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 followers did not trust in the opinions of any but such as they believed were directed immediately by God. It would certainly be difficult to say, in what respects any thing adduced in defence of the plan in the Panoplist would lose its force when applied to 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, beside 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 dis tinction 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 modern latitudinarian? What says he? Only read his three epistles, 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 cry 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 objectors have you do, when there shall be false teachers among you, who PRIVILY shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying 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 ellow 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 has quoted is 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, and 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.

* See the context of the passage from St. John quoted by the writer in the Panoplist.

We would urge all who may think as we do on this subject, to be open in their expressions of the disapprobation which 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.

Note, referred to page 115.

Respecting the meaning of the words αίρεσις and αἱρετικος.

Αίρεσις is applied in the Acts to the Pharisees, αίρεσις των Φαρισαίων, χν. 5. and to the Sadducees, αίρεσις των Σαδδεκαίων, v. 17. and by Epiphanius to the sects of the Jews and heathens generally, Εν τω εν πρωτῳ βιβλια πρωτα τους αίρεσεις εικοσιν, αἱ εἰσιν αίδε, βαρβαρισμός, σκυθισμός, έλληνισμός, ιδδαισμος. i. e. “ In the first book of the first tome are twenty sects, (aipeσeis,) which are those of the barbarians, the Scythians, the Greeks, and the Jews." Respon. ad Epist. Acacii et Pauli. The word aiperis is used four times in the Septuagint; Gen. xlix. 5. Levit. xxii. 18, 21. 1 Mac. viii. 30. In the first and last of the passages referred to, it means agreement or compact, and in the other two, voluntary oblation. The word occurs in 1 Cor. xi. 19. "For there must also be heresies (aipeσes) among you." Here the Greek Fathers in general understand it as synonymous with the divisions' before mentioned, and as signifying the parties into which the Corinthians were divided in eating the Lord's supper; and this we presume to be its true meaning. It is thus that Chrysostom explains it in his twenty seventh Homily on 1 Corinthians. Aiperes Ev ταυθα, ου ταύτας λεγων τας των δογμάτων, αλλά τας των σχισμάτων τέτων, ότι γαρ περι των αιρεσεων τέτων είπε των κατα τας τραπ έξας, και της φιλονεικίας ταυτης, και διαστάσεως, και εκ των της εξης δηλον εποίησεν. i. e. "He [the apostle] is not here speaking of heresies of doctrine, but with reference to the divisions be

fore mentioned"-" for that he spake of the parties concern ing the tables, and of this strife and separation, is manifest from what follows." In a similar manner the passage is explained by Theodoret, Photius, and Theophylact. See Suicer's Thesaurus ad verbum. The words of Photius are-AipeGIS EYταυθα 8 τας δογματικας φησι, τας περί πίστεως, αλλά τας περί των τραπεζων. Προκρίνοντες γαρ οἱ πλάσιοι της πλέσιος, της πενητας apiaσiv. i. e. "He [the apostle] is not here speaking of heresies of doctrine relating to faith, but of the parties respecting the tables. For the rich, preferring the rich, neglected the poor." Photius ap. Ecumenium, in 1 ad Cor. p. 452. Cicero uses hæresis to signify a 'sect of philosophy,' in the third sentence of his Paradoxa. For additional examples of the use of the word aipers, see Wetstein's note on 1 Cor. xi. 19.

1

The word translated heresy, in its original acceptation had no reference to opinions, and implied no censure; but meant only, election, choice, and thence, a sect, or party. Yet it is evident, that as there are cases in which it is a duty to be united, and it must be wrong to have divisions or sects, therefore aipes, when applied to such cases, may be a name of reproach. Thus among Christians at the time of the apostles, when there were such ample and certain means of obtaining all necessary direction and information, the existence of differences of any kind was to be severely censured. Therefore in Galatians they are numbered among the works of the flesh. The word heresy in its scriptural sense, as thus used, is not to be applied to those diversities of opinion, which are unavoidable because of the imperfection of human nature. But it is a just use of it, to apply it to those divisions in the Christian community which are promoted by ambitious men for their own glory, and to the disturbance and injury of others.

In the same way may be explained how aiperinos obtains a bad sense, though the word whence it comes has none of itself. The radical meaning of aiperixos is, one who chooses,