religion of Jesus, must not be hid under a bushel, nor buried in a napkin. It should have scope, when God calls it to action. Nor will Christians of other regions look invidiously on that lofty bearing of soul, which casts its eye abroad upon the grander features of moral desolation, rising prominent from the ruins of the fall, and sets itself to the accomplishment of that divine prophecy, which foretels the moral regeneration of a nation in a day. We live in an age of religious action, an age which we trust and hope will hereafter be marked as a grand epoch, opening on the world an era of light and life, to be identified with that period which has so long been the burden of prophetic song, and the hope of those who desire the redemption of the world. If such be the decree of heaven, the spirit that has gone forth, animating and uniting the hosts of God's elect, cannot, shall not be arrested by the little bickerings of sectional jealousy, nor by the more extended warrings of national controversy. He, wherever born and nurtured, that expects most, and attempts most, shall be blessed in his way, and bid God-speed. And all those, who can join in the anthem, "Glory to God, on earth, peace and good will towards men," shall rejoice in each other's success, in laboring for the good of men, and the honor of God.

ANTIPAS.

SPEECHES OF THE HON. JUDGE STORY, BEFORE THE AMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION.

It may not be known to the community in general, that the Hon. Joseph Story, one of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, has for several years distinguished himself, beyond any other gentleman of his standing, as a religious partisan. At the first anniversary of the American Unitarian Association, he addressed the meeting, with much earnestness, and at great length -more than half an hour,-urging "the peculiar reasons which should induce Unitarians to associate, with a view to defend and advance their cause," and expatiating "on the advantages whichmight be anticipated from the existence of the American Unitarian Association." At the second anniversary of the same Association, he addressed the meeting again, and with increased warmth. That which at this time excited his feelings, and called forth his invective, was the audaciousness of an ecclesiatical council at Groton which had presumed to call in question the correctness of certain decisions of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts-decisions, by which the churches in this State had been stripped of their dearest natural rights, and prostrated at the foot of civil power.

At the third anniversary of the same body, which occurred only a few weeks since, the Hon. Judge again took the field, and spoke longer, and with more apparent heat, than ever. He was especially displeased with sundry pious and benevolent individuals in Boston, who, from a regard to the spiritual wants of themselves and others, had generously contributed for the building of churches; and who, knowing the ease and the frequency with which ecclesiastical property has been perverted in Massachusetts, and, in the present posture of affairs, may be perverted, had taken such precaution as they could, by means of what have been denominated deeds of trust, that the avails of their bounty should be appropriated according to their wishes; or, in other words, that these churches should never fall into the hands of the Unitarians. This, in the estimation of the Honorable Judge, was a great offence, an encroachment upon the civil liberties of the country not at all to be tolerated.

Our first objection to the conduct of Judge Story, in the instances to which we have adverted, is, that it is altogether unbecoming, in his situation. We certainly do not object that he, or any other of our public characters, should be religious, ardently religious; and, if he can answer it to his conscience and his God, we do not complain that he is a Unitarian. He has the same liberty, in this respect, as any other citizen. But we do object that he should year after year present himself before the public as a heated sectary, a religious partisan, and allow himself in denouncing individuals, as intelligent and as benevolent as any among us, for doing that which they not only have a perfect right, but have felt in conscience constrained, to perform.

We object, farther, to the conduct of Judge Story, that it is in a sense unfair. He is a public character-elevated to a high and responsible public station, and supported at the public expense. This does not, as we have said, impair his freedom of thought and opinion on the subject of religion; but it should render him cautious how he exerts his official influence, for the advancement of one religious sect, and to the detriment of others. He, and his party, may rest assured, that the eyes of their fellow citizens are wide open to this subject. They know what efforts have been made, and are now making, to fill all important public offices with men of a particular religious stamp. And if men of this stamp, when raised to office, will descend to exert that influence which the public confidence has given them, to run down those who differ from them in religion, and promote their own private sectarian views, then that subordination of one religious sect to another, which our excellent Constitution expressly condemns, will in effect be realized; and then will the friends of religious freedom and equity no longer be justified in repressing their remonstrances and complaints.

We object to the conduct of Judge Story, in the instances before us, that it is a wanton trifling with the public confidence. He ought to be sensible that he is no more exalted above a suitable regard for public opinion, than the meanest citizen. Indeed, it is of vastly greater importance to him than it can be to the private citizen, that he inspire and retain, so far as possible with a good conscience, the approbation and the confidence of all. But can he suppose for a moment, that his speeches before the American Unitarian Association have been of a character to excite this universal confidence? Or does he not know that these same speeches, if spread, with all their circumstances, before the American people, would fill many breasts with resentment, and more, probably, with grief or disgust?

We have still another objection to the conduct of Judge Story. Is he sure that questions, growing out of the religious controversies of the times, may never come before him for legal adjudication, that he may never be called to sit on the bench of justice, and pronounce a solemn decision respecting them? And should this ever be the case, with what face or conscience could he present himself before the public on such an occasion? Here is a cause submitted to his determination; and not only the parties, but the community and the world, are entitled to expect that he will hold the scale of justice with an even hand. But he has previously decided it; and decided it, not in a court of justice, but in the heated declamation of a popular assembly! He is known to the public as a religious partisan; his feelings and private opinions are all enlisted on one side; and who can have the least possible respect for any decision which, in such circumstances, he may be led to pronounce?

We need not here go into a full consideration of the objections of Judge Story to the deeds of trust. They are, in general, the same which had been previously urged by "a Layman," and which have been so ably refuted, we might say, have been annihilated, in a recent Review of the Layman's pamphlet. There is, however, one objection, on which he seemed to lay special stress, and which involves a principle of general application, on which it may be expedient to offer a few remarks. The objection is, to the instituting of funds, or the bestowing of money, for the perpetual support of any particular system of religion. Posterity, it is said, ought to have no shackles of this sort imposed upon them. They should be left perfectly free on the subject of religion, to form those opinions, and pursue that course, which they may judge wisest and best.

We think this plausible objection susceptible of complete refutation, on general principles; and we may find it necessary, some future number, to give it a full and thorough discussion. At present, it will be sufficient to observe, that all denominations

of Christians who have established funds, or contributed money in religious charity at all, have done it on the principle which the objection condemns. All who have devoted or bequeathed their property for the support of religion in any shape, have done it with a view to promote that religion, which they honestly believe and prefer. None ever gave money, or ever ought to give it, for the support of principles which they sincerely believe are subversive of the Gospel. The venerable Hollis, for instance, when he founded his Divinity professorship in Harvard college, did not intend it for the support of a Unitarian, or a Universalist, but of one who should be, in his sense of the words, "sound and orthodox."

Even Unitarians themselves, whatever may be their professions, act, in relation to this subject, on the same principles as other men. The fund which they have been endeavoring to institute for the support of a missionary in Calcutta, is raised for the purpose of "establishing there a perpetual Unitarian mission;" yes, I quote their own words, "a PERPETUAL Unitarian mission!!" The fund attempted to be raised during the last winter, for the benefit of the Unitarian society in Brooklyn, Conn. was "pledged for the support of Unitarian preaching in Brooklyn FOREVER!!" And, though we are told that the Boston Association of Unitarian ministers, from a regard, as it appears, to self-consistency, objected to this pledge, we are not told that the pledge was withdrawn, or indeed that it was expected it would be. The money, as we have understood, was subscribed, upon condition of such perpetual appropriation, and cannot by the subscribers be recalled. Whether the American Unitarian Association has a permanent fund, we are not informed. If it has not such a fund at present, we presume it will have. And we must be allowed to ask, How can it have a fund, which shall not be limited to the support of Unitarianism? Will not the very name of the institution (which name, by the way, is thoroughly sectarian) be itself a limitation of it?

Unitarians, we know, are more in the habit of getting funds than of instituting them. But, in the little they have done in the way of instituting funds for religious purposes, they have acted, for aught we see, on the same principles as other men. They prefer their own sentiments to those of others, and they bestow their money with a view to spread and to perpetuate them. And the means by which they contrive to hold the funds of churches and of public institutions, which have fallen into their hands, evince the same disposition. If these are not holden by means of trust deeds, some of them are holden in other ways, which are presumed to be no less secure. Unitarians would like, no doubt, to have the funds and the churches of other denominations left open and unprotected, for their seizure; but the funds which they institute, or which fall within their grasp, they will be sure to keep as safely as possible.

Towards the Hon. Judge Story, we certainly have no feelings of personal hostility or disrespect. So far from this, we have been accustomed to regard him, for many years, as an accomplished scholar, and an able magistrate. But in the part he has taken at the anniversaries of the American Unitarian Association, he certainly has let himself down, very far, in the estimation of all wise and impartial men. He has descended from the dignity of a Judge of the United States, to the rank of a mere party zealot and declaimer.

He must think as he pleases of the remarks here made, and must choose his own course for the time to come. But if he will present himself before the public at future meetings of the American Unitarian Association, as he has done in years past, he must expect to stand on a level with other declaimers, and be open, as they are, to public scrutiny and remark. And if those whose cause he espouses, have a right to applaud him for this conduct, as they have done so abundantly, those whom he opposes and denounces, have a right to censure and object. And he must not think it strange, or hard, if they bring their objections before that public, to whose bar he is as strictly amenable, as those in the humbler walks of life.

THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF DIFFERENT DENOMINATIONS OF CHRISTIANS.

(Continued from p. 234.)

It is taken for granted, generally, that the existence of different denominations of Christians is a calamity; and that great evils have attended the existence of the church in separate, and I may say, in hostile communions, is certain, as we have already shewn. But that evil only has been the consequence of these divisions and sins of the church, in rival and opposing communities, is by no means true; and that in their most imperfect and culpable condition they have been a kind of necessary evil, permitted, in the providence of God, for the prevention of greater evils, is highly probable. The evils produced in the natural world by waves and winds, are multitudinous and great; but they are only the partial evil which results from the operation of general laws which are essential to the purity of the atmosphere and the ocean, and to the preservation of the health and life of the world. That all the providential ends of heaven, in permitting diversities of opinions, and different denominations of Christians, with their attendant evils, can be discerned by our short-sighted vision, is not to be believed. But some of these ends are so obvious, as not easily to be overlooked or misunderstood.