is a "man of great learning, liberal sentiments, and deep piety," as well as a "worthy prelate." Governor Bowdoin, who is also represented as favoring Dr. F. has "learning, good sense and merit." Mr. Carey is "worthy of the honorable situation which he occupies, and is well qualified to carry on the cause in which his excellent colleague is engaged." Mr. Oxnard is a "man of good talents, sincere piety, and of ardent zeal," a "worthy founder," and a "worthy man;" all in twelve lines. Gen. Lincoln is our "worthy Lieutenant Governor." Mr. Thatcher is a ❝gentleman of large property, and of excellent character; of active zeal, of high character, approved patriotism and distinguished talents." Mr. Bentley, (the Rev. Mr. Bentley of Salem) is a "man of a bold, independent mind, of strong natural powers, and of more skill in the learned languages than any person of his years in the state." Col. Mappa is a "gentleman of truly respectable character, and of considerable property." Mr. Vanderkemp is "learned and pious-and excellent and worthy." Mr. Sherman is a "worthy confessor,-a Christian confessor;" possesses "fortitude and zeal," with a "high elevation of character." Mr. Abbot is the "faithful champion of truth, the amiable, useful, and beloved pastor; the virtuous sufferer; an able, honest, and pious sufferer;" all within half a page. Mr. Wells is "intelligent, learned, and valuable," and has a "zeal for the truth which is beyond all praise." Mr. Norton is an "excellent young man." Dr. Ware is "worthy and learned;" and Mr. Buck minster is "reverend, and learned, and eloquent." All this, and much more of the same kind, in about 30 pages. Truly praise must be plenty enough, when it rains down thus in showers. We wonder what new Lexicon of epithets Mr. Belsham and his correspondents have been studying. It must surely be a worthy book, by a worthy author, printed by a worthy printer, at a worthy press; besides being bound in a worthy manner by a worthy binder, and sold by a worthy bookseller, at a worthy price, to a worthy man, who has made a worthy use of it, in the composition of this worthy history. But to be serious; it is nauseating, it is intolerable, to find such daubing on every page. Let a man only turn Unitarian, and he becomes at once a man of talents, and consideration. The newspapers puff his performances. He is flattered while he lives; and canonized when he is dead. Boston is, we believe, the only place in this country, where the manner in which duties are discharged in the pulpit, are made the perpetual subject of newspaper eulogy. The Editors of papers are not at the bottom of this. It lies in the taste of the Unitarian public. Cambridge is the only University which praises herself, and assumes a place above all her sister colleges. We are satisfied that Unitarianism has done this. It is one of the arts of proselyting. Mr. Belsham has shewn us how he can play off his actors in the drama. The disciples follow the example of their master. But it is high time to have done praising themselves; or at least to be sensible of the awkward, disgusting manner, in which they discharge this essential part of their vocation. All this, however, we may be told, proceeds from breasts overflowing with the milk of human kindness; from a fountain which sends forth ebullitions of universal philanthropy. Indeed! Let us look a little farther before we draw this conclusion. How do these worthy, and pious, and can did, and liberal gentlemen treat their opponents? Take the following specimens of liberality; and these too from leaders of the sect. Mr. Belsham calls the opposers of Mr. Sherman, "ignorant and malignant persecutors," p. 26. Mr. Vanderkemp says, that Mr. Sherman has to struggle at Oldenbarneveld, "with furious bigotry and ignorant superstition," p. 35. Mr. Wells, speak ing of an open contest about Socinian principles, indulges in the most violent invectives. Dr. Freeman tells Mr. Lindsey, that he is frequently angry with error and bigotry;" and congratulates him, on his having "reclaimed many from the errors of idolatry and superstition." Such are the undisguised expressions of these kind and liberal gentlemen toward the orthodox. All comment is superfluous. In pretence, all is polite ness and liberality; in practice, we find a rancor bitter as death, and cruel as the grave. Dr. Freeman has indeed gone to the ne plus of his sect. The orthodox are "idolaters"! Divine Savior! What, then, are those ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, around the throne of God, who say with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and "wisdom, and strength, and honor and glory and blessing, and who rest not day nor night from this employment? It is more than three years, since we resolved to take up, as a distinct article, the systematic practice of praising each other, which has been adopted by the narrow circle of leading Unitarians in this country. This practice we verily believe to have been carried to an extent absolutely unexampled. It has been so long continued, as to have become a proverb, and a by-word, in every part of the United States. Other pressing subjects have hitherto prevented us from accomplishing our intention. But from the complete success which attended a hasty glance at this subject, in a pamphlet on the controversy between Miss Adams and Dr. Morse, we are sorry that it has not long ago been ex2 amined and exposed. But it is time to bring our Review to a close. We will touch on one or two subjects more, and we shall have done for the present. We introduce the first subject, by extracting from Mr. Belsham the following passage. facts, this noble profession, and this con"Notwithstanding however these strong ciliatory spirit, the prudent Council proceed, as a matter of expediency, to dis miss Mr. Sherman from his connexion with the society: and while they bear hon orable testimony to his character and talents, and "recommend him to the kind reception of those who may see fit to emthey "do not consider themselves as givploy him," they cautiously subjoin, that ing their approbation of Mr. Sherman's peculiar phraseology or circumstantial difference of sentiment on the subject of the Trinity." And in their subsequent advice to Mr. Sherman, they admonish him to guard against a bold spirit of speculation, and an inordinate love of novelty. "It is not a little curious to contrast those differences of opinion which this venerable Council coolly describes under the soft expressions of peculiar phraseology and a circumstantial difference of sentiment. The man whom they gravely caution against a bold spirit of speculation and inordinate love of novelty, asserts the doctrine, that there is One God, the sole object of religious worship, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who is the prophet and messenger of God. While his orthodox opponents, to accommodate whom the Council think it expedient to dismiss their exemplary pastor, maintain as a doctrine essential to salvation, and which they "can never give up but with the Bible which contains it," that "the man Jesus is truly and properly God." Is the venerable Council serious in stating differences so glaring and so substantial as these, as nothing more than a "peculiar phraseology" and a "eircumstantial difference of sentiment"? No! No! Opinions such as these can no more harmonize with each other than light and darkness, than Christ and Belial. They who hold doctrines so diametrically opposite cannot be fellow worshippers in the same temple. It was expedient that they should separate. So far the Council judged right." p. 30. With all our hearts we subscribe to this frank and ingenuous comment. It does honor to Mr. Belsham. How different from the disguise of our Unitarians, and their whining complaints about illiberality in the orthodox in refusing to exchange with them. We repeat with Mr. Belsham, "Those who hold doctrines, so diametrically opposite, cannot be fellow-worshippers in the same temple." How can two walk together unless they are agreed? We hope these re marks of Mr. B. will stimulate his brethren here, to adopt his language on this subject; at least, to permit the orthodox to come out and be separate, without. filling the churches and the news papers with complaints of bigotry and uncharitableness. We hope, too, that the orthodox will be stimulated to act more decisively on this subject, than they have done. It is the reproach and sin of Massachusetts, that while all the orthodox, from Connecticut to Georgia, are unanimous in withholding communion from Unitarians, she is lagging behind, and dallying with this awful and responsible subject. It is high time for decisive action on this point. We are aware who stand in the way. There are ministers, who make it their boast to shoot as near to orthodoxy as they can, and not hit it; who are waiting to see which way the tide will finally turn; who will write one half of a sermon to please the orthodox, and the other half to satisfy Unitarians; who mean to be popular with both parties, let the cause of religion fare as it may. For such, it requires the full exercise of Christian meekness not to feel contempt. We do feel sincere commiseration. There are others, too, who are too modest and unassuming to preach or act decisively, because forsooth, they are not satisfied about certain controverted points. Let such persons abandon the office of teaching, and return to their studies until they are satisfied. What right have they to teach feligion, when they themselves are not satisfied about its fundamental principles? Both these parties are clogs to orthodoxy. Their help is deadly to the cause. We want none to labor in the work, who are not satisfied that it is the cause of God, and prepared to act accordingly. Still, we would be the last to justify persecution, or party spirit. We abhor both. Let the orthodox come out and be separate, as Mr. Belsham advises; but let them utter no reproaches; let them pass no hasty censures, no unchristian excommunications. Let them deal with their offending brethren in a solemn, affectionate, tender manner. Their business is to labor for the salvation of souls, not to exalt a party. As to the utter incompatibility of Unitarianism with the faith of orthodox churches, we present our readers with the opinion of a very able man, and a distinguished champion of the truth. "It is very obvious, that two systems, of which the sentiments on subjects such as these are in direct opposition, cannot, with any propriety, be confounded together under one common name. That both should be Christianity, is impossible; else Christianity is a term which distinguishes nothing. Viewing the matter abstractly, and without affirming, for the present, what is truth and what is error, this, I think, I may with confidence affirm, that to call schemes so opposite in all their great leading articles by a common appellation, is more absurd, than it would be to confound together those two irreconcilable theories in astronomy, of which the one places the Earth, and the other the Sun, in the centre of the Planetary System. They are, in truth, essentially dif ferent religions. For if opposite views as to the object of worship, the ground of hope for eternity, the rule of faith and duty, and the principles and motives of true obedience; if these do not constitute different religions, we may, without much difficulty, discover some principles of union and identity, among all religions whatever; we may realize the doctrine of Pope's universal prayer; and extend the right hand of fellowship to the worship pers at the Mosque, and to the votaries of Brama." These sentences are taken from a work now in the press, and which will be presented to the public in a few days. It is a Series of Discourses on the Socinian Controversy, by the Rev. Ralph Wardlaw, of Glasgow, and has been received with very great favor in Great Britain. Mr. Wardlaw probably did not know, that Pope's Universal Prayer had been introduced with an alteration which did not affect, the sense, into the public worship of an enlightened congregation, in the most enlightened place in the world. Yes, this prayer, which declares that the same God is worshipped by one, whom the New Testament describes as a saint or holy person, by a sage, who is laboring to emit the light of philosophy from the darkness of his own benighted mind, and by a savage, who is engaged in offering human sacrifices to his malignant deities; this prayer is adopted by a Christian assembly to be used as a hymn of praise to the true God! To return to the subject, from which we digressed a moment, let the orthodox separate in worship and communion from Unitarians; but let them meekly give a reason for their separation. To treat their opponents with asperity, with contempt, or reproach, is unworthy of them as Christians, or as men. They must feel, that their opponents have ' souls to be saved or lost; souls as precious as their own. The great majority of those, whose influence goes to swell the importance of the liberal party, are not involved in most of the cen sures, which this review implies, or expresses. They, only, who are the principal actors in Mr. Belsham's drama, have been thus unwittingly exposed by their heresiarch. Their conduct deserves animadversion in many things, as it regards religion. In a civil and social respect, we are disposed to treat them with cour tesy. But we cannot, we ought ing an obscure man among the not to let this courtesy paralyze our hands and make us indifferent, while the contest is pending, whether Christianity shall exist in any thing more than a name in our country, or be supplanted by the new philosophy. Let our readers say, after the above developement, whether the time is not come, in which we and they are to speak out, and to act with decision. If it is, then let them follow the example; and let the churches in this land, who yet reverence the religion of the Bible, (which was the religion of our fathers,) and bow the knee to Jesus, purify themselves, wherever it is necessary from the reproach which now lies against some of them. Have you any doubts remain ing on this subject after perusing the quotations contained in this Review? You have seen, Christians, in what manner your Bible and your Savior are regarded and treated. Ponder well on this. Shall your children be trained up in these principles? Remember that you are accountable to God for the manner in which you think and act on these subjects. We are aware, that it will be charged against us, that the tendency of the preceding remarks is to give an unfair representation of the liberal party. It will be said, that the liberal party ought not to be condemned for the extravagant opinions of Mr. Belsham. It has been said, that Mr. Wells is an obscure man, and that his testimony does not amount to much. This is new to us. We had always supposed that Mr. Wells was far from be liberal party; and we still believe that he is one of the most intelligent, active, and prominent men in their ranks. That he has been among the planners and execu tors of nearly all their literary publications will not be doubted. It is with pleasure that we mention one proof of genuine liberality in Mr. Wells: we refer to his republication of the Christian Observer. By presenting this work to the American public, he conferred a lasting benefit on this country; though, by do. ing it, he incurred the disappro bation of some of his Unitarian brethren. We believe, however, that Mr. Wells is not at present concerned in that publication, But there is much evidence on this subject, besides the testimony of Mr. Wells and Dr. Freeman. We feel entirely warranted to say, that the predominant religion of the liberal party is decidedly Unitarian, in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word. The Anthology, published by the most prominent clergymen and laymen of the liberal party, clearly favored the Unitarian school. The General Repository was still more open and undisguised. Both these works had the patronage of those, who have the entire control of the College; the latter issuing from the walls of that seminary. The Improved Version of the New Testament was patronized and praised by the same men. Of this Version Mr. Belsham says, in his Calm Inquiry, p. 460, that the notes were intended chiefly to exhibit the most approved interpretations of the Unitarian expositors. Of this avowedly |