from the fact that the inspired writers had not, in some instances, a clear understanding of the things which they spoke or wrote. And thirdly, he argues from the texts of Scripture where inspiration is expressly mentioned, in favour of the doctrine which he maintains.

In the sixth and last Lecture, the principles of the preceding are applied to some particular cases: and, we were pleased to observe, that the first instance adduced, was the book of Job; concerning the right interpretation of which, we have felt no small perplexity, for a long time.

The difficulty is not in relation to the inspiration of the writer of this book, whoever he might be; but to the discourses of Job himself, and of his friends. Now the question is, whether these sublime discourses are to be considered as all given by inspiration; or, whether any part of them are inspired. Against the first supposition, it seems to be an unanswerable objection, that God himself declares that these men were in error, in their controversy with Job; and he himself was reproved for some of his speeches, which are of such a kind that they could not have been dictated by the Holy Spirit. And if all their discourses were not inspired, but only a part, how is it possible for us to distinguish between what was spoken by inspiration of the Spirit, and what Iwas the fruit of their own unassisted minds. But, on the other hand, if we determine that no part of these discourses were inspired, we contradict the uniform opinion of theologians, ancient and modern, who have even treated the declarations of Job and Elihu at least, as the words of inspiration; and have fully adduced texts from them, and also from the other speakers, in proof of the most important doctrines. We did hope, when we saw this example brought forward, that we should find some solution of this difficulty, by one who has so profoundly studied the whole subject. But we confess that we have been disappointed. We have, indeed, no special objection to what Dr. Woods says in relation to this book, but we are of opinion, that he has left the difficulty where he found it. "The Holy Spirit prompted the writer," says our author, "to write a sacred poem, consisting chiefly of a dialogue between Job and his three friends, and of a solemn address to Job from the Creator and Sovereign of the world. The inspired writer was enabled to frame such a dialogue, and such an address from God, as should be agreeable to nature and truth, and convey with clearness and force the most im

portant knowledge respecting God and man." Very good; but how are we to distinguish truth from error in this important dialogue? When Job says, "I know that my Redeemer liveth, &c." are we to consider this as an inspired prediction of the Messiah? and if so, are all Job's words to be so taken? And so of the elevated sayings of his friends.

But we shall dismiss this perplexing subject, and hasten to the conclusion of our review, already too much extended, by observing, that the remainder of this Lecture is occupied with important remarks, "on the perfection of the Bible," on the firmness of the basis on which our belief in the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel rests;" on the regard which we ought to pay to the Bible as the standard of our faith, and the source of our religious knowledge. He teaches, "that those authors who deny the inspiration of the Bible, are to be regarded as dangerous guides in respect to the principles of religion, and are to be read and studied with great caution.' Also, "that those who disbelieve the doctrines, or who despise or neglect the precepts contained in the Bible, subject themselves to a heavy charge of presumption and impiety,and, finally, he concludes with observing, "How important is the work of explaining and inculcating the Word of God, and disseminating it through the world." On all these points we most cordially concur in the sentiments expressed by Dr. Woods; and although we have presumed to question the correctness of some of his positions, in the preceding parts of the volume, we are persuaded, that he will be the last man in the community to be offended with our freedom. The subject is far more difficult than is commonly supposed; and has been far less discussed, than its importance demands. In the general view of inspiration, we entirely agree with Dr. Woods, and have been instructed and gratified by his little volume. Indeed, we consider it as an important accession to our theological literature, and as supplying a desideratum to students of theology. And our prevailing reason for reviewing it in the Biblical Repertory, is, to bring it, as far as our influence extends, into more extensive circulation, for we have reason to think, that in this part of the country, it has, as yet, fallen into the hands of but few persons. We would, therefore, cordially recommend this little volume to the careful perusal of our readers, and especially to students of theology and young ministers; for we are persuaded, that this will become one of the most frequent grounds of controversy

with the enemies of evangelical truth. On this ground the assault has been most successfully made in Germany, and we shall soon have neology in its most abhorrent form imported into this country. Indeed, it is already here, and only needs the German literature to give it support; and let it be remembered, that the conquest over truth was there made by little and little, and, instead of conceding any part of the principles of truth, let us be determined "to contend earnestly for the whole faith."

If we might take the liberty of suggesting a hint to the reverend author, it would be, that in a second edition, which we hope will be soon called for, the work should be considerably enlarged, so as to give room for the full discussion of some points, not sufficiently examined in these Lectures.

ART. II.-MANUAL LABOUR SCHOOLS.

To the Editors of the Biblical Repertory and Theological Review.

GENTLEMEN,

I should be gratified to have your opinion, or that of some one of your correspondents, on what are called Manual Labour Schools, in which it is proposed to give young men, in indigent circumstances, an opportunity of paying for their education, at least in part, by their own industry. Will three or four hours labour each day interfere with their progress in learning, or be injurious to their future usefulness? What is the best mode of conducting these establishments? What proportion of the expense of his education may an industrious young man be expected to defray? Especially, I should like to know, whether a young man, in a course of education for the gospel ministry, who has an opportunity of attending one of these working schools, or who is in such a situation that he may earn something, however small, ought to receive any assistance from education societies, or others, if, from pride or indolence, or any other cause, he neglects to do what he can in paying for his education? In a word, I should be pleased to have your views on the subject, generally, or on any particular branches of it.

With great respect, I have the honour to be,

A FARMER.

Whatever may have been the motives, which dictated the above inquiries, we consider the subject one of great practical importance, and deserving a serious and candid consideration. Without pledging ourselves to answer all of the foregoing questions, we shall make a few remarks on the subject.

Respecting the best method of conducting Manual Labour Schools, we feel and acknowledge our incompetence to give instructions; because our experience and observation do not authorize us to give a decided opinion. Besides, the experiment is one of recent date, and sufficient time has not yet elapsed to enable those best acquainted with the existing establishments to decide on the best mode of operation. It ought not to discourage the friends of this enterprise, if in at few cases a total failure should occur. It is thus with all other kinds of business. The projectors of enterprises the most useful to their country and to the world, have not unfrequently failed. Errors have been detected, improvements have been made, and the work, by repeated efforts, has at last been brought to a successful issue. Of the ultimate success of the plan of uniting manual labour with mental improvement, we have not the smallest doubt. By this means, we confidently hope, many energetic and honest hearted men will be raised from obscurity, to occupy stations of distinguished usefulness.

There is one error, however, likely to exist in the minds both of the patrons and pupils of these schools, which ought to be avoided, because, in our opinion, it will lead to disappointment, and will have a tendency to retard the final success which we anticipate. The error to which we refer, is, expecting too much profit from the labour of young men engaged in a course of study. Some benevolent and liberal men may imagine, that when they have contributed the means to commence an establishment of this kind, young men destitute of all other resources, will be able to work their way through a course of studies, without farther aid; and young men may commence their studies with similar expectations; and the consequences in both cases must be injurious. That a few young men, in peculiarly advantageous circumstances, may support themselves during their education, is admitted, because it has been done. But that all worthy of patronage with a view to the ministry of the gospel, can do so, ought not to be expected. And in a large school, founded on the principle of Manual Labour, instances will be extremely rare

of young men carrying themselves through their preparatory studies, solely by their own industry. All cannot find such profitable employment, as an individual in peculiar circumstances may find. Yet these schools, as regards the great body of indigent youth, are unquestionably more economical than if the same persons were scattered in various situations: because, in the latter case, nine-tenths of them could find no profitable employment, and at the same time have the advantages of competent instruction.

Bodily labour, to a certain extent, we maintain, is salutary, contributes to health, and prepares the mind for vigorous and successful action; but, carried beyond that point, it produces lassitude, torpor, and an irresistible tendency to repose. Consequently, if labour be extended beyond the degree necessary for the preservation of health, it must retard, or totally defeat the attainment of the object proposed. What proportion of the expense of his education a young man may defray by his industry, can be ascertained only by experience: and on this point the experiments are not sufficiently numerous to enable us to form any definite estimate. Besides, the profits of the same establishment, directed with the same economy and industry, will vary with the price of provisions, the demand for the articles produced, and many other circumstances incapable of enumeration. Yet, in the most favourable circumstances, it cannot reasonably be expected, that a young man, without interfering very materially with his improvement, can support himself by his own labour. The labour of apprentices for several years, is generally deemed barely sufficient to pay for their food and clothing, and the instruction received from their employers. In a majority of cases, the young men who enter our Labouring Schools, are not superior in skill and manual dexterity to common apprentices, in the work to be performed, whether it be in agriculture, gardening, or the mechanical arts. Besides, apprentices who devote their whole time and attention to a single object, must have a great advantage over those with whom labour is considered only a secondary concern. Three or four hours, daily, is as much time as, in our opinion, can be spent in labour, consistently with intellectual improvement.

From these considerations, we conclude, that it ought not to be expected of young men in a course of education, to support themselves by their personal industry. What proportion of