be one), the date assigned to the feeding of the Five Thousand, which, of course, is in some degree arbitrary, may be placed three days further back. All that is required is, that it shall accord sufficiently with the statement of St. John (ch. vi. 4), "The passover was nigh."

It will, I think, greatly obviate the difficulty felt by the Reviewer, in respect to the rapidity of our Lord's movements at that period, to consider that Herod was then at his capital in the south of Galilee, and that our Lord obviously desired to avoid his insidious designs. For this purpose he spent his time principally in Upper Galilee, or in the dominions of Philip; and, except when he was in the neighbourhood of Cæsarea Philippi, or on the northeastern side of the lake, he does not appear to have ever remained at rest. We learn from John vii. 1, which should have been connected with the sixth chapter, that, after the miracle of the Five Thousand, our Lord would not go into Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him.

The Reviewer seems to regard the supposition that three great national festivals occurred between that miracle and the crucifixion passover, as attended with less difficulty than that arising from the short interval I suppose to have occurred between the miracle and our Lord's finally leaving Galilee. It appears to me probable, that, when he has considered the matter more in detail, he may agree with me, that the former supposition is not reconcilable with the phenomena of the Gospels, taken, as of course it will be by all, in connexion with the position that one of those festivals is the Feast of Tabernacles, the records of which are found in the portion of St. John's Gospel, beginning with Chapter vii. 2, and ending with Chapter x, 21. Undoubtedly the transactions, which I refer to that short interval, may be made to spread over a longer period; but there is nothing in the history itself which requires, at most, a week in addition to the time I have assigned to it; and the following considerations support my hypothesis, if they do not, taken together, absolutely refute every other.

(1.) The train of the history, in the first three Gospels, shows, that the miracle of the Five Thousand occurred not long before the Transfiguration; and this certainly took place when our Lord's departure was at hand. (See Luke ix. 31.)

(2.) Our Lord's discourse after the miracle, recorded by St. John alone, has, in some parts (see Chapter vi. 51–56), that species of reference to his death, which implies its near approach.

(3.) At the close of the chapter the Evangelist says, that Judas Iscariot was about (user) to betray him; which expression surely cannot be referred to an event more than a year distant.

(4.) Our Lord's reference, in John vii. 19-23, to his miracle at the pool of Bethesda, and the purpose of the rulers to take away his life, is not consistent with the supposition of so long an interval having elapsed as sixteen or eighteen months, which is required by the hypothesis of four Passovers in our Lord's ministry, and even by that of three.

(5.) The miracle of the Five Thousand, and the grand series of public miracles recorded in each of the first three Gospels as having preceded it, could not have occurred be

VOL. XIII.

-

N. S. VOL. VIII. NO. I.

12