prised us, to see a discourse of the length of this carried out with such spirit and elevation, page after page, even to the last. There is here and there a word, indeed, which does not fall pleasantly on our ear, and in two or three instances a sentiment is dropped, to the truth of which we could not subscribe. The whole too we should think rather diffuse. But in a performance of so high a character, and which we have perused with so much pleasure, we have no heart to particularize inferior blemishes. We can go hand in hand with the author, in his account "of the origin of the" Massachusetts "colony, of the motives which led to the enterprise, of the characters of the men who conducted it, of the principles upon which it was established, and of the grand results which it has hitherto developed." It is true, as he says, New England "owes her existence to the love of religion-exclusively to the love of religion." It is true, as he says,

"The men, who landed here, were no ordinary men; the motive for their emigration was no ordinary motive; and the glory of their achievement has few parallels in the history of the world. Their perseverance in the midst of hardships, their firmness in the midst of dangers, their patience in the midst of sufferings, their courage in the midst of disasters, their unconquerable spirit, their unbending adherence to their principles, their steady resistance of all encroachments, surprise us even more than the wisdom of their plans, and the success of their operations." p. 21.

"Of them it may be said with as much truth, as of any men that have ever lived, that they acted up to their principles, and followed them out with an unfaltering firmness. They displayed at all times a downright honesty of heart and purpose. In simplicity of life, in godly sincerity, in temperance, in humility, and in patience as well as in zeal, they seemed to belong to the apostolic age. Their wisdom, while it looked on this world, reached far beyond it in its aim and objects. They valued earthly pursuits no farther than they were consistent with religion. Amidst the temptations of human grandeur they stood unmoved, unshaken, unseduced. Their scruples of conscience, if they sometimes betrayed them into difficulty, never betrayed them into voluntary sin. They possessed a moral courage, which looked present dangers in the face, as though they were distant or doubtful, seeking no escape, and indulging no terror. When in defence of their faith, of what they deemed pure and undefiled religion, we see them resign their property, their preferments, their friends, and their homes; when we see them submitting to banishment, and ignominy, and even to death; when we see them in foreign lands, on inhospitable shores, in the midst of sickness and famine, in desolation and disaster, still true to themselves, still confident in God's providence, still submissive to his chastisements, still thankful for his blessings, still ready to exclaim in the language of Scripture- We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;' when we see such things, where is the man, whose soul does not melt within him at the sight? Where shall examples be sought or found more full to point out what Christianity is, and what it ought to accomplish?" pp. 39, 40.

"It was Christianity, which cast over their character its warm and glorious light, and gave it an everlasting freshness. It was their faith in God, which shed such beauty over their lives, and clothed this mortal with the form of immortality. In comparison with these, the distinctions of this world, however high or various they may be, are but evanescent points, a drop to the ocean, an instant to eternity, a ray of light to the innumerous fires which blaze on unconsumed in the skies. This is not the poor estimate of man, the being of a day; it is the voice of that Revelation, which has spoken to our hopes and fears with an authority, which rebukes, while it convinces, our reason." p. 44.

We agree with Judge Story in admitting that our pilgrim fathers, with all their excellence, did not fully understand, and of course did

not always exemplify, that spirit of religious freedom, that regard to the opinions and consciences of others, which became them. And we agree with him in the apology he offers, that this was the fault, rather of the times, than of the men.

"There was not at that time in all Christendom a single spot, however remote, in which the freedom of religious opinion was supported by prince or people. Throughout all Europe, if we except Holland, the practice of burning heretics still prevailed, not only in Catholic but in Protestant countries. And even in Holland, banishment was not an uncommon punishment for those, who obstinately persisted in heresies of doctrine.* What is it, then, that is required of our forefathers? That they should have possessed a wisdom and liberality far superior to their own ago;-that they should have acted upon truths as clear and settled, of which faint glimmerings only, or at least a brief and dubious twilight, had then shot up in unsteady streams to direct their course ;that learned as they were, and wide as were their researches, and painful as was their diligence, they should have outstripped all others in the race, and surmounted the prejudices and prescriptions of twelve centuries. It would be dealing out a hard measure of justice to require perfect conformity under all circumstances to our own sense of duty. It would be dealing out still harder measure to press upon one poor persecuted sect, the sins of all Christendom; to make them alone responsible for opinions, which had become sacred by their antiquity, as well as their supposed coincidence with Scripture. Uniformity of faith and intolerance of error had been so long the favorite dogmas of all schools of theology and government, that they had ceased to be examined. They were deemed texts for the preacher, and not inquiries for the critic." pp. 47, 48.

We agree also with Judge Story in all he has said on the value of religious freedom; and, whatever opinion he may entertain of us, can assure him of our intention to be the last to violate this freedom. "If there is any right, sacred beyond all others, because it imports everlasting consequences, it is the right to worship God according to the dictates of our own consciences." Whatever opinion on religious subjects will not bear the test of unembarrassed investigation, of free inquiry, with our whole heart we say, let it be abandoned. We concur fully with our author in his unqualified admiration of the civil institutions of our fathers, and of their distinguished liberality in the cause of science and of public instruction. He discusses with candor and discretion the principles on which they held intercourse with the natives, and obtained a title to their lands; apologizes for their conduct in relation to supposed instances of witchcraft; adverts to the history of the Revolutionary struggle; and concludes with pertinent and seasonable admonitions in regard to national dangers and prospects.

After apologizing for the intolerent spirit of our fathers, by attributing it to the ignorance and error of the times, our author very justly adds, "Let us do, not what they did, but what with our lights and advantages they would have done, must have done, from the love of country, and the love of truth." A similar remark has been

made by Unitarians, in regard to the religious sentiments of our fathers. It is not denied, as it cannot be, that with all their excellence, and with all their praise, they were strictly orthodox. They believed in the doctrines of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, of election, of entire human depravity, of regeneration, of the perseve

* Hume's Hist. vol. vi. 57, 163; and vol. vii. 20, 41, 515.

rance of saints, and of the future and endless punishment of the wicked. But it is said by Unitarians, in reply to this, 'It becomes us to embrace as truth, not what our fathers did, but what, with our lights and advantages, they would have embraced. And we believe, as we believe we live, that if they had been born two hundred years later, they would have been found amongst our warmest and most effective coadjutors.' (See Un. Tracts, No. 9, p. 8.) Now we admit the justness of a remark like this, in connexion with the intolerance which our fathers sometimes manifested; but deny it in relation to their religious sentiments: For the cases are, in every material point, unlike. The excuse for the intolerant spirit of our fathers is, that religious liberty was not then understood. Uniformity of faith and intolerance of error had been so long the favorite dogmas of all schools of theology and government, that they had ceased to be examined. They were deemed texts for the preacher, and not inquiries for the critic." But religious doctrines were then understood. Unitarianism was understood; and because it was understood, it was rejected and detested. "Will God grant," said they, quoting the somewhat rude ejaculation of another, and applying it with special reference to Harvard college," Will God, the greatest and best of Beings, grant, that this seminary may be so tenacious of truth, that hereafter it may be easier to find a wolf in England, or a toad in Ireland, than either a SoCINIAN or an Arminian in Cambridge." It cannot be denied, and should not be forgotten, that the religious sentiments of our honored fathers constituted the very elements of their character. It was these which made them what they were, and impelled them to accomplish that, in which we, their successors and descendants, glory. With other views of religious truth, or rather, with that indifference to truth, and that pliancy of conscience, which are now inculcated as the perfection of Christian charity and liberality, they never had left their native homes, or braved the dangers of the deep, or seen the rocks and hills of New England, or given us occasion to remember and speak of them as the fathers of a great and happy people.

5. The Introduction to the Analytical Reader, consisting of easy and interesting Lessons in Reading, &c. &c. By SAMUEL PUTNAM. Salem: Whipple & Lawrence. 1828. pp. 144.

This will be found a very interesting book to young children, whether at school or at home. Specimens of words similar in sound, but of different orthography and meaning from those which occur in the lessons, as also the pronunciation of difficult words, are given in the margin. The whole is adapted to the capacities and tastes of those for whom it is designed; and while they will be induced to read from the force of mere interest, valuable instruction will be received, and favorable moral impressions will be left upon their minds.

* "Faxit Deus optimus, maximus, tenacem adeo veritatis hanc academiam, ut deinceps in Anglia lupum, in Hibernia bufonem, invenire facilius sit, quam aut Socinianum, aut Arminianum in Cantabrigia." Dr. Arrowsmith, quoted by Mather, Book iv.

The great Dr. Owen, the cotemporary, the companion, the particular friend of some of the first settlers of New England, wrote as ably on many points of the Unitarian contror versy as any that have succeeded him.

MISCELLANEOUS.

NOTE FROM DR. LOWELL.

The following note we insert entire, agreeably to the request of the writer. To the Editor of the Spirit of the Pilgrims.-Sir,

I find in your number for November, the following paragraph.

"It is understood, that at a public lecture in this city, during the last month, the Rev. Dr. Lowell expressed his belief, that laymen are essentially qualified, and that in extreme cases it may be their duty, to administer the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper. We had previously heard the same sentiment from other Unitarian ministers, but were not quite prepared to expect it from Dr. Lowell."

If you will have the goodness to devote a few moments' attention to the early history of the church, you will find that this opinion has its sanction there. You will find that baptism, if not the Lord's supper, might be administered by laymen. I need only refer you to the following quotation from Tertullian, as given by Sir Peter King in his work on the primitive church. "Dehinc presbyteri et diaconi, non tamen sine episcopi auctoritate LAICIS etiam jus estsufficiat in necessitatibus." This work was not consulted at the time the sermon was written, nor was any other, but the Bible; yet it happened that the same expressions were used,-" in case of necessity."

It was neither to encourage this practice, nor to derogate from the importance of his own profession, that the preacher advanced this sentiment, or rather stated this fact, but to shew, as his subject naturally led him to shew, that there was no obstacle in the religion itself, to the universal observance of its rites. He remarked on it as a beautiful feature in the religion.

You are aware, Sir, that the pilgrims, whose name you bear, and whose "spirit," in as far as it was gentle and catholic, I trust you will always exhibit, had no terror of lay ordination, but on the contrary preferred it.

Allow me to say a word on another subject, before I conclude this note. In the paragraph referred to above, and in the review of the sermon on " the Trinitarian Controversy," (the meaning of which is misinterpreted,*) it is intimated that the author of the sermon is a "Unitarian." This is a mistake. It is his privilege to enjoy the personal friendship of excellent ministers who thus designate themselves, and to have ministerial fellowship with them; but, whilst he is allowed to co-operate with them in the promotion of piety and charity, he neither takes their name, nor belongs to their party. The Bible is his only creed, and Christian the only name by which he designates, or ever has designated his faith. C. LOWELL.

It will be seen from the foregoing statement, that Dr. L. does not deny his having expressed in his sermon, the sentiment attributed to him in our number for November, but he endeavors to justify it by appealing to the ancient Christian church. We are aware, that when the ancient believers came to regard baptism as essential to salvation, they mercifully provided that in cases of extreme necessity it might be administered by laymen, and even by females. But Dr. L., we presume, does not consider baptism as essential to salvation; and consequently, the practice of the ancients, in this particular, is scarcely an authority for him. It would have been much more satisfactory, if, instead of referring to the ancients at all, an appeal had been made directly to the New

* As Dr. L. does not inform us wherein we have misinterpreted the meaning of his sermon, we have no explanations or concessions to make in regard to it.

Testament; since whatever is established on the authority of Christ, or his apostles, we hold ourselves sacredly bound to admit.

We agree with Dr. L. that our 'religion itself presents no obstacle to the universal observance of its rites.' But do the perverseness and wickedness of men present no obstacle? And are no precautions necessary to prevent these holy rites from being profaned, and thus brought into disuse and contempt? Are baptism and the Lord's supper to be administered by every one, who may fancy that circumstances create a necessity, and to all without distinction, whether believers or unbelievers, whether of the church or not? Whatever Unitarians may say, in reply to these questions, we doubt not Dr. L. will answer them as we do, in the negative.

We humbly ask pardon of Dr. L. for having intimated that he was a Unitarian. We felt authorised to do so, as he was supposed to be on terms of unrestricted fellowship with avowed Unitarians-has been forward to assist them in forming churches, dedicating meeting houses, and ordaining ministers—has uniformly acted with them in Convention, and has been confidently claimed, as one of their number. No longer ago than last summer, when the Unitarians of Boston undertook to make a display of their numbers and strength, the West church, if not its pastor, went to swell the amount. But it seems we all have been mistaken. DR. LOWELL IS NOT A UNITARIAN. He neither takes the name, nor belongs to the party.' When the Unitarians of Boston take their next census, they will please to remember this, and leave him out of it; and, if his ministry in future, shall be in a good degree conformable to the declaration here made, whenever we have occasion to speak of him again, we shall be sure not to do him the injustice so much as to hint that he is a Unitarian. We only add, that if any others, commonly reputed Unitarians, wish publicly to disown the name and the party,' (and we hear it suggested there are such,) they shall have the privilege of doing it in our pages.

THE HICKSITES AGAIN.

"We greet the friends of Elias Hicks as OUR FRIENDS AND BROTHERS."-Christian Register.

It may interest our Unitarian neighbors to be informed that some of their claimed brethren, the Hicksites, have recently avowed the sentiment that Elias Hicks is fully equal to the Lord Jesus Christ. A writer in the Christian Advocate and Journal for Dec. 12th, says, "I had often heard it said that the followers of Elias regarded him as fully equal to Jesus Christ, in point of greatness and goodness; but until last Saturday night I could never believe that this was really the case; when, as we were sailing down the North river in one of the steam boats, I heard it given in as the opinion of the parties whom I heard conversing on the subject, that our friend Elias is AS GOOD AND GREAT A MAN AS JESUS CHRIST'"!!-Comment is unnecessary.