and the grace of thy most Holy Spirit-Amen."

When some of this people in 1804, went to St. Petersburg to obtain leave of the Emperour for their brethren to settle at the Molishnia Vodi, they were about to set out for their return just on the eve of the festival of the birth of Christ. They were entreated to stop and spend the holidays in that city. But they replied "for us there is no difference of days, for our festivals are within us."

It is hardly possible to read the account of this peaceable and inoffensive people, without observing, in many particulars, a striking resemblance between them and the Society of Friends. They might perhaps with some propriety be called the Russian Quakers. It must be gratifying to the benevolent mind to be informed, that such a people are rising in the esteem of the Rus

sian government ;-and those who may be disposed to to censure these people would perhaps do well to inquire, whether on the whole, they bear a greater resemblance to the Messiah, in spirit and morals, than the Duhobortsi,-and whether the things in which they may excel this people are not, at best, the less weighty matters of the law. If the Kingdom of the Messiah consists not in meat and drink, but in righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, we ought surely to be careful that we do not condemn any sect, or any person, that possesses these essentials, however much they may dissent from us in things of less importance.

The influence of pious education among the Duhobortsi may be regarded as evidence, that wars will cease as soon as a truly Christian education shall become universal.

THE Letter now to be review ed was dated at "Lancaster," Pennsylvania," Sept. 20, 1816." It is that which occasioned the number of the second series of the Triangle, which was exhibited in the Christian Disciple for January.

The importance of recording and reviewing this Letter

results not merely from the extraordinary character of its contents, but principally from the circumstance, that it came forth as the act of a very large and respectable body of clergymen, whose influence must be extensive, whether it be exerted in favour of war, or of peace.This document, in a future day,

like a water-mark, may show how high the tide of presbyterian prejudice and intolerance rose in Pennsylvania in September, 1816.

It is unquestionably true, that such acts of ecclesiastical bodies are the work of a small number of men, with very little reflection on the part of a great majority of the members who sanction them. Still they have much the same imposing effect on the minds of the multitude, as if all the members of the body had deliberately examined the questions thus decided, or the opinions thus condemned. This ecclesiastical Manifesto is not the first of a belligerent character which has appeared in our country, in the form of a pastoral address to the churchIt is therefore time that the nature and tendency of such proceedings should be examined and understood, and as we are not now the special object of denunciation-as we have only to share in a common reproach, in conjunction with an innumerable company of worthy ministers, and good men of va rious denominations-and we have no apprehension of serious personal injury or inconvenience from what the Synod has done-we hope to review the letter with some degree of impartiality and candour.

es.

每

as

We have no hesitation, in admitting that the synod of Philadelphia is composed of many pious and intelligent ministers;

nor have we any wish to impress an idea to the contrary by any remarks which will be made on the Pastoral Letter. Nor would we intimate, that even those individuals, by whose influence the exceptionable passages were introduced, are at all chargeable with having violated their own consciences, in implicitly censuring, as hereticks, seven-eighths of the ministers of religion in christendom. We have become fully convinced, either that good men are very scarce, or that good men are very liable to be influenced by custom, prejudice, and passion; and under this influence to do what is reproachful to Christianity, subversive of the peace and prosperity of Zion, injurious to those who dissent from their opinions, and repugnant to the spirit and requirements of the gospel.

If good men may have been so bewildered by custom, prejudice, and passion, as to think that they were the followers of the Prince of peace, in blowing the flames of war, in praying for the success of armies in their murderous enterprises, and in giving thanks to God for the horrid havock and desolation made by their own countrymen among the inhabitants of another territory, can it be surprising if, under a similar influence, they should think that it is a righteous and Christian practice to support their own religious tenets, by destroying the reputation of brethren who happen

The author of the Triangle, who calls himself Investigator, was probably correct in supposing that "Hopkinsianism was the grand error aimed at in that Letter." The reader however may judge for himself from the following paragraphs :

"Christian Brethren,

"The Synod, assembled in Lancaster at the present time, consists of a greater number of members than have been convened at any meeting for many years; and from their free conversation on the state of religion, it appears, that all the Presbyteries are more than commonly alive to the importance of contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Saints; and of resisting the introduction of Arian, Socinian, Arminian, and Hopkinsian heresies, which are some of the means by which the enemy of souls would, if possible, deceive the very elect.

"The Synod desire to cherish a stronger regard for the truth as it is in Jesus, than they find at present subsisting among themselves; and, because they are not ignorant of the disposition of many good men to cry 'peace,' where there should be no peace; and there is no danger,' in cases in which God commands us to avoid the appearance of evil; they would affectionately exhort each Presbytery under their care, to be

ditates for licensure or ordination, upon the subject of those delusions of the present age, which seem to be a combination of most of the innovations made upon Christian doctrine in former times.

"May the time never come, in which our ecclesiastical courts shall determine, that Hopkinsianism and the doctrines of our Confession of Faith are the same thing; or, that men are less exposed now than in the days of the Apostles, to the danger of perverting the right ways of the Lord.

"The Synod would exhort particularly all the elders of the Churches to beware of those who have made such pretended discoveries in Christian theolo gy as require an abandonment of the form of sound words," contained in our excellent Confession and the Holy Scriptures."

Investigator was probably under a mistake as to the extent of Hopkinsianism in NewEngland. Still we believe he was nearly correct in supposing, that the censure of the Synod involves the clergy of New-England "almost universally.". And that it falls on the "Episcopalians and Methodists" throughout the country. He might have added the Friends and Moravians, and several other denominations.From the last of the four paragraphs which have been quoted, it would seem, that the Synod meant to include every de-,

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 Investiga tor is correct, the censure also falls 66 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.

Second. Shall this censure of the Synod be regarded as just.

If they are authorized judges, other Christians are 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 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

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?

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," as an 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 doctrines? But where, when, and how did this Confession originate, that it should have such claims to regard and protection? 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.

What if the General Association of Massachusetts should retaliate the conduct of the Synod of Philadelphia, by a "Pastoral Letter," involving all who dissent from their opinions in one indiscriminate doom! Would not the Synod regard this conduct as unauthorized, arrogant and antichristian? How then can they reasonably expect that their own conduct will be approved by any impartial mind in heaven or on earth!