ingly desirable is it, that all your correspondents should write in the fear of God, and with an earnest desire to promote the health and purity of the church!

I am aware, that you and your immediate advisers, will have a difficult and delicate task to perform, in the selection of matter. Writers are naturally attached to their own offspring; and are apt to wonder why every body else does not see the same perfection in them, which they themselves discover. But I hope you will look with your own eyes, and be guided by your own deliberate judgement. You must be permitted, and are expected, to act with entire Christian independence; and in this way alone, can you secure public confidence.

I was pleased to find, that your journal is to have a literary, as well as a theological department. Not that I think the former should be so prominent, or occupy so much space, as the latter. But I can see no reason, why literature and religion should not walk hand in hand, in every enlightened Christian community. Surely, learning and taste have no natural affinity with infidelity and irreligion, in any of their Protean forms; but the contrary. And too long have the enemies of vital piety, in the republic of letters, been permitted to cast reproach upon evangelical religion, by representing it as hostile to intellectual cultivation and refinement. It is not so. It is decidedly favourable. Intellectual polish, refined taste, is the natural ally of a pure heart, of high moral and Christian feeling. Who can doubt, that

chaste and elegant literature, will be cultivated with greater success in the approaching millenial day, than ever before? Why, then, should it not find a place in all the periodical journals of our own times, which are aiming to hasten on that glorious period?

I sincerely hope, Sir, for the reasons just given, that this department of your work will be ably sustained; and that the Christian scholars of our land will furnish you with literary articles, vieing in finish and classical beauty with the best that unsanctified talent has produced, and rising far above them in moral conception and sentiment.

into

Besides, such a work as yours, which I hope will go thousands of Christian families, ought to exercise a vigilant censorship over that spurious and often profane literature, which, under every conceivable title of attraction, is gradually gaining admittance even into religious circles. It is a

duty which the patrons of your work will naturally expect of you, to warn them when they are in danger of being misled by some popular name, in the literary calendars of the day. Let this duty be discharged ably, fearlessly, and in the calm, dignified style of Christian criticism and rebuke, and who can estimate the amount of good which may be done!

But as I have already intimated, the theological department of your work, is by far the most important; and to this, the great body of your readers and patrons will turn with peculiar interest. They will expect to find in it, lucid statements and discussions of all the cardinal doctrines of the Bible, as well as of the nature and evidences of experimental religion. And I should be glad, my dear Sir, briefly, and with great deference, to express my own views, in regard to the requisite spirit and execution of this difficult part of your work. It is here, pre-eminently, that you, and your able counsellors, and all your correspondents, will need that "wisdom from above, which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy." much will depend upon the spirit and manner of discussion, especially upon controverted subjects. I would that every line might be written in the meekness and gentleness of the gospel, and with the judgement of the great day full in view. The unadulterated truth of God, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is what we want, to establish our faith and guide our practice.

Very

There are three prominent methods of theological statement and discussion, which lead to very different results. One of these is, to determine beforehand, what the Bible ought to teach on certain controverted points, and then to prove, by the help of liberal glosses and new translations, that it does teach the very things, which it had been previously decided that it must. Another method is, to settle in the first place certain great philosophical principles concerning divine efficiency, free will, and the like, and then show how the Scriptures recognize and corroborate these very principles. A third method is, to open the sacred volume, and endeavour, by a patient and prayerful examination and comparison of its several parts, to ascertain what "the Holy Ghost teacheth," and then to believe it, whatever human philosophy may decide, one way or the other.

Surely, I need not stop to show, that this last is the only safe mode of investigation. I hope, therefore, that when you wish us to believe any doctrine, or perform any duty, you will bring us at once to the word of God, and bind us to the law and the testimony. Possibly we shall not all like to be thus absolutely "shut up to the faith;" especially as there are some things in the Bible, hard to be understood. But no other course, no other policy, will stand the test of the final day.

Let, (if you will permit me frankly to express my own views,) let those who write for this department of your journal, lay the Scriptures at the foundation of all their statements and arguments. Let them not be afraid, that we shall be tired of hearing, "Thus saith the Lord," as long as any point remains to be proved or enforced; or that they shall be put down as quaint and old fashioned, if they venture to appeal, with much freedom, to chapter and verse for their authority. I will not deny, that some of the fathers, including the most illustrious names in our own catalogue of Christian worthies, may have erred in the profusion of their Scripture quotations; but I am more and more convinced, that if this was the case, the prevailing fault of modern theologians lies far in the other extreme. Let any one look over some of the most popular and laboured discussions of the present day, and tell me, if it is not very remarkable, how little prominence is given to the divine standard of our faith. I hope you will request your correspondents to ask, in this respect, as well as some others, for "the old paths;"--that they will consider no doctrine as proved, till they have brought the sacred writers to testify explicitly in the case; and that, if they ever choose to call in philosophy, it will not be as a material witness, but merely as a collateral and unessential evidence. The Bible, taken in its plain, obvious meaning, is certainly right; but any man's philosophy may be wrong.

In regard to the mode of presenting the fundamental truths of religion in your pages, I hope the style of controversy will be avoided, as far as possible. Let each great subject be brought up, calmly and fully, without stopping to inquire, who believes or disbelieves the doctrine in question. This, as you well know, was the method generally adopted by the sacred penmen. They delivered their message, and then left the truth to speak for itself. And this way of

settling the essential articles of our faith, is manifestly attended with great advantages. It brings every man directly to the point, without any thing to divide his attention; and puts him upon his own individual responsibility. Here is the doctrine of divine sovereignty, or of entire native depravity, or of regeneration by the Holy Spirit;-what will you do with it? No matter what others think or say about it. God has made you capable of examining and judging for yourself; and he expects you will believe and obey, just as if there was not another moral and accountable agent in

the world.

Now, Mr. Editor, I am fully persuaded, that if at least one half the strength, which is now laid out in theological controversy, was devoted to the peaceful explanation and enforcement of religious truth, there would be great gain to the cause of sound orthodoxy and evangelical piety. At the same time, I am perfectly sensible, that religious controversy cannot be wholly avoided. Errourists will spring up, and employ all their arts, to "deceive, if it were possible, the very elect." These must be met, and discomfited with the edge of the sword; but then it should always be "the sword of the Spirit." For "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling down of strong holds." Some of the doctrines which are essential to salvation, and which of course every good man ought to hold dearer than life, may be grossly and even profanely assailed and in such cases, your correspondents, peradventure, may think they do well to be angry. Now, certainly, it is more than allowable, it is a bounden duty, to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." But "he that ruleth his spirit, is better than he that taketh a city." Even those bitter enemies of the church, who "bring in damnable heresies," are greatly to be pitied, and ought, if possible, to be "converted from the errour of their ways, that so we may save their souls from death, and hide a multitude of sins." To render railing for railing, does no good. No man was ever convinced and reclaimed by opprobrious epithets, by withering sarcasm, or by angry and biting retort. Soft words and hard arguments will do infinitely more, than the most riving denunciations, however merited. And as for those who are in danger of being fatally deceived by the cunning craftiness of seducers, I cannot but think there is far greater hope of "plucking them out of the

snare of the devil," by exhibiting the gentle and compassionate spirit of the gospel, in all our efforts, than by heaping reproaches upon them.

Besides the warfare which you may be constrained to carry on with the open enemies of our Prince, you may also be laid under the painful necessity of meeting brethren in the field of theological discussion, with whom, on most of the grand questions that can arise, you are agreed. This is delicate ground; and it will require an enviable share of wisdom and brotherly kindness, to say all that ought to be said, and no more; and to say it in the most unexceptionable manner. In discussions of this sort, let every man who differs from you be allowed to make his own statements in his own language, and let every argument be met with perfect candour and kindness. When his reasoning on any point is fallacious or inconclusive, it is perfectly right to show him, and to show your readers, where the mistake lies. But if he is able to sustain himself on fair ground, let him have all the advantage of it. I think I have known some good men, under the excitement of a protracted controversy, contend quite as earnestly for victory as for truth; and even become obstinate in the defence of opinions, which were unguardedly expressed at first, and which, under other circumstances, they might have seen to be incorrect, or at most quite unessential. Against this danger, I hope all the contributors to your pages will be on their guard. I love to hear a man frankly confess it, when he is fairly proved to be in the wrong. No errour or mistake, however slight, is worth defending for the sake of consistency, or to show the world that we are free from human fallibility. Religious discussion you must have, with men professing substantially the same doctrinal faith, which it is your object to propagate and defend; and I am afraid it will be difficult, wholly to avoid real and earnest controversy upon subjects of vital importance. If it must come, your patrons cannot wish you to shun it. But by taking a generous, dignified, and I would add, perfectly liberal course, (if the term had not been so grievously abused,) you will best deserve the confidence of the religious community, and most effectually promote the cause of truth and piety. While we expect, that on disputed questions you will generally be in the right; we hope this will appear in argument, rather than in exultation. Mankind are so constituted, that they cannot long stand by, VOL. I.

5