Again, the same catholic temper may be inferred from the manner in which his most intimate correspondents address him.

You have seen, I suppose,' writes his friend, Dr S. Clark,' what the public prints inform us, relating to the proceedings of the General Assembly in Scotland, against Mr Patrick Simson. They are going to deprive that church of one of the most valuable men it contains, because he does not think it necessary to tie himself down exactly to their Shibboleth, nor oblige himself to conform to all their scholastic ways of speaking concerning the person of our blessed Lord in points where the Scriptures are silent. By what I saw and heard of that gentleman when in Scotland, he is a much better judge of such matters than the greater part of those who presume to judge him! But his crime is that he will think for himself;—but yet he is very cautious to avoid giving offence, which I perceive is by the bigots interpreted as cunning and dissimulation.' Vol. 2, p. 308-9.

And he adds,

Suppose a person should not speak with an exact propriety (as we think) concerning the existence of Christ, a point perhaps much above our reach, if yet he loves him above all, trusts in him, and sincerely obeys him, what harm does religion suffer? But I need not enlarge upon this subject to you who are so well instructed in the unreasonableness of bigotry, as to any set of speculative notions.' lb.

And finally, in a letter to his friend, Mr Brown, dated Nov. 1742, after some expressions, intimating that his moderation on theological points was with some a cause of offence, Dr Doddridge thus concludes:

'Permit me, Sir, on so natural an occasion, to conclude with expressing the pleasure, with which I have heard that you of late have turned your preaching from a controversial, to a more practical and useful strain. I am persuaded, Sir, it is a manner of using the great talents which God has given you, which will turn to the most valuable account with respect to yourself and your flock; and if you would please to add another labor of love, by endeavoring to convince some who may be more open to the conviction from you

than from others, that Christian candor does not consist in judging the hearts of their brethren, or virulently declaring against their supposed bigotry, it would be a very important charity to them, and a favor to, Reverend and dear Sir, your very affectionate brother, and humble servant, P. DODDRIDGE.'

Our readers cannot want, even if our limits enabled us to furnish, additional evidence of the truly liberal and catholic spirit of Dr Doddridge. It would be easy, however, to multiply similar passages. We have omitted all those, which may be found in his life by Kippis, or in other memoirs* of this eminent man.

On the whole, with whatever dissatisfaction we read the parts of former volumes, we have derived from the perusal of these latter, an almost unmingled pleasure. Doddridge is exhibited here in his proper character, as the faithful, eloquent, devoted, and honored minister. We see throughout these letters, the general respect and the cordial affection which his character inspired. His domestic virtues, and the kindness of his heart, are exhibited with great beauty. And though, here and there, an infirmity may be detected; and the vanity, which in later years was his foible, which the flattery of friends and admiring crowds were continually enflaming, could not always be repressed, yet there is enough, and more than enough, to satisfy us with the opinion pronounced concerning him by his grateful pupil, Dr Kippis-himself an honored name -that he was not only a great man, but one of the best christians and christian ministers that ever existed.' F. P.

* Mr Orton, in his excellent memoirs, employs a long chapter in showing the moderation and catholicism of Dr Doddridge, and his friendly conduct to persons of different persuasions.

ORTHODOX DEFENCE OF ORTHODOX UNCHARITABLE

NESS.

'Spirit of the Pilgrims,' in reply to Mr Whitman's Letters to Professor Stuart, Number for March, 1831.

We have here a whole number of the Spirit of the Pilgrims,' devoted to the subject of Mr Whitman's Letters, and a more thorough going attempt to defend the system of denunciation and uncharitableness, we have never witnessed. The writer seems almost angry with us for the mild treatment the Orthodox received at our hands in our former notices of Professor Stuart's Letters. He can hardly forgive us, because, instead of calling them bigots, fools, and madmen outright, we were content to find fault with the spirit and tendency of their system and measures. We may have been charitable, for aught we know, to a weakness. So he appears to think. But we had rather bear the imputation of having too much charity, than too little. We persist, then, in asserting that we mean not to implicate the great body of the Orthodox; that our censures are levelled only against the principles and measures of the exclusionists.

6

'Well, then,' says this writer, we are completely justified upon your own concession, for you allow that we act on principle.' Justified in what? In your abuse of the Unitarians, and all the foul slanders you have been uttering against them for fifteen or twenty years?—Yes, certainly. We are sincere. We say only what we think, and we have a right to think for ourselves, and to express our opinions too, if we please. If your rep

utations suffer in consequence, we cannot help it. That is no concern of ours. We would not hurt an hair of your heads,' but we must tell the truth.' Look ye to the consequences.-Such we conceive is the amount of this writer's defence of the policy of the exclusive sect. "We exclusionists have a right to be exclusionists and uncharitable if we choose. We have a right to call the Unitarians infidels, and impious, if we think them such. They have no reason to complain of us for so doing. "They have no right to dictate to us what we shall think of them, or what we shall call them." We have a right, we say, to be exclusionists and uncharitable, if we choose; it is part of our freedom.' We confess we were not quite prepared for so open an avowal of the principle of uncharitableness.

Again, this writer contends that there is no impropriety in requiring persons as a condition of admission to Christian ordinances to express their assent to a long doctrinal creed, drawn up by weak, fallible mortals, and in excluding them whenever they shall renounce their belief in any article of that creed. No impropriety in attempting to lord it over God's heritage!' No impropriety in fencing the ordinances of Christ round with a hedge of thorns! No impropriety in setting up other tests of qualification for those ordinances than Jesus and his Apostles have authorized!-No, certainly not. If you, Unitarians, are, in consequence, injured in your character or feelings, if yon are held up to the world as persons destitute of all piety, and love to your Saviour, if you are shut out from his 'feast of love,' a privation you may sensibly feel, it is

no fault of ours. We only exercise a rightful freedom in excluding you. We would not hurt an hair of your heads.' But we must take the liberty to tell you, and tell the world, that we do not think you Christians; and we will not treat you as such; we will never receive you to Christian fellowship. If we thus occasion you suffering, we are truly sorry for it, but it is unavoidable. We cannot be restrained in the exercise of our freedom on account of such as you!

6

But, it is further said in defence of the exclusionists, we do not intend to erect our creeds into standards of truth;' we do not mean to set them above the Bible.' This, Mr Whitman ought to have known. Our only object in requiring a person, offering himself for membership of a church, to subscribe them, is to ascertain 'what construction he puts upon the Bible.'-That is, to compel him, on penalty of being denounced as an unbeliever, to acknowledge your expositions of the language of the Bible! The very thing we complain of. To subscribe to your expositions of the Bible! No Potentate of the seven hills ever exacted more. You would not make your creeds a standard of truth," you would only make them the standard of a right interpretation of the Bible! Excellent.

Such may serve as a specimen of this writer's tender mercies,' and logic. We cannot consider his production as in any sense an answer to Mr Whitman's Letters, which he professes, in fact, not to have attentively read. He has given them, he tells us, only a cursory perusal.' 'We have,' says he, 'run our eye over the pages of these Letters,' and on the publication of Mr Whitman's second edition, he further informs us,