the times of Josiah, when the unity of worship was first carried out. It is not for us to dismiss, with a word of contempt, a theory which is sustained with such apparent candor and vast learning. We must all acknowledge that the Pentateuch was not finished in the time of Moses, since it records his death. Yet the view, which attributes the idea of the work, and its principal execution, to the great law-giver, seems encumbered with far less difficulty, and much more accordant with the nature of things. That Moses should not leave some permanent record of his laws, it is hard for us to believe. He did not legislate for a day, but for ages. The explanation given by Dr. Palfrey, of the obvious difficulty in attributing the Pentateuch to Moses, is far more satisfactory than the subtle conjectures of more ambitious critics. We are not afraid, moreover, to lean much upon the word of him who declared, that be came to fulfil the Law and the Prophets; nor are we disposed to regard an epic poem as a likely work for the appointed Messiah to be sent into the world to fulfil. Indeed, the revelation may be one thing and the record of it another thing; we may believe in the authority of the Mosaic law, and yet admit that human hands have added to the divine work. But De Wette's hypothesis throws too much uncertainty upon the whole Pentateuch to accord with the declarations of our Saviour, or to give us any adequate idea of the genuine plans of the great law-giver. Yet he by no means robs it of all sanctity, as the infidel does. For he believes in a historic basis, and regards the superstructure rather as the work of faith than of fraud.

Of course his view of the Pentateuch gives us a clue to his view of the Prophets, since the Mosaic books contain some of the most important prophecies. The prophet he regards as the inspired teacher of the theocracy, differing in this respect from the theocratic historian. "The former, occupied with quiet contemplation of the past, gives rather the true picture of affairs, than his own view of them; but the latter, impelled by his active participation in the present, and in the yet unformed future, living in the fire of inspiration and of holy zeal, expresses his own thoughts, demands, and wishes, cares, and hopes, rather than paints the history of his time." De Wette by no means adopts the rationalistic view, that the prophetic books were written subsequent to the events of which they treat. regards the prophets as actually seers of the future, not indeed by a particular inspiration regarding a few especial events, but

He

by a higher intuition of divine truth, and by that of the course. of earthly events, both past and future, and by virtue of which they were prophets and foretellers of the future. Yet in the application of this idea to particular prophecies the author rather disappoints us. Instead of regarding the splendid passages in which Isaiah describes the glory, that is to dawn upon the people, as predictions of our Saviour's coming, he refers them to the reign of Cyrus, the restorer of Jerusalem, and is not willing to attribute their authorship to Isaiah. We cannot surrender the evidence of the spirit to that of philological subtleties, nor be satisfied with the reasoning that robs us of the glories of the evangelical prophet. The exalted tone of those passages must indicate a higher theme than the Persian monarch, and leads us to believe that the striking coincidencies between the prophecy and Christ's mission are not merely accidental. Without drawing too largely upon our credulity, we may take a view of the prophecies of the Messiah, which preserves their sanctity, whilst it does not regard the prophets as the mechanical mouth-pieces of dark sayings. Carry out the doctrine of a higher intuition stated by our author, of the elevation of the spontaneous over the reflective reason, and we may regard the prophets as raised into such communion with the divine mind, as to recognise the higher laws of the divine government, have intimations of spiritual truths in advance of their age, and to be favored with glimpses of the new dispensation in the gospel. We know very well, that it is dangerous to substitute theories for facts, and slight the evidence of the letter in order to further our views of the significance of the spirit. But, perhaps from our own dulness, we see no sufficient evidence of the opposition of a just criticism of the leading Messianic prophecies to the above view of the illumination of the prophets. No respectable scholar needs to be informed, that the name prophet does not necessarily indicate a seer of the future. But it is not on this word, that we would base our view of the predictions of the Old Testament.

Passing from the prophets to the poets of the Old Dispensation, we find ourselves more on terms of agreement with our author. He is admirably fitted for the office of critic of poetry in all its forms. Adding such poetic taste to such critical knowledge, he has done important service to the scholar, in opening the riches of the sacred poets, especially by his various works upon the Psalins. His ideas upon the rhythm of those noble

lyrics have, we believe, the merit of originality as well as good sense. By temperament our author is better adapted to be a critic of the poetical than of the theocratical books, since he abounds in imagination, and has comparatively little of the practical, executive turn of mind, that would lead him to trace out, with love, the workings of a system based upon divine authority, and acting through an established priesthood.

We have hardly glanced in this notice at the main points of Mr. Parker's volumes, and must now leave the subject with a few words upon the general impression produced by the book. Nothing is said in its pages powerful enough to shake the received doctrine of liberal Christians, that the Old Testament is a record of a divine revelation, although not a verbal revelation itself. Notwithstanding the many departures of the author from generally received opinions, and bis evident skepticism as to many views, that are held sacred by all denominations of Christians in this country, he has nothing of the low infidel spirit, that would rob the ancient Scriptures of their spirituality, and regard them as a tissue of falsehoods. Even where he recognises mythology rather than history, he traces the origin of the myth rather to poetic fancy or credulous belief, than to wilful deceit. Nevertheless the book will fail to satisfy those of us, who believe that Jesus Christ came in the fulness of time to fulfil the Law and the Prophets. We must still wait for a work that shall unite with a criticism, equally minute and learned, more regard for the unity of revelation, more reference to the Word manifest in the flesh, to which the Law guides us as a schoolmaster. From Hengstenberg, and such devourers of marvels, we pray to be delivered; and not a few of our Orthodox brethren entertain the same feeling regarding them. Yet we believe, that without resting in his monstrous dogmatism, we may find a good and rational resting place, without going as far as De Wette and his translator. One consoling thought is, that we are not called upon to solve every problem in the criticism of the Old Testament. Standing on that mount of spiritual vision, where the Light of the World shines upon us, we can look back upon past ages, and see the divine ray gilding every important prominence, without feeling ourselves obliged to explore every cave and valley among the mountains. We must insist upon the duty and the privilege of judging all previous words of revelation by him, who is to us the eternal Word. The first chapter of John's Gospel is worth libraries of

criticism, in the interpretation of the aim of the Old Testa

ment.

In conclusion, we must thank Mr. Parker for the labor he has bestowed upon his work, and for the rich stores of learning he has opened. May all the heresies, that are imported into this country from Germany, come attended thus with instruction enough to be an antidote to their own errors, and with enough of labored argument and spiritual purpose to baffle those, who may be seeking additions to their stock of flippant witticisms. Should the publication by its ability and extravagance call forth some master mind in opposition to its doctrines, who shall unite equal freedom with more of faith, our obligation to Mr. Parker will be greatly enhanced.

CENSORIOUS SPEECH.

SPEECH is the mightiest instrument of man's power. Speech is the manifestation of his soul, and in that his power lies, and froni that his power comes. It is the exponent of his inward faculties, of his reason, of his imagination, of his affections, and of his will. By speech these faculties are extended; by speech their results are perpetuated and are preserved. Speech is the great intermediate agency between man's ideas, and man's achievements; the medium which communicates thought, and the impulse which communicates action. Speech is embodied in all that men have done, and lives in all that men are doing. The glory of speech is, therefore, co-extensive with the glory of mind; and by whatever we estimate the glory of the one, we estimate the glory of the other. It would be pleasant exceedingly, to pursue this train of reflection; but it would not be expedient, for the purpose of the present paper requires me to circumscribe my subject within humbler limits.

Some remarks, which I intend to make on the sins of the tongue, will have but slight reference to the more heinous offences of the class. This would be indeed a boundless field. Who could indicate even the prominent aspects in such a wilderness of

transgression? All that darkens man, and all that maddens him, and all that curses him, has been made instrumental in words. Words have awakened the terrors of superstition, and inflamed the rage of bigotry, and unsheathed the sword of fanaticism, and spread wide the insanity of persecution. Words have been the breath of war, and from the death of Abel until now, that has been a breath of hatred and desolation. Words have perpetuated wrong in unrighteous laws; recorded evil for the unborn; stamped infamy on the guiltless; and blurred the bandwriting of God with the wickedness of man. Words have darkened counsel, and perverted judgment; and falsehood has been spoken where only truth should enter; and the sophistries of self-interest have triumphed against the cause of the poor, and the declamations of ambition against the interest of millions. Words, sent out as on the winds, by the modern Press, if in many ways the messengers of knowledge and freedom, are also messengers of dissension, of anger, of misrepresentation, of intemperate severity, of railing accusation; violating the sanctity of character and the decencies of life. Words, under the guidance of genius, which fears not to desecrate the highest boon of heaven, become moulded in a vicious literature, which, false in principle and false in purpose, wins the fancy, but corrupts the heart. Strongly, the apostle has said of the tongue, "therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men who are made after the similitude of God;" — but how often is the blessing merely in the word, while the cursing is perfect in the deed.

It is, however, necessary, while we condemn the faults of speech, that we do not restrain its honest freedom. Speech, possibly, may give pain to the present, and may not be all that the absent would desire. Still, it may be void of malice and of guilt, and be only what in justice should be spoken. Constantly our minds are passing judgments on every thing within the region of their inspection, and these judgments cannot always be in silence, and they ought not to be. Such judgments cannot in every instance be favorable, and to demand their suppression, when they are not, would be a rigor more intolerable than that of the Inquisition. This would utterly destroy all manly opinion, and all honest expression. Cant would take the place of candor, and dissimulation of frankness. True charity abhors results like these; for true charity lives with liberty, and liberty is but an empty name, when it is not the emanation of independent thought. Distinct opinion is the proper consequence of