sentiments, to equivocate, to evade, and even to deny them when questioned.'*

These and similar charges, form, in truth, the very staple of the work referred to. The indecency and grossness of its attacks on Unitarians, as a body, are proverbial. Nor has it spared individual character. In proof its wantonness, we had almost said its malignity and profligacy, read, if you have patience, the long string of cold, and heartless sarcasms contained in a Review of an article on Associations, in the Christian Examiner, for Sept. 1829.'+

Yet all this, it seems, goes with Prof. Stuart for nothing. We are slandered'-we are 'slandered!" says he. We allege before the world that we have been slandered and abused!' 'I know of nothing in any recent Orthodox publications, which can well compare with the reiterated charges against us by Unitarians! Could Prof. Stuart write this without a blush? Such hardihood of assertion is really astonishing.

There is much more that is objectionable in the Letter before us. For instance, speaking of religious liberty in the name of the Orthodox generally, Prof. Stuart expresses an opinion, that there are two classes of persons, who should be subjected to civil disabilities,' to an abridgement of the rights of citizens,' on the ground of religious opinions, and they are Atheists, and Universalists, neither of whom, it seems, can, in the view of the Orthodox, feel the obligation of an

*

Spirit of the Pilgrims, March, 1830. p. 124.

t Ib. March, 1830.

oath, and to whom, therefore, it is 'mere mockery' to administer it, either as a witness, or as a magistrate.' But we eannot at present, extend our remarks. The Letter is full of complaint, and abounds in rash and unfounded assertions.

South and Orthodox,'

The Professor's sensitiveness on the subject of the rapid diffusion of liberal sentiments, betrays him into some observations of rather an amusing character. He cannot talk of the efforts of Unitarians, to propagate their views, with any sort of patience. He becomes heated on his very approach to the subject. What seems to distress him as much as any thing else, is, that these horrid Unitarians,' have dared to 'traverse the regions of the West and South, in our own land, and forestall the efforts of the Orthodox there.' 'Forestall the efforts of the Orthodox!" Really, we were not before aware that the West' had been given in promise, to the and that we are encroaching on their rightful domains, every time we, or any of our friends traverse those beautiful and fertile regions. But we suppose we should have waited till the Orthodox' had first planted their dogmas there, and all along the valley of the Mississippi, and beyond the rocky mountains, have rivetted on the human mind, the chains of a gloomy and debasing theology. We might then, perhaps, have been permitted, now and then, to show our heads there, on condition that we should not attempt to disturb the existing order of things.

In the foregoing remarks on the spirit of modern Orthodoxy, we have not meant to be severe. We are

not conscious of having spoken in a tone of harshness.

We believe that facts will fully bear us out in all we have said, and that they would authorise even stronger statements. At the same time, we wish it to be distinctly understood, that we would by no means implicate the great body of the Orthodox. We believe. that the people, the laity, are, in the main, and except so far as they are urged on by the clergy, innocent of any designs to oppress. But they may be deceived by their more wary, not to say crafty, leaders, and become the involuntary instruments in forging chains, which they will afterwards find to be most heavy and galling. It is against the leaders, the chiefs in the ranks of the Orthodox, against those, who control their publications, and attempt to sway public sentiment, against the advocates of exclusion and uncharitableness, whether learned Professors in Theological Institutions, or petty tyrants of a country parish, it is against these that we contend. With the truly candid and liberal, the lovers of peace and charity, whether Orthodox, or Unitarian, Calvinists, or Arminians, we have no quarrel. We respect no man the less because his theological opinions differ from our own, provided he holds the charity of the Gospel. The wisdom which is from above,' or wisdom which Christianity teaches, we have been taught to believe, is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits.' This wisdom we are accustomed to respect, wherever found. But we cannot forget that there is a wisdom which descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.'

HERESY AT NEW HAVEN.

Dr. Woods' Letters to Dr. Taylor. Andover. July, 1830. pp. 114.

The Andover Professors seem to be fulfilling their quinquennial vow of opposition to Arminians, Unitarians, and all other heresies, ancient and modern,' with remarkable fidelity. Prof. Stuart's late exploit in this department of official duty has already been noticed. Prof. Woods' more recent achievement in the discharge of the same characteristic function now claims a moment's attention. This gentleman, as it appears, saw or thought he saw at New Haven some indications of a revolt from the true standard of Orthodoxy. Accordingly, as no doubt in duty bound, he undertook the task of arresting the progress of an evil so much to be dreaded. We have, in consequence, a series of Letters,' argumentative, expostulatory, and menacing, addressed to Dr. Taylor, Professor in the Theological School at New Haven, on sundry heretical opinions, (heretical if tried by Calvinistic tests,) advanced by him in a sermon preached some time ago in the chapel of Yale College before the clergy of Connecticut. We do not know that we can in any other way, within the narrow limits prescribed to us, give our readers an idea of the nature of this alleged apostacy from the doctrines of the reformation,' and at the same time do justice to Dr Woods' regrets, fears, and purposes respecting it, than by citing a few passages from the Letters themselves.

'The unqualified language which you sometimes employ, respecting the natural state, the free will, and the power of man,

the nature and necessity of divine influence, the manner of regeneration, and other points allied to these, is not, I apprehend, in accordance either with the letter or the spirit of revelation, and will have an unpropitious influence upon the characters of men, upon revivals of religion, and upon all the interests of the church.' p 98.

My brother, you cannot surely think it strange, that serious disquietude and alarm should exist among us in consequence of what you have published in relation to these subjects.' Ib.

How ought we to feel, when a brother, who has professed to be decidedly Orthodox, and has had our entire confidence, and is placed at the head of one of our Theological Schools, makes an attack upon several of the articles of our faith, and employs language on the subject of moral agency, free will, depravity, divine influence, etc. which is so like the language of Arminians and Pelagians, that it would require some labor to discover the difference?' Ib. How would it be natural for us to feel, when such a brother adopts, on several controverted subjects, the language and the opinions which have been adopted by Unitarians; and when we find that Unitarians themselves understand him as agreeing with them, and are making such agreement a subject of exultation?' p 99.

And, shall I ask, how would you expect us to feel, and with our dread of error, how ought we to feel, when we find a remarkable resemblance between your mode of thinking on one of the subjects of the present discussion, and that of free thinkers?' Ib.

When we find you, on several interesting points, siding with these sects [Pelagians and Arminians,] against the Orthodox, and siding too with Dr John Taylor against Edwards on some of the main questions at issue between them; and when in addition to this, we find you on some points coinciding so nearly with the views of the French philosophers, and, shall I say, on other points throwing out the very objections, which we have so often heard from cavillers against Orthodoxy; it would certainly be strange, if none of our sensibilities were touched, and no concern or fear excited within us in regard to the tendency of your speculations.' p 100.

The attack which you have made upon our faith, and the common faith of the Reformed churches in Europe and America, it might have been expected we should instantly endeavor to repel.' 'Could it be expected, that the sons of the Puritans would quietly surrender to a single assailant, those precious truths, which had been so often defended against the attacks of an host?' p 102.