"call private brethren to account for heresy," "you are transgressors of as plain precepts as are found in the bible."

"For heresy alone Hymenæus and Alexander were delivered unto Satan; though nothing worse appears against them, than an attempt to explain away the doctrine of the resurrection.". A much more venial thing, we are probably to under stand, than an attempt to argue away some of the doctrines of orthodoxy. He then quotes the following passage from St. John "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 a partaker of his evil deeds.”—“ This," he says, "the beloved disciple meant for the church in every age; he expected they would determine; and if they mistake the application of the precept, it is their fault." It seems then that this writer thinks himself not merely privileged, but expressly directed by scripture, to deny to his opponents the common offices of hospitality, and civilized life; to reject them; and at least to cultivate a disposition, if he have not the power, to deliver them over to Satan; and all this is to be done for the promotion of brotherly love.

own

These are novel duties to us, but if they are in fact duties enjoined by our religion, we too must endeavour to practise them to the extent of our ability. If Christianity does indeed require, that we should thus conduct ourselves toward those y whose religious opinions are different from our own, we haye a considerable change to make in our feelings and habits, but still it must be effected. We too must bring ourselves to adopt a course of conduct, and a style of language, toward those who maintain opinions, which we believe the disgrace of Christianity, considerably different from what we have hitherto regarded as correct.

There is something so utterly inconsistent with the spirit of our religion, in men, whom it is no want of charity to sup

pose are not better or wiser than many others, thus coming forward, and without modesty or reserve, making claim to pe culiar sanctity and goodness, and peculiar religious illumina tion; in those who are taught not to judge another man's servant, thus asserting a claim to regulate the opinions of their fellow Christians; in men, probably without any peculiar advantages from natural talents, or attentive examination, pretending to decide so confidently upon questions, with regard to which the wise and the good have been so much divided; in their perverting the language of scripture to justify a course of conduct so wholly adverse to that charity which every page of it inculcates; and in their doing all this under pretence of a zeal for religion, and the promotion of brotherly love; there is something so inconsistent in all this with the real spirit of Christianity, that we turn away from the whole spectacle with some feelings such as we would not wish to have often excited.

Our principles are radically opposed to any institution which would in the least degree repress the most perfect freedom of examination and discussion, and the most entire liberty and safety of professing opinions. It cannot be that these means, which on every other subject lead directly to the discovery and establishment of truth, on the subjects of religion should only lead to error. But the institution of such a tribunal as is proposed by the writer in the Panoplist, would tend to check inquiry, destroy the habit and means of criticism, and bias the judgment. To the existence of this tribunal it is essential that a system of doctrines should be agreed upon by those who compose it; and the system of doctrines which is thus declared to be the true one, and by which all around are to be judged, is that which it is most clearly the interest of all who are within the influence of the tribunal, to adopt. In proportion to the power of this body, is the influence which is exercised over the minds of those around to adopt its creed,

other than that which proceeds from fair examination and honest conviction. This influence will consist in the desire which many will feel to be sharers of the authority which is assumed, that they may become more important, and may indulge their ill-will, perhaps, toward those who dissent from them in opinion. The fear lest they themselves should be come objects of its censure, lest they should be denounced and avoided as heretics, will also affect some; and some may be induced to yield their reason to their interest; or suffer their understanding to be overcome by timidity, on the false and pernicious principle, that it is better to believe too much, than too little. These are the most simple causes of an undue bias; and their operation would be certain and immedi

ate.

To those who are young, and who have yet to form their religious opinions, the dark shade of this establishment would be fatal. To differ would insure disgrace, and free inquiry would be impossible. Their faith would be established in ignorance and credulity, and maintained with bigotry propor tioned to the weakness of its foundations. And can it be supposed that those who have once associated for the purposes proposed, will ever disturb their own minds with examination, or test that faith which they have sworn to support, or that they will be ready with arguments to answer and convince their opponents, when they have assumed that they are infallible, and their pride is continually gratified by power, and it is against the deductions of human reason that this power is to be exerted? No. Bigotry, as it is the effect, so it is the cause of ignorance; and to suppose that theological learning could exist where such power was established, would be contradictory to reason and experience. We state no extravagant consequences; these are the simplest and most harmless ways in which such an institution would operate :-others will occur to every reflecting mind, which would be the dis

tressing and terrible, but not the less certain fruits of its ma turity and strength.

The writer in the Panoplist was aware that objections might be made. He himself states what they probably would be. Nor does he deny that such consequences as have been here predicted would follow from the execution of his designs; but by the use of some passages of the New Testament, which we shall now more particularly notice, he has attempted, as we have seen, to throw upon Christianity the disgrace of justifying such designs, and authorizing their consequences. "But to call ministers to account for heresy," he says," is a domination over conscience! an intolerant attempt to crush free inquiry! forcing men to adopt your explanations of scripture! denying that the Bible is a sufficient rule of faith without human creeds! foisting technical and scholastic terms into the place of revelation! But not so fast. Do you not call private brethren to account for heresy? If not, you are transgressors of as plain precepts as are found in the Bible. A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject.' For heresy alone, Hymenæus and Alexander were delivered unto Satan,' though nothing worse appears against them than an attempt to explain away the doctrine of the resurrection." Every person, tolerably well skilled in the interpretation of the New Testament, knows that the meaning at present affixed to the words, heresy and heretic, is entirely different from that in which they are used in the scriptures; and the argument which is here founded on a false explanation of the language of scripture, might very properly be dismis sed without further notice; for we cannot expect that those who would urge it would be benefitted by our criticisms. The Greek word aiperis should always be translated in the New Testament, either, as it most often is in our common version, sect, or otherwise, party, but never, heresy; and

neither this nor aiperinos, its derivative, has any reference in its primary meaning to opinions, good or bad. Nor do they in themselves imply any thing praiseworthy or blamable, except as circumstances shall give them such meaning.* But by heresy, at the present day, is meant opinions which are, or which are supposed to be, contrary 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 scripture, 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 unjusti❤ fiable, 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 wri ter 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 commis. sioned teachers of our religion, and who may be ignorant, and prejudiced, and passionate, and wicked? Does it follow that

* See note on the words aipeσis & aiperizos, following these Remarks.