endure as seeing him that is invisible.' 'Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us again to a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; which hope we have as an anchor of the soul.' Whole pages might be transcribed to the same end.

The consciousness of the good man on this point, attests the doctrine. He endures the cross that he may wear the crown. Being a good soldier of Jesus Christ,' he does not entangle himself, that he may please him who hath called him to be a soldier." Moreover he studies to show himself approved unto God in all things. All this course of conduct supposes the Divine Being is intimately observant of our actions, and interested in our moral character; because he is always present to know what we do. And as he is bound by his very nature and perfections always to discover and punish all wickedness, and to notice and reward all piety; of course his favour is life, and his displeasure worse than death.

Hence we see, that the constitution of man, the nature of reason, the observation of every day, the consciousness of each pure heart, and the uniform testimony of the Holy Scriptures, confirm the doctrine, that a sense of the continual personal omnipresence of Jehovah, is the most powerful restraint on vice, and the most efficient encourage

ment to virtue.

THE AMERICAN QUARTERLY REVIEW.

THE American Quarterly Review is edited, we believe, by a gentleman of the Roman Catholic persuasion. As a literary and critical journal, it has in general sustained a character of high respectability, and we have, from its commencement, received it regularly, and read many of its articles with pleasure. We have noticed, indeed, its occasional bias to Romanism; a feature, which the thin veil thrown over this trait in the work has not been sufficient to disguise. Its religious and moral principles, have also appeared to us abundantly lax to satisfy even the most liberal, as the cant term now is. Its kindly notice of the posthumous works of Mr. Jefferson, may serve as a sufficient specimen of the former, and its article on Sunday mails of the latter.* As a contemporary journal of in

*When we speak of the posthumous works of Mr. Jefferson, we refer solely to their openly and grossly infidel character, and have no allusion to their bearing in any other respect, politically or otherwise. Our early education and associations all tended to impress us rather partially than otherwise toward that eminent man. Those of his friends, however, who have published his posthumous works, have, in our estimation, fixed upon his memory a blet which no time can efface. These works are, in our humble judgment, unfit for any Christian library; and we see not how they could be reviewed without express and strong reprobation, by any man who has one spark of regard for the Christian religion. Thus much a faithful discharge of duty, and justice to our readers, compel us to say.

other respects an interesting and valuable class, we should not have considered it our duty to notice the American Quarterly with any animadversions of ours, had it not thought proper so far to depart from its legitimate province to make an invidious and virulent attack on the Christian communion to which we have the happiness, and, we think, the honor, to be attached.

In a review of the Life of Summerfield, by Holland, the American Quarterly, in its number for March, 1830, takes occasion to say:

'If this biography had been designed exclusively for the denomination of Christians to whom Summerfield belonged, we should not object to the peculiar dialect, the hazy, mystical style, the passionate eulogy or idolatry, the technical cast of language, feeling, and doctrine, by which it is marked throughout; and probably we should not have ventured to speak of it here. We abundantly esteem sincere piety, and we think, with Edmund Burke, that as long as men hold charity and justice to be essential, integrant parts of religion, there can be little danger from a strong attachment to particular tenets in faith. But an elaborate volume respecting Summerfield, could not be intended nor reserved for his own sect alone; it is necessarily given to all Christians, and all readers; and therefore we, or others, may, without uncharitableness or injustice, irreverence or spleen, represent it as it affects our understandings and wishes. The strain and belief of Mr. Holland are broadly Methodistical; many of his pages will excite derision or disgust in persons who are not familiar with the history, creed, and phraseology of Methodism. Had we not frequently, in our youth, visited tabernacles, and re-perused lately, that masterly and most engaging work, Southey's Life of Wesley, we should have been ourselves often shocked, and often again moved to laughter or ridicule, by Mr. Holland's tone, and his choice of incidents and terms. We do not utter this in an invidious sense, or from original prejudice or disrespect; but with real regret for the error which we think has been committed, in not exhibiting the qualities and achievements of Summerfield in the manner most widely efficacious.

If the subject had been kept clear of the matter and dress likely to prove offensive, or seem ludicrous, to others than thorough Methodists and congenial religionists, it would have redounded more to their credit and advantage, and more to the good of society.'

6

It seems, then, that whatever strain and belief' is broadly Methodistical,' is, in the estimation of the Catholic editor of the American Quarterly, simply fitted to excite derision or disgust,'except to thorough Methodists and congenial religionists.' In addition to his having frequently, in his youth, 'visited tabernacles,' it seems too that he has re-perused lately, that masterly and most engaging work, Southey's Life of Wesley,'-and from this production, consequently, has most probably taken his 'tone.' It is not our intention any further to notice here this sort of vulgar slang respecting Methodism and Methodists, and all 'congenial religionists,' except simply to make our readers acquainted with the fact

of its existence in the American Quarterly. It may aid us at least in defending ourselves against the charge of papistry, from which, among others equally astute and valid, we have not been wholly exempt. Had we been of this class, with the history, creed, and phraseology,' of which the editor of the American Quarterly we presume is even more 'familiar' than with those of Methodism, we should doubtless have found in his sight somewhat more of favor; and he would have been still less likely to be 'shocked,' or 'moved to laughter or ridicule.'

We take leave, however, to inform the editor of the American Quarterly that, broadly Methodistical' as he may have considered Mr. Holland's Life of Summerfield, it was nevertheless not published by the Methodists, nor, we believe, written by a Methodist; nor has it ever, so far as our knowledge extends, received among Methodists as a body any considerable approbation;--but very much the reverse. Its circulation and patronage have been by far greatest, we apprehend, among those who would little thank the American Quarterly for branding them with the distinction of being broadly Methodistical.' There are a variety of reasons, at the same time, why we have been desirous rather to remain silent respecting this biography, to which, as a whole, we could not give our sanction; and have now said thus much of it solely in self-defence. The character of 'that masterly and most engaging work, Southey's Life of Wesley,' from which the American Quarterly derives its last and freshest impressions of the offensiveness and ludicrousness of Methodism, may be amply seen in that 'masterly and most engaging' review of it by the more masterly hand of Watson, entitled 'OBSERVATIONS ON SOUTHEY'S LIFE OF WESLEY;' a work of which the enlightened and impartial reviewer in the American Quarterly does not appear ever to have heard, or, if he has, to have deigned to look into it; though it seems he has taken the pains lately to re-peruse Mr. Southey's work, obviously with a view of sharpening his arrows against Methodists, and congenial religionists, with their ridiculous doctrines of new birth, perfection, and grace,'-' direct communion with the Godhead,'-'immediate interpositions of Omnipotence,'-'illapses of the Holy Ghost,' &c, &c. Ail which are sufficiently broadly Methodistical' to participate abundantly in the low sneers of the American Quarterly.

6

In a late number, (for September, 1830,) the American Quarterly has attempted to introduce into this country, and to spread through the Christian community of this nation, the licentious abuse of the Lord's day practised by Romanists, particularly in foreign countries, and extensively we fear even in this. In adverting to this topic here, we have no design to add any thing to what we have heretofore said on the Sunday mail question as such; but to confine ourselves solely to the institution and design, and the proper and religious observance of the Lord's day. The extract from the Edinburgh Review, with which the American Quarterly

concludes its article, we should have conjectured, had we seen it any where else, to be a portrait drawn from life, but not of any Protestant priesthood. How just it may be in another application of it, the editor of the American Quarterly doubtless knows better than we. The advantage of the priest (he quotes the Edinburgh to say) consists in his being able to persuade the rest of his fellow creatures that they do not understand what is the will of the Divine Being; but that he does. If he can establish this belief in its greatest possible extent, it is evident that his power is unbounded; and exactly in the degree in which he can establish it, is the extent of his power,' p. 196. Again, (he still quotes from the Edinburgh,) if the priests can persuade the people that the will of God is something unaccountable,--that the mode of pleasing him is not that which would please a very wise and good man, but that which is best calculated to please a weak and wicked one,--not wise and good conduct, but an excessive courtship to himself, it is easy, in that case, for the priest to frighten the people with an idea that they cannot know the will of God, and that infinite evil will fall upon them in consequence; but that the priest does know it; and that they can therefore do nothing better than throw themselves upon the priest, and follow implicitly his directions.' **** In the course which they pursue, to make a number of modes of offending the Deity sufficiently great to keep the minds of men in a continual state of apprehension, and consequent dependence upon themselves, is found the motive for multiplying excessively ceremo-. nies and rites. If these are so numerous and so intricate, that a man is every moment of his life in danger of neglecting, or misperforming some of them, and thereby of incurring the dreadful displeasure of an Infinite Being, his need of the priest as an intercessor is incessant, and his dependence extreme,' Ib. p. 197.

We have been gratified to perceive that the licentious article in the American Quarterly, above alluded to, has met with a just and dignified rebuke from the pen of the venerable Bishop White, of Philadelphia. We do not indeed concur in every thing which the Bishop has taken occasion to say, in the three letters which he has addressed to the editor of the American Quarterly on this subject. The great body of the matter contained in them, however, is so appropriate and just, and withal so calm as well as forcible, that we shall take the liberty to transfer it to our pages, adding occasionally, in the margin, a few brief notes, on some of the principal passages which we apprehend either require explanation, or on which we are compelled to differ from the Bishop.

The first of these letters is dated September 18, 1830, and is as follows:

'To the Editor of the American Quarterly Review.

'DEAR SIR,-My attention has been drawn to a production in. 'your Quarterly Review, which appears to me to have a very perVOL. II.-January, 1831.

6

nicious bearing on the religion and the morals of the community, The subject is on the much agitated question of the Sunday mails.

The charges which I allege against the composition are these three,-1st, that the author of it, to all appearance, is destitute of the knowledge of the grounds on which Christian churches generally, and almost universally, contend for what may be called, in metaphor, the Christian sabbath: 2ndly, that the abrogated sabbath of the Jews appears to have been entirely misunderstood by him and, 3dly, that his performance has a tendency to desecrate the first-named institution, and to abuse it to licentious living. To the first of these heads my present letter will be confined.

It is stated by your author, concerning those who insist on a strict and devotional observance of the day, that "they put their case wholly on that commandment given by the Almighty to the Jews,-remember the sabbath day to keep it holy." Now, whatever may be the grounds on which the petitioners against Sunday mails have rested their cause; and I am not prepared to say, that they have rested it wholly on this ground; yet the broadness of the position comprehends all who plead for a strict and devotional observance of one day in seven.

It may be affirmed confidently, that in the estimation of the Christian church, generally, the command in the decalogue, affirmed to be the whole ground of the claim, has ceased with the Jewish dispensation; and the obligation, ever since, has been rested on the sanctifying of the seventh day at the finishing of the work of the creation, concurrently with the change of the day, in commemoration of the resurrection. From that date, the command in the decalogue is defunct,† as well in substance as in name: and as names give their aids to the subjects to which they belong, the following facts are presented.

No sooner had the Apostles begun to act, under the commission received by them during the festival of pentecost, than the first day of the week, for the reason given, became the day of assembling for Christian worship. It is called, in several places in the Acts, "the first day of the week;" which countenances, on this point, the phraseology of a respectable society among us. In one place of the sacred volume, it is called "The Lord's day," and this is the term under which it is generally known, in the age immediately after the apostolic, and downwards; although the Christians of

[*We think this phrase unhappily interjected here, and that it would have been much better omitted. In other passages in these Letters, Bishop White does not scruple to call the Lord's day the Christian sabbath, without the qualification of in metaphor.'-Editors M. M. & Q. R.]

[ We understand Bishop White, in this place, and in a preceding passage respecting the ceasing of the command in the decalogue with the Jewish dispensation, to speak simply of the Jewish seventh day sabbath, as such, together with the peculiarities enjoined in regard to it, under the Jewish economy. In any other view we should consider the expressions in this paragraph quite too broad, and unguarded. But that this is the view intended, we think apparent from the subsequent matter in these Letters.-Editors M. M. & Q. R.]