Newspaper Page Text
HlisccllanrottS.
roa tiik iNnKi’ESDKs r press.
Thomas vs* Didvmtis
Having disposed of bvo. D s person
alities, embracing insinuations, misrep
resentations, &c., and taught him that
the Baptists arc neither responsible for,
nor accountable to, uninspired, and
therefore fallible, divines, nor human
'conferences of men, for their faith and
practice, I proceed to the consideration
Os the doctrines involved. Before do
ing so, however, I must make a quo
tation from the celebrated author of
the Great Supper—a work writ thy of
being read by every person desiring
to understand the doctrines of grace.
Z\Tr. Fairchild says: “The terms
Calvinist and Calvinism are used mere
ly for the sake of brevity, to designate
the general outlines of a system of
'doctrine*, which, as it was more ably
vindicated by Calvin, than by any un
inspired writer who prccecded him,
has been called by his name. But it
is not intended by this use of terms to
countenance the erroneous notion that
Calvin originated that system. Much
less do we mean to admit, what some
appear very anxious should be believ
ed, that modern Calvinists are bound
to endorse all the opinions and expres
sions of the illustrious reformer. "With
Presbyterians and.so with Baptists, the
Bible is the only infallible rule of
faith; and they receive and adopt
their published confession, only be
cause they believe it to be clearly
founded upon the holy scriptures.
Besides these they have no doctrinal
standards. And we must regard as
extremely futile the argument of those
who say, “ that because Presbyteri
ans are called Calvinists, therefore they
are responsible for all Calvin’s pecu
liar views and modes of expression.”
As well might it be urged, that be
cause Lutherans are called by the name
of Luther they are obliged to endorse
all the opinions of that venerated re
former, «ven the absurdity of cousub
stantiation.” And still bro. J n
insists that there are two “separate
and diatinct systems —Calvinism and !
Arminianism,” and that “a minister '
holding to the first proposition of the
creed is forced, by a logical necessity ,
to embrace the whole.” Now, allow
me, bro. D., to give you “ a little more
light,” by informing you, Ist. That
these systems harmonize in many
points, if Mr. Watson is good author
ity for Arminianism. He says, “ The
genuine Arminians admit the corrup
tion of hitman nature in its full extent,
that we are justified by faith only,
that our justification originates solely
in the grace of God, that the procur
ing and meritorious cause of our justi
fication is the righteousness of Christ,
that the work of sanctification, from
its very commencement to its perfec
tion in glory, is carried on by tin* ope
ration of the holy Spirit, which is the
gift of God, by Jesus Christ. So sound
indeed, are tha- Arminians with respect
to the doctrine of justification, that
those who look into the writings of
Arminius, may be disposed to suspect
him of even exceeding Calvin in or
thodoxy. It is certain, at least, that
he declares himself willing to sub
scribe to every thing Calvin lias writ
ten upon this leading subject of Chris
tianity. in the third book of his Insti
tutes ; and with this declaration tha
.tenor of his writings invariably cor
responds.” Take another.
The remonstrants (as they were call
ed . for remonstrating against some
points of Calvinism) reduced them
(chiefly) to the “ famous five points,”
and some oj them good moderate, or
modern Calvinism. 2nd. They differ
respectively with themselves, result
ing to each system, in divisions and
subdivisions.
Rev. Hr. Alexander, of Princeton
Theological Seminary, says that Ar
minianism, although introduced into
the reformed churches by .James Ar
mini us, did not originate with him.
The very same views, in substance,
were maintained by the semi-Pelagians,
and afterwards by the Molinists and
Jesuits in the Romish Church. Nor
are these all the divisions of Arinin
ians; but they, arc enough to serve
my purpose. Calvinism is divided
into high (hyper, or ultra,) Calvinists,
stnet Calvinists, and moderate (or
modern) Calvinists. And then the
hyper-Calvinists have been subdivided
into Anti nonpans,,Crispites, and llop
kinsians* Now where is our brother’s
two “separate and distinct systems?”
And as they are now not to be found,
when bro. I), professes to be an Army
iiian, I asK what arc we to understand
by it ? That he is a strict Arminian,
(which can be shown not to be the
|act ; ) a remonstrant, semi-Pelagian,
Moiinist, or Jesuit? If lie asks me
what 1 am, I will answer him that my
e views correspond more with moderate
1 Calvinism than any other human sys
ffAern I have found. Is this a “.new
thing” under the sun, bro. I), and a
recantation of heresy ?” ' Lot us see;
Not to quote the innumerable names
who have advocated the sentiments I
eii ter tain,-both ancient and modern,
suffice it to quote the language of one.
“There are, and always have been,
many who embrace the Calvinistie sys
tem in its leading features, who object
trisome particular parts, and the strong
language in which some of the propo
sitions are expressed.” “These are
called moderate Calvinists; who differ
from Calvin and the Synod of Port
chiefly on two points: reprobation and
the extent of the death of Christ;”
The sahte author states that the Church
of England and some of its most dis
tinguished prelates, with the most dis
tinguished divines of the present age —
such as Dr. K. v Williams, Dr. F. Scott,
Andrpw Fuller, Dr, Dwight, &c M ad
mitted the universality of the atone
ment.* v.' *
We would seem to approximate to
wards agreement upon the doctrine of
Atonement, did I not “dash your en
joyment,” by the offensive doctrine of
God’s knowing who will repent and
believe) and thus be redeemed by the
atonement, “according to the purpose
of Him,who worketh all tilings after
the counsel of his own will,” or “ ac
cording to his own purpose and grace,
which was given us in Christ Jesus
before the world began.” And fur
ther there would seem to be some ap
proach towards accordance in our views
on conditional salvation, did I not feel
called upon to urge that these condi
tions themselves are divine “gifts,”
faith being the gift of God, according
to Paul; and repentance the gift of
Christ, “ who is exalted a Prince and
Savior to grant repentance to Israel,
and remission of sin,” according to Pe
ter. lam even felicitated by bro. I),
as advocating this doctrine “ almost
as well as a genuine Arminian,” of
course bro. I)., with whom I had not
presumed to compare myself. I will
add one quotation from Calvin him
self upon the atonement: “This death
of the son of God, is a single and most
perfect sacriiee and satisfaction for
sins; of infinite value and price, abun
dantly sufficient to expiate the sins of
the whole world: but because many
who are called by the gospel do not
repent nor believe in Christ, but per
ish in unbelief, this doth not arise
from defect or insufficiency of the sac
rifice offered by Christ upon the cross,
but from their own fault.”
Upon the doctrine of Redemption
we would seem both to agree and dis
agree. Bro. D. demurs to my distinc.
tion , and then admits the difference of
“ cause and effect,” and again, after
sarcastically allcdging that “ my dis
tinctions are made with an air of pro
foundness,” that they are “ specious,”
and “more apparent than real,” and
“ nothing attributed to one which may
not be applied to the other,” (all too,
without reason, argument or scripture.)
then admits that they are “ distinguish
able.” Mirabile dictu!
ile ttaes, however, after all, state
the “difference” between us. And
what is it? Why, he “considers re
demption to be as broad as atonement
and quotes the only two passages of
God’s word he has found any use for
in all this discussion, and they precise
ly in favor of the doctrine I am advo
cating. Mirabile dictu! But let us
see if this is so.
They are both from Galations —-iii.
13, and iv. 4,5, and arc applied to
Paul and the Galations: “ Who hath
redeemed us, the Church, that is, hath
actually and personally ‘bought us
off’or ‘ delivered us 1 from the curse
ol the law,” &c.-—original and proper
meaning of the word redeem, and the
acceptation in which I have used the
term all the time. But (mark it,) bro.
D. applies it to the whole world, to
make redemption co-extensive with
atonement, and if correct, then the
whole world will be saved, and uni
versal salvation is established. Again,
if all the jvorld are redeemed from the
curse of the law, I ask bro. I), w hat
is either to curse or condemn? Noth
■mg. “Redeemed us from the curse,’’
“to God,” “ from among men,” “ from
the earth,” “by the bllood of,” or the
atonement “of Christ,” being common
scripture phrases, and all implying ac
tual and personal deliverance, accord
ing to the original and proper sense of
the terms and scripture usage, you can
not evade the conclusion of universal
salvation.
We arc not agreed in Unconditional
Election. You say it is conditional.
If so, that condition must be either
goodness of character, or act. To the
law and testimony : “If they speak
not according to this word; it is be
cause there is no light in them.” This
word says: “Every imagination of
the thoughts of the heart arc only
evil, continually.” “ The whole head
is sick, arid the whole heart faint, from
the’erown of the he*d to the soles of
the feet there is nothing but wounds
and- bruises and putrifying sores.”
“The heart is desperately wicked, and
deceitful above all things.” “There'
is none that doeih good, no not one.”
“ All are gone out of the way.” But
this is enough. Here then is the char
acter and acts of men by nature—all
“Corrupt,” “dead,” “gone out of the
Wfty,”. “children of wrath,” &c. Is
this a condition of God’s eternal elec
tion ? Let us hear what Arminians say
of the character and condition of men.
The Protestant Episcopal Church says,
in the 10th Article of Religion: “The
condition of man, after the fall of
Adam, is such that lie cannot turn and
prepare himself bv his own natural
strength and good works, to faith and
calling upon God; wherefore we have i
no power to do good works pleasant
and acceptable to God, without the
grace of God, by Christ, preventing
us, that wo may have a good will, and
working with us, when we have that
£>ood will.”
O
Mr. Watson, a distinguished Armi
nian, says that “ genuine Arminians
admit the corruption of human na
ture in its full extent.” Mr. John
Wesley says: “ But there is now a sad
alteration in our nature. It is now
entirely corrupted. Where at first there
was nothing evil, there is now nothing
good."—Wesley on Original Sin, page
335.
In the remonstrance presented by
the followers of James Arminius, in
the next year after his death, they say,
“That faith cannot proceed from our
natural powers, nor from the force and
operation of free will, since man, in
consequence of his natural corruption,
is incapable either of thinking or do
ing any good; and that therefore it is
necessary to his conversion and salva
tion that he be regenerated and re
newed, by the operation of the Holy
Ghost, which is the gift of God,
through Jesus Chi’ist.”
I need not quote Calvinists, as
some of the leaders in the Arminian
ranks teach “human corruption in its
full extent,” and coneed® the necessity
of “ regeneration and renewal by the
operation of the Holy Ghost.” Is an3'
condition of God’s electing love to
be found in such character? I would
quote more scripture to }<-ou if I. had
reason to believe you would notice it.
Mr. Fairchild has the following
quotation from Works, volume 8, page
289: That distinguished man, the
Rev. John Wesley, in the year 1743,
when in the 40th year of his age, in
the full maturity, of his judgrhent,
wrote as follows:—“With regard to
the first, unconditional election, I be
lieve that God has unconditionally
elected some persons to many peculiar
advantages, both with regard to tem-
poral and spiritual things; and I do
not deny,(though I cannot prove it to be
so,) that lie has unconditionally elected
some persons to eternal glory..” Would
Mr. Wesley have said this if he regard
ed election that horrible thing, some
represent it to be? Read and consid
er the following passage in ii. chapter
of Romans: “ Even so then at this pre
sent time also, there is a remnant ac
cording’ to the election of grace. And.
if by grace, then it is no more of works;
otherwise grace is no more grace. But
if it be of works, then it is no grace ;
otherwise work is no more work.”
This is Paulism, bro. D. Will you or
your readers consult the following
scriptures: Matt. xxiv. 22, 24, Acts
xiii. 48, Rom. viii. 28, 30, ix. 23, xi.
5,7, Eph. i. 4,5, #, Ist Thess. i. 4, v.
9, 2nd Thess. ii. 18, 2nd Tim. i. 9, ii.
10, Ist Pet.‘i. 2? Amongst a great va
riety of arguments that might, be ad
duced, I only add that which is based
upon the foreknowledge of God. Will
you deny that God knows all that will
be saved? “Known unto God are
all his works, from the beginning of
the world.” Salvation is the work of
God. Could he know what work he
would do, or whom he would save,
without purposing its accomplishment ?
If undetermined it was uncertain: and
how could an uncertain event be cer
tainly known ? It it is just as certain
that God from eternity determined who
would he saved, as that he knew from
eternity who would be saved. “For
whom he did foreknow, them he also
did predestinate.” And predestina
tion is nothing more nor less than elec
tion.
But I am required to reconcile this
doctrine with conditional salvation,
though “it is more than all the mas
ters of Israel have done.” I might
safely agree to do so, when bro. I).
explains the “ great mystery ol God
liness,” “God manifest in the flesh;”
and brings down to the comprehen
sion of the finite mind of man, the
“ways” and “thoughts” of God,
which are as high above our “ thoughts
and ways ” “as the heavens arc high
above the earth.” It is enough if I
have proved them by the word of God.
Many tilings of the infinite God and
his works are (not opposed to) but
above human reason. And it was with
reference to this very subject, that the
great, inspired Apostle Paul himself
exclaimed: “O the depth of the riches,
both of the wis lorn and knowledge
of God ! How unsearchable are his
judgements and his \va3\s past finding
out!” I will however give you an
a h f dpg>cal ease, which has never been
called in question/' Man's natural life
and his portion m life, arc as much
matters of divine appointment, under
divine control, as tljosc of his soul.
The fol low ingf-passages will establish
this position: Gen. viii. 22, Ist Sam.
ii. 67,'Psalms Ixxv. 6,7, xlvii. 4, Isa.
ly. 10, Jdb vii. 1, xiv. 5, 44, Psalms
xxxi. 10, Acts xvii. 26. Although
in these passages wc have man’s “days
numbered,” and the “hounds of his
habitation established, that r.e cannot
pass,” and his portion assigned him,
yet. who ever thought.' of allcdging that
it was “inconsistent,” and “irreconcil
able,” to require of man “diligently ”
to use appointed means, as a condition
of the prcscryation of his life, and the
supply of his temporal necessities ?
Morcov r, has not a father the right
to require his child to comply with
specifications he may make, as a con
dition of the reception of his portion
of said father’s estate, laid up for said
! child ?
“Force and necessity.” In your
charge “that the elect were eternally
predestinated to repent and believe,
and cannot help it, an}' more than they
can defeat their salvation,” you intend
all that the terms of my “coinage,”
force and necessity, “spectres of my
creation” mean. Being crafty, you
sought to convey the same idea,
the use of softer and more unobjection
able terms, “Cannot help it.” I say
they can help it, just: as you can help
anything whatever, without a will to
do so. God’s people, ‘ being drawn
with cords of love,” and being “taught
of the Lord,” become “willing,” “in
the day of his power.” All that is ne
cessary on this poiut, is for me to draw
another “strange thcoligical distinc
tion,” between the certainty of said
event, which we claim, and the man
ner and means of its accomplish
ment.
But I have something more to say
about the prsci.ence or foreknowledge
of God. Bro. D. seems t.o be some
what “horrified” at- this doctrine, and
well he may, for if lie admit it, he will
find it impossible to condemn others
of his dislike. What can he mean by
“erroneous conceptions of the fore
knowledge of God, which tend to her
esy?” He cannot mean that God’s
knowledge of himself is erroneous.
Paul says : “even so no man knoweth
things of God, but the spirit of God.”
That is, the spirit of God, knows God
—or God knows himself. But if God
knows himself, he knows infinity, for
he is infinite. But if he knows in
finity, he must know finite beings.—
Man is finite, therefore God knows
him. lie knows the actions of men.
Prov. 15. 3. “The eyes of the Lord
arc in every place, beholding the evil,
and the good.” He knows the hearts
of men. Jer. 17. 9, 10; Job 34, 21, 22.
“The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately wicked, who can know
it ?” “I the Lord search the heart and
try the reins,” &c. He knows former
things. This he claims by way of
shewing his superiority over wise men,
and the gods of the heathen. Isa. 43,
9. “Let all the nations be gathered
together, and let the people be assem
bled; who among them can declare
this, and shew us former things.”—
And Isa. 41, 22, 25. He knows, and
exercises a care towards tiic most min
ute, and insignificant objects on earth.
“A sparrow falls not to the ground,
without your father’s notice.” And
the very “hair upon your head is all
numbered.” He knows thing to come.
Isa. 42, 9. “Behold, the former things
arc come to pass, and new things do I
declare; before they spring forth I tell
you of them.” This knowledge too,
is independent, and eternal, or it is mu
table. But I must desist. Strange
objections, have been alledgcd against
Jhis doctrine, before Bro. D. Chevalier
Ramsey holds it a matter of choice
with God, to think ol finite idea®, and
that is no more reflection upon the in
finite knowledge of God, that he docs
not always exercise it to the full ex-
tent, than upon his infinite power,
that lie does not always exercise his
omnipotence. Plausible as this may
appear to some, the; power of God is
represented as an infinite capacity, not
infinite in act; whereas, the knowledge
of God is represented, not as ail infin
ite capacity to acquire knowledge, but
as actually comprehending all things.
And the idea of God’s knowing some
things, and choosing not to know oth.
ers, iin pies a reason, which must arise
from the nature and circumstance, of
such things or events, and consequent
ly, implies some knowledge of them,
in order to determinij which to know,
and which not to know. Nor does
this speculation remove the difficulty,
since many contingent actions of men
have been known, and foretold, by
prophecy, hundreds of years before
their occurrenceand for which they
have been held accountable. Many
instances might be adduced, if time
and space would allow. Do not the
scriptures of divine truthfl contain
many instances of prediction of re
wardable and punishaol.e actions?—.
How can you reconcile prophecy with
the impei feet knowl :dge of the God of
prophecy? Again: Mow could a God
of limited and imperfect knowledge
fill the important office of Judge of all
the secrets of all hearts, of all men,
in all ages of the world ?
Are any of these views erroneous;
or do any of them tend to heresy?
Not at all. But the “horrifying spec
tre” is, the connection between the
foreknowledge of God, and his divine
and gracious “purpose.’' And here,
Bro. I)., is found another of your
misrepresentations of raj sentiments.
In both instances alluded to in your
quotations, I was speaking of atone
inent, and salvation “according to
God’s purpose,” with not the slight
est reference to the fall of Adam, or
the evils of sin, or the loss of souls.—
Why are you so anxious to make the
Baptists believe, and teach that which
they disclaim, reprobation, fatality,
and the divine authorship of sin?—
There must be a reason, The great
object of all my “strange theological
distinctions” has been to show, that
whereas all who are saved, are “saved
by grace,” and that according to the
“purpose of him,” “who hath saved
us, and called us, not according to
Works of righteousness which we have
done, but according to bisown jpUrpose,
and grace, which was given us in
Christ Jesus before the world began.”
And that all the finally impenitent on
the other hand are “their own destroy
ers.” But you say if God knows
who will be saved, and purposed it;
so, he knows who will be lost, and
therefore purposed that also. The
latter we deny. Well how then? A
few more “strange theological distinc
tions” will set this matter right,—
Knowledge in the abstract, is not in
fluence, and is not causal in its nature.
God’s knowledge simply embraces the
facts , as they exist in reference to men.
What are they? 1. That all men are
in the love and practice of sin, the
“wagesof which is death,” choosing
death rather than life, and consequent
ly, that all would be lost, if left to
I themselves. 2. God determined to in
| ter pose, and prevent this awful result,
and all in accordance with the cove
nant (or agreement) made with the Son,
“ordered in all things, and sure in
which he promised him, that “he
should see of the travail of his soul,
and should be satisfied.” Now would
you have the Father to make a pro
| mise to his Son, without intending its
I fulfilment? Did the Father not.know
| the promise he made, and also his in
j tention to fulfill it ? Here then is pur-
I pose , and the connexion between it and
j knowledge. lie knew also what means
! and influences would be necessary to
I the redemption of said promise, and
j therefore upon the same parity of rea
soning purposed them. On the other
hand, “God foreknew that Adam and
Eve would fall,” and therefore pur
posed the expiatory sacrifice of his
son, the 2d Adam, to meet the necessi
ties of the case. Is this “the Calvin
istio dogma,” Bro. D? “Again, God
foreknew that their posterity would be
involved in a state of wretchedness
and ruin, “and therefore purposed’ 7 the
“balm of Gillead, and a physician
there.” “God foreknew all the abom
inations and wickedness of men, and
that many would finally be lost,”
“and therefore purposed the antidote
of a Saviour’s blood for the deliver
ance of the penitent and believing ;
but the condernation of all who reject
that Saviour, and trample his precious
blood under their unhallowed feet.
“Then it follows” Bro. ,J -n that
“whatever is” of God “is right,” and
there still “exists” “a distinction be
tween virtue and vice,” man remains
a free, moral agent; God the author
of justifying righteousness, and the
just “rewarder of every man according
as his work shall be.” You repeated
ly, and determinedly speak of a part
of mankind as being “unprovided for”
our declarations of a full and com
plete atonement to the contrary not
withstanding, and insiduously slip in
the word “reprobation,” which you
are willing the public should believe
is the baptist doctrine ; and even de
duce conclusions from premises of
your own formation, involving the
damnation of infants. We think the
covenant is strong enough to secure
them, election broad enough to in
clude them, and salvation through
the. atonement ample to save them.
As you have made this gratuitous
insinuation against my sentiments, I
hope it will not “dash” your enjoyment,
if I make a quotation from the found
er of your Church. The Methodist
discipline, under the head of “minis
tration of baptism of infants,” directs
the ministers to pray that the infant to
be baptized, “may ever remain in the
number of thy faithful and elect child
ren.”—Chap. 3, sec. 2. Os course if
the infant be of the number of the
elect, it must itself be elect—nn elect
infant. I will add, add what is per .
k»ps not generally known to the
world, that the great founder of Meth
odism in his treatise on infaut bap*
tism, ''published by the general ; eon
ference,, boldly avows the sentiment
that infants cannot ordinarily be
-saved without baptism. “If,” s;iys
he, “iuihnts are guilty of original sin;
then they are proper subjects' of bapt
tism; seeing, in the ordinary way they
cannot be saved, unless this be wash
ed away by baptism.” “It has already
been proved,” lie adds, “that this orig
inal stain cleaves to every child of
man; and hereby they are children of
wrath, and liable to eternal damna
tion.” —Doet. Tracts, p. 251. Still
further oil, in summing up his argu
ment, Mr. Wesley urges that outward
baptism is generally, in an ordinary
way, “necessary to salvation,” and that
infants may be saved as well as adults.”
He adds, “nor ought we to neglect any
means of saving them.”—p. 259. The
Great Slipper, pages 6-1 k 69.
T. U. Wilkes.
Fatonton, Jun’y 3d, 1855.
P. S.—l must add, in your rejoinder,,
you alledge that in my sermon (you
assailed,) (without hearing it too) “I
did not discuss” unconditional election
“at length,” but, “touching it in the
most delicate manner imaginable,” &c.
This, Bro. D., conveys another false
impression. I advanced three argu
ments in its support. One was de
duced from prayer, which always im
plies, and expresses the truth to God,
that there is no merit, no Help, in fine,
nothing good in us by nature. 2. 1
drew an argument from christain expe
rience, which always teaches its sub*
jects, that they have nothing to claim
of God, and they owe their all to mer
cy, and free grace in Jesus Christ.—
A 3rd argument was drawn from the
inspired teachings’ of the Bible, and
some quotations were made.
T. U. W.
[communicated.]
To the Rev. T. U. Wilkes :
I have read, tiie communications
written by yourself and Didymus.—
The latter, it appears, not fully under
standing the principles laid down in
your Sermon, wherein you professed
to declare your faith, or supposing
that some of its positions were contra
dictory of others, tliouglit proper to
make a call on you, through the
“Press,” for explanations. That call
might, or might not have been re
sponded to on your part, without invol
ving you in censure. You thought
proper, however, to respond. In doing
so, you became quite personal towards
the author, charging him with ma
king an attack on you, andattemptingt©
cast odium on the Baptist Church.—
While I do not wish to interfere with
the controversy between yourself and
that writer, I. will merely remark that
it is difficult to understand how it can
bringodium on a denomination, for its
doctrines to be candidly, explained, un
less the doctrines should be, in them
selves, odious, which I am far from in
timating. 1 repeat, that I wish to
leave thisquesticn with all others strict
ly connected with the controversy, to
; be disposed of by yourself and your op
ponent ; but shall take the liberty of
| propoun<]ing one or two questions to
j you, commending them to vour own
meditation, without asking a public re
ply, leaving that to your discretion.
Ist. As you thought it necessary to
notice the communication in question,
would it not have been most proper
to have avoided personalities, and con
fined yourself to a calm, candid, dig
nified and full exposit ion of your .doc
trines thereby making the discussion
agreeable and instructive.
2d. As you think it very wrong for
others to endeavor to bring odium on
your Church, how can you suppose
it consistent, or right in yourself, to
cast a slur at another church as anti
republican in its organizat ion ? And
what is far more and worse, how cm
you think it right to insinuate that the
Methodist Church is a worldly institu
tion, “founded mainly on human reason
and human policy that is to say in
plain English, not having its founda
tion on the Bible?
3d. Do you think such a course cal
culated to promote kind feelings to
wards yourself, or peace ami charity
between the Baptists and Methodists,
in this place ?
Ax Obskkvkk,
Ax “ Old School ” Parsox.—
About the time that temperance and
anti-slavery began to flourish, a com
mittee waited on old parson Milton, of
Newbury port, Mass., requesting him
toadvpeatetho.se causes. “Shan’t do
it!” said the parson of the. old school.
“ when you hired me, it was to preach
the gospel--now it's ruin and niggers!”
“ T\v iTTixo ui'ox Pacts.” — The
Hartford Couvaht, in response to the
charge of .Loeo-Foco papers that it has
become YV hig policy to form alliances
w ith other political bodies, whenever
the thing is possible, retorts in the
following A ery cllective manner:
“Fusion,” forsooth! look at Frank
I H'tee s Cabinet,. One Massachusetts
Coalitionist—one New York Soft—one
len nsy 1 van fa Cathoi ic—oho Fitesoi 1
Michigan man—one Kentucky Union
man one North Carolina old line
enlocrat, and pretty old at that—-and
one Mississippi Fire'Eater! Was there
evci such a specimen of- “fusion” in
our land ? “ When rogues conspire,
noncst men should combine.”
——*»-*-•*- __
;Wn who “took a walk” the
otlie)' day brought.it back again, but
next day ho “took a ride,” and has
not been hoard of since. ' ■'
Peculiarities of Celebrated
thors.
Racine Composed his verses while
i walking about, reciting them in a loud
j vo,c . e * P ne day,, while thus workim,
at his play of Mithrelates, in theTitf
Mcnes Gardens, a crowd of workmen
! gathered around him, attracted bv hi*
j gestures; they took him to be a rnaj
: hia» about to throw himself into the
, basin. On his return home from such
i walks, he would write down.seene by
i scene, at first in prose, and when he
'had thus written it but, he would ex*
claim, “My trfgedy is done!” consid
ering the dressing of the acts up j u
! verse as a very small affair.
Magliabecchin, the learned librarian
j to the Duke of Tuscany, on the con--
trnry, never stirred abroad, but lived
i amidst books and upon books. They
were his bed, board, and washing.
He passed eight and forty years fn
their midst, only twice in the course of
his life venturing beyond the wall-; of
Florence: once to go two leagues oil',
and''the other time three and a half
leagues, by order of the Grand Duke,
He was an extremely frugal man, liv
ing upon eggs, bread, and water, in
great moderation.
Luther, when studying, always-had
his dog lying at his feet; a dog which
he had broght from Watburg, and of
which lie was very loud. An ivorv
crucifix stood on the table before him,
and the walls of his study were stuck
round with carricaturos of the Pope!
He worked at his desk for days togeth
er without going out; but when fa
tigued and the ideas began to stagnate
in his brain, he would take his flute or
hisguitar with him into the porch, and
t here execute -some musical fantasy,
| (for lie was a skillful musician,) when
the ideas would flow upon him as
fresh as flowers after summer’s rain.
Music was his invariable solace at such
I times. Indeed, Luther did not hesitate
j to say that, after theology, music was
: the first of arts. “Music,” said he
“is the art of the prophets : it is the
| only art which, like theology, can calm
; the agitation of the soul, and put the
j Devil to flight.” Next to music, if
not before it, Luther loved children
i and flowers. The great gnarled man
; had a heart as tender as a woman's.
| Calvin studied in his bed. Every
! morning, at five or six o’clock he had
i books, manuscripts and papers carried
: to him there, and lie worked on tbr
: hours together. If he had occasion to
i go out, ou his return he undressed and
i went to bed again to continue his stud-
I ies. In his later years he dictated his
! writings to secretaries. He rarely cor
! reeled anything. The sentences is-
I sued complete from his mouth. If he
felt his facility of composition leaving
him, he forthwith quitted iiis bed, gave
up writing and composing, and went
about his outdoor duties for days,
weeks, and months together. But as
soon as he felt the inspiration fall upon
him again, he went back to his bed,
and his secretary set to work forth
with.
Rosseau wrote his works early in
the morning; LeSage at midday ; By
ron at midnight. Ilardouin rose at
four in ihe morning, and wrote till late
at night.
Aristotle was a tremendous worker ;
he took little sleep, and was constantly
retrenching it. Lie had a contrivance
by which lie awoke early, and to
awake was with him to commence
work. Demosthenes passed three
months' in a cavern by the seaside, in
laboring to overcome the defects of
his voice. There he read, studied, and
declaimed.
Rabelais composed his life of Gar
j gantua at Bellay, in the company of
! Roman Cardinals, and under the eyes
iof the Bishop of Paris. La Fontaine
j wrote his fables chiefly under the shade
| of a tree, and sometimes by the side
!of Racine and Boileau. Pascal wrote
I most of his Thoughts on little scraps of
; paper, at his by moments. Fcuelon
wrote his Telfcm’achus in the palace of
Versailles, at the court of the Grand
Monarque, when discharging the du
.ties of tutor to the Dauphin, That a
book so thoroughly democratic should
have issued from such a source and be
written by a priest, may seem surmis
ing. De Quincy first promulgated his
notion of universal freedom oi person
and trade, and of throwing all taxes
on the land—the germ, perhaps, of
the French Revolution —in the bou
doir of Madame de Pompadour!
Bacon knelt down before composing
his great work, and prayed tor light
from heaven. Pope never could com
pose wpll without first declaiming for
some time at the topi of his voice, and
! thus rousing his nervous system to its
| fullest activity.
| The life of Leibnitz was one of read
: ing, writing ard meditation. That
| was the secret of his prodigious knowl
| edge. After an attack of gout, lie con-
I fined himself to a diet of bread and
I milk. Often lie slept in a chair, and
rarely went to bed till alter midnight.
Sometimes he was months without
quitting his seat, where hi' slept by
night and wrote by day. lie had an
ulcer in his right log, which prevented
his walking about, even had lie wished
to do so. — Jhliza Cook's Journal.
In packing a one horse wagon, says
an exchange paper, an Irishman can
take down the world. We saw one
the other day start lor Ilarlein in a gig.
The load consisted of Mr. and Mrs.
Mullony, the three Misses Million),
Master Mullony, the house dog, two
goats and a slip ol a pig in a band
box.
“Miss, can l have the extreme
pleasure of rolling the wheel of con-
I yersation around the axletrcc ol your
understanding a few minutes this eve
ning.” The lady fainted.
“ Massa says, kin you pay dis bill?”
“ Your master isjn a great hurry—l
am not going to run away.” “No,
but 1 gollv, ole massa’s gwinc to run
away himself ’
•
It is said that lie tea most in favor
among unmarried ladies, is beau-
