of, is, that two, three, or half a dozen' ordinary men in a Christian congregation should take possession of the Lord's table, and not only presume to dictate the terms on which it shall be approached, but make these terms such as must necessarily exclude perhaps ten times their own number of men and women as good and pious as themselves. The Reviewers are aware, that their system must inflict injury on the excluded member; but,' they ask, if he does receive injury, whose fault is it?' We answer, that it is the fault of the society,' if they choose to call it so, which, in inflicting the injury, usurps a prerogative which neither God, nor Christ, nor the Bible, nor the state has ever granted or recognised.

We shall give one more specimen of the reasoning of the Reviewers.

'Again; in the exercise of our freedom, we not only adopt the Orthodox faith, but come to regard it as the only true faith; so that those who essentially depart from it we cannot think are, in the strictest and best sense of the term, Christians. Still they call themselves Christians, and claim our fellowship. But, in consistency with our principles and rights, can we grant it? They have as good a right to their honest opinions, as we have to ours. They may think of themselves as they please, and call themselves by what name they please. But they have no right to dictate to us what we shall think of them, or what we shall call them. They have no right to insist upon enjoying our fellowship, when, in consistency with our principles, we cannot grant it.

The attentive reader will perceive, in view of the foregoing remarks, that no small part of what Mr. Whitman charges upon the Orthodox as persecution and oppression, and altogether inconsistent with "free inquiry and religious liberty," is but the necessary result of their religious liberty. They could not have their liberty, and do otherwise. They certainly have the right, as much so as Mr. Whitman, or any other man, to adopt their own religious principles, and to act according to them; and it will be found, on examination, that most of the charges urged against them in his First Letter (bating the false coloring and inaccuracies of statement) are the natural and inevitable result of their honest principles.' - Review, p. 12.

Do the Reviewers suppose that any body thinks, that, strictly speaking, there is, or can be, more than one 'true

6

6

faith'? Who, however, among the various denominations of professed Christians have hit exactly upon this true faith, or hold every thing essential to it, are questions which it is not for any individual, or for any society' to decide. They are questions, which, on account of our fallibility, are not to be decided irreversibly, even by ourselves for ourselves. No one, therefore, has a right to assume the Christian name, or to claim or expect that it should be awarded him by others, on the ground that he really holds the only true faith,' or every thing essential to it; but only on the ground, that he honestly thinks that he does so. It is on this ground, and this ground alone, that we yield the name to Exclusionists, or claim it for Unitarians. They' [Unitarians, we suppose] may think of themselves as they please,' say the Reviewers, and call themselves by what name they please. But they have no right to dictate to us what we shall think of them, or what we shall call them.' What then? The controversy does not turn on what Unitarians have a right to dictate' to the Exclusionist, but on what the Exclusionist ought to do without such dictation. But, continue the Reviewers, in the same gracious humor, They have no right to insist upon enjoying our fellowship.' We are sorry to disturb for a moment the complacency, with which these gentlemen contemplate the amount of enjoyment to be derived from their personal 'society' and 'fellowship.' Nevertheless we are constrained to say, that if this enjoyment were all that is at stake, we think we should be able to bear up under the privation with a tolerable degree of equanimity. Wherever we are called to be in the providence of God, let them but leave us in the possession of every right, and every privilege, which a Christian, as such, may claim, and we shall be content.

It would be interesting and useful to trace the practical errors of Exclusionists to their origin, that we might expose and refute the principle itself. Our limits now will permit us to notice but two or three mistakes, which run through and vitiate most of the reasonings on this subject. One of these mistakes originates in an equivocal use of the term right. It may be right, so far as government and law are concerned, that is to say, it may be civilly right, that a man should be at liberty to frame a creed, and bind himself, in common with others, to adhere to it by the most solemn pledges.

But it is clear, that such a step cannot be morally right, if, as we presume all will admit, every one is under a prior and paramount obligation, especially on a subject so important as religion, to keep his mind open to conviction, and in all respects unshackled. Take the case of a man who is convinced, not only that his present opinions are correct, but that it would be a sin for him to alter them. Now we say

even of such a person, that he has no moral right to impose restrictions or impediments on his own freedom of thought. It would be to begin by assuming as true, what, as a fallible being, he ought to know, and must know, is false; namely, that by continuing his inquiries, with a perfectly free and unprejudiced mind, he is incapable of receiving more light. Our obligation to obey the truth is not clearer, or stronger, than our obligation to weigh its evidences; and our obligation to weigh its evidences is not clearer, or stronger, than our obligation to keep our minds in such a state as will enable us to weigh them impartially.

Mistaken notions are also entertained by Exclusionists respecting the rights of a majority in religion. Protestantism did not take from the Pope the prerogative to decide what a man must believe in order to be a Christian, that it might confer it on a bench of bishops, or a synod of presbyters, or the whole body of believers acting in their collective capacity. The last would be just as incompatible as either of the former with a consistent Protestantism, which lays it down as a first principle, that in determining what are the essentials of the Christian faith there is no other rule but the Scriptures, and no other interpreter of the Scriptures but the understanding and conscience of the individual. We have heard a great deal, of late, about the Republican genius of Christianity and Congregationalism; and if by this it is only meant, that both are opposed to every form of despotism or aristocracy, it is well. But if, as we suspect, it is intended to insinuate, that in the church as in the state, in matters of religious belief as well as of civil policy, the will of the majority is to be the law, the analogy fails altogether. Any man is a Christian, who holds what he honestly believes to be the Christian doctrine; and any man who gives satisfactory evidence of doing this, has a right to the name and privileges of a Christian, and no party or community has a right to withhold them. To appeal, in this case, from the rights of the individual to what

are called the rights of the majority, is neither more nor less than appealing from right to force. This would be true if, in voting a man out of the church, as not being a Christian, the appeal were made to the majority of the whole body of believers, and not to that of the two, three, or half a dozen' communicants with whom he happens to be associated.

But say the Reviewers, referring to the Unitarians,

'They complain of the Orthodox, because they will not exchange pulpits with them. Why will not they exchange with the professed Universalist? They complain of us for encroaching on their liberty and rights, because we represent their views of doctrine as erroneous and unsafe. And why do they encroach, in the same way, on the liberty and rights of the Deist and Atheist, by representing their views of doctrine as erroneous and unsafe?' - Review, p. 14.

It is not denied, that the Orthodox have a right to decline ministerial exchanges with Unitarians; but it is denied, that they have a right to do it on the ground that Unitarians are not Christians. When Exclusionists of the Congregational denomination in this State, who from time immemorial had been in the habit of exchanging with their liberal brethren in the vicinity, suddenly, simultaneously, and, as it would seem, by concert, declared their determination to discontinue the practice, the measure led, as was natural, to considerable warmth of expostulation. As a measure of public expediency, ministerial courtesy, or Christian charity, it would not be easy, perhaps, to justify the step; and its consequences, so far as developed, especially in the small country towns, have certainly been ruinous to the harmony and integrity of the Congregational parishes. Still, as a matter of abstract right, it is not denied that Exclusionists are at liberty to decline exchanging with Unitarians, just as Unitarians are at liberty to decline exchanging with them, or with Universalists, or with one another. The proper rule, to be observed alike by every minister, seems to be this; to be willing to exchange with those of his brethren, and those only, whether of his own denomination or not, who are likely, all things considered, to be satisfactory and edifying to his people. As for Unitarians and Universalists, they have never been in the habit of exchanging pulpits, and we presume never will

VOL. X. N. S. VOL. V. NO. III.

50

Mean

be, until the arrangement is mutually agreeable. while, however, and here is the essential distinction, which the Reviewers would fain keep out of sight, as it is fatal to their argument, Unitarians do not decline exchanging with Universalists on the ground that they are not Christians; neither do they debar or expel them, on that or on any other ground, from the Christian ordinances; nor seek to deprive them of any right or privilege which belongs to Christians, as such. With regard to what is thought to be erroneous or unsafe' in Calvinism or Universalism, Trinitarianism or Unitarianism, Deism or Atheism, it would be absurd to suppose a man not at liberty to speak, on proper occasions, and in a proper spirit. The charge against Exclusionists is, not that they attempt, by fair reasoning, to show the immoral and dangerous tendency of Unitarianism, but that by bold, fierce, and unsupported denunciations, they seek to create in the minds of the people at large such a horror for the system, as must prevent them from examining its claims.

6

Still the Reviewers contend, that even if they were 'to admit the correctness of no small part of Mr. Whitman's statements,' they have done no more than is perfectly consistent with their religious principles'; that it is but the natural and inevitable result of their honest principles,' their 'system of doctrines' pushed to its legitimate consequences.' On this point the Reviewers may be right, and probably are so, if they mean, not that their system will justify what has been done, but only that such are its natural and necessary tendencies.

ART. VIII. Translations of the Scriptures at Serampore.

We have received the following communication from the Professors of the Theological Seminary in Newton, in reply to an article in our last Number, relating to the translations of the Scriptures, which have been undertaken by the Baptist Mission at Serampore. We cheerfully give it