in the neighborhood of a church to whose terms of communion they could not conscientiously accede, was plainly to submit to the inconveniences of their situation, until such time as their scruples might be removed, or until the church itself, without any interference on their part, should see cause to alter its regulations. A deviation from this [apparent] maxim of prudence and meekness can, in no instance, be justifiable, except where the principles and rules of a church are believed to need a fundamental reform, and where, of course, a Christian could receive little or no edification from the administration of sacred ordinance. The proposal of an essential alteration in the platform of a church is, in general, an experiment too hazardous to its peace to be made without weighty reasons, especially by those who have no other concern in its measures than what is common to all serious spectators. The request of Mr. ——, and of the others who have joined with him, as it virtually proposes new conditions of communion in this church, is liable to the objections above stated. We have a confession of faith; and it does not appear that it is unworthy of our confidence. We cannot see how a Unitarian, not of our number, can, with any reason, request us to declare it unscriptural, or useless. Would it be deemed right in a Calvinist to ask of a Unitarian church, with which he was not connected, the adoption of such rules as might be agreeable to his feelings, and enable him, with a good conscience, to share in its privileges? How would such a petition be received? The right of private judgment, in matters of religion, belongs to men, as acting in the associated capacity of a church, as well as individuals; and in this particular, neither Calvinists nor Unitarians can claim any superiority. If the Unitarians may reject creeds, the Calvinist is not therefore bound to reject them. Each for himself must judge of his duty in this respect, remembering that to his own Master he stands or falls.

2. The difference in sentiment between us and the Unitarians is very great. The Committee, indeed, are unable to see with what consistency a Unitarian can desire communion with a church professing Calvinism; since, in his account, it is a system peculiarly dishonorable to the character and government of the Deity. Every one who is in the least conversant with the writings of Unitarians, must have observed that it is one of their most favorite objections against the system, that it strips the Most High of everything amiable, and clothes him with all the odious attributes of a tyrant. They all, moreover, suppose that the Redeemer, whom we honor as divine, is a mere creature, and wholly unworthy of that supreme adoration to which we think him entitled. In their estimation, then, the religious worship we pay is offered to a being of the most malignant character, and to one who is dependent as we are for his existence and all his attributes. How, if this imputation be just, we can deserve to be called Christians, it is difficult to imagine. Much more difficult is it to perceive what inducement they can have, who maintain opinions entirely contrary to ours, to seek communion with us at the table of the Lord. Should it be intimated that such essential errors of faith are compatible with a spirit of charity, we would say in reply, that, as we understand the Scriptures, believers are to have no fellowship with idolaters. Some of the most learned Unitarians, particularly Dr. Priestly and Mr. Belsham, have expressed similar views. The latter, speaking of the difference between Unitarians and the Orthodox, is pleased to say: Opinions such as these can no more harmonize with each other than light and darkness, than Christ

and Belial. They who hold doctrines so diametrically opposite, cannot be fellow-worshippers in the same temple.'

3. Should the church comply with the request of - they would declare an assent to their confession of faith not essential to a participation of the privileges of membership. If such an assent, either explicit or understood, is not required in one instance, it can never be demanded; and our confession of faith is virtually destroyed. But the Committee think that the church cannot consent to part with these articles of belief to which they have voluntarily subscribed, and which they have cherished and defended as the Gospel of God. This is not all. Could we grant the prayer of the petitioners without an abrogation of our creed, the precedent would, to say the least, be extremely hazardous.

4. The views of Unitarians and Calvinists differ so widely on a vast variety of subjects, that it cannot be supposed they would generally act in concert, in measures designed to promote the cause of religion. A church composed of such discordant materials could have little ⚫ reasonable prospect of union and happiness. It is to be feared that it would be the seat of contention, or at least of mutual jealousies, until one party or the other had lost its power, or yielded its principles. But if harmony should exist anywhere, it ought surely to be found in the bosom of the Church.

5. The introduction of Unitarians into the church would afford them an advantage for multiplying proselytes to their system, which the Committee verily believe is a different gospel from the one taught in the Scriptures.

"6. Communion with avowed Unitarians would imply a less decided disapprobation of their sentiments than ought to be felt by men who believe that the doctrine of our Lord's supreme divinity, and other truths connected with it, are essential to the scheme of salvation displayed in the Gospel.

7. If Unitarians may be received to communion, then, for the same reason, none ought to be refused on account of their doctrinal

errors.

"For these reasons, the Committee think that the request of ought not to be granted. Perhaps they desire the privilege of occasional communion. But the Committee believe, that, as they have long been resident in the town, it would be suitable, in order to their enjoying our fellowship, that they should (were there no objections to their sentiments) place themselves under our watch, by a transfer to us of their special relation to the churches of which they are respectively members.

"In the name of the Committee,

"HADLEY, January 8, 1822.

At the same meeting, the church

Chairman."

"Voted, That the above report be accepted, and that [naming the petitioners] be furnished with a copy of the same as the answer of the church to their letter of the 27th of December last."

In this manner the church disposed of the petition of those who, as Unitarians, sought admission to the church, with the privileges of membership.

As for the lady already noticed, no decisive act was taken in her case till some years afterwards. She, however, soon withdrew from the communion of the church. In a communication written by herself, she says: "Finding that they," that is, the church, "would not extend their fellowship to Unitarians, it was very natural for Mrs. to believe that her presence at the Lord's Table was not desired; and she, on her part, was exposed on communion seasons to observations which were extremely trying to her feelings; " referring, I suppose, to the addresses on such occasions, made to communicants. In the same communication she says: "With regard to Mrs.

-'s belief of Unitarian doctrines, she does not hesitate to say, that, after long and prayerful examination of the Scriptures and other writings, she has become convinced that the doctrine of the Trinity, as commonly received, is not a doctrine of the Bible, and freely confesses that after the way which some call heresy, so does she worship the God of her fathers." “Though she wishes to hold her mind open to a conviction of the truth, and hopes for an interest in the prayers of Christian friends, yet, as she has endeavored to follow the dictates of her own conscience, and of the Word of God, they will hardly expect her to acknowledge herself guilty with respect to the charge brought against her, without more powerful arguments than have hitherto been presented."

Thus it appears that this lady, according to her own statement, had been a confirmed Unitarian for more than six years; had practically resisted all means employed to correct her errors, and that she had long withdrawn herself from the communion of an Orthodox church, into which she had originally been received as holding the same faith with those whose faith she now denied. The church had waited long for her return, unwilling to inflict upon one so highly esteemed any public censure. She had indeed asked for a dismission, but with her known deviation from the truth, it was not in the power of the church to recommend her as in standing; for such a recommendation would have been a virtual abandonment of that creed which was the basis of their organization.

The following complaint against her was at length presented:

"To the Rev. J. W., D. D., pastor of the Church of Christ in Hadley. "Whereas, Mrs., member of said church, has for a long season withdrawn herself from the communion of said church, and has expressed her belief in Unitarian doctrines for which she has been labored with, first by one alone, and then by two of the brethren, we therefore request that her case may be laid before the church, that they may act upon it as duty may require.

(Signed,)

"HADLEY, August 9, 1828."

The complainants were deacons in the church, of long-tried fidelity. Of the result of this painful process of discipline there is on record a full account, of which the following is a copy :

"At a meeting of the church in Hadley, held on Tuesday, August 26, 1828, the wife of, appeared before the church, on a citation grounded on a complaint, regularly presented by Dea. Jacob Smith, and Dea. Timothy Hopkins, from which it appeared that she had been twice privately admonished, agreeably to the rule contained in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew; and she acknowledged that, as was declared in the complaint, she did disbelieve some of the doctrines maintained by this church, as the basis of their union, namely, the doctrines of the Trinity, and the supreme Divinity of our blessed Saviour; and that she had withdrawn herself from the communion of the church. Mr. requested in her name that she might be dismissed with a certificate, of which he presented a form. It was manifest to the church, that, as her errors were of several years standing, and seemed to be deeply fixed, and as, moreover, ali effort for her conviction had hitherto proved unavailing, it was their immediate duty to guard their own purity by some public act, expressing their disapprobation of such dangerous sentiments as hers, and their tender regard to the honor of their Divine Redeemer. Whereupon,

66

Voted, Unanimously, that the church cannot give Mrs. the certificate desired by her.

Voted, Unanimously, to withdraw from her our watch and fellowship.

Voted, Unanimously, that the act of withdrawment be publicly expressed by the pastor, in a written form, previously adopted by the church."

Such a form was adopted by the church, and publicly read Lord's Day, September 7, 1828. It was as follows:

Agreeably to the above votes, I now proceed, in the name of the church, to execute the painful and important duty assigned me. "Whereas, by persisting in a denial of the great doctrines of the Trinity, and the supreme deity of our adorable Saviour, and by withdrawing herself from our communion, has gone out from us, because she was not of us; we, therefore, declare her connection with us as a sister in the church to be at an end, and withdraw from her our watch and fellowship, till such time as she, renouncing her errors, shall return to us by repentance."

The reader will observe that this is the lower form of excision; and that nothing less could have been done by the church, without the virtual opening of the doors of their communion to errorists of every name. If Unitarians, as such, are to be received, why not all others who assume to themselves the name of Christian? Did not the petitioners virtually ask the church to break down their whole platform for the sake of accommodating such respectable personages as themselves? This was asking rather too much; and savored a little of that dictatorial spirit and claim to infallibility for which the petitioners

blamed the pastor and the church. The church never interfered with the rights of others; they merely desired to maintain, unmolested by others, the doctrines which they regarded as fundamental to the scheme of salvation, revealed in the Gospel. Would it be deemed very modest or respectful in an Orthodox man, to urge communion with a Unitarian church, with the understanding that said Unitarian church was thereby to express her approval of Orthodoxy, or at least her indifference to the peculiarities of her denominational belief? Besides, what harm is done to a Unitarian by treating him as a Unitarian, and therefore not in fellowship with Trinitarians? If he is wronged by this, it is merely because it limits that influence which, if honest in his professions, he cannot fail to exert for the overthrow of those doctrines which he opposes. The church is commanded to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints; but where is she required, or allowed, to receive the avowed enemies of that faith, however amiable in their general demeanor, and however loud in their professions of charity, to her maternal bosom?

VI.

DR. WOODBRIDGE'S PLAN OF STUDY WITH THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS.

In the spring of 1826 I commenced, together with three other theological students, a course of study, preparatory to entering upon the Christian ministry, under the instruction of Dr. Woodbridge. I have always regarded it as one of the most profitable years of my life.

As a teacher of theology the attention of Dr. Woodbridge was not confined, as I have been told the attention of most private teachers of theology formerly was, to what is termed Didactic Theology. Didactic theology he aimed carefully to teach; but it was in connection with exegesis, or biblical criticism, the composition and delivery of sermons, and the pastoral duties. To carry out this course of instruction, he put into our hands a system of questions, embracing all the essential points in a theological course, on which we were expected to read, reflect, and write. We met in his study at a stated hour almost every day. We first read a chapter in the Greek Testament, giving at the same time a brief exposition of each verse. At each recitation some one read a dissertation, and another read the outline of a sermon. On these compositions each student was requested to express his opinion. Then Dr. Woodbridge would give his, pointing out excellences and defects; and he