pulpit, and in the theoretical views extensively of the church. Different apprehensions are, indeed, to some extent, entertained, of the nature of religion itself and its doctrines, but it will scarcely be thought to have arisen from an increase of "ignorance" or "apathy to the truth." There are far fewer now for example than "thirty years ago," who perplex their reason and blunt their moral sensibilities in endeavoring to persuade themselves that they are willing to be "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power, when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe," in order, "if necessary," to glorify his justice; and make that extraordinary sentiment the criterion of doctrinal knowledge and conversion. There are far fewer who waste their days and confound their common sense, in dwelling on the sophisms of Emmons, and struggling to drill themselves into that absurd scheme and there are, especially, far fewer ministers who pervert their office in the wretched attempt to force the whole gospel of the grace of God within the limits of those near-sighted speculations. The church as a body, has gained juster views of the nature of the truths and duties of religion, and of the legitimate business and ends of the ministry. this, however, to be regretted? Is it a crime or calamity that those who thus distorted the gospel, or their successors, have at length learned their errors, and had the wisdom to abandon them, and become better disciples and teachers of the truth? or that thousands and tens of thousands of Christians who exhausted their sensibilities on those paradoxes to which I have adverted, and turned their very religion into a sour and crabbed selfishness, have emerged from that "siberian bog," and embraced juster views of

Is

God and their duty, and entered under their promptings on a career of " charity so liberal and a benevolence so active?" That these changes have taken place is beyond all contradiction, and that they will continue to occur until none of that race is left, is equally certain; and to those who persuade themselves that the whole truth of the gospel, or any portion of it, lies within the compass of those dogmas, it will doubtless be matter of heartfelt regret; but the church at large will probably feel but little sympathy with their griefs, and as little respect for the causes in which they have their origin.

It is not easy to discover what better grounds he can have had for the "melancholy" representation "that orthodoxy is becoming a term of reproach; that steadfastness in the faith requires unwonted self-denial;" that "unbending adherence to doctrines has already become a burden well nigh too oppressive to be borne," and that "doctrinal instruction is becoming unpopular, and is already too cold and heartless for the spirit of the age;" as happily all this is quite as palpably the reverse of fact. There is no surer or speedier passport to public respect, affection, and influence, than an able, faithful, and consistent inculcation of the great essentials of the gospel, sustained by a corresponding life of purity, dignity, and unmixed regard for the welfare of souls. Not a solitary instance can be designated in the history of the last "thirty years," in which a minister who has thus fulfilled the duties of his office, has failed to command either the high confidence and veneration of the church, or of the public at large. Did the late Dr. Wilson of Philadelphia, Dr. Mason of our own city, Dr. Dwight, Dr. Backus, Dr. Strong, or any others of a similar character, ever have occasion to complain that "unbending

adherence to doctrines" had "become a burden well nigh too oppressive to be borne," and find that they had injured themselves in the esteem, or sunk themselves in the confidence of the church by the force, fidelity, and "steadfastness" with which they preached the great truths of the gospel? Or did those who have been cut off from among us, at their entrance on a career of distinguished usefulness and respect, whose untimely fall filled the community with regret, and over whose sepulchres piety still lingers in tender and sorrowful remembrance ?-the ingenuous and eloquent Whelpley; the disinterested and devoted Bruen; the gifted and accomplished Christmas, whose fervor of piety, simplicity and truth of thought, dignity of manners, and eloquence, imparted a reality, elevation, and sanctity to religion, that instinctively disarmed objection, and drew from all hearts the willing homage of respect and love. It certainly was far otherwise with them. Neither these youths nor those elders ever found that their "steadfastness in the faith required unwonted self-denial," nor that their "unbending adherence to doctrines had become a burden well nigh too oppressive to be borne." They were, on the contrary, in their element when announcing the great messages of salvation, and enforcing their dread and gracious sanctions with all the fervor of their affections and force of their eloquence. To have held loosely to their doctrines, to have disguised their sentiments, or mutilated their messages, in order to adapt them to the selfish wishes of men, and catch their guilty applause, would indeed have rendered their office and themselves an insupportable burthen. But they neither needed, nor were capable of those arts. They did not

regard the gospel as so bare of evidence,

or destitute of

dignity and adaptation to awe the intellect and strike the

conscience, as to render it a hopeless task to recommend it, at least, to the respect of the "good men" of the church; but chose the "manifestation of the truth," as the fit, the certain, and the only method of "commending themselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." And what was thus true with respect to them, is equally true in respect to all others. Let those be designated who are most distinguished for the wisdom, boldness, consistency and faithfulness, with which they preach the great doctrines of the gospel, and they will be found to be identically those whom the church regards with the highest esteem, and in whom she reposes the largest confidence. If there are any who find themselves unable to command her respect, they must look for the cause to something else than their "steadfastness in the faith ;" and will be much more likely to find it in their dereliction of that duty, or in some obliquity of manners, that renders their ministry distrusted and inefficient.

But this "spirit" of "apathy to truth" and "criminal indifference to all religious opinions," has extended its blighting influence also it seems to the great charitable enterprises of the age.

"But is it not possible that this zeal for christian enterprize needs the baptism of an orthodox spirit; and unless it is more deeply imbued with it, must not only fail of accomplishing what it might otherwise accomplish, but scatter in wide profusion tares among the wheat? Combinations of truth and error even in plans of benevolent enterprise, are of very doubtful tendency. Error has always been willing to go with truth, just so far as truth will go with error; whereas truth ought to go with error no farther than error will go with truth; and even in this apparently safe companionship, truth is very apt to become crippled and lame. If I do not survey the signs of the times through a deceptive and gloomy medium, there are dangers in this matter, to which neither the church nor her watchmen are sufficiently awake. We should not be surprised if in this age of business

and ignorance, action and concession, it should be found necessary be. fore the expiration of many years, for another Whitfield or Edwards, to sound the note of alarm to the American churches."

These benevolent institutions then, instead of being devoted, as they are usually thought to be, to the dissemination of the gospel in distinguished exemption from all human intermixtures, are little better than mere instruments of scattering "a wide profusion of tares ;" the very "zeal for christian enterprise," in which they have their origin, "needs the baptism of an orthodox spirit," and except it speedily becomes "more deeply imbued with it," the most deplorable effects must inevitably result; and a special and signal intervention of Providence become necessary to arrest the evil. If there are dangers" of this character" in this matter," they are certainly alarming, and may well carry anxiety to the hearts of those even, who are not so scrupulous as to demand a pure exemption from error in the conduct of these undertakings, but insist only that "truth ought to go with error no farther than error will go with truth," though "even in this apparently safe companionship, truth is very apt to become crippled and lame!" "The order of things is changed" indeed, " and at the expense of truth," if the "christian" graces themselves, or any one of them, can thus need baptism, and "the baptism of an orthodox spirit." These "are dangers" it cannot be denied, "to which neither the church nor her watchmen are awake." Christian and orthodox belong, it seems in this gentleman's apprehension, to different categories, and his recommendation is that the former should be baptized into the latter !

These passages present an accusation of " the American churches" more grave in its import, affecting the character of a larger number of pious, useful, learned and distin