very imperfect idea of its contents from the sketch here given. We regret this the less, however, as we hope and trust they will be induced to make themselves familiar with the train of facts and arguments it contains, by a careful perusal. Many of its statements will receive confirmation from what has passed under their own observation. Of some of the various modes of influencing the public mind it describes, almost every day furnishes examples. We can easily credit Mr Whitman, when he tells us that the chief difficulty he has found, has been to select from the immense mass of materials accumulated on his hands.

With regard to Prof. Stuart, we wish not to be uncharitable. Many of his assertions in the Letter on religious liberty, however, are of a character sufficiently extraordinary, and we scarcely know how to account for them. Much, no doubt, is to be attributed to his usual precipitation and carelessness, and to the excited state of feeling under which he writes. Of all the controversial writers of the day, we regard him as the most unwary, though one of the most dogmatical. Few so often lay themselves open to attack. Of his haste and dogmatism his friend Dr Miller gives a remarkable specimen. In his letter to Dr Channing on the subject of his Baltimore Sermon, it seems, the Professor had asserted with his characteristic positiveness, that the Nicene Council, like the great body of the ancient Fathers believed in the doctrine of the eternal generation' of the Son of God. Again, he says, 'the most of ancient Fathers in the church maintained the doctrine of eternal generation.' Now three or four years after this, we find him publishing letters address

ed to Dr Miller, the express design of which is to prove that these Fathers did not believe in the eternal, but only in a temporary generation of the Son of God. And the Orthodox authority quoted by Mr Whitman states, that in the existing controversy between Andover and New Haven, he is claimed by both parties,' but probably has not the full confidence of either.' Some of his assertions in his late Letter to Dr Channing are so palpably inconsistent with facts of recent date, that one would be almost tempted to believe that he had drunken of the waters of Lethe, or that his mind has been occupied with theological abstractions, and 'patristical,' or German' lore,' and modes of exegesis,' that he is a stranger to what has been going on for some years in the living world around him.

We repeat, in conclusion, what we stated explicitly in our former notices of Prof. Stuart's Letter, that we mean not to extend our censures to the great body of believers attached to the doctrines of Orthodoxy. As we before said, we respect no man the less for his opinions, provided they exist in union with the meek and charitable spirit of the Gospel. We know that multitudes among the Orthodox, we doubt not, a large majority of them, are as heartily opposed, as we are, to the measures of the exclusionists. We believe that they view with deep regret the spirit of denunciation and abuse, which has of late manifested itself. We believe that the people generally are friendly to liberty and order, that they are friendly to the exercise of the right of private judgment. We believe that the measures recently adopted, the effect of which has been to divide and break up parishes, and sow

discord and suspicion in families and neighborhoods, are regarded by them with disapprobation. For these, we feel a sincere respect. However we differ from them in doctrine, we view them as fellow Christians, entitled to our sympathy and love. With regard to such, we would forget points of difference, and think only of points of agreement. We desire to be united with them in bonds of fraternal affection. We would judge no man, nor are we willing to be judged of man's judgment. And is this to be imputed to us as a crime? Is it a crime to oppose a spirit of exclusion and intolerance? A crime to inculcate moderation and forbearance? to plead the cause of injured charity? Then, indeed we are guilty. But we have not so learned Christ.

Memoirs of Moses Mendelsohn, the Jewish Philosopher; including the celebrated correspondence on the Christian Religion, with J. C. Lavater, minister of Zurich. By M. Samuels. Second Edition. London.

[Continued from our last number.]

In the remarks, we have already offered on the character of this most excellent man and enlightened philosopher, it was observed, that the chief value of this volume, even beyond that which belongs to so interesting a subject of biography, is the view it exhibits, of the opinions of Mendelsohn, and of some of the most intelligent of his countrymen, on the subject of

their religion, and particularly of their principles, as it respects proselytism.

On this delicate topic, it may be remembered, that Mendelsohn expresses himself with great directness and fulness in his celebrated letter to Lavater. It was reluctantly forced from him by a too personal appeal to his sentiments and feelings, by that ingenious, but eccentric divine. Mendelsohn felt that it was an unauthorised address to an individual; and he writes, as a man of his fine genius and religious sensibility might be expected to write of himself.

We have already adverted to the introduction of this letter; and, as the work is by no means common among us, we know not that we can offer a more acceptable service to our readers, than by enabling them to judge for themselves of the admirable sentiments it conveys.

Having expressed his personal objections, to engaging in religious controversy, among which he includes, with a touching tenderness, his civil disqualifications as a Jew, and his sense of the degraded condition in Europe, of his countrymen, he thus writes:

It is by virtue, that I wish to shame the opprobious opinion commonly entertained of a Jew, and not by controversial writings. My religious tenets, philosophy, station in civil society, all furnish me with the most cogent reason for abstaining from theological disputes, and for treating in my publications of those truths only, which are equally important to all persuasions.'

He then proceeds to a declaration of the views he had formed, on the subject of proselytism.

According then,' says he, to the principles of my religion, I am not to seek to convert any one, who is not born according to our laws. Our rabbins unanimously teach, that the written and oral laws, which form conjointly our revealed religion, are obligatory on our nation only. 'Moses commanded us a law, even the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob.** We believe, that all other nations of

the earth have been directed by God to adhere to the laws of nature, and to the religion of the patriarchs. Those who regulate their lives according to the precepts of this religion of nature and of reason. are called virtuous men of other nations, and are the children of salvation.'

'Thus, you see,' he continues, the religion of my fathers does not wish to be extended. We are not to send missions to both the Indies, or to Greenland, to preach our doctrine to those remote people. The latter, in particular, who, by all accounts, observe the laws of nature stricter than, alas! we do, are, in our religious estimation, an enviable race. Whoever is not born comformable to our laws, has no occasion to live according to them.'

'Suppose there was amongst my contemporaries, a Confucius or a Solon, I could, consistently with my religious principles, love and admire the great man, but I should never hit on the extravagant idea of converting a Confucius or a Solon. What should I convert him for ? As he does not belong to the congregation of Jacob, my religious laws were not legislated for him; and on doctrines we should soon come to an understanding. Do I think, there is a chance of his being saved? I certainly believe, that he, who leads mankind on to virtue in this world, cannot be damned in the next.'

'I am so fortunate, as to count amongst my friends, many a worthy man, who is not of my faith. We love each other sincerely, notwithstanding we presume, or take for granted, that, in matters of belief, we differ widely in opinion. I enjoy the delight of their society, which both improves and solaces me. Never yet has my heart whispered, "Alas! for this excellent man's soul!" He, who believes, that no salvation is to be found out of the pale of his own church, must often feel such sighs rise in his bosom.'

It is true, every man is naturally bound to diffuse knowledege and virtue amongst his fellow creatures, and to eradicate error and prejudice as much as lies in his power.'

*Deuteron. xxx. 4. Talmud Sanhedrim, folio 59. Maimondes on the Book of Kings, cap. 8, sec. 10.