ARTICLE X.

THE ROUND TABLE.

OURSELVES. -The success of our enterprise and first number is beyond all expectation. Evidently we have come to the time and place for The Boston Review. This new candidate for theological and literary favor has met with a patronage and good will rarely equalled in the first issue of a Review. The voice of the Press and of the Church is emphatic and highly encouraging, specially when we remember that the theology of the Review is "antique," "fossil," "old fogy," "no longer extant," "behind the times," &c.

The Church of Christ welcomes this work; and laying aside any supposed modesty we may have as its managers, we offer a sample of the unsolicited commendations of it that we have received.

Says the Congregational Herald, of Chicago:—“A neater design for the outside title-page of a periodical than is presented on the cover, we have never seen; and the paper and print within correspond. To our great surprise we like the contents, abating a rather sour sentence here and there. The tone is more moderate, the style more racy, and the subjects more varied, than we had anticipated. In fact, it is quite a credit to those who issued it. It stands up manfully for true doctrinal preaching, as the staple of pulpit-instruction, and shows the danger of the ephemeral, sentimental, moralizing, lax, and miscalled practical preaching, now so popular in the churches, and so current in the newspapers. Go on, brethren, you have our best wishes," This is "good news from a far country," and so the more

&c.

grateful.

....

Passing to the other side of the Union, the Christian Mirror, of Portland, says: "This first number gives good promise." The Congregational Journal, of Concord, also gives us invigorating and encouraging words.

A venerable father in the Church, and who has done great service in the theological and educational world, writes to us:- - "I heartily approve of your timely essay to do good, and encourage the older theology of New England, and infuse into the moral and social discussions of the day a more Scriptural element by the establishment of a Review," &c. "My old pen is nearly worn out, but I am yours with all good wishes."

Another writes us: "I go in for sustaining, and handing down to posterity, the old apostolic faith.' I do not believe in any newfangled theology. There is more difference between the new and the

old than between new and old wine, and I have it on pretty good authority that 'the old is better.'"

And yet another, among many comforting things, says: “I like your first number very much."

The New York Observer, we are aware, is not supposed by some to have been started by Paul, or to be now edited by Timothy, though it dates back earlier than those Christian fathers, Eusebius and Irenæus. It speaks of the Boston Review as "orthodox, manly, Christian, valiant and good-looking." "The initial number has much of the right kind of thinking and speaking." It is a "spirited and trenchant Review." "It sets out with an array of facts to prove that it is high time the friends of sound doctrine are aroused to action."

One of the leading laymen in the centre of Maine, in a businessnote, says: "I have received the first number of the Review, and read the first Article, and think that alone is worth the cost of the Review. So I enclose," &c.

We hesitate much to add to these evidences of good will that the Church is volunteering, but must give a passage or two from a long and discriminating letter from one of the best divines in New England: "I have just finished the reading, &c. It more than answers my high expectations. Perhaps my attachment to the old theology of the Apostles, as expounded by Calvin, the Westminster Divines, and Edwards, may render me unduly favorable in my estimate of a periodical whose pages, from beginning to the end, are pervaded with the savor of the faith once delivered to the saints.' The first article is worth a year's subscription," &c. "I am glad to see the Review make its first appearance, not only in a beautiful form as to mechanical execution, but in a style of literary taste not surpassed by any of our Quarterlies." "Some timid men may be sensitive about divisions that are to appear as the effect of such a Review. But I can see no reason to fear in this direction. I am led rather to hope that the free and faithful discussion of the Christian doctrines, in the manner to be expected in your Review, will promote harmony of views, and so cement the union of brethren in Christ."

The Boston Journal is so courteous that we must insert a word of theirs: "It is got up in very beautiful style. It shows ability. The article about Theodore Parker is a model article. It will be all spicy, no doubt, possibly peppery. The Review will have a character, and a pretty decided one. Its utterances will be positive, and to the point. It will give no uncertain sound. We are glad of this, and the public will be glad of it too, for they have been hungering for something of the kind for a long time. We welcome it into the literary field, and wish it all success.'

AMONG the wonderful discoveries relating to things "Edwardian," which philosophers have achieved in these latter days, the highest place will have to be assigned, we think, to the most recent; first published, so far as we are advised, in Boston, a few weeks ago, by the Pastor of the New York Tabernacle Church, in a Sabbath evening lecture before the Young Men's Christian Union. It would now seem that the most important works of Jonathan Edwards owed the characteristics which provoke the criticism of this luminous age, to the disadvantages under which they were written, and especially to his peculiar "humility," and his "ignorance of algebra, the higher mathematics, Greek classics," &c. Only think what Jonathan Edwards might have done, if he had known algebra and Greek, and had not been so extravagantly humble! Which humility, nevertheless, it is claimed, although it appears "extravagant to-day," ought not to be thought so very "strange," since, as we know, human nature has often developed into things equally extravagant in the opposite direction; as, for instance, that German philosopher who said, "I will create God"! Don't you think the pride of the philosopher was about as bad as the humility of the theologian?

We are also instructed, by this profound discoverer, that Edwards belonged to an "inelegant and inhuman" class of writers: hence the "vividness with which he portrays future punishment," which is declared to be a "grossness of expression" "not at all in accordance with our modern ideas of taste," and "wholly unsuited to our times." These "modern ideas of taste," it is said, forbid the preacher's "presenting the figures of the Bible in detail."

Did HE, who gave us the most startling of those figures, with reiteration and fearful emphasis, also belong to the "inelegant and inhuman" class? Would his preaching have been "wholly unsuited to our times"? Alas, we fear so! Can any prophet tell us whither we are drifting? We hardly know which to admire most, the magnanimity and brilliant knight-errantry of that voluntary surrender to a professedly free-thinking assembly, or the flippant and superficial trifling with the name and fame of Jonathan Edwards.

A NEW THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. - We find the question on our Table, and pass it along, whether another school of the prophets is not needed. Many churches have great and protracted difficulty in obtaining a pastor who is fitted to their very peculiar wants and wishes. One church has very nice shadings, perhaps overcloudings, in its theology. Another is so given to practical godliness that it cannot receive any doctrinal preaching, like a pilot so intent on the prac

tical duties of the helm that he cannot give any attention to charts and reckonings. Yet another church would captivate and convert (to pew-occupants at least) certain outsiders, who rank sermonizing among the fine arts, and the pulpit as a baptized lyceum. The circumstances of another church are very peculiar. They are surrounded by Arminians, Restorationists, Unitarians, &c. They would draw all these into a Broad Church Evangelical. A young man of popular talent, prepossessing appearance, (good physique we think the churches watching for pastors call it,) silent on doctrines, progressive, devout in attitudes and intonations, would answer their purpose. The First Avenue Church is destitute. Under the former pastor this church did nothing but sustain its regular meetings and the common charities of the day, make small and frequent additions to its numbers, and live a common Christian life. But they could not pay their pastor, and so sent him away. They want a smart young man, and are not particular about the salary. The Pilgrim Rock Church is in want of a man. During the presidential campaign their house was closed, except for the discussion of "great questions." "What must I do to be saved?" was not one of them. The Election is now over, the times are dull, and they propose to have a revival. Deacon Eli, one of the officers in this church, wants a man of great power, for his sons, Hophni and Phineas, give him some anxiety. They want a man who has always produced a revival in his six and twelve months' settlements. A new and fashionable church, in a growing place, feels the need of a man a little above medium size, dark complexion, heavy whiskers, and perhaps moustache. The latter point cannot be settled till after the next levee. If he have all but the moustache, and they settle to have it, they consent to close the house while he tarries at Jericho the time requisite. The Polygon Church wants a man so smart and so feeble, that he can preach but seldom. A pale, thoughtful recluse, who has strength to see only the principal families, and has a German reputation, would be preferred. If his health requires a trip to Europe while they shut up the church for six months, and pay his expenses, it will suit them, for "a good name is better than precious ointment."

It is proposed to found a Seminary that will furnish custom-made ministers. From four to eighteen months, according to the specialities in the order, would suffice to get up the article, while many a church has spent three years in hearing candidates and criticizing, and then got nothing but a minister of the Gospel.

It is an open question, whether or not to have any creed, even one "for substance of doctrine," in this new Seminary. For it is found

that a definite creed, as the Westminster, is a special hindrance to settlement. Yet nothing serves so well as a basis on which to beget confidence, funds, professorships, &c. But we leave the whole question open, as we found it.

MAY we show anxiety without being called "alarmists"? May we "tremble for the ark of God" without being accused of sowing discord among brethren? We find the following in the February number of The Monthly Religious Magazine," a Unitarian organ, "edited by Rev. Edmund H. Sears and Rev. Rufus Ellis":

"A member of one of the large metropolitan orthodox churches sends us their creed. It is an excellent creed, every article of which we could heartily subscribe. Tripersonalism, the resurrection of dead bodies, election and reprobation, and other dead traditions, have been sloughed off, bringing this church into nearer conformity with the one Catholic Church of the Lord."

The creed is given. Among the "other dead traditions" "sloughed off," we find that total depravity is one; for of man's natural state it only says, "until renewed by the Holy Spirit destitute of the holiness required by the divine law," that is, deficient more or less.

We have no hint or notion what church this is. We know this, that its creed can have the "hearty subscription" of Unitarians. We want to express grief, anxiety, alarm. We want to mention some large metropolitan Unitarian churches that were once orthodox. We want to put in a plea for holding fast to "the form of sound words," against the introduction of creed-phrases, made to order, and of the most liberal and elastic and compromising accommodation. We want to bring out some old records, and compass and chain, and hunt up and reset certain ancient metes and bounds. But we must forbear. For so doing, we should stir a divisive movement among these brethren, create needless alarm, prove ourselves to be antiquaries, and hostile to all progress and "improvements in theology."

GOVERNOR ANDREW has presented to the State of Massachusetts the first military trophies of the Revolution—the gift of Theodore Parker, and won by his grandfather at Lexington. Was it a part of the official duty of His Excellency to eulogize, in the Message announcing the gift, the principles and labors of the donor, - a man who has done so much to dishonor the principles and labors of the Fathers of the Revolution? And must French Infidelity, beautifully finished up with Yankee veneers and varnish, thus be palmed