Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

negative;" and yet this is the very thing which he himself had done in the commencement of his dissertation on this subject.

Dr. Livingston, I humbly conceive, has done the same thing.— There is much positive assertion without a particle of proof, in the quotations made from his work in the Advocate. (p. 173.) I venerate old age; but, permit me to remark, that old age can add very little to the cause it may happen to advocate, by reflecting, as is very common, on the comparative youthfulness of an opponent. Young men may and do often err; yet, exemp tion from error is not a property age. While I make no pretensions to extraordinary light or learning, I cannot suppose that all wisdom has died with those who once shone in the church as stars of the first mag

of

nitude, nor that what remains is to be found only with those who have reached, or nearly reached, the utmost limit of human life.

For you, reverend father, I cherish a profound respect-a respect which I was taught to feel, and did feel, at a very early period of my life. Often have I listened to your eloquent pulpit discourses, and often as a catechumen have I received

in your study the most affectionate counsels. It is true, I was very young; the recollection of it may have passed from your mind, but it is fresh in mine, and excites feel

ings which cannot be described. With all modesty and humility I would gladly again sit at your feet to gain knowledge; but, Sir, you

must excuse me if I cannot assent to a proposition, the truth of which I do not clearly perceive, or if I attempt respectfully to show wherein the reasoning appears to me defective, by which it is sought to establish that proposition.

With fervent prayer that your useful life may be prolonged and

enriched with all covenant blessings, yours in the Lord, April 19, 1827.

CLERICUS.

Editorial Remarks.

did not, in the work we reviewed, WE readily admit that Clericus make "any direct and unqualified concessions, as to the scriptural authority applicable to unlawful marriages." But we did, and do still, think, that we had sufficient reason to say, in the cautious and guarded language which we used, in page

177 of our last number, that, if we Veritas, after having "honestly and "rightly apprehended" him and carefully endeavoured to understand them, the whole of what they in controversy" came to "THE REsaid on the merits of the question SULT" which we there stated. We perceived that Clericus appeared, designedly, to avoid any direct appeal to scriptural authority, in rewhole pamphlet went to show that ference to the subject; but, as his expediency was not to be relied on, and it was manifest that he differed as widely as the poles from the conclusion of Domesticus, we believed that there could be no other re

sult, but that he thought reliance in forming a correct judgment of must be placed on inspiration alone, the matter in dispute. We also thought that the bearing of a good deal which he said incidentally, did really authorize this conclusion. that we did "not rightly apprehend Yet we intimated that it might be

the sentiments both of him and Ve

ritas, in regard to this point." We frankly acknowledge, that we afterwards, in page 179, stated too tained, in opposition to Domesticus, strongly, that these writers mainthe exclusive authority of Scripture relative to the subject in debate. Our language here was not sufficiently guarded; and we hope never to be disposed to attempt the defence of an error, however conscious we may be, as in the present instance we certainly are, that it was committed through inattention and not by design.

The misnomer of Veritas for Clericus, in our 179th page, occurred

in the haste of composition. We observed it almost as soon as our work was published; and several days before we received the communication of Clericus, we had marked it for correction, as it will be found at the end of our present number. We read a good many periodicals, and we think that the number of our errata is quite as small as that of our neighbours.

We have now made to Clericus all the concessions that we can make with a good conscience; and more than these we are satisfied he would not desire. If we " blended together" the reasonings of Veritas and Clericus, we think we had a perfect right to do so; when their reasonings were not only similar, but when the former, at the very close of his pamphlet, entirely approved of the latter, and thus made the sentiments of Clericus his own. Although the cases of witchcraft and religious persecution, as mentioned by Clericus, were directly applied to show the fallacy of the argument from expediency used by Domesticus, yet we still believe it was by no forced construction, that we considered them as intended to exhibit a kind of parallel with the case of a man's marrying his deceased wife's sister. We think we might appeal to the cancandour of Clericus himself, to say if he did not wish that the former cases might be considered, at least as an illustration of the absurdity of the latter case.

We must content ourselves with expressing our utter surprise, that a man of so much modesty and candour as Clericus appears to be, should express himself as he does, in relation to what has been written by Dr. Livingston and Dr. Mason on the subject in debate-They do not need our vindication. We must think that few competent judges of logick and argument can read them, and think of them as Clericus does. What we quoted from Dr. L. was professedly historical, rather than

argumentative; yet, so far from being "without a particle of proof," we verily believe there are particles enough in the last quotation, to overthrow from the foundation the whole system of Clericus and Veritas.

We certainly wish that no man who has reached the age of maturity, should give up the inestimable right of private judgment; and we hold it as a sacred principle, that the word of God, and that only, is the infallible rule of faith and practice. Yet every man, whether young or old, is responsible to his God for the proper treatment of evidence on points of practical morality, and for the consequent opinions and practice which he adopts. We never wished, and have never insinuated, that Clericus, or Veritas, or Domesticus, should bow implicitly to human authority. We have expressed the opinion, and we still retain it, that they have not learned from others all that they might and ought to have learned.

We have no where said, nor meant to insinuate, that any of the writers whose pamphlets we reviewed, ought to be undervalued on account of their youth. The truth is, that if our estimate of their age be right, they are in the very vigour of manhood; in the best period of life for accurate and powerful writing. We did, in the case of Dr. L. introduce a sentence, and elsewhere several sentences, to turn aside the force of a popular notion, that old men are so under the influence of prejudice, and of ideas imbibed in times of comparative ignorance, that they cannot open their eyes on the great light of the present age of knowledge and improvement, nor drink in its liberal and ennobling spirit: And we appeal to our readers whether they do not, in the present day, hear this notion expressed, at least ten times as often as they hear any claims advanced in consequence of age and standing.

The inconsistency which we

thought was apparent in the pamphlets of Clericus and Veritas, was intimated (we supposed with sufficient plainness) to consist in this their writing so much of an evident tendency to set at perfect ease the minds of those who contract the marriages in question, and yet protesting that they are no advocates for such marriages. For ourselves, we do believe that there is a gross inconsistency in this. We may prove the most powerful advocates of a cause; nay, we are likely to prove so, when we profess to have no partiality in its favour.

After all that Clericus has stated in his letter, and all that he and his friends have said in the second publication which he has issued, and which we have read with some at tention, we must think that the advocates of those marriages are using arguments of most pernicious tendency false in themselves, and calculated to lead individuals to transgress, and to introduce corruption and impurity into the church of Christ. That they verily believe what they say, and that they have a perfect right to say what they believe, we question not. But if we do at all understand them-and after reading the second publication of Clericus we think we do the sum of their system is-That there is indeed a moral obligation not to marry any near of kin, and yet that there is no passage* of Scripture, nor any

It is urged, again and again, that the 18th chapter of Leviticus cannot be of moral and perpetual obligation in prescribing the law of incest; because it is intimately blended with laws admitted to

number of passages taken together, that will show us who are near of kin, in that degree which renders marriage unlawful. The consequence of this is, and it is avowed, that every man ought to be left on this subject to judge and act for himself. It is moreover maintained, that in cases of church discipline, nothing but an EXPRESS "thus saith the Lord," " or authority from God's word equivalent to it," should be the ground of procedure. It follows, we think, as an inevitable consequence from these premises, taken conjointly, that no marriage whatever, except that which the Apostle Paul condemns-not even the marriage of consanguineous brothers and sisters-can be the proper subject of church discipline. Can it be that the revelation of God has left so important a matter thus? We cannot believe it.

The affectionate manner in which Clericus concludes his note, has inspired feelings of tenderness, beyond our powers of expression. It has awakened the most interesting recollections of his whole pious familyonce, and in our best days, a very dear part of our pastoral charge. May the best blessings of the covenant God of his parents be all his own.

be ceremonial. If this is a good argument, it will certainly set aside the moral obligation of the Decalogue. Let any man read the 20th chapter of Exodus, with its connexion, and he will find it as really blended with a number of precepts, manifestly ceremonial and temporary, as those which are connected with the law of incest in the 18th of Deuteronomy.

SHORT NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS. AN INAUGURAL ADDRESS, delivered before the Directors of the Theological Seminary of the General Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, by S. S. Schmucker, A. M., at his induction into the Professor ship of Christian Theology, September 5, 1826. Together with the Charge delivered to him by the Rev. D. F. Schaeffer, A. M.

We sincerely rejoice to find that a Theological Seminary is organized in the Lutheran church of our country. We are persuaded that this establishment will not only be instrumental in raising the literary attainments of the Lutheran clergy in the United States, but also increasing their number and guarding the purity of their

faith against the corruptions and heresies now so rampant in the country from which their church derives its origin. In this persuasion we are the more confirm ed by reading the pamphlet before uscontaining the charges delivered to the first professor, and his inaugural address. Both these performances are distinguished for their piety; and the address of the professor exhibits such an acquaintance with theological learning, and such right views of the manner in which the studies of candidates for the gospel ministry ought to be conducted, as promise the happiest results. The professor, although a young man, is already well known in our country as an author, and a strenuous and able advocate for the Lutheran doctrines, as taught by the first great Protestant Reformer. His present attainments are in a high degree reputable, and if his life and health shall be spared, as we pray that they may, we doubt not that he is destined to be an eminent blessing to the whole religious community with which he is connected-a community, from which, although we differ in some unessential points, we shall, while it holds fast the Augsburgh Confession, rejoice to see prosperous-We even wish that the infant seminary, of which Mr. Schmucker is elected the first professor, may be aided and patronised in collecting funds, by the wealthy individuals of the Presbyterian church, and of other denominations who wish well to the cause of evangelical piety. Mr. S. discusses in the address before us the following inquiries: "Who are the proper subjects of ministerial education?

"What branches of science are entitled to their attention?

"Which is the proper method of conducting this education?

"What are the advantages resulting

from it?"

We give as a specimen, the following views of professor S. in regard to the necessity of practical piety in every minister of the gospel

"Again, without piety the minister of the gospel will generally be a curse to the church. We say not that an unconverted minister, who preaches orthodox doctrines, can never confer spiritual benefit on others. To assert this would be to set limits to Omnipotence, to deny that there is any aptitude in the word of God, to promote the end for which it was given, and to contend that it is not the word of God, but the minister who makes men wise unto salvation. No, we believe God sometimes does effectually publish his gospel by unsanctified lips. The ministry of Judas was, probably, not without

its benefits, and there are doubtless in every age, some of the Iscariot band, who preach with some profit 'to others, and themselves are cast away.' But even these, generally, do more injury than good. They not only exclude from their congregations faithful servants of the Lord, who would carefully feed the flock; but the cold formality, and perhaps levity of their private walk, neutralize the influence of their publick ministrations and steel the hearts of many against the sacred word. Has the sword of the Spirit pierced the heart of some sinner, and, filled with remorse, does he call on his pastor to learn what he should do to be saved? Alas! this is a feeling which he never experienced, and which he therefore does not consider a necessary part of religion. He mistakes the nature of the disease, and instead of pointing the sinner to the balm of Gilead and the kind Physician there; the wound is either slightly healed, or, awful to relate, he is advised to suppress these feelings, to seek amid the promiscuous topicks of the social circle, relief from his despondency, and by tonicks, and exercise, and purer air, to wear away the corporal disorder whence it originates! In short, we generally see that an unconverted minister, though moral, spreads a deadly influence through the congregation over which he is called to preside, and creates a pestilential, azotic atmosphere, in which the flame of piety cannot long survive. Nor is his baneful influence circumscribed by the limits of his congregation. In the transactions of the several synods of the church, he will be expected to take part. His influence tends to depress the standard of piety among his brethren, and to throw open the door of admission to other unsanctified men. Is he possessed of ta lents and ambition? He will aim at ruling the body. As some pious brethren must head of a party! If victorious, no arithnecessarily oppose him, he becomes the metick can calculate the extent of injury inflicted on the body of Christ! And if vanquished, he expends his strength in efforts to thwart the purposes of the brethren, to defeat their holiest and most evangelical measures, and to scatter amongst them the seeds of discord; whilst the gall of disappointed ambition is rankling in his bosom, and the venomi of jealousy corrodes his heart!"

THE FIRST OF APRIL. Written for the American Sunday School Union.

We read a Story Book now and then, especially if we find it was written for Sabbath School scholars, and we think we have ne ver read a better one than this. It is well and skilfully adapted to its purpose, which

is, the double one of preventing the profanation of the Lord's day, and the cor rection of the silly and wicked propensity so common among children-old and young-of making April fools-A propensity which often leads, not only to criminal deceit and falsehood, but to quarrels, blows and wounds, and sometimes to evils still more serious. Much useful instruction is also incidentally communicated in this little volume, on several of the most important topicks of religion. The language, in general, is neat and plain, such as it ought to be. In a few instances, it might be more correct.

We are told that the writer of this little book is a lady, and that she has written another, entitled May Flowers, quite as good as the one before us. She certainly has an admirable tact for this kind of composition. We hope she will continue to write, and that she will be encouraged to do so by seeing that her productions are not only popular but extensively useful.

A DISCOURSE, preached at the Dedication of the Second Congregational Unitarian Church, New York, December 7, 1826. By William Ellery Channing.

On reading this sermon, we have been forcibly impressed with the idea that however intended by the author, it is in fact an elaborate, and, we admit, an eloquent argument, to prove the superiority of natural over revealed religion-of Deism over Christianity. We sincerely be lieve that this is its true drift; and that an ingenious infidel, without excluding one-fourth of this long discourse, shall make the remainder, in the very words in which it now appears, bear directly on his favourite point. Lord Herbert, the father of English infidelity, would have had but very little to object to this discourse, taken totidem verbis, as it is here given. This, we are aware, forms with Unitarians no objection to any system of religious opinions, but rather a recom

mendation of them. One of their favourite boasts is, that their system is calculated to take away the objections of deists, and thus to draw them to Christianity. We admit it is so, if you will only permit the Unitarian to say what Christianity is. But alas! his Christianity consists in meeting the infidel-we cannot say half-way-but the whole way, except the single step that the infidel shall admit that there is a revelation in the Bible--For all well informed infidels already allow the excel- ́ lence of the moral precepts, and the unrivalled sublimity of thought, and the just views of God and his attributes, which the Bible exhibits. In a word, the discourse is only a new proof, in addition to many before given, that Unitarianism is not Christianity at all, but only Deism modified and disguised.

Ten days after writing the foregoing article, verbatim as it now stands, except in a single word no way affecting the sense, we read in the Boston Recorder and Telegraph as follows

"A Broad Blow.-A friend of ours, some days since, called at the house of an intelligent Deist, who has long been known as a determined and envenomed opposer of the Christian religion, and found him reading Dr. Channing's Discourse, recently preached at a dedication in the city of New York. The conversation soon turned upon the merits of the sermon and the distinguished ability of its author, when our friend inquired of the gentleman how he liked the production. I like it much,' said he, with particular animation. It strikes a broad blow at the Christian system, and it will prove a decisive triumph for the religion of nature. Dr. Channing differs from me in a very few points, and I am satisfied that within five years he will preach the doctrines

which I believe.'"-Star.

We were not surprised to see this ar ticle; and republish it only to show that our opinion is confirmed by fact.

Literary and Philosophical Intelligence, etc.

The French Church.-The following statement of the Roman Catholick and Protestant Clergy in France, with their respective stipends, paid by the French government, is extracted from documents laid before the Chambers by the Minister of the Interior.

Roman Catholick Clergy.-The established Church of France is composed of four cardinals, one of whom, the archbishop of Paris, has 100,000 francs yearly, about $20,000: the other three 30,000

each, about $6000. There are 13 archbishops, besides the metropolitan, who receive each 25,000 francs, $5000; 66 bishops, each 15,000; 174 vicars general, each from 2000 to 4000; 660 canons or prebendaries, each from 1500 to 2400; 2917 cures or rectors, each from 1100 to 1600; 22,316 deservants or curates, each from 750 to 900 francs per annum. the colleges for educating the younger clergy, 940,000 francs, or $188,000; and for repairing and building churches,

Το

« AnteriorContinuar »