This communication needs no comment. The Advocate admits that Unitarianism, " at a certain period, was kept out of the pulpits in our metropolis;" but insists that it “was not hidden by the clergy from their flocks." But here we see that it was hidden by the clergy from their flocks"-with the exception, perhaps, of a few of the initiated, whom Mr. Parkman calls their "intimate friends"and so hidden, that an explicit avowal, one way or the other, could not be obtained. Let the situation of the good people of Boston, at that critical period, be, for a moment, contemplated. And let the question be asked, What could they have done? Suspicions were abroad as to the Orthodoxy of their ministers; and, as the event has proved, well-founded suspicions. But from their preaching, they could determine nothing; and if they addressed them privately, and in the most cautious and respectful manner, still, no explicit answer could be obtained. This then-be it known to the world-was the manner in which Unitarianism came in here. It came in by stealth and artifice-by an abuse of the confidence of a generous, unsuspecting people. It "crept in-unawares."

We are charged, in the last place, with not "sparing individual character;" and in proof of this, reference is made to the Review of Dr. Channing on Associations, in our number for March, 1830. -Those who think that Dr. Channing was treated with undue severity in that article, will do well to consider the circumstances under which it was written. Here, the acknowledged leader of the Unitarian party-that party, whose boast has been a monopoly almost of talents, wealth, and influence, especially in this regioncomes forward and scoffs (for we call it scoffing) at revivals of religion; objects to nearly all our benevolent associations; declares that the fourth commandment is no longer binding, and that men are under no obligations, from any divine command, to "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." Others must judge of this subject as they think proper; but we felt that it was time to speak; and to speak strongly; in this manner we attempted to speak, and the attempt, on our part, will doubtless be repeated, whenever a like occasion occurs.

Of the conductors of the Advocate, we take our leave for this time, with a single remark: There is a wide difference between accusing a respectable class of men falsely and maliciously—and investigating and publishing the truth about them, for a benevolent and important purpose. Establish the point, gentlemen, that we have done the first of these, and we will make you all the reparation in our power. But our having done the last, is no evidence that we are chargeable with the first, nor have you any ground or reason for drawing such a conclusion.

3. An Apology for the Jews. A Sermon. By the Rev. W. H. Furness, of Philadelphia. Liberal Preacher, vol. iv. No. I.

We do not object to this discourse, on account of its tendency to excite sympathy in behalf of the dispersed Jews, but on account of the reasons urged in favor of sympathy. Mr. Furness would fain

have us believe that the religion of the modern Jew, and that of the Christian, are very nearly the same; and that we ought to regard the sincere Jew much as we would a faithful brother in the Lord. The Jew embraces the Old Testament, and the Christian the New, and hence the religion of both, in all essential points, must be alike. "The faith to which the Jew now adheres was the faith of Moses, and of Samuel, of David and Isaiah, of all the illustrious kings and prophets of Israel." "He is" therefore "near to being a Christian, and is in fact, I am afraid, a much better Christian, than very many of those who glory in the name."

In remarking on this specious and plausible statement, we admit and insist (the Christian Examiner to the contrary notwithstanding) that the religion of the two Testaments is essentially the same; but does the modern Jew truly believe and embrace the Old Testament? Is his faith that of Samuel, and David, and Isaiah, and the prophets? Is he a true disciple and follower of Moses? Mr. F. answers, without hesitation, in the affirmative; but, with equal promptness and decision, our Saviour answers in the negative. Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.' Paul, too, affirms, that in preaching Christ and him crucified, he said none other things than what the prophets and Moses did say should come.' The writings of the Old Testament all look forward to Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah; so that it is impossible for a person correctly to understand and receive these writings, and not be a disciple of the Son of God. Strange! that a professed minister of Christ should stand up and declare, that a believer in the Old Testament could reject the New-that a true follower of Moses could despise him of whom Moses spake-and that a religion which spurns the divine Saviour of men can be essentially the same with that which embraces him!

4. On the Use of Poisoned Drinks. A Sermon by the Rev. J. G. Palfrey, of Boston. Liberal Preacher, vol. iv. No. II.

Mr. Palfrey is favorably known to the public already, as an efficient advocate in the cause of temperance. We welcome his appearance again in the same noble cause. In the sermon before us, he takes the high ground of regarding distilled spirits as poisonous, and urges a total abstinence from them, "except as a medicine, and then under a responsible professional oversight."

"We do not call spirits poison. But I see a man with a countenance hideously bloated, and in hue fiery red or deadly pale. His pulse indicates a burning fever, or else the low state of typhus inflammation. He has no more the power of voluntary motion than if he were palsied. His swoln tongue refuses to articulate, or is helplessly protruded from his mouth. His deep and distressed breathing is like that of apoplexy. Will any one give me a definition of the action of poisons, which will explain to me that that man is not poisoned? Will any one make me understand that if he had drugged himself with arsenic or hemlock, he might have been poisoned, but that having only drugged himself with alcohol, he is not so? I see another, consumptive, or paralytic, or dropsical, with no appetite or no digestion, sober enough now perhaps, but along with one or more of these morbid affections, nervous or idiotic at the same time, and I learn that his habit has been to ply himself with the potent agent which has been named. And am I to say that he is not dying by slow poison, if slow it were, merely because he found it on the inn-keeper's

Recent Publications.

shelves, and not on the apothecary's? Is that a philosophical, is it so much as a specious discrimination?"

After saying that he On the subject of wines, the remarks of Mr. P. are deeply interesting, and cannot fail to be useful. should prefer the general use of wines to that of spirits and who would not, as the less of two evils? he adds,

"But, perhaps, we have much less to do with this question about the wines, than we imagine. Perhaps what we call by that name deserve to be suspected by us on other grounds than what are commonly alone adduced. I apprehend, my friends, that we see very little wine in this country. I suppose, that, for example, the vineyards which yield the Marsala grape, do not produce more wine in a year, than is drunk under that name, in a year, in our single State. I should not be surprised to be assured that they do not produce more than is drunk in our metropolis alone. I suppose that what can, with any great propriety be called wine, is scarcely to be met with, except occasionally at the tables of the opulent; and we, whose regard for our purse, to speak of nothing better, must needs prevent us from putting ourselves to very free expense for such a luxury, I conceive need, out of regard to our health, to say no more, to refrain from meddling very freely with what goes by the name of wine. By a common wine, or a table wine, if that rather be the name by which the inferior quality is disguised, I understand to be meant nothing else than a corrupt At first it imitation of wine. I suppose it to be undeniable that very soon after a wine becomes common among us, it becomes corrupt and unwholesome. Many of us can remember when the wine of Lisbon was in extensive use. was understood to come pure, and the demand for it naturally increased. To meet this increased demand came next an adulterated mixture, and then a most vicious counterfeit. When, at last, every one who touched it, though it were sparingly, found that he received the admonition of a head ache, or a fever, it was abandoned, and the wine of Vidonia was adopted in its place, and went through the same popularity, the same process of treatment, and the same dismission. The wines of Sicily next reached us, and for the like reason, are about to be pronounced, by an unanimous voice, intolerable. It is scarcely half a score of years since the name of the wine of Champagne was known to our dealers, and already, it is said, that a very insignificant proportion of what is sold and consumed under that name among us, ever heaved on a wave of the Atlantic. How, where, and by whom these substances are manufactured, by which trusting consumers are poisoned, of course no one can tell, any more than where counterfeit money is struck; for secrecy is the life of the traffic. What are the ingredients, however, the faithful test of chemical analysis with indubitable certainty discloses. Along with some inconsiderable basis of the liquid which is to give its name to the compound whole, and a copious addition of alcohol and water, they are such, according to the particular case, as a decoction of the oak wood to give astringency; elder flowers and log wood to heighten the color; alum, gypsum, and potash, to clarify; and sugar of lead, one of the most active poisons, to cover acidity."

5. A Scriptural Answer to the Question, How may I know that I am an adopted child of God? By Nathaniel Dwight. Norwich: 1830. pp. 210. J. Durham.

The subject of this treatise is one of great practical importance, and we are happy to say that the manner in which it is treated is, in general, satisfactory. The author describes the change through which every person must pass, in order to become a child of God, and dwells largely upon the various scriptural evidences of being in an adopted, justified state. The evidences suggested are not indeed those which would be most strenuously insisted on by some religionists; but they are those, we are persuaded, on which the

inspired writers most frequently insist, and on which principal reliance should be placed, such as "Humility, Self-denial, Christian Forbearance, and Watchfulness, Forgiveness of Injuries, Weanedness from the World," &c. The work is well recommended by respected ministerial brethren in Connecticut, and we cordially assent to all that they have said in its favor. "Amid the activity of the age, there is danger that experimental religion may, in some measure, be overlooked, and essays like this are peculiarly necessary to check such a result."

6. Memoir of the Life and Character of Rev. Samuel Hopkins, D. D., formerly paster of the First Congregational Church in Newport, Rhode Island. With an Appendix. By John Ferguson, pastor of the East Church in Attleborough, Mass. Boston: Leonard W. Kimball. 1830. Pp. 196.

The subject of this Memoir was an eminently great and good man. He was one of the few distinguished individuals who labored to withstand the outbreaking floods of error, and to keep alive the holy fire of truth and godliness, in times of great spiritual darkness and declension. By a prolonged life of devotedness and usefulness in the church of God, he seems as a connecting link between the revivals near the middle of the last century, and those which have occurred within the memory of the present generation.

Dr. Hopkins was born, September 17, 1721, and by his pious parents was dedicated to the ministry of the altar from his birth. In his youth, he was so distinguished for sobriety and correctness of deportment, that by many he was regarded as a true Christian, and consequently was encouraged to make a public profession of religion, while yet a stranger to its saving power. He was awakened from his self-righteous slumber, while a member of college, through the instrumentality of David Brainerd. His feelings, at this critical and solemn period, the reader will find detailed, in his own words, in our number for January (pp. 40, 41.) of the present volume. He pursued his theological studies under the direction of President Edwards, of whom he was afterwards the intimate and confidential friend. From 1743 to 1769, he was pastor of the church in Great Barrington, Mass.; and from 1770 to the time of his death-through painful vicissitudes and many trials-he continued pastor of the First Congregational Church in Newport, R. I. While at Great Barrington, he was instrumental in the conversion of two individuals, who were afterwards burning and shining lights in the churches of Massachusetts. The first of these was the Rev. David Sanford, long pastor of the West Church in Medway. The circumstances attending this interesting event are thus detailed:

"The Rev. David Sanford, late pastor of the church in Medway, Mass., had at an early age received a liberal education. The intention of his parents was to prepare him for the ministry, but being destitute of religion when he arrived at manhood, his attention was directed to agriculture. As a farmer, he was located in the town of which Mr. Hopkins was the minister. They married sisters. But although thus nearly related, Mr. Sanford was a bitter

opposer of the religion and preaching of his brother Hopkins. To him the preaching of Mr. Hopkins appeared contemptible and foolish; and on this ground he justified himself in giving only an occasional attendance on his ministry. But although he thus sought to justify his neglect of the iustituted means of grace, his conscience was by no means easy. As an evidence of his state of mind at this time, and the rankling opposition of his heart, he afterwards mentioned, that while at work on his farm, on removing a log which had become embedded in the ground, his attention was directed to a number of very minute, and to him uncommon animalcules. After observing them for a moment, he thus expressed the rankling feelings of his heart: 'Hopkins says that nothing was made in vain, and for what were you made?' At the same moment crushing them beneath his feet, he continued, 'There, that is what you were made for.' 'Yes,' said a voice within, which spoke the language of conscience, they were made to show forth the enmity of your heart against God.'

"While thus indulging feelings of opposition and bitterness against the government of God, and for righteousness' sake, against his brother Hopkins, the settlement of an estate, belonging to their wives' family, made it necessaryfor the brothers-in-law to have frequent intercourse with each other. At one of those meetings, Mr. Santord indulged his rankling spirit by endeavoring to irritate his brother Hopkins. At length he succeeded. Mr. Hopkins left his brother's house in anger. To Mr. Sanford the irritation of Mr. Hopkins was a triumph. There,' said he to his wife, there goes your saintly brother. He professes to be a Christian, and is always insisting upon the necessity of a change of heart; see what a heart he has exhibited. 'And,' said Mr. Sanford, when afterwards relating the circumstance, I felt that I had triumphed, and that was to me a night of joy. I had gained an advantage; my foot was on the neck of brother Hopkins, and I was determined to keep it there.' But next morning Mr. Hopkins called upon his brother at an early hour. I want to see your family together, brother Sanford.' When the family had assembled, he proceeded: 'Last evening I was angry; mine was not the spirit of the Gospel. I have done much to wound the cause of religion, and to prejudice you against it. I have had no sleep to-night, and I cannot hope to receive forgiveness of God until I have asked your forgiveness. Brother, will you forgive me? and O! do not form your opinion of religion from what you have seen of its influence in my example.'And,' said Mr. Sanford, as he left my house, his eye fell upon mine, and it pierced my heart. That placid look spoke of peace within, and of peace to which I was a stranger.'

6

"The conviction of an essential difference between his brother's affections and his own, which then fastened on the mind of Mr. Sanford, never left him, until he hoped that in a new and higher sense he could call his brother Hopkins, brother."

The other individual to whom we have alluded, as savingly blessed through the labors of Dr. Hopkins, was the Rev. Dr. West, late of Stockbridge.

"Mr., afterwards Dr. Stephen West, had entered the ministry, and settled in Stockbridge, while yet a stranger to experimental religion. Like other learned men, who are trusting to their own righteousness, he had labored to accommodate his theology and his preaching to his own standard of personal religion. Two pious females, members of his church, who had often lamented their want of spiritual instruction and benefit from the ministry of their pastor, at length agreed to meet, once a week, to pray for him. Amidst many discouragements, they continued their united supplications for their pastor to the Hearer and Answerer of prayer; but, as they afterwards remarked, they were never both discouraged at the same time. On leaving the house of God, one would say, We have had no food to-day.' The other's answer was usually in words of encouragement: God is able to do for us all that we ask; let us continue our meetings for prayer.' At length their prayers were heard; there was a sudden and remarkable change in the preaching of their pastor. They met as usual at the close of worship. What is this?' said one. God is the hearer of prayer,' answered the other. The means by which this change was effected