scription of Christians, who depart from any of the articles of their "Confession." The Hopkinsians are pointedly denounced; and yet they probably agree with the "Confession" in as many particulars as any sect in the country, Presbyterians excepted. If Investigator is correct, the censure also falls on "many ministers and churches who actually belong to the General Assembly-perhaps one third, perhaps one half." Nor is the censure bounded by the shores of the United States; it crosses the Atlantick and embraces by far the greater portion of ministers and churches in other parts of the world. For, comparatively very small is the number of Christians who do not "pretend to such discoveries in Christian Theology as require an abandonment" or rejection of some part or other of the Westminster Confession.

There are questions of serious importance which occur, in view of the broad censure contained in the paragraphs before

us:

First. By what authority did the members of the Synod sit in judgment on their fellow Christians, and condemn them by thousands and by tens of thousands? And who gave them this authority? This Synod, like other publick bodies, was composed wholly of fallible, shortsighted mortals, each of whom was as liable to err as other men, and each of whom Vol. V. No. 2.

was as destitute of authority to judge his brethren as any other individual on the face of the earth. Nor did these individuals acquire either infallibility or authority by association or combination. The whole body, therefore, was as destitute of authority and as liable to err as the individuals of which it was composed. Did not their censure, then, imply an unwarrantable assumption of power over the consciences of their brethren, and a flagrant invasion of the rights of God? For

Consciences and Souls were made, To be the Lord's alone."

are

Second. Shall this censure of the Synod be regarded as just. If they are authorized judges, other Christians bound to submit to their decisions. Are we then bound to treat our Hopkinsian brethren as wicked men, as propagators, of "damnable heresy," because the Synod of Philadelphia have denounced them as such? God forbid! We hope better things of them, and things which accompany Salvation.

Third. Was this Was this terrible censure the genuine fruit of what the Synod call the soul humbling doctrines of the gospel. If it be, what better evidence could be produced, or could we need, to prove, that both the tendency and the origin of these doctrines have been totally misapprehended? If the doctrines in question have a humbling influence on all who 7

embrace them, may we not doubt whether they had ever been cordially embraced by the members of the Synod? If all men are fallible, and ought to feel that they are; and if humility disposes men "to think soberly of themselves, as they ought to think;" what shall be said of men who condemn their dissenting brethren at this dreadful rate?

as an

Fourth. What is the object, and the tendency of such conduct, on the part of the Synod? Was it not their object to fortify their "Confession,' unchanging and infallible standard, by raising about it a rampart of terrour, that no further inquiries might be made within the circle of their influence, as to the correctness of its doc trines? But where, when, and how did this Confession originate, that it should have such claims to regard and protection? It It originated in England, in an age of great darkness, compared with the present; it was forged by a party in the flames of civil war, to be established by force as the creed of England and Scotland. Can it then be wonderful that its friends should be disposed to support it by denunciation and terrour? Or that they should be aware, that terror is needful to secure its popularity, and to prevent "such discoveries in Christian Theology as require the abandonment" of this Confession as a standard of faith?

But the other question occurs, what is the tendency of such censure and denunciation? They

tend to destroy the peace and happiness of the Christian church; to introduce confusion and wrangling among those who should be distinguished by love one to another; to render Christians and their religion despicable in the eyes of unbelievers; to invalidate the reputation and destroy the usefulness of many pious ministers and good men; and to prevent that free, impartial inquiry by which the errours of past ages, and of the present age, should be detected and reformed.

Moreover, the conduct of the Synod is of the most pernicious tendency, as a precedent, which may be followed with equal propriety by any sect, and every sect, whether Pagans, Mahometans, Jews or Christians, Papists or Protestants. As every man's opinions are correct in his own view, if any one man, or one body of men, has a right to adopt such a method of censure and denunciation, every other man, or body of men, has a right to do the same.

Some paragraphs in the Pastoral Letter are neither very exceptionable nor very interesting, and some we cordially approve. The following will be given "without note or comment;" because we are not fully satisfied as to the meaning of the Synod, in their manner of speaking of "revivals of religion:"

"Three or four of our churches, have experienced what is commonly called a revival of religion, and to them accessions of communicants have been numerous; but in many other congregations a gradual but almost constant multiplication of the professed friends of Zion, reminds us, that if the thunderstorm in summer excites the most attention, it is the continued blessing from the clouds which replenishes the springs, and makes glad the harvest of the husbandman. For the many, who are united in a short time, and for the many, who are gradually gathered to Christ, not by the great and strong wind that rends the mountains, nor by the earthquake, but by the still small voice, which cometh not with observation, we would give our Redeemer thanks; and desire the churches to bless him, ño less for the daily dew, and the lat ter, than the early rain."

The next paragraph, which calls for our attention, is the following: "The Synod have been peculiarly happy to learn, that a more friendly intercourse and a more intimate union, than have distinguished former times, have of late subsisted between the

members of our own body, and the Associate Reformed, the Reformed Presbyterian, and the Reformed Dutch Churches, which we hail as an omen of the approach of that blessed day, in which all who maintain in their purity the same doctrines of grace and system of government, shall be one, and their name one."

A few serious questions here

Occur.

Were not these four sects "in former times distinguished," if not disgraced, by as violent prejudices, one towards another, as they now feel towards Hopkinsians? Has not the present "more friendly intercourse" between them, resulted from observing, each in the others, a similar spirit of hostility towards our Hopkinsian brethren? We are not sufficiently informed to allege that such is the fact; but several circumstances have given rise to suspicions. It affords us sincere pleasure to hear of more "friendly intercourse" between Christians, who were formerly at variance, provided there be no apparent ground to fear, that this more "intimate union," is like the political confederacy of several warring nations, to overwhelm some other power, or to invade its dominions with the greater force. The "Pastoral Letter," affords but slender proof, that this "more friendly intercourse and intimate union," has resulted from more liberal or views of religion, or from more enlarged benevolence towards fellow christians. We hope, however, most sincerely, that all

く

correct

the fruits of the Synodical tree are not alike bitter and baneful. One paragraph more demands our notice :

"We know of but one Antitrinitarian Synagogue in all our borders; and that there may never be another, we pray you, brethren, repeatedly to declare, the truth that the only true God in existence is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; the God who is in Christ Jesus,reconciling the world to himself."

66

We must here be permitted to ask-Why was the word Synagogue" substituted for church, congregation, or society, or for the house of worship? Was it to reproach the Antitrinitarians for worshipping Jehovah, as one person, after the manner of the Jews? Or was it to reproach the Jews as Antitrinitarians? If the term were not introduced under a conviction, that Antitrinitarians worship the God of Abraham as the Jews did, it is difficult to assign a reason for this use of the word. But if our brethren of the Synod esteem it a reproach to professed Christians, to "bow their knees to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," as to one person and "the only true God" they might do well to reflect, that these despised Christians, have, in support of their practice, not only the example of Moses and the prophets, but of the Messiah and his apostles. Nay, that they have that form of prayer which Christ taught his disciples:

We may

Our FATHER, &c. add, that they have in their favour every example of prayer, or praise to God, which is recorded in the Bible, without a single exception. If they have been misled by such facts and examples, are they not entitled to compassion rather than reproach?

But Antitrinitarians, of all descriptions, have been so long accustomed to bearing censure or reproach, that it now affects them but little. The greater portion of our sympathy must be reserved for our Hopkinsian brethren, who are less inured to trials of this kind. It must be affecting to them to think of having been placed on the black list of hereticks by the powerful Synod of Philadelphia-and by men too whom they had been in the habit of regarding as brethren in the Lord. The Hopkinsians of Massachusetts and New Hampshire live, indeed, several hundred miles from the Volcano; but they have heard the thunders of the late eruption, and they have seen the threatening lava, which has overspread the land. They must naturally feel for themselves, and still more for such of their brethren as live in the vicinity of the crater.

Permit us then, brethren, "to comfort you by the comfort wherewith we ourselves have been comforted of God," under similar trials. The observations, in your favour, which have been made in this review, have proceeded from friendly affections,

We sincerely believe, that the treatment you have received from the Synod, is as unjust, as it is unauthorized. In a similar case we have been comforted with the words of Paul-" With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment-be that judgeth me is the Lord." When reproached and defamed, as you now are, by those whom we had esteemed as good men, we have reflected on the reproof of Christ to James and John, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of." This we have often thought to be the case with brethren whom we have esteemed; and we have hoped, that when they should come to their senses, they would think differently, judge differently, and feel differently. We have also reflected much on the lamentable fact, that some of the best of men, in every age, since the days of the Messiah, have been the objects of reproach and censure,from those, who professed to be good people, and often from ecclesiastical councils; and that even Jesus himself suffered reproach, denunciation and death, by the influence of men, "who trusted in themselves, that they were righteous and despised others." We have, moreover, been comforted with the assurance, that "all things shall work together for good, to them that love God." Nay, we have sometimes been almost constrained to adopt the following language of a suffering apostle-"I would that ye should understand, brethren,

that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel." By the overruling Providence of God, such consoling consequences have often resulted from painful events; and in such consequences, we hope that you will abundantly share.

The injurious treatment which you have received from the Synod may be turned to good account. Our Saviour has said, "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned; forgive, and ye shall be forgiven;--for with the same measure that ye mete withal, it shall be measured to you again." The concluding part of this passage is, perhaps, more frequently verified by the course of Providence, in this life, than is generally supposed. And is it not probable that some of you have been too forward to "judge" and "condemn" your brethren, who have dissented in opinion from you; and that God, by the conduct of the Synod of Philadelphia, is now calling you to reflect on the censures, which you have rashly passed on others? You cannot but feel the injustice with which you are exhibited to the world as hereticks, and wicked men, for having obeyed the dictates of your own consciences, for searching the scriptures for yourselves, and for preaching as you have believed that God would have you preach. Others have been capable of similar feelings, under similar circum stances.