trary to truth; and by heretic, a man who holds such opinions, however sincerely. Such a difference of signification between the word heretic, as now used, and the same word, as used in seripture, renders the application of the texts: quoted in the Panoplist entirely improper, and evinces either ignorance or dishonesty in the writer who makes it. That the use of the first of the texts, and the only one in which the word heretic occurs, is utterly unjustifiable, and that it cannot be applied to any but those who are wilfully wrong, and not to those who sincerely believe what is really not true, is also apparent from the verse which follows it-"knowing that he who is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.”

But although St. Paul in his injunction to Titus had no reference to those who were only incorrect in their opinions, and therefore gives no support to the argument of the writer in the Panoplist, we are far from denying that he and the other apostles had a right to declare opinions in religion to be false, and to punish those who should teach what was contrary to their instructions. While they lived there were judges who could not err; there was an authority not to be disputed. But because we attribute such power to the apostles, who were the commissioned teachers of Christianity, who were instructed by Jesus Christ, who were directed by the inspiration of God, does it follow that we are to admit the claim of infallibility in men, who certainly are not divinely commissioned teachers of our religion, and who may be ignorant, and prejudiced, and passionate, and wicked? Does it follow that we are to submit ourselves to a tribunal like that which is proposed, whose members, with so little fitness, would assume such high powers?

It is indeed to be noticed that by the very same, and stronger arguments than they might employ, did the church of Rome defend her usurpations. She used the same arms by which freedom is now attempted to be enslaved; and there was more plausibility and consistency in her pretences. Her fol lowers did not trust in the opinions of any but such as they believed were directed immediately by God. It would cer

tainly be difficult to say in what respects any thing adduced in defence of the plan in the Panoplist would lose its force when applied of the support of papal authority; and alas, it would also be difficult to show why such pretensions, as are urged by men in our own country, should not if unresisted and successful, terminate in the same wicked and despotic sovereignty, and lead to the same enormities and fatal effects, as have been witnessed in other countries.

But it is proper that we should mention whatever, besides what we have already noticed, is produced in the Panoplist as argument. The writer thus proceeds: Heresy, which is said to be permitted only to make a clear and public distinc tion between true and false professors, is numbered among the most abominable works of the flesh. All this, you may say, (profanely enough) is the language of the severe and ardent Paul. What then says the charitable and sweet tempered John, who, it will be allowed, had as much love as any mod ern latitudinarian? What says he? Only read his three epis tles, and you will need no more to convince you that heresy is as decisive a proof of irreligion, and as noticeable by the church, as any immorality. At this an uproar is raised; the ery on every hand is, The council of Trent over again! the horrors of the inquisition! a crusade against free inquiry and the rights of conscience! I leave the exclaimers to settle this dispute of interjections with Paul and John, and go on to say, that if it is no tyranny to discipline private brethren for heresy, neither is it to deal with ministers. What would the objec tors have you do, when there shall be false teachers among you, who PRIVILY shall bring in damnable heresies, even de nying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction; and (when) many shall follow their pernicious ways, by reason of whom the way of truth is evil spoken of? Permit the gentle John to answer. What says he? If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed; for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."" We have already sufficiently answered what is contained in

the first sentence of this extract; the impropriety of the second and third we need not illustrate. The principle that ministers are as amenable to human judgment as private Christians, we have no inclination to deny; it is to the exercise of any human authority whatever on subjects of religion, that we object. Neither the insinuation nor the argument contained in the quotation from the Epistle of St. Peter are of any force, and that from St. John has no applicability. Those whom St. John addressed had been taught by the apostles themselves, and therefore certainly knew what was their doctrine or teaching. For one to maintain any thing opposite to this was to deny the authority of the apostles of Christ, and of course of Christ himself. We do not consider a direction to these early converts, to avoid any connexion with one who might come among them denying this authority, and endeavouring of course to seduce them from their religion, as any rule for us in our conduct to our fellow Christians. We do not consider : it as a direction how we are to treat those who equally with us acknowledge the divine authority of the founder of our religion, and of his apostles, and who only differ from us in a matter of judgment, in their mode of interpreting the records of our religion, records which, we do not say no man of common learning, but no man of common modesty will pretend to be in every part very plain and perspicuous. Those who confessed not that Jesus Christ was come in the flesh,* and who came among these first Christians for the purpose of making converts to their infidelity, were certainly to be received by them in a different manner, from what at the present day we ought to receive all those, with whom it is the fundamental principle of their religion, that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.

We will now finish our remarks upon the essay in the Panoplist. We have thus particularly noticed the claim of its writer to the authority of the scriptures, in support of the plan he proposes, because the meaning of the passages which he

* See the context of the passage quoted by the writer in the Panoplist,

has quoted are much misrepresented by him; and although we cannot hope to convince men who will argue as he has done, we were unwilling to acquiesce, even in appearance, in such false constructions of that invaluable book. We have not been induced to make these remarks by any apprehension of the success of the project we have opposed. We believe that there is yet too much learning, and virtue, and true religion among us, to allow us to fear the establishment of any ecclesiastical domination. Nor do we expect at all to check the exertions of those who are desirous to have the power of judging and condemning their fellow Christians. But we wish that the characters and designs of some men who are among us, who have come before the public with a proposition such as we have shown it, should be understood; we wish that the friends of religion should be aware of the nature of the attempts" which they have made, and of the badness of that cause which" requires the support of such exertions, which is to be supported by authority and not by reason. We would urge all, who may think as we do on this subject, to be open in their expressions of the disapprobation they feel, to be resolute in their opposition to the encroachments and usurpations which they condemn, and to be united and vigorous in their exertions to support the cause of rational religion.

4

LITERARY DEPARTMENT.

CHARACTER OF REV. JOSEPH STEVENS BUCKMINSTER.

Ir may be useful to endeavour to collect and embody the re- ́ collections which I have yet fresh and vivid of the character of Mr. Buckminster. I have seen him in different situations; I was, I may hope, in some degree honored with his friendship. It may be useful to recall to those who knew him the memory of what he was, and to give some impression of it to those who knew him not. The life of such a man ought not to, and will not pass away, leaving only a momentary track of glory behind. In one respect what I have undertaken will be an easy task. There is nothing concerning his life or character, which must not be told; there is nothing which the feelings of friendship, or a regard to the interests of virtue might make one wish to conceal. In other respects it will be sufficiently difficult. It would be hard indeed to speak of Mr. Buckminster, as he would have spoken of one equally loved and valued with himself.

There is no question that he was one of the most eminent men whom our country has ever produced. In my opinion, he was, far beyond all rivalship, the most eminent literary man of all those of whom she retains only the memory. Yet I say this of one who was not a private and retired scholar; but who, during the last seven years of his short life, (he died in his twenty eighth year,) was occupied in all the many, and ́ ́ sometimes laborious duties of a clergyman in our metropolis; was accessible to the claims which it may easily be thought that friends, and acquaintance, and strangers made upon the society of such a man, and was during this whole period broken in upon by the repeated attacks of that disease, which