cold and heartless manner, and the minister is seen no more of for a fortnight; or even, going a step further, in parishes where one sermon suffices for the Lord's-day, and the people are unaccustomed to see or converse with their minister out of the pulpit; little good can be expected. Daily experience, as well as every right lesson of selfknowledge, combine to teach the same truth, that we all need the eye of a Superior over us. We all are in the utmost danger of departing from the right way the instant we consider ourselves from under the inspection of those we stand in awe of, or of those whose approbation we are desirous of possessing and retaining. When an individual or family are in the habit of seeing the minister enter their cottage, and of hearing him address them personally on the great concerns of Christian faith and practice, there is often a restraint on their whole conduct, which otherwise would not be found. It may be said that this is a low and servile motive, the mere fear of man; be it so: it withholds from much iniquity, and is often, in the hands of Him with whom is the residue of the Spirit, made the direct road to that fear of God in which by and by they are found to walk all the day long. Nor is it possible for any Minister to understand the state of his flock in any other way. Their sorrows and joys, their hopes and fears, their ignorance and their growing knowledge, will remain alike unknown to him. True, he may see some of them tolerably constant in their attendance at church; but he cannot know how far they profit by such attendance, unless he visits them at their own dwellings. For want of such a mode of inquiry and instruction, very many Ministers are carried through a whole life under the most astonish ing delusion. They take it for granted that their people understand, and carry away, the substance of almost all the sermons they hear; when, in reality, they are ignorant and forgetful of nearly the whole matter. None, but those who examine for themselves into the truth of these observations, can have any just conception how long many people continue to attend public ordinances, and yet how wonderfully ignorant they continue to be of even the leading truths and doctrines of the Gospel." Thus we discoursed by the way, until, after a while, we found ourselves again at the vicarage. And here I shall conclude this communication; only staying to observe, that the whole of those individuals who engaged my friend's notice the day we have reviewed, are now in eternity. The young married woman we first called upon, ended her course in a happy, nay, triumphant manner. The old man at the picturesque cottage lived but a few weeks, and died in a very unsatisfactory state. The poor old man we met on the road, came only twice or three times to church, although he shifted his residence, and for the last year of his life was in my friend's parish and very near to him. He died at last suddenly, and left no hope of an awakened conscience or change of heart. As to the poor old woman, she lingered on for several weeks, and continued slowly, but progressively, to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and at length departed much to the satisfaction of my friend Erastus. ALIQUIS. t . ON THE INTEMPERATE TONE and DANGEROUS OPINIONS OF THE ECLECTIC REVIEWER, OF ART. I. SEPTEMBER AND ART. I. NOVEMBER 1825. SIR, My former letter, on some liberty to cite him before the public "bar," as an individual responsible to society, both for the opinions he entertains, and for the mode in which he expresses them. It is not the object of my paper to renew the "Apocryphal" controversy. That, I trust, will have been peacefully settled before my paper meets the public eye. But the mischievous sentiments, and angry tone, of the Eclectic reviewer, may continue to produce pernicious effects, when the debate out of which they proceeded is forgotten. I wish, therefore, to call the notice of the Christian public to I. THE ANGRY AND UNCHARITABLE INVECTIVES in which this reviewer has indulged. His illiberal censures were, in the first instance, directed against the excellent body of men who compose the Committee of the Edinburgh Bible Society. That a difference of opinion should exist, as to the wisdom of their measures, was to be expected; and while that contrariety of sentiment was expressed in language becoming the fair controversialist, and breathing the spirit of the Christian, no party was entitled to complain. But every man of generous feeling must experience regret and indignation, when he reads those disgraceful pages of the Eclectic Review which impeach the integrity and moral character of our northern brethren. How bitter must have been the spirit of that writer, who could represent these gentlemen as 66 never very cordially" united to the Bible Society,-influenced by "vindictive ،، The Eclectic reviewer," we are told, “does not stand at my bar." (Ecl. Rev. Nov. p. 381.) Undoubtedly I am not the infallible judge of his opinions. But, by what patent or prescription does this privileged individual claim an exemption from criticism; while he calls to his "bar," at his own good pleasure, every writer on whose merits he conceives himself qualified to give an opinion, and all bodies of men on whose conduct he sees fit to pronounce a verdict? By what exclusive title does he expect to escape investigation, or censure if deserved; when he scruples not to summon even the Holy Scriptures to his tribunal, and to sit in judgment . upon Solomon himself* ? "The Eclectic reviewer" is but an individual, though invested with the imposing "WE" of his censorial character; and though I respect the feeling,"-prompted by mercenary courtesy of modern times, which motives,-guided by "any thing but presents the critic to his readers in an honest heart," and associated for the plural rather than in the egotistic style; yet, his literary privilege having been abused, I shall take the * See below, p. 484, note || . "machinations" by which they "would divide, and if possible ruin, an institution, which is the glory of our country, and the hope of the world!" It would be a nice question for casuistry, whether these acrimonious charges would be less criminal if considered as indiscriminately made against the whole committee, or as a personal attack on some particular member. The reviewer has taken his stand upon the former alternative; and, when accused by a very forcible "Vindicator" of the committee, of having descended to personalities, he replies "he himself defames; no particular INDIVIDUAL of the Edinburgh Committee was, in the most distant manner, personally referred to." (p. 379.) This defence would be unjustifiable in sentiment, even were it correct in statement; but let its candour and accuracy be estimated by the following passage penned by the reviewer himself: "This resolution" [vide the 4th of the Edinb. Comm.] "betrays any thing but a cool head, and an honest heart in THE INDIVIDUAL who framed it!" (Ecl. Rev. "Remarks" p.12.) While my venerable friend, Dr. Davidson, and the Society over which he presides, have (whether personally or collectively) been subject to the aspersions of this anonymous censor, it is not surprising that an obscure individual like myself, having displeased the reviewer, should be treated with still greater contempt and asperity. Being induced (as I think providentially) to take some public part in the great Biblical question which has lately been agitated, it has been my study to discuss this painful subject in the spirit which the Bible teaches; and though I dare not maintain that my pen exhibits no marks of human infirmity, I feel happy in the consciousness that neither "artifice” nor “dishonesty" has influenced my conduct. Among the assurances which various parties have given me, that I have not tarnished my character as a Christian minister, while engaged in an employment in which the spirit of our Divine Master is too often forgot "dis ten, the acknowledgments of the Eclectic reviewer himself were not wanting, so lately as 1st September last. But, in the mean time, I have committed the unpardonable offence of pointing out the dangerous opinions and the inconsistencies of this anonymous critic. And now, mark his personalities—for surely I do not "defame" in bringing this charge home to him. On 1st November, a whole quiver of invectives is exhausted against me; and he "shoots his arrows, even bitter words." He taxes me with the guilt of "gross misrepresentations" (p. 380), "deliberate misrepresentations" (p. 385), wilful misrepresentations" (p. 381), ingenuous concealments" (p. 401), "unworthy purposes" and "insinuations" (p. 381), "most disingenuous artifices" (p. 381), and "in every respect dishonest statements" (p. 384). His page is so crowded with reproaches against me, that he confesses it would "interrupt his argument" to pursue the series of invectives: he therefore has "thrown a few into a note;" and, having thus gibbeted me like a felon by the way-side, he invites public detestation against this "wilful" and "in every respect dishonest" offender; taking leave of me by a pathetic exclamation, which mingles scorn with pity,-"Can this be Mr. Gorham?" (See p. 401, note.) I do not notice these opprobrious attacks upon my integrity, for the * I had hoped that these acknowledgments were "sincere ;" but it now appears that I was only used as a foil to the wicked Edinburgh Committee, when the reviewer described me as "so good a man," who "has done himself equal honour by the manliness of his opposition, and the candour of his admissions, with respect to the he differs," whose "gentlemanly feelings and upright motives it is impossible to mistake!" (Ecl. R. pp. 11-14) In writing this note, I bear in mind the "laudari a laudato viro," as essential to all valuable praise, and therefore am not liable to the suspicion of vanity in reciting these hollow compliments. views and motives of those from whom purpose of defence; it is neither requisite, nor becoming, that I should enter into explanation with a writer who has so far forgotten what was due to himself, to his readers, and to me. My justification may be safely left to those who have read my former letter to the Christian Guardian: and those who have not perused it, will doubtless decline to take all for granted that may have been stated by an anonymous A., B., or C., in the Eclectic Review. When thus reviled, and charged with dishonest motives, it is no small consolation to reflect that I have acted differently towards this hostile and uncourteous writer. My language was, I hope, more becoming than his, when I said, in my former letter (C. G. p. 387),—"in pointing out several misrepresentations made by this writer, I wish it to be understood that I do not charge him with any discreditable INTENTION." It is still my desire to abstain from all imputations of corrupt motive. I will not return railing for railing; for the vocabulary of my opponent is congenial neither with my "taste" nor my principles. Observe again, in 1816, its uncourteous treatment of the evangelical clergy, and of their advocate the Rev. John Scott ‡. This gentleman having (like myself and the Edinburgh Committee) offended its irritable editor, his anger disdained the bounds of common decency, and broke forth in the following manner :- "The ministerial character which Mr. S. sustains ought not to shield him from the reprobation which is due to an act of deliberate baseness." In short, he scarcely allowed this "weak or wicked man' "the least pretensions to truth and honesty!" For shame! that such indecorous language should stain the pages of a publication which professes to be guided by Christian principles, and to advocate "the right of private judgment and liberty of conscience!" The writer, who occasionally displays his want of charity in that publication, would have done well to listen to the advice which the venerable Rector of Aston Sandford then gave, when accused of "shaking his stick" at the Eclectic reviewer:-he stated || that he was unwilling to menace, I shall take the freedom, however, and too feeble to smite, but peaceto remark how utterly disqualified fully bid him remember that " a resuch a writer must be, for becoming proof entereth more into a wise an umpire in the Apocryphal con- man, than a hundred stripes into a troversy, or a guide of the public fool:" (Prov. xvii. 10). Was the mind as to the non-inspiration of critic, on whom I am now remarking, some of those Holy Books, to which less disposed to listen to this advice, the Christian has recourse for his because it is quoted from a book § instruction and comfort. In such se- to which he denies the title of an rious matters, candour and meekness inspired writing? That I do not are essential to a correct judgment. put this question in a captious spirit, The Eclectic Review has given abun-will be manifest to your readers, if dant proof, that its editorship has they give me their attention while I long been under an influence which point out, does not sufficiently appreciate these Christian dispositions. Witness, in 1812, its illiberal attack on Dr. Claudius Buchanan*. It was well described † as "disdaining reserve and renouncing courtesy," in 1815. Compare Ecl. Rev. O. S. VII. p. 574, with Chr. Obs. XI. p. 327. † Chr. Obs. XV. p. 364. II. THE DANGEROUS OPINIONS which this writer avows. — It is Compare Ecl. Rev. N. S. VI. p. 307, with Chr. Obs. XV. p. 365, 433, &c. § Chr. Obs. XV. p. 817. "Whether he [Solomon] was 'moved by the Holy Ghost' in speaking THE PROVERBS ascribed to him, is not so certain as to rank among articles of faith!" Ecl. Rev. Nov. 1825, p. 330. my painful office to exhibit him to the public as entertaining such "loose sentiments" upon the authority of the Divine Records, that he may be truly said to have "poisoned the streams of the pure water of life," so far as the influence of his sentiments may extend. He has charged me with "wilful misrepresentation," and affirms that I have unworthily insinuated" that he is altogether an unbeliever in the Divine origin of the Bible. I beg to assure him, that I neither advanced any such imputation, nor entertained such a thought. His intemperate desire to find fault with me, has led him to misunderstand my words," the book," as applying to the whole volume of the Bible, instead of referring, as intended, to any one or more books of the Scriptural series, which any individual may think he can safely deny (compare C. G. p. 387, and E. R. p. 381). That my representation of his views was strictly honest, will appear by my quoting his own words: he represents the question to be debated, and which he negatives, as the following," Whether the character of inspiration applies to all the books of the Old Testament" (Ecl. R. p. 381)-my own statement was, "It is the object of the writer to cast a shade of doubt over the inspiration of some books included even in the Protestant's Bible." (C. G. p. 386.) Where is the "wilful" or indeed any "misrepresentation?" His doubts, alas! are fearful enough, as avowed by himself; and God forbid that I should impute to him principles which he disclaims. But this I do say, that his sentiments sap the foundation of faith in the Word of God, and tend to " render the Holy Scriptures of no avail to the comfort and edification of the church." (C. G. p. 387.) His sentiments are pernicious in two respects:— 1. He dangerously represents the canon as a matter of " OPINION." * * Once for all, I beg to observe that I There is an ambiguous use by this writer of the word "OPINION, which it is of considerable importance to notice. When he first used it, it was essential to his argument that it should be understood in its popular and obvious sense of "persuasion of the mind without prooff;" and it was urged, that, "seeing there is a difference of OPINION in the Christian church respecting the canon," and thatiy it comes within the range of human OPINION," it is not binding on any particular church to circulate as God's Word nothing but that which itself alone imagines to be such. But when it is denied by me that the canon is a matter of mere "OPINION," the Reviewer adroitly turns round; and, using the term in a different sense, he says, the canon "can be determined only by the external or internal evidence which attaches to it; and this evidence it is within the province of human OPINION to estimate" (Ecl. R. p. 382):-here the word is taken in the less usual sense of deliberate judgment, leading to belief when suitable testimony is produced. The reviewer must be well aware that I fully admit the exercise of human reason, in estimating the proof of the integrity of the sacred canon; but he must be also aware that had he used this, or some synonymous word, when use the word canon as synonymous with an inspired collection of books-the rule of faith. The reviewer uses it in more than one sense; but generally as denoting books believed to be inspired, but which may possibly include books not inspired." + Such is the first sense of the word "OPINION, as given by Dr. Johnson; which he illustrates by the following quotation: "OPINION is a light, vain, crude, and imperfect thing, settled in the imagination, but never arriving at the understanding, there to obtain the tincture of reason. [Ben Jonson.]"-Have I not the voice of every serious Christian, in pro testing against the use of this term (when applied to the canon of Scripture), a term the very first sense of which is so illustrated by our great lexicographer? I am confident I have! |