mitted to him, that the time of all coming ages will only unfold more and more its immensity and value; and is one day in seven too much to bestow upon the particular care and consideration of it? Does it too frequently bring this infinite interest of the soul to a solemn account? Will the immortal spirit, as it is taking its departure for the eternal world, judge that the sabbaths came too often or were made occasions of too profound a meditation, too earnest a prayer?

This is an argument of that clearness and certainty, that objection only strengthens it. For who object? that is, who from feeling object? If not the pious, if not those who are striving most to walk in the ways of religion, let it be considered whether all other objection, we speak not of any speculative question, but whether all other objection from the heart is not an argument for its expediency-whether the fallacy of the objection, in whatever mind it may exist, does not prove that mind to need a sabbath, a season of retirement and reflection, a season of thought and self-inspection? If the sabbath shall be set aside for such an objection, religion itself can share no better fate. It is here, in fine, as it is in civil affairs, that hostility to the law only the more proves its necessity.

We have one general remark to offer on the mode of observing the sabbath, with which we will relieve the patience of our readers. It is often said, there are 6 cases of necessity and mercy,' which form exceptions from the sober and retired observance of the day, and it is asked when these occur? We answer by the following rule;—not to do that which any considerable class of the community may do for as good a reason, and thus undermine the very foundation of the institution. This rule cuts off all the pleas of mere acquisition, convenience, and pleasure, because they may be the pleas of the whole community. It involves the only safe principle. The question is, whether, if other men should take liberties from our indulgence, if they should transact business, make journies, or engage in parties of pleasure, for the same reason that we do, or may do, whether there would be any sabbath at all? We ought not to do that which is saved from being ruinous to the community, only because it is confined to us. A good institution ought not to exist in spite of us, ought not to exist by our sufference. This is not the treatment of it which becomes good members of society. No; it demands our countenance, our cooperation, our hearty and consistent aid. Besides, if it does

exist in spite of us, who can tell how much our habitual or occasional departures from the rule now laid down, may tend to weaken the public respect for it, and to lead to its general neglect. Our actions are often the results of slight reflection or momentary impulse, but their effects may be experienced by generations to come.

The cases of necessity and mercy, indeed, are allowed; but they are few; they are exceptions; their admission cannot disturb the general practice. The pleas of interest, of convenience, of pleasure, are many; they involve principles; they embrace multitudes; and it becomes us to see well to it that they are just and safe.

ART. VIII.—1. A Plea against Religious Controversy, delivered on Sunday, Feb. 8, 1829. By N. L. FROTHINGHAM, Minister of the First Church in Boston. Boston. Munroe & Francis. 1829. 8vo. pp. 16.

2. The Final Tendency of the Religious Disputes of the Present Day, impartially considered. By OLD EXPERIENCE. Boston. 1829. 12mo. pp. 29.

Ir the above publications, together with two or three others which might be named, are to be considered as signs of the times, one of the controversies of the day is likely to be, whether there shall be, or ought to be any controversy or not. The cry against religious disputes, can hardly have any other result than to produce a fresh dispute. The attempt to put an end to discussions and divisions of opinion only adds to their number. Of this event we entertain neither doubt nor fear. Believing as we do, in the necessity of controversy, we are certain of its continuance; and holding it to be useful, we care not how many topics it embraces.

The abuses of controversy we sincerely dread, and would wish to see abolished as fast and as thoroughly as possible. But that this really glorious and happy work is to be accomplished or forwarded by those who would abolish controversy itself, we are not led very sanguinely to expect, from the spirit which is manifested in some of their writings. Their good and peaceful intentions we ought not to question; but the manner

in which they express them, does not appear to us to be always in accordance with those intentions, nor the best calculated to promote harmony and love. Your characters are sinking,' says Old Experience to ministers who engage in controversy, ' and will soon go down beyond all redemption.' Forbear; or the holiest hands will soon be lifted up to hurl you from your angry thrones.' Now this may be a friendly and well intended warning, but it is anything rather than a mild one; and is in far too denunciatory and presuming a style to come with the best grace from the lips of a peace-maker.

But we mean to be as little personal on this subject as the occasion will permit. We respect the motives of those who differ from us; we respect their minds, characters, and persons; but their opinions on the point at issue we do not respect, because we hold them to be erroneous, and cannot greatly respect that which we believe to be so. We are on the same ground, in this particular, with everybody else. Our own errors, though we hope they will be regarded with lenity, we cannot imagine will be absolutely respected. We trust we shall speak with candor and charity; but we cannot speak of what seems to us error, with the same deference as of what seems to us important truth. Without further preamble we address ourselves to our subject.

There are many excellent things, as is well known by those who are accustomed to reflect, which, being liable to abuse, have been so grossly abused, that their true nature has been ́misconceived, their virtues overlooked, their contact avoided, and their names held as words of evil omen, and reproach, and fear. Among these, controversy, and more particularly religious controversy, stands as one of the most prominent instances. With many, who are honest and disposed to inquiry, it is a word of terror, preventing them from a thorough search after truth. With others, who are indifferent and slothful, it is an excuse, which saves them from the trouble of investigation, and behind which they retire, as behind a secure and honorable intrenchment, whenever they are called on to come out into the field. Under the influence of different impulses, they one and all lift up their voices against controversy, unholy controversy, as they indiscriminately term it, and wish to banish it from the world, and never hear of it any more. They are not aware, perhaps, of the wildness of that wish; they are not aware that if controversy were banished, half of the mental light which

now guides and cheers us would be exiled too; that their wish is such a one as his would be, who, incommoded by the heats summer, should pray for the extinction of the sun.

of

In undertaking a general defence of controversy, we shall endeavour to state its principal uses, as we conceive they are pointed out to us by the plain indications of fact and experi

ence.

What is controversy? It is debate; the agitation of contrary opinions; the test and trial of assumed truth. It is question and reply, assertion and denial, statement and counter statement, on all subjects of inquiry and human knowledge. Almost all truth is established by it; almost all enlightened faith is founded on it. We were made to differ. Our trust in the wisdom of the Maker compels us to believe that it is right that we should differ; and more than this, we think we can see why it is right that we should differ. This difference produces controversy, and controversy produces improvement. If all men saw and perceived things alike, they would be content with what they saw and knew, and would not go on to examine and improve. For there is improvement in the exercise and contest of the faculties alone, even though truth should not always nor altogether be the reward of the exercise and contest; but that truth is often and in some valuable measure the reward, admits of positive proof.

What has enlightened men but controversy; but the comparison and discussion of different questions and opinions? Who have enlightened mankind but controvertists; men who have doubted, questioned, denied, and disproved notions or systems which were universally received, venerated, and acted upon? What was the establishment of the true solar system but a controversy? Did it take place without dispute? What is the whole science of metaphysics but a controversy? Are men agreed, or were they ever agreed about it? Was this new world discovered without a controversy? Were these young States separated from the parent kingdom without a controversy; a controversy begun by the tongue and pen, and continued and concluded by resistance and the sword? What was the abolition of the slave trade in the British Parliament but a controversy? Did the measure go through quietly, and by acclamation; or were its supporters checked and resisted at every step they took? Who have elicited the highest moral truths but those engaged in controversy? Who have been the great

of the earth but controvertists? Locke and Newton* and Milton,† philosophers, and literary reformers, have all been controvertists. All great politicians have been controvertists; and the science of politics is a continual controversy. Burke could not have been more misunderstood, than when it was said of him that he to party gave up what was meant for mankind.' A false and narrow view indeed of the application and effects of those giant powers, which, excited by the aspects of the age at home and abroad, leapt into the arena where they were wanted, and where they performed their part to the admiration of that and after time. Who can wish that he had been a writer of calm disquisitions? Who would give up his energetic speeches, and his noble Letter on the French Revolution, for all the essays on the sublime and beautiful which he could have written in his life? The truth is, that what he gave up to party, he gave to mankind, and in the most efficient and most permanent way. It is the exigences of affairs, the demands of mind, the fear of innovation on the one hand and the determination to innovate and improve on the other, which cause controversies; and dark and stagnant would the world be without them.

If it is said that we have spoken of merely worldly and secular subjects and disputes, which are no authority nor example for controversies in religion, a theme which ought to be kept sacred and separate from all dissension; we answer, keep religion sacred and separate from all defilement, all debasement, all perversion, and all misapprehension, if you can, and then we will grant that it should be preserved from discussions and contentions;

*Sir Isaac Newton, I am told,' says Old Experience, did not find the doctrine of gravitation drawn from him by a popular debate; he hated such debates.' The doctrine of gravitation was not drawn forth, but still it was confirmed and spread by debate-not popular debate, to be sure, because the people knew nothing about the matter-but learned debate. Let Old Experience look into Playfair's Dissertation on the Progress of Mathematical and Physical Science, and he will see that though Newton may have hated debates, he was, nevertheless, sometimes a debater.

+ John Milton's most powerful, eloquent, and spirit-stirring controversial tracts, are noticed by Old Experience with the passing remark that their author'sometimes dabbled in polemic mud.' Grant us patience! The Areopagitica polemic mud!' The Reason of Church Government, polemic mud! There is always a more excellent way, he observes, to promote and find truth, than by controversy, which never promotes it; and he then adduces as examples of this more excellent way, Sir Isaac Newton's doctrine of gravitation, and Milton's Paradise Lost. What truth is established in the Paradise Lost? Is there any discovery in it? Is the example at all to the purpose? And if it was, what would it prove, but that truth was sometimes found out and confirmed without controversy ?