Unitarian, ecclesiastical fellowship was, as far as possible, withheld by the decidedly Orthodox. And the line of severation has been more and more extended and distinctly drawn, as the Unitarianism of ministers and churches has been brought to light. Is not this fact the very thing of which Unitarians complain? It is not because certain Congregational ministers have adopted different principles of procedure from their predecessors, that they now withhold their fellowship from certain other Congregational ministers, but because they hold and act upon the same principles; which principles require the withholding of fellowship and ministerial intercourse from those who deny the fundamental truths of evangelical religion; and those truths are denied by Unitarians.

Let me now, Mr. Editor, appeal to every enlightened and candid reader, whether the stand which the Orthodox in the United States have taken with respect to Unitarians, in refusing to exchange pulpits with them, to hold ministerial or ecclesiastical communion with them, or to acknowledge them as Christianscan be considered as an innovation? Is not their duty to do so an unavoidable inference from the directions given by the inspired writers on this subject? Is not the practice in strict conformity with the principles and habits of the Orthodox in all ages? Can the friends of truth do otherwise, without shamefully descrting "the footsteps of the flock" of Christ? As to higgling about the laws of "politeness," of "urbanity," or of "Christian civility," it is idle. The question is not, whether certain respectable individuals are polished gentlemen, amiable companions, accomplished scholars, or eloquent preachers? They may be all these; and we may, very properly, respect and love them, and take pleasure in their company; and yet they may have no just claim whatever to be regarded as true ambassadors or followers of Christ, or as teachers of his genuine Gospel. The question is, DO THEY, OR DO THEY NOT, REJECT THE ESSENCE OF CHRISTIANITY? If they DO, they surely CANNOT BE ACKNOWLEDGED AS CHRISTIANS. Do they, or do they not, take away from the Gospel those doctrines which are just as indispensable and vital to the hopes of the soul, as the presence of the sun is to the coherence and order of the solar system? If they do, to parley or temporize with them, is treason to our Redeemer.

The truth is, the situation of the Orthodox, surrounded by Unitarians, at the present day, is, in no small degree, analogous to that of the primitive Christians surrounded with pagans. The different classes of pagans had been long accustomed to acknowledge each other; and if the primitive Christians had been willing to reciprocate this habit, they might have escaped persecution. If they had gone to the pagan feasts, participated in their sacrifices, admitted them to the Lord's table, and recognized them as brother religionists, all had been well in the estimation of their idolatrous neigh

1

bors. But this the Christians were not permitted to do. They steadfastly proclaimed that all the forms of idolatry were abominable in the sight of God; that all who rejected the religion of Christ were in the way to perdition; that all men must turn from their dumb idols and carnal ordinances, and believe in Christ, or perish eternally. The pagans considered this honest zeal, on the part of Christians, as indicating a malignant spirit. That which ought to have been approved as the purest benevolence, was reviled as the bitterest and most merciless bigotry. The Christians were immediately persecuted with unrelenting fury; they were hunted like beasts of prey; their blood flowed in every direction; and that they were not wholly exterminated, was not owing to the charity or forbearance of those whom they sought to save.

In like manner, Orthodox Christians now believe, that all men are depraved, condemned and perishing; that there is no other name given under heaven, among men, whereby we must be saved, but the name Christ Jesus; and all that do not, from the heart, receive and rest upon the Saviour as the Lord their righteousness and strength, must die in their sins and perish everlastingly. These truths they constantly proclaim, and beseech men to flee from the wrath to come, and lay hold on eternal life. For this they are branded with the severest epithets, and treated as if they were the most malignant of men. If the Orthodox verily believe these things to be so, would they not be chargeable with cruelty, were they not to warn men of their real situation? And would they not be chargeable with worse than cruelty, were they to take by the hand, acknowledge as brethren in Christ, and introduce into their pulpits, the enemies of the Saviour, who would pervert the Gospel, and be likely to destroy the souls of those who heard and believed them? It might, indeed, give mutual pain thus to stand aloof from amiable. and respectable acquaintances. But is it possible for a conscientious man, in such a case, to confer with flesh and blood? Is it possible for an honest man, who believes there is such a thing as truth, who loves the souls of men, and who regards the authority of God, to hesitate a moment about the proper answer? For my part, I have no hesitation in saying, that were the Orthodox, with their creed and views, to treat Unitarians, as if they believed them to be Christians, and in a safe state, they would indeed be guilty of the most attrocious cruelty that one moral agent could well manifest toward another.

PACIFICUS.

REVIEWS.

LECTURES ON INFANT BAPTISM, by Leonard Woods, D. D. Abbot Professor of Christian Theology in the Theological Seminary, Andover. Andover, Mark Newman, 1828. pp. 174. The writers of the New Testament concern themselves very little with matters of external religion; and, while they inculcate spiritual duties with such earnestness and precision as to secure every honest man from all danger of mistake, they leave Christianity to assume such an outward form, in many particulars, as may best suit the genius and circumstances of the different people by whom it is received. The only ritual observances which they enjoin, are the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; and with regard to the mode of celebrating even these, they have left us no very definite instructions. The comparative importance which they attached to the mode of observing these rites, may be estimated by comparing their slight notices respecting it, with the minute and labored details of the Mosaic ritual.

Succeeding teachers have not always, in this respect, followed the steps of their inspired guides. The forms of religion have often, in their minds, risen in importance almost to an equality with its spiritual duties. Many have looked in the Scriptures for the same circumstantial exactness in the description of the rite of Baptism, as in the enumeration of the essential qualities of the Christian character, and have seemed to suppose it as necessary to copy minutely the ritual observances of the apostles, as to receive their doctrines and imitate their virtues.

Accordingly, it has been the lot of the doctrine of baptism, as of most doctrines pertaining to external religion, to be magnified far beyond its real importance, and to be discussed with a heat and acrimony which have blinded and embittered the minds of those engaged in the controversy respecting it. Where there are few data, there is little scope for argument; and, in such cases, zealous disputants find it more to their purpose to expose the weakness and ridicule the pretensions of their opponents, than to give a fair view of the merits of their own cause.

The author of the Lectures now before us has endeavored, we think successfully, to avoid the errors into which most who have preceded him in the discussion of this subject, have fallen. He has rejected those weapons, so often employed, which have proved mere foils that might bruise and irritate, but could not subdue. He has wisely chosen not to mingle in such unpromising conflict, but has taken a safer position, and selected more efficient weapons. His first care has been to ascertain how much the Scriptures reveal on this subject, and not to determine how much they ought

to have revealed. He freely concedes that the case must be made out by circumstantial evidence; and by this frank concession he has, at once, cleared the subject of numberless difficulties, in which it has been involved by those who were unwilling to acknowledge so much, lest it should throw suspicion on their cause. Knowing precisely on what ground he stands, and having no wish to press the argument beyond the bounds of fair criticism, he has no temptation to undue excitement, and is perfectly willing to allow his opponents all they can justly claim; and the book everywhere gives evidence of that calm and collected state of mind, which is always produced by clear views and correct feelings.

It is not our intention to give an analysis of these Lectures; for to obtain anything like an adequate notion of the real value of the argument, the book itself must be studied. It is one of those few works, which, as Lord Bacon says, 66 are to be chewed and digested; that is, to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention."

The remarks on the manner of treating the subject, and on the kind and degree of evidence necessary, pp. 9-22, are rich in instruction, and highly honorable to the understanding and feelings. of the author. Misapprehension on these two points, has been the most fruitful source of irritation and perplexity to those who have engaged in this controversy; but they are here elucidated with such clearness of thought and pertinency of illustration, that we felt, on reading the first Lecture, as though the chief obstacles to a decision of the question had already been removed.

The argument itself is in every respect a rational argument, and such as is always agreeable to an enlightened and thoughtful mind. We can hardly conceive how a man, whose intellectual powers have been trained to close and accurate thought, can examine it candidly, without being satisfied that the same reasons which convince us that the Lord's day is designed to take the place of the Jewish sabbath, and the Lord's Supper, of the Jewish passover, ought also to convince us that baptism is designed to take the place of circumcision.

The third, fourth and fifth Lectures, deserve particular attention as a specimen of the highest and best kind of historical criticism. They, who are accustomed to reason soberly from the facts of history, will feel the force of the reasoning contained in these Lectures, and will find them a model worthy of imitation.

The extended criticism on Matt. xix. 13, 14, pp. 58-74, is, we think, sound and judicious; and it is no small additional proof of the correctness of the interpretation the author has given to these passages, that each of the three Evangelists who relate this occurrence, make use of the simple genitive, TOLOúTwv, without the preposition εx. As to the objection, that Christ immediately subjoins a lesson of humility, (Mark x. 15,) was there not, as

Dr. Woods suggests, peculiar need of inculcating this virtue on the disciples at that time? For what but a feeling of pride could induce them to rebuke those who brought little children to their Master?

The criticism on 1 Cor. vii. 14, pp. 80-93, is equally satisfactory. The reasoning on this text, particularly pp. 83, 84, appears to us entirely original; and it is certainly, clear and strikingly conclusive. We would also recommend to the careful consideration of those who reject Infant Baptism, the reasoning on pp. 103, 104; and the discussion on the word covenant. pp. 121–129.

. With regard to the relation of baptized children to the church, pp. 145-148, we regret that Dr. Woods did not extend his remarks farther. This subject is very imperfectly understood, and needs elucidation. From hints scattered here and there among the early ecclesiastical writers, and even from the very nature of the case, as Dr. Woods has stated it, there seems some reason for concluding, that Christian children, after baptism, were originally regarded as members of the Christian church, in the same. sense as Jewish children, after circumcision, were regarded as members of the Jewish church. The churches of our country have, in general, grossly neglected baptized children, and it is time that they were awake to, their duty on this important subject.

The eighth Lecture, on the mode of baptism, is made, as the author informs us,'as brief as possible. It is indeed not so important to ascertain the exact mode, as the proper subjects of baptism; and it was the comparatively slight importance of this part of the subject, which induced Dr. Woods to pass it over more hastily. It would have been gratifying, however, to find a more extended discussion of this point; for though the premises are strongly and clearly stated, yet the studied brevity with which the arguments are developed, may have a tendency to prevent their full effect on minds unaccustomed to close thinking.

We could wish also, that the references to authorities had been more numerous in the latter part of the sixth Lecture. We know the book was designed for common use; but references need be no hindrance to common readers, and to students they are indispensable..

The style of these Lectures, like that of all Dr. Woods' publications, is remarkable for its perspicuity, correctness and simplicity. It is not to be expected that these Lectures will appear equally convincing to all who read them. To some they may appear, to want strength, because they have no bitterness. To feel their full force requires something of that candor and clearness of conception which dictated them. Old prejudices are not easily eradicated; and the remarks on the eleventh page of this work are enough to show, that these prejudices may be innocent, and owe their origin to feelings which we ought to respect. But these Lectures must,

VOL. I.

38