We think this is another false consequence-we might deny the right of men to tie such conditions to their bequests as the founders of the Andover Institution have done, and yet by no means deny the liberty of conscience, and the liberty of christians.' We say we might do so, and without incurring the charge of inconsistency-but the founders have imposed these shackles on their endowment, there was nothing to prevent their doing so then, and there is nothing to forbid their will from being followed now, and therefore we will not speak at present concerning their right, because right is a word with too wide a meaning, and people are often said to have a right to do very absurd things. This we will say however, that we deny the propriety and the justice of their conduct. It seems to us, that this supposed right meddles rather too much with the consciences of others, to deserve the appellation of 'liberty of conscience' itself. We esteem conscience to be of too individual a nature to be properly employed in thus busying itself with the opinions and creeds of other minds, and have always thought that its most seemly place and office was at home. There it has a claim to the utmost respect, but when it forgets its station, others should not be blamed for laying aside their regard. Again, we may inquire whether it did not argue something like a presumptuous confidence of the founders in the entire correctness of their religious opinions, thus to attempt, as it were, to entail them on succeeding generations-as if there were no more light to be had, no more discoveries to be made, no more improvements to be expected, they having seen all, and known all? What should we say, were we to hear of a set of men, who, some hundreds of years ago, fully persuaded of the truth of theories at that time in vogue, had established a professorship of natural philosophy, with this condition, that all the incumbents, age after age, should promise ex animo, and renew the promise every five years, to teach their pupils that nature abhorred a vacuum?

All that can be said, therefore,' pursues the preacher, with any show of propriety, is, that a man may be deterred from examination, lest he should be led to suspect, that some of the articles of his creed are erroneous.' And all the answer that he gives to this objection, is, that he hopes in God, that the seminary may never light upon a man of this character!

'I may ask here, also,' he says, 'in what situation of life, will you place men, when they shall be freed from similar temptations? If the minister of an orthodox parish is tempted to continue orthodox, in order to preserve the good will of his people, is not the minister of a heterodox parish under similar tempta

tion? Or does latitudinarianism of sentiment at once purify men from all the corrupt principles of their nature, and place them beyond the reach of temptation?" Why introduce such personal comparisons as this? It is really not dignified. For our own parts we are entirely ignorant whether there are any orthodox ministers, at present, who are tempted to continue orthodox to please their people, or any heterodox ministers who hold to their heterodoxy from the same motive. We are acquainted indeed with many instances, and those of late years, of the avowal of what the professor would term heterodox sentiments having caused to the minister the loss of his parish; but all that is proved by this is, that orthodoxy in individuals will not always stand the test of examination, and that heterodoxy does not deprive men of their integrity, their principle, their sense of honour, and their tenderness of conscience. The other question is quite futile-it has never been asserted that the profession of any particular sentiments 'purified men at once from all the corrupt principles of their nature, and placed them beyond the reach of temptation.' In every denomination there will be those who disgrace it but let no one dare to assert that Unitarianism possesses not its full proportion, at least, of adherents, who by their conduct do it honour.

Soon after this, we meet with another allusion, which is not however so plain in its object as those which we have already noticed. After insisting that the utmost freedom of investigation is allowed to the students, and that the library is stored with the books of all parties, it is asked, 'Is this bigotry? If it be, then tell us where true liberality dwells. Dwells it where a writer need only have the name of being orthodox, to put him on the list of neglect, if not of proscription? There seems to be something pointed to here, but who or what it is we cannot conjecture.

Speaking further of the students who have passed through the seminary, the hope is indulged that the great body of them are faithful ministers of the gospel. It is then added as follows:

'Over a few of our pupils, we have been called to weep. We feel humbled by their conduct. They have not only brought disgrace upon themselves, but upon the church of Christ, and upon this sacred ipstitution. We are bound to pray for their repentance and forgiveness; and while we make supplications of such a nature, it becomes us to lie in the dust to make them.'

As we knew that several of the students at the institution at Andover had not come to those results in their theological studies, which are intended and expected by the instructers, the

first thought which struck us on reading this paragraph was, that this mourning was made over those, whose feet, in spite of the directions of their guides, had declined into the paths of heresy.

On reading it again, however, and perceiving that our first impression was not confirmed in express words, we were led to believe that we might be mistaken, and that cases of im-. morality or looseness of conduct might be referred to. If so, we would sincerely sympathize which a grief which has so just a cause; though at the same time we should hardly be surprized, if among so large a number of students, there should be some whose hearts were wrong, and whose conduct was censurable. But if our first supposition was really correct, we cannot help saying, that so loud a lament over a change of opinions, harmonizes but poorly with the professions, previously made, of there being no undue influence exercised upon the inquiries of the students. There can be no stronger influence, of an indirect nature, than the knowledge that a deviation from the appointed road is to bring deep mourning to the church, and to call forth the tears, the prayers, and the upbraidings of superiors and associates. Neither can we bring ourselves to imagine, that, while the mind is humble, and the desires are holy, and the affections are right, and the life is pure, there is any thing so terrible in a departure from prescribed formulas, as to demand, from a company of fallible men, so mighty a sorrow.

Its

The second head, a survey of the PRESENT Circumstances of the institution, occupies but a page or two of the sermon. flourishing condition is spoken of, and gratitude to the Almighty, and to its earthly benefactors is expressed. The following singular and gloomy forebodings conclude this portion of the dis

course.

'It may, indeed, be said of us, as of Capernaum, that we are exalted to heaven. If we fall, we shall plunge deep in perdition. The church may take up a lamentation over us, and say; Sons of the morning, how are ye fallen from heaven! Every pious heart will throb with bitter anguish, and every pious eye will weep in secret places, with bitter disappointment and regret. If we sink, we shall sink to rise no more; sink down to the abyss, where the Iscariot band who have betrayed their master with a kiss are plunged.'

Here is a melancholy prospect, to be sure; and rather a curious contrast between the present conviction of spiritual and supernal elevation, and the dread of a possible, and a most awful downfall.

6

'I find myself,' pursues the preacher, already beginning to contemplate the future.' At the opening of this third division we find another unjustifiable allusion.

I desire then to say, in this place, that all confidence, in regard to the security of this seminary from defection in doctrine and in practice, which is placed in its constitution and statutes, or in any of its present officers, or in the protection of the government under which we live, is unavailing, and not well grounded. This seminary is indeed consecrated to Christ and the church; it is guarded by all the ramparts which paper constitutions and legislative acts and contracts can erect. So have others been, that are now array. ed against the faith, which they were established to defend and to propagate.'

Here, again, it is best to be plain and direct. It is evident, from the introduction of its motto, that Harvard University is the mark at which this shaft is aimed ;-but it has fallen wide;and so have others, which have been directed, with as deadly a purpose, against an institution in which every one, who feels for the literary reputation of his country, should take an interest and a pride. It is not true that this institution is now arrayed against the faith, which it was established to defend and to propagate. It was established to defend and to propagate no sectarian creed. It was dedicated to Christ and the Church." It has never shown itself recreant to its high consecration. Its cares and its labours are still for Christ and the Church.' Its instructions are still directed to the mental, moral and religious improvement of the youth who resort to it; and its constant object and endeavour is to imbue their minds with the best principles of virtue, with a reverential regard for the religion of Christ, and a firm persuasion of its truth; and thus the most effectually to prepare them to appear with honour in whatever situation their duty or inclination, in after life, may place them. We know that the founders of this institution were orthodox men. Orthodoxy was the religion of the times. But their faith was the result of their own investigations and convictions, and so is ours; they challenged for themselves the exercise of religious freedom, and so do we for ourselves and for all. If it was their intention and persuasion that we should profess the same theological tenets with themselves, that is not our concern. We think that our own are better and truer. With regard to the college, they fettered its instructers with no long creeds, and we are thankful that they did not. If this omission was designed, it is their praise; if it was accidental, it is our good fortune. In the Theological school, connected with the college, and which is expressly intended for the instruction of candidates for the ministry, the teachers subscribe to the same creed with the professors of the university; their firm belief in the truth of the Christian religion; and that is a simple and an apostoli

cal one. In the course of instruction, they doubtless recommend their own religious views, but no influence is employed, but the influence of learning and argument. The students of this school go there to inquire; they have the best library in America at their disposal, and if any of them should come, after honest investigation, to other conclusions than those maintained by their instructers, it is not probable that their instructers would think themselves called upon to make a public lamentation over them, or to consider them as wholly lost to usefulness.

After expressing a jealousy of the intentions of that spirit of liberality and Christian liberty which is diffusing itself so widely; and sounding an alarm, which, in this age, will be regarded by all sensible people as ill timed and needless, a solemn dedication of the buildings of the seminary closes the discourse.

On the whole, notwithstanding the very objectionable passages which we have noticed, and they are not all, there is much in this sermon to commend; for wherever there is merit, we wish to acknowledge it; and would be just, though we cannot but feel offended. Those portions which assert the necessity of scholarship to the minister of the gospel, and vindicate the claims and the dignity of sound and extensive learning, as we have before observed, particularly pleased us. A spirit is in them of manliness and freedom, and contempt of narrow views. And on that account we were the more grieved to see them joined with other sentiments, which we consider as wholly inconsistent with, and deeply disgracing them-with an uncharitableness, which denies to its adversaries the most valued affections of the heart, with an ever wakeful desire of bringing odium on their opinions, their motives, and their institutions; and with an assumption of spiritual supremacy, which throws about the terms of heterodoxy' and latitudinarianism,' and seems to be constantly saying, Come not near to me, for I am holier than thou.'

6

6

ARTICLE XVIII.

The Evangelical Ministry exemplified in the Apostle Paul: a Sermon preached in Murray Street Church, December 2, 1821, on the occasion of resigning his charge of his congregation. By JOHN M. MASON, D. D. New York: Abraham Paul. 1822. pp. 32.

We think it right to take notice of this sermon, and we wish we could do it without bringing its author into view. This, to