uncontradicted, from the time of its publication, till the Anthology ceased. Nor can they say that the positions assumed in it are not directly opposite to those for which they now contend. They will say perhaps that the reformation from Popery has made great progress, and that they have received much new light on all manner of subjects, since 1806. But it will be remembered that the constitution and laws, so far as they relate to the questions at issue, remain the same; and that the rights of the churches are the same now, as then. The progress of Unitarian light, however great and glorious it may have been, has not altered one letter of the statute book, and has not impaired or confirmed the chartered rights of the churches in this Commonwealth.

The truth is, for there is no disguising it, the plan which, in its operation, goes to break down the churches, to take from them the right of election, and deprive them of their property, their communion furniture, and records, had not been started in 1806. It had not been thought of, so far as appears, except. perhaps by a select few. Consequently, Unitarians at that period, interpreted the laws, and regarded the rights of the churches, in the same manner as others. But the times have changed, and interests have changed, and legal opinions have changed, so that what was law and right in 1806, is now, by the same statutes, illegal and wrong!

ELIAS HICKS.

In our last we gave a notice of two pamphlets, published by the Yearly Meetings of the Society of Friends in Philadelphia and New York. As some Unitarians have taken offence at the manner in which we spoke of their claimed brethren, the friends and followers of Elias Hicks, we take the liberty to publish an extract from a Review of one of the same pamphlets in the last number of the Christian Advocate, issued at Philadelphia, and edited by the venerable Dr. Green, one of the most experienced and respectable ministers in the U. States.

When differences arise among members of the same religious community, we think it officious, and to be regarded as justly offensive, for those who belong to other communions, actively to take a part, if the controversy relates only to the circumstantials or peculiarities of the litigating sect. It is far otherwise, however, when the contending parties come before the public with discussions which involve any essential or very important principles, of our common Christianity. This creates a common cause for all who name the name of Christ, because the prevalence of error in matters of fundamental importance, no real Christian can regard with un

concern.

Now we know of nothing which strikes more directly at the very vitals of every thing which deserves to be called Christianity, than an open denial of the plenary inspiration, and the consequent supreme authority in matters of faith, of the holy Scriptures; and a like denial of the proper divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the necessity of the sinner's resting for salvation on the merit of his atoning sacrifice; and decrying as imaginary and unnecessary the renovating influences of the Holy Spirit. No system of religion which utterly and avowedly excludes these great principles, has any just claim to be regarded as a Christian system at all. By whatever name it may be

called, it is in fact DOWNRIGHt infidelity. Yet it is a matter of notoriety, that for some time past, the principles which have been specified, have been explicitly denied, and sometimes even treated with scorn, by a large party among the Society of Friends. We therefore not only feel ourselves at liberty to animadvert on these advocates of infidelity, but obliged in duty to do all in our power to prevent the influence and extension of their pernicious tenets.

We regard it as no evidence that the men of whom we speak are not infidels, because they pretend to spiritual illuminations and revelations. So did the Indian prophet, who not long since deluded nearly the whole of his unhappy tribe and for ourselves, we would as soon be followers of Tecumseh as of Elias Hicks. It was indeed high time for those of the Society of Friends who have issued the pamphlet which has given occasion to these remarks, to disown all connexion and fellowship with these daring opposers of revealed truth and in our judgement they have done well in distributing copies of this pamphlet among the members of the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and those of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, who lately met in Philadelphia. Although Friends differ from these churches in regard to some of the ordinances of the Christian system, it was highly proper to let it be seen that they agree with them in the essential doctrines of the sacred Scriptures. By doing this, they have saved themselves from sharing in the reproach of abandoning "the sure word of prophecy," to "follow cunningly devised fables."

AMERICAN LYCEUM.

From the Daily Advertiser of Aug. 25.

This institution proposes a system of mutual instruction, fitted to the towns and villages in New England, and other parts of the country. The instruction is to be conducted at weekly or occasional meetings for reading, conversation. discussions, dissertations, illustrating the sciences, or other subjects of useful knowledge, or popular, practical education.

More than fifty societies upon this plan are already formed, and from the greater or less success which has uniformly attended their operations, it is most earnestly hoped, that every town and village in New England, at least, will take the subject into early and serious consideration, to determine whether they cannot, during the approaching autumn and winter, participate in spirit, and engage in the exercises, that they may enjoy the benefits of an institution designed for the diffusion of knowledge and the benefit of the world.

MAP OF PALESTINE.

As this sheet is going to the press, we have had the opportunity of examining "An Historical Map of Palestine or the Holy Land," now publishing by T. B. Wait and J. W. Ingraham of this city, with improvements on the English copy, by Mr. Ingraham. We shall feel under obligations to notice this Map, with Mr. Ingraham's Pamphlet accompanying it, more at large hereafter; but are unwilling that our readers should be unapprised of its publication, or should fail to avail themselves of the advantages it offers, even for a month. The plan of it is ingenious, and the execution complete and elegant. We can now do no more, as we can do no less, than to invite all who feel interested in the geogra phy or history of the Holy Land to examine this Map for themselves.

THE principles we have advanced, throw light upon the course which the Orthodox man ought to pursue, who belongs to a very small minority in a Unitarian parish.

A more trying situation can scarcely be conceived, than that of a man of Orthodox views, placed perhaps with a family of children, in a society where Unitarian principles and influence decidedly predominate, and where no other preaching than Unitarian is heard. He may be in such straitened circumstances, that to remove would reduce him to absolute beggary: yet he believes that the preaching he hears from sabbath to sabbath is essentially defective; and that there is scarcely a gleam of hope that his family, if brought up in such a place, will ever be converted. What shall he do? Shall he go with his children to hear this preaching, and thus seem to countenance it? Shall he give his money to support such preaching? Or shall he attach himself to an Orthodox parish in some other place, and thus bring down upon himself the contempt and bitter hostility of his neighbors?

If Unitarianism reject any of the essentials of the Gospel, as we have endeavored to show, how can there be a moment's doubt, whether such a man ought to contribute one cent of money to support it? No unkind feelings are ordinarily excited against the Baptist, who, residing almost alone in a Congregational society, withdraws his support from a podobaptist minister, and gives it to one of his own denomination at a distance, upon whose preaching perhaps he can rarely attend. Why should the conscientiously Orthodox man feel any more hesitation, why should he suffer any more reproach, in withdrawing from the Unitarian society? Nay, who will pretend that the difference of opinion, which causes the Baptist to separate, can be compared in importance with that existing between the Orthodox and Unitarian systems?

OCTOBER, 1828.

64

But suppose the Orthodox member of a Unitarian society withdraws from it; what shall he do in relation to public worship on the sabbath? Shall he attend upon Unitarian preaching, and take his family with him; or shall he bring up his children in the habit of neglecting the house of God? This is indeed a most trying dilemma. If he will not permit his children to attend upon public worship in the place where all their companions attend, they, while too young to understand the reasons of the prohibition, and having hearts by nature averse to true religion, will be apt to imbibe an early prejudice against the principles of their parents, and embrace lax views of truth: And if he suffers them to attend religious worship under such circumstances, they will be apt to imbibe early prejudices in favor of error. Let him, therefore, be willing to make great efforts to attend worship, as often as possible, where the truth is preached; so as to give to his children, and the public, decisive evidence of his views of Unitarian preaching. And if the Unitarian clergyman where he resides, is in the weekly habit (as some are,) of attacking and ridiculing the truth, let him refuse to hear it altogether, and advise his family to follow his example, and leave the event to God. And let a man thus situated encourage, by his attendance and co-operations, those occasional prayer-meetings and conferences, in which a few in almost every place are disposed to join, and which have often proved the despised but powerful instruments, by which God has built up the waste places of many generations.

In the second place, the subject we have discussed throws light upon the course which ought to be adopted by the Orthodox member of a Unitarian church.

If any should doubt whether an exchange of pulpit services indicates fellowship, they cannot doubt that to continue a member of a church constitutes the highest expression of it that can be given. This man, therefore, may talk as zealously as he pleases about the dangerous errors of Unitarians; while he continues connected with them by church covenant, his conduct will completely nullify his declarations, and he may depend upon it, should he die without removing his church relation, that his example will be quoted in opposition to what Unitarians call the Orthodox system of exclusion and bigotry. How can he then delay to throw his influence, before and after death, into the opposite scale, by uniting himself, while God prolongs his days, with a church which he believes is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.

I know that in thus doing, he, as well as the seceding members of a Unitarian parish, will bring upon themselves a persecution as real as that endured by the primitive martyrs. It cannot, blessed be God, be carried to the same extent, nor be exhibited in the same undisguised manner; but so far as uncharitable censures,

contemptuous and insolent treatment, slanderous imputations, and the withholding of the kind offices of social life, so far as these constitute persecution, (and what ingredients of it are more bitter?) they may expect to feel its iron hand. But if they really believe Unitarianism to be wanting in anything essential to the Gospel, they cannot hesitate to face the storm, calling on God for strength to sustain them.

Thirdly; from the discussion of the subject of exchanges, the Orthodox minister may learn what his duty is, in regard to preaching in Unitarian pulpits, and in Unitarian parishes.

If invited to occupy a Unitarian pulpit, it is no indication of fellowship on his part to comply, nor is it so regarded by the public. Hence, without betraying the cause of religion, he may comply with the invitation: and if Unitarians, to display their liberality, give such invitations, it may perhaps be the duty of the Orthodox minister to accept them, that he may proclaim the truth, as he understands it, with plainness, yet kindly and mildly, to those who, in his opinion, have not received it.

But shall he go into a Unitarian parish, without the knowledge, or contrary to the wishes of its minister, and preach to those within its limits who are disposed to hear him?-Why should he not go? He believes the Unitarian minister to be essentially wrong, and he expects no revivals or conversions will take place under his ministrations. And very probably the little circle of hearers he may collect around him there may form the nucleus of a church, that holds the Head; the Spirit of God may be poured out; and an Evangelical society, with a faithful minister set over them, may ere long exist as the fruit of his labors. True, the minister who takes such a step must expect to be assailed with a furious cry, about his intrusion, and his disturbing the peace and harmony of the place. But being thoroughly convinced that the truths of the Gospel are infinitely more important than the fancied peace and security of spiritual death, such a cry cannot move him, recollecting as he will, that the same cry was vociferated in louder tones against the apostles, as those who turned the world upside down. Neither let such a minister suppose that any strange thing happens to him, if he, or the beast or vehicle that carries him, should experience the rude assaults of the baser sort' among Unitarians. Too many worthy men have already suffered in this way, for those who follow in their steps to expect any other treatment from Unitarian liberality, when, in vulgar minds, it exhibits its genuine nature. But in case Orthodox ministers thus enter Unitarian societies, will not Unitarian ministers in like manner break in upon the peace of Orthodox societies?-They do not believe the Orthodox to be so essentially erroneous, as to endanger their salvation; and, therefore, they cannot plead the same reason for such a course as the Orthodox. But if they suppose the prevalence of their