« PreviousContinue »
the agency of God, or his efficiency in the moral exercises of the human heart-the free moral agency of man under a divine agency—the divinity of Christ-the extent of the atonementthe nature of true benevolence the nature and extent of man's depravity-the nature and necessity of regeneration—the ininortality of the soul-a universal resurrection and general judy. ment, all which are the most profound and important subjects that ever any natural philosopher, moral philosopher, metaphy. sician, or divine ever attempted' to discuss and enforce by reasoning, or in any other way.
We will now offer some reasons why Paul selected these subjects and enforced them in this manner. He meant to preacbibe gospel in a plain, intelligible, pungent manner, to persons of all characters and capacities. He says, 'I am a debtor, both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians, both to the rise and the untoise. Christ set me to preach the gospel, not with the roisdois of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. I come not to you in excellency of speech, with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit and of power.' He not only reasoned upon the doctrines he tauglit, but he proved them to be true. He assigns this reason for preaching doctrinally and argumentatively, that his labors miglit be profitable to his hearers. I kept nothing back that was profitable unto you'-he declares to the Corinthians that he 'sought the profit of many, that they might be sared.'
If Paul, under a divine influence, preached upon such subjects, and in such a mianner, to a promiscuous assembly in that ignorant age of the world, to exhibit truth in the most profitabie manner, then none in this enlightened age of the world have reason to reproach metaphysical preaching, or fear to follow the apostle's example. We must believe Paul was a sincere, honest, judicious christian; and perfectly competent under the influence of the spirit of God, to select the best method of preaching, in the rnost profitable manner. No preacher erer exhibited more truth and in a more convincing profitable manner.than Paul. Why then should the voice of any be heard a. gainst metaphysical preaching, the apostle's preaching, the best of preaching, both in matter and manner? Can there be any other reason assigned than a hearty dislike to the humbJing, but precious doctrines of the gospel, which this mode of preaching presents in the most clear and convincing light !To say Paul was not a learned man, is not true that he was not a pious man, is not true—that he was not a judicious man, is not true that he was not a metaphysical preacher is not true -that he was not an inspired man, is not true. Why are these objections against this and similar preaching, if the reason above suggested is not the true one?
If the apostle preached metaphysically and plainly,in order to preach profitably, then his example may be followed with perfect safety.
But some are disposed to call this 'the philosophy of religion,'
and not the essential fundamental doctrines of the Bible. A modern way to evade the truth, upon which we shall say nothing at present.
if the apostle's preaching was judicious and correct, then we say it is the duty of all to receive it with grateful bearis. Aud we put this question seriously to our readers, do you approve, or disapprove, of plain, apostolic profitable preaching ?
N. H. Observer.
CONTROVERSY. Should there be controversy on religious subjects ? Certainly,' ssys one. • By no ineans' says another; and so there is a controversy in the outset; and we confess we see no way to get along in this imperfect state of the world without controversy.
Biit it is replied controversy is universally conducted in a wrong spirit; therfore let there be no controversy until it can be conducted in a right spirit. We object to this, believing that with all its evils, more good than hurt results. But we do not think the case so hopeless ; controversy is not always conducted in a wrong spirit, there are many excellent examples, and their number is increasing. We think that generally, in the periodical press, there has been a great improvement in the respect in question within a few years. And we do believe motwithstanding the fears of many good men, that there will be a progress to the right standard by means of the controversy in the periodical press, that would not be attained were controversy to be dropped. The press is a schoolmaster over itself. We learn Christian courtesy by witnessing the failings of others and by being made conscious of our own failings. Whoever is made familiar with the controversial writings of the Reformation, and of the age of Milton, knows there has been an immense amelioration in the harshness of controversy since those periods. And we think it no less obvious, that there has been within our memory a visible improvement.
While we acknowledge with the venerable Archbishop Leighton that "there is not one tbing that doth on all hands choke the seed of religion so much, as thorny debates and differences about itself; causing profane men not only to stumble, but fall and break their necks upon these divisions ;' we say on the other hand, there is no one thing that doth so much cherish and guard religion as debates about it-not thorny debates, truly, but debates kind, candid, fair. They elicit the truth ; and it is the truth which sanctifies, and produces in religion whatsuever is lovely, pure and of good report. We say to all, therefore, contend earnestly, for what you think on prayerful examination is the faith once delivered to the saints. Contend earnestly but not invidously ; labor to convince but not to oflenda course we would desire to pursue, however we have failed or may fail in the attempt.- VI. Chronicle.
CASE OF REV. EZEKIEL RICH.
Since the notice of this case in our number for April So, we have seen two communications on the subject in the New Hampshire Observer; in the first of which (as well as we can recollect, for the paper is not at hand,) there was an accouut of the late proceedings of the Monadnock Association against Mr. Rich. These proceedings seeined to us of a novel character. We have never known any other isstance in which an Association of Ministers called in an Ecclesiastical Council to advise them in respect to dealing with a inember of their body. If, as we have been informed, Mr. Rich had withdrawn from the Monadnock Association, some six months ago, it seems to us a novel proceedure, for that body to cite him before them as still under their jurisdiction, and then formally to pronounce a sentence of exclusion against him. Besides, the result of the little Council, stating that all, or most of the charges made against Mr. Rich, were sustained without me tioning what one of those charges was, is certainly a singular document.
In the communication from the Monadnock Association “ to the christian public,” found in the N. H. Observer of the 20th of October, are the following interrogations, with reference to "a notice in the Boston Recorder of August 26, 1831, concerning the ministerial standing of Rev. Ezekiel Rich.”
“By what courtesy, or candor, or truth, then, is Mr. Barstoly arraigned before the public, as the only one guilty of the deed? Why should Rev. Moses Thacher, and Rev. Otis Thompson vilify him? Why should the Editor of the Recorder indirectly attribute all the blame to him? And why should the Editor of the N. H. Observer, without even telling the publict what the notice vas, remark publicly upon Mr. Barstow's conduct, leaving it to every one's imagination to fill up the picture of his gulli?"
To these interrogations, the Editor of the Observer has appended the following Notes:
“Why should'the Rev. Mr. Barstow, and A, B, and C, in public newspapers, ' request the churches in connexion with the General Association of New Hampshire, not to receive the Rev. Ezekiel Rich, as a preacher of the Gospel, until an investigation of some unfavorable reports respecting him should be had, without telling the public,' a single charge alleged against him, leaving it to every one's imagination to fill up the picture of his guilt;' and say, whether he had committed the crinie of lying, drunkenness, profanity, theft, adultery or murder, or all.
“Does the Monadnock Association mean to say, that the public was not told what the notice of Mr. Barstow was,' after that documont' had been published in the Boston Recorder, and we believe in one paper in Connecticut, two or three in New York, one in Virginia, one in South Carolina, and one in Ohio?"
We add, for ourselves, that we think it hardly consistent with chrislian courtesy” for the Association to accuse us of “ villifying” Rev. Mr. Barstow, when we simply stated our views of one of bis public acts. Mr. Barstow was “arraigned before the public” because he bad shown himself to the public, by issuing his “notice” in the Recorder.
What means had we, or the public of knowing what the Monadnock Association had on the 8th of August, 1831, or what consultation their Committee had held with the “ State Committee?” But, suppose we had been acquainted with these " circumstances” we should have thought the "notice” in the Recorder, as none the less inconsistent with “ propriety and christian prudence," and should have been equally “ sensitive lest Mr. Rich should be condemned,” and executed too, 6 without trial.”
The Monadnock Association say that “nothing was intended” y the “notice" in the Recorder, “but to withdraw the above recommendations," i. e. the recommendations which had been given Mr. Rich by the Association and the State Comunittee. But, was this all that “notice” implied? We are willing to leave “ the christian public” to judge. So far as it iinplied more, it does not appear that the General Association are " concerned” in justifying it, by simply voting that “any member of a certifying committee has power to retract the testimony he has given.” But, as to this vote, we have the unhappiness to dissent from the General Association. What does a certificate from a member of such a committee imply? Unquestionably, that the bearer's ministerial standing is good, up to the time of its date. What would be implied in retracling such a certificate? As unquestionably it would be implied that the certificate was incorrect, and that the standing of the bearer had not been good up to its date. If it does not imply this, then it must imply that the bearer has done something to forfeit his ministerial standing, since he received his certificate; and then the power of a committee-man to “ retract” becomes a power to try, and convict, and censure, and degrade a Minister. We shall not be much in favor of General Associations, if any member of their “certifying committees' possesses such a power as this.
That the charges against Rev.Mr.Rich were proved by evidence altogether exparte; we have the testimony of the Council of three or four Ministers and as many Delegates, “ who examined the case for nearly two days;” but what those charges were, we are left to mere conjecture. Whether the charges were of any weight, or how well they were substantiated, we think it “ modest” to say, is, as yet, a question upon which “ the christian public” need light.
DR. ADAM CLARKE. The following sketch is abridged from a long article published in the London Christian Advocate:
He was born in Ireland, in 1763, and at an early age became concerned for his salvation, under the pious example and instructions of his parents, especially his mother, and the ministry of one of the earliest colleagues of John Wesley. After a short time spent in an apprenticeship to a linen manufacturer, he turned his attention to study,
and entered Kingswood school, then recently established. The fol lowing anecdote is related of him at this period:
It was winter, and he was sent into a rooin up stairs to study alone and without fire. Looking out of the window of his room one day, he saw soine men digging up the ground in the garden, and being much annoyed with the cold, he went to the garden to try to warm himself, by breaking the clods after the men; and whilst thus employed, found half a guinea, took it to Mr. Bailey, then head master, (and afterwards Dr. Bailey of the old Church at Manchester) saying that he had found it in such a place. Inquiry was made, and one of the masters owned it. After some time he came with it to Mr. Clarke, saying that he certainly had lost half a guinea, and that that one night be his; but whether it was or not, he was deterioined not to retain it any longer; for, said he, “I have been quite miserable ever since I received it.” As no one would own the money, Mr. Clarke was obliged to take it; and with that half guinea he bought a few coals to warm himself with, and a few books which were the foundation of his becoining what he was as a oriental scholar.'
In 1782, at the age of nineteen, he commmenced circuit preaching, and his discourses drew large audiences wherever he went. He continued in this service until 1805, when he spent several years in London, and received many honorary distinctions from literary societies. 'There, besides preaching, he laboured in the management of several public societies and in the composition of his commentary, wbich was probably commenced as early as 1785. His health failing, he removed in 1815 to a country seat purchased for his use by some of his liberal friends, where, besides writing his commentary, be employed himself in agriculture, and in philosophical science. In 1823 he returned to London, but soon after was again obliged to go to the country, and resided about seventeen miles froin the city until his death. There he concluded his commentary in April, 1826. In the spring of 1931, Dr. Clarke was instrumental in establishing schools for poor children in the province of Ulster, in Jreland, which in May last, amounted to nine containing 700 pupils. He attended the conference of the Methodist church in Liverpool in August, and was seized with the early syniptoms of Cholera on his return. He left his house, however, to preach at the town of Bayswater where he arrived on Saturday evening the 25th August, and died the next day. His funeral took place on the following Wednesday. Dr. Clarke is survived by his wife and six children. His library is supposed to constitute the principal portion of his wealth, comprising several thousand volumes in various languages, and many valuable manuscripts. He had also an interesting museurn of natural and other curiosities.
A London paper says: “It is a remarkable fact, that in no part of England, Scotland or Ireland, has any member of the numerous temperance societies now in progress, fallen a prey to Cholera."