in Luke 12:20. Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee. If this sentence were rendered exactly from the Greek without regard to idiom, it would be,' They require thy soul of thee."

We sincerely lament that in a work of so general excellence, there should occur any passages capable of an injurious construction. But if we mistake not, the remarks on pages 107-109, are of this character:

'It is not necessary that we should approve of every opinion or usage among those with whom we connect ourselves. It is far better in lesser matters, if we have faith, to have it to ourselves before God; and to exercise forbearance and self-denial, rather than for the sake of some trifling difference, to endeavor to originate a new party, or remain destitute of the benefits, and violating the obligations, of social christianity. We should guard against an undue attachment to any particular scheme of church policy, [polity?] when, though the abettors profess to be governed by the Scripture only, and consider every iota of their system as perfectly clear and binding; others, more numerous than themselves, and equally wise and good, and entitled to the leading of the Spirit of Truth, draw a very different conclusion from the same premises. Mr Newton, speaking of the several systems under which, as so many banners, the different denominations of Christians are ranged, observes, "That there is usually something left out which ought to have been taken in, and something admitted of supposed advantage, unauthorised by the Scripture standard. A Bible-Christian, therefore, will see much to approve in a variety of forms and parties; the providence of God may lead and fix him in a more immediate connexion with some one of them, but his spirit and affection will not be confined within these narrow enclosures. He insensibly borrows and unites that which is excellent in each, perhaps without knowing how far he agrees with them, because he finds all in the written word." With regard to myself,' continues Mr Jay, though I have a preference and attach comparative importance to the things wherein pious men differ, yet there is no body of Christians, holding the Head, with whom I could not hold communion; and to whom I would not join myself, if circumstances withheld me from my own denomination, rather than remain a religious solitaire.

'It will be, I presume, committing an unpardonable sin with bigots, when I express my persuasion, after all I have read of the claims, whether Episcopalian, or Presbyterian, or Independent, to the only scriptural standard, that there is no very definite plan of Church Government laid down in the New Testament; so that while one mode is canonized, every other is absolutely wrong. Deviation from prescribed orders is sinful; but where there is no law, there is no transgression. "As oft," says the Apostle, "as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.' Now had he told us how often we are to do this, we must observe such times only, or oppose the will of God. Is it so, now the thing is left undecided? May there not be a difference in the frequency of its observance, without sin? It is otherwise with the recurrence of the Sabbath; this is determined both by command and example. It would have been criminal in Moses not to have made the snuffers of pure gold; or the holy oil of a mixture of certain ingredients; or the priest's robe of such a quality, such a color, and such a length; for he had express instructions to do so, and the pattern of every thing was shown him in the mount. But in what mount has our model of circumstantial regulation been exhibited? What Moses received it? Where do we find

a particularity of detail in the gospels of the Evangelists; or in the Acts, and Epistles of the Apostles? Where do we find many of the materials of angry debate and exclusiveness which have occupied so much time, and spoiled so much temper, in the system of Christianity? A system designed for every nation, and people, and kindred, and tongue-a system too sublime in its aim to lose itself in minuteness-too anxious to unite its followers in great matters, to magnify little ones too truly noble, not to be condescending-too tender, not to be tolerant too impartial, not to say to its subjects, receive one another as Christ also has received you; you that are strong, bear the infirmities of the weak, and not please yourselves,' pp. 107-110.

There is such an infusion of benevolence and liberality in these pages, that we fear the mere stopping to examine the sentiments here introduced, may bring upon us the charge of being needlessly sensitive on certain points. Mr Jay's language, in the main, we ourselves could adopt. But we must ask, what are the 'lesser matters,' respecting which we must exercise forbearance and selfdenial,' in preference to remaining 'destitute of the benefits of social Christianity?' Mr Jay does not enter into particulars, except his merely mentioning the claims, whether Episcopalian, or Presbyterian, or Independent, to the only scriptural standard' of Church Government. The majority of his readers, however, in this country, we believe, will readily think of the ordinances of the New Testament as included among these 'lesser matters; and they will be encouraged, by these remarks, to rank among things of small moment the positive institutions which the Head of the Church has established, and to censure as narrowminded those who consider Baptism and the Lord's Supper as so important parts of the faith once delivered to the saints, that they ought to be earnestly contended for. The remarks of which we now speak will be abused as an occasion for invidious and unjust comparison between different portions of the Christian community. The views expressed in the pages just mentioned, we think, would permit a Christian to give countenance to what he might deem error; and thus would take just so much support from the cause of truth. Is there no such thing as religious truth? Is not religious truth capable of being discovered? Is it not important that it be discovered and maintained, and obtain universal sway? For ourselves, we think every Christian is bound to search for truth in the Bible, impartially and devoutly and perseveringly and when he discovers truth, he is bound to consecrate to its cause whatever talents his Lord has given him. And if, in the prosecution of his duty, he must oppose certain principles, let him gird himself for the work; but let him do the work with all charity and generosity, yet with all firmness. And if in the prosecution of duty, as enforced by his convictions of scriptural truth, he cannot join hands in every religious solemnity with some Christian brethren, let not those Christian brethren harshly and carelessly accuse him either of suspecting their Christian character, or of cherishing a bigotted attachment to nonessential circumstantials. No doubt, there are certain things to which the term indifferent circumstantials may be applied; and which ought not to prevent persons of different opinions respecting

:

them from being united together in a church relation. But surely Baptism and the Lord's Supper are not among indifferent circumstantials. Let the ecclesiastical history of ages long since past by, but still affecting the religious opinions and practice of millions, testify. Who does not know that the perversion of these ordinances and of various external relations has almost invariably been an inlet of most destructive influence? Who does not know, that in those times and in those places which have been most distinguished by sacred regard to primitive simplicity, there has been the happiest and most salutary prevalence of real, saving piety? With these views, we are not disposed to undervalue either the form of church government, or the due administration of Christian ordinances. But we do not recommend a spirit of hostility among Christians; we do not wish them to be alienated from one another, and to deny themselves the enjoyment and the encouragement which result from Christian fellowship. There is wide common ground on which Christians can meet-there is an extensive circle of subjects on which they can communicate with one another. And when on certain subjects, they cannot conscientiously associate, let them on those subjects follow their convictions of duty-duty, as enforc ed simply by the unerring word of God; and let none indulge a spirit of crimination. We remember to have often heard it said, The best way to destroy error is, to maintain truth.

Our design in these remarks is, to relieve the denomination to which we are attached from the charge of bigotry and of a narrow mind in the abstaining from communion at the Lord's table with those whose practice in the preparatory ordinance we judge to be unscriptural. We wish that this subject might be looked at in its own simplicity; and not in all that terribleness with which it has been invested (we regret to fear) for party purposes. Strange to say, we have heard of men who would grant the correctness of those principles which actuate our denomination respecting church-communion and who would confess that they themselves, if they were Baptists, would do likewise; but who yet, almost in the same breath, would denounce the practice to which we allude as most illiberal. To us it appears, that the principles which regulate communion at the Lord's table among Baptists are essentially the same as those which are acknowledged by the body of orthodox Pedobaptists in the United States; but in the professed application of the principles, the Baptist churches are more exact, because their views of Baptism are more definite. Ought not then all this talking and writing about communion to cease? and ought not the effort to be directed to the core of the difficulty, namely, the proper manner of viewing the ordinance of Baptism?

We know not that Mr Jay, who is himself a Pedobaptist of the Independent, or Congregational connexion, had in view the case of the Baptist and the Pedobaptists. But if he had, and if his remarks are intended as a gentle reproof to the Baptists for not mingling themselves with others in a church relation, or if others thus construe his language, we are happy in referring them to a few expressions on page 109, which we think afford a full vindication for

the Baptists. The principle is there recognised-' Deviation from prescribed orders is sinful; but where there is no law, there is no trangression.' After illustrating this by reference to the Lord's Supper respecting the frequency of which there is no law, he proceedsIt is otherwise with the recurrence of the Sabbath: this is determined both by command and example.' So we say, concerning the ordinance which divides us from so many excellent Christians : this, as to its performance and its subjects, is determined both by command and example. Should we then not follow our conviction of duty, we should violate command and example. Should we mingle with those who conform not to the command and the example, we should be depriving the truth of our influence, and lending our aid to the support of an error which we cannot but regard as fraught with dangerous consequences. It would have been criminal in Moses not to have made the snuffers of pure gold-for he had express instructions to do so, and the pattern of every thing was shown him in the mount.' So we believe, respecting the ordinance of Baptism, we have express instructions to do so, and the pattern of every thing is shown' us in the New Testament.

·

We have said enough to vindicate our dissent from some of Mr. Jay's expressions. What we have said ought to save us from the accusation of narrowness. Indeed, it ought to secure to us the credit of consistent and rigid integrity, of adherence to professed principles even in the midst of misrepresentation and ill-report.

We take our leave of Mr Jay, with sentiments of increased respect for him, and with earnest desire that his well-proportioned views of Christian character and duty may have a wide circulation : for we sincerely believe that these Lectures, except the remarks to which we have just been adverting, are happily adapted to advance the Christian "unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."

Present State of Christianity and of the Missionary Establishments for its Propagation in all Parts of the World.-Edited by FREDERICK SHOBERL. 12mo. pp. 260. New-York, 1828.

We were attracted by the title of this book. The theme presents a rich field for pious investigation, and furnishes innumerable facts for useful statistics. We did not expect, in a duodecimo of less than 300 pages, a very elaborate essay on the present state of Christianity, nor a very minute account of the condition and operations of missionary institutions. But we certainly did expect many things, which this book does not supply; and we feel our selves called upon to inform our readers of its true character.

Of the purpose of the author we have nothing to say. There is no reason to suppose, that it was otherwise then praiseworthy. But of the book, we are entitled to speak freely.

The work is divided into five parts, and treats of the progress of Christianity in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, and South India. It is, in fact, no more than a brief and meagre sketch of the history of our religion in all parts of the world, with some very imperfect, and, in many instances, grossly inaccurate statements, respecting modern missionary operations, although the author says, that he has "had recourse to the Reports of our principal Societies engaged in the propagation of Christianity, and in the circulation of the Bible, and to other authentic materials." The work, therefore, does not well correspond with its title, for it does not give a view of the " present state of Christianity," in the world, unless very general and loose statements can afford such a view; and in regard to Missionary Establishments, very little satisfactory information can be gathered from the book.

The work might, nevertheless, with all its deficiencies, be useful, if its spirit were sound, and its statements correct. But we are obliged to say, that the author does not appear to possess the views and feelings which a writer on the propagation of Christianity ought to have; and that so many of his statements are palpably erroneous, as to invalidate the authority of his book as a work of ref

erence.

In the first place, we will say a few words, respecting the spirit and views which pervade the book.

It savors strongly of a lax theology. The original author was a Mr Zschokke, a German writer; and he has certainly infused into it a considerable portion of the German mystical philosophy, falsely so called. He speaks, repeatedly, of the sublime idea of the Unity of God,'' revealed by Jesus,' and 'through Jesus.'-He inquires (p. 123) in relation to the slow progress of Christianity in modern times, Why should God be at this day less with Christ than formerly?' Such a question sounds strangely, at least.

But the author's opinions may be learned more conclusively, perhaps, from other circumstances.

There is not, so far as we have observed, a single reference to the Holy Spirit, as having any agency in the diffusion of Christianity. The success of the Gospel, in the early ages of the church, is not ascribed, by the author, to the power of God, giving efficacy and success to the efforts of his ministers. 'The sublime perspicuity and simplicity of the new religion,' he says, (p. 23) 'the persuasive force with which it addresses itself to all minds, the purity of life and the contempt of death, manifested by its first professors, soon gained it numerous friends.'-He thinks, too, that the Roman soldiers were instrumental in spreading the Gospel. 'The well informed warrior, at home in every part of the world, needed a God independent of the narrow limits of countries, and a faith independent of the priesthood of the nations. What he had an obscure feeling of was rendered clear to him by the simple doctrines of JeWhat he learned of the doctrine in Asia, Egypt, or Greece, he communicated to others in Gaul and Britain.'

sus.

These ferocious legionaries accomplished many wonderful things; but we never before heard of them as missionaries of the cross.