which in no 'small degree enlarged the dignity and right of the whole sacred order. While any hope remained, that Jerusalem would ever rise from its ashes, the teachers and elders of the christians assumed to themselves no titles, or those which were very modest* : but after Jeru salem was again razed to its foundation by Adrian, and all hope was taken away from the Jews of ever restoring their commonwealth, the most of them (the christian teachers) desired to persuade their people that they had succeeded in place of the Jewish priests. Therefore the bishops pretended to refer themselves to the High Priest of the Jews, and to be possessed of the same right with him the presbyters were said to discharge the same office with the priests of the Jews, only in a more perfect manner: finally the deacons were compared to the Levites, or servants of the temple of Jerusalem. Whether this comparison of offices differing in every particular, (toto genere,) was invented by art and design, or by ignorance and imprudence, is uncertain: but that being once approved and received, not only were various errors introduced, and a greater distance between the teachers and those who were taught, than the genius of Christian discipline tolerates, but likewise the rights and perquisites of the christian teachers received a signal enlargement.† Ignatius in the introduction of his epistles styles himself oogov, Deiferus-I suspect this was a common title with the other bishops of that age, and signified a man who bore God, or the divine mandates and will, and signified them to the people. + This comparison of the Jewish and Christian sacred order undoubtedly among other things produced the right of tithes and first fruits, which is older than the time of Constantine the Great. And perhaps a desire of increasing their revenues, which were scanty and uncertain, drove some of the bishops to transfer the Jewish Jaw to the Christian state. To the Editor of the Christian Spectator. I Do not remember to have seen the subject of preaching memoriter discussed in a brief way, better than Campbell's Systematic Theology. I in the following extract from Dr. am induced to send it to you from the impression that the work from which it is taken is not generally in hands of your readers. M. The consideration of these things [the chief and common faults of pulpit delivery] hath often led me to doubt, which of the two methods of delivery, reading or repeating, we ought to recommend to students, or at least which of the two, if universal, would probably have the best effect, and be attended with fewest disadvantages. I shall candidly lay before you, what hath occurred to my thoughts on this subject, and leave it to every one's own judgment to decide for himself. That a discourse well spoken hath a stronger effect than one well read, will hardly bear a question. From this manifest truth I very early concluded, and was long of the opinion, that the way of reading sermons should be absolutely banished from the pulpit. But from farther experience, I am now disposed to suspect, that this conclusion was rather hasty. Though by proper culture the powers of oratory may be very much improved, yet, by no culture whatever will these powers be created, where nature hath denied them. A certain original and natural talent or genius for art to work upon, is as necessary in the orator, as in the po et. Now if all, who have the ministry in view, were possest of this natural talent, the conclusion we mentioned would certainly be just. But so far is this from being the case, that experience plainly teacheth us, it is the portion of very few. But though there be not many, who will ever arrive at the pathos, the irresis tible force of argument and the sublimity, in which the glory of eloquence consists, there are not a few who by a proper application of their time and study, will be capable of composing justly, of expressing themselves not only with perspicuity, but with energy, and of reading, I say not in a proper and inoffensive, but even in an affecting manner. So much more common are the talents necessary for the one accomplibment, than those requisite for the other. I have indeed heard this point controverted, and people maintain, that it was as easy to acquire the talent of repeating with energy and propriety, as of reading. But I could hardly ever think them serious who said so, or at least that they had duly examined the subject. There are, no doubt, degrees of excellence in reading, as well as in repeating, and they are but few, that attain to the highest degree in either. But in what may be regarded as good in its kind, though not the best; I speak within bounds, when I say, that I have found six good readers for one who repeated tolerably. As to my personal experience I shall frankly tell you what I know to be fact. I have have tried both ways; I continued long in the practice of repeating, and was thought (if people did not very much deceive me) to succeed in it; but I am absolutely certain that, I can give more energy, and preserve the attention of the hearers better, to what I read than ever it was in my power to do to what I repeated. Nor is it any wonder. There are difficulties to be surmounted in the latter case, which have no place at all in the former. The talents in other respects are the same, that fit one to excel in either way. Now as it will, I believe, be admitted by every body who reflects, that a discourse well read is much better than one ill spoken, I should not think it prudent to establish any general rule, which would probably make bad speakers of many, who might other even But wise bave proved good readers. Besides, it must be observed, at the bar, which can have the advantage of such preparation.— Whether those who open the cause or question, always avail themselves of this power, and previously commit to memory every sentence they utter, I know not. But we do not find, that these speeches have generally a remarkable superiority in point of elocution, over those which follow, as it is certain they can have no superiority at all in point of pronunciation. Several of Cicero's best orations were on the defensive side, and therefore could not have been composed verbatim before they were spoken. And the most celebrated oration of Demosthenes, that which at the time had the most wonderful effect upon his auditory, and raised to the highest pitch the reputation of the speaker, the oration wapi sepavs, was an answer to Eschine's accusation; and such an answer as it was absolutely impossible should have been, either in words or method, prepared before hearing his adversary. So close is the respect it has, not only to the sentiments, but to the very expressions that had been used against him. And the two parties were at the time such rivals and enemies as to exclude the most distant suspicion of concert. It deserves our notice, that instances of all the faults in pronunciation above enumerated except the last, are to be found both in the senate and at the bar; particularly the two extremes of violence and monotony. And these are easily accounted for. The one is a common consequence of strong passions, where there is neither the taste nor the judgment that are necessary for managing them. The other generally prevails where there is a total want both of taste and feeling. It is remarkable, that the only other fault mentioned, the canting pronunciation, is hardly ever found but in the pulpit. Nay, what would at first appear incredible, I have known ministers whose sing-song manner in preaching was a perfect soporific to the audience, pronounce their speeches in the general assembly with great propriety and energy. The only account I can make of this difference is, that in the two former cases, in the senate and at the bar, the speeches are almost always spoken. Committing the whole, word for word, to memory, is, I believe, very rarely attempted. Now the general assembly partakes of the nature both of a senate and court of judicature. Sermons, on the contrary, are more generally repeated. They are very few who trust to a talent of speaking. extempore in the pulpit. Now when once the attention, as was hinted already, loses hold of the thought, and is wholly occupied in tracing the series of the words, the speaker insensibly, to relieve himself from the difficulty of keeping up his voice at the same stretch, falls into a kind of tune, which without any regard to the sense of what is said, returns as regularly, as if it were playing on an instrument. One thing further may be urged in favour of reading, and it is of some consequence, that it alwaysrequires some preparation. A discourse must be written before it can be read. When a man who does not read, gets over, through custom, all apprehension about the opinion of his hearers, or respect for their judgment, there is some danger that laziness may prompt him to speak without any preparation, and consequently to become careless what he says. But to return, the sum of what has been offered, is not that reading a discourse is universally preferable to repeating it. By no means. But only that if the latter way admits of higher excellence, the former is more attainable and less hazardous. Review of New Publications. A Careful and Free Inquiry into the nature and tendency of the Religious Principles of the Society of Friends, commonly called Quakers: In two parts. 1. The History of their Opinions: the Rise and Progress of the Society: II. Dissertations on their Doctrinal Tenets, their Worship, Ministry,&c. By WILLIAM CRAIG BROWNLEE, A. M. Minister of the Gospel. Philadelphia, 1824. FEW volumes issuing from the American press can urge higher claims or make better appeals to the candor and intelligence of the Christian community, or perhaps better reward a studious perusal, than that whose title is affixed to this article. We have read it through with some care, much interest and almost unqualified approbation. Faults it undoubtedly has and these bave already been culled, exhibited and denounced, as if there were no redeem ing excellencies in the performance that could establish its worth in the minds of the impartial. In the brief remarks which we propose to make on Mr. B's. volume, we design rather to recommend the work to our read ers than to give an elaborate review of it, or to use the ordinary fault-finding prerogative of reviewers. And this we do on the ground that its faults, whether real or imaginary, have already been, and doubtless will continue to be sufficiently proclaimed by those who exert the energies of infidel literature in our country; and also on the ground that a truly and boldly evangelical performance will always meet with enemies enough in "this present evil world," while on the same account deserves the support and applause of it all men and especially of all christians. The difficulty of the work is such as few can appreciate. To say nothing of the time and toil, the learning, talents and patient industry which must be employed in the preparation, and the obstacles to be surmounted before it comes forth a printed volume, its success was from its very nature entirely questionable or positively improbable. How few are willing to concede the possibility of right motives to the polemick; how many estimate his piety simply by a standard as false and wretched as that of perfect indifference to the truth of the gospel and indiscriminate charity for all manner of principles and for all the holders and venders of anti-christian error in the world! How many, judging “after the appearance" and ignorant of "righteous judgment," faulter not to affirm the exemplary christianity of the Quakers, merely because of their exterior amiableness and reputed regularity of life. How many, holding with them the main principles of skeptical philosophy, would view the attack in the spirit of a common cause, and in the unity of unbelief enter the ranks and even occupy the van of their defensive legions and how many of the wise, in the somnolency that sometimes identifies them with the foolish virgins, are too lukewarm in religion or too much engrossed in other things not to neglect or disparage the daring onset of a spiritual chieftain, who is "set for the defence of the gospel." Added to this, there were many circumstantial impediments to overcome-impediments to which the author very happily alludes in his "Advertisement," which we insert. "With diffidence I venture to lay this volume before the public. Whatever may be its defects or merits, it certainly owes nothing to the influence of learned care, or the support of a patron. An American author is not favored with either the one or the other. It was written under the unceasing pressure of my pastoral and academic labours; and the pleasure and amusement, which every author feels in arranging his materials, were resumed, from time to time, to beguile a sombre hour. I have been anxious to render it, in every respect, worthy of the notice of the public. But, it is, perhaps, prudent to conceal how much pains have been taken, and how many years have been spent, in collecting materials, in the toon of that singulaire an' graite mann Maister William Penn," to render them worthy of patronage, until it be known whether that shall ever be bestowed on it.” By patronage,' Mr. B. does not mean pecuniary compensation as such-for, we are credibly informed, that his printer took all the edition for printing the book.' Such is the state of literature in our country that ordinarily, if money be his end, a man is very unwise in the selection of his means, when he turns author to accomplish it :-he might almost as well turn preacher, and grow grey as the victim of a common sin against the precept "thou shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn." One reason of the peculiar gratu. lation with which we announce the present volume to our readers is the conviction which we have long entertained that it was much needed. What are the principles of Friends do they believe the scriptureswhat is their history? are questions frequently asked, and their importance must be admitted by all parties-but who could answer them? Our clergy could not. The Quakers have been an unknown people, rejoicing to "dwell alone and not to be reckoned among the nations"-to use a scriptural phrase which they love to accomodate to themselves. The world have ridiculed their oddness, but eulogized their piety; while the church have merely suspected or doubted in respect to them. Many of their errors have been opposed-not as theirs, but under the forms of Sabellian, Socinian, and Arminian corruptions-while their imposing appearance before the public, the conceded purity of their morals, and their really laudable exertions for the melioration of hu man society in respect to war, slavery, drunkenness, gambling, vicious amusements, and almost all manner of iniquity against the second table of the decalogue, bave easily obtained for them an honourable rank among the denominations of Christendom. Now, all this Mr. B. grants to them, while he leaves the ultimate question of their personal piety to the decision of God-and while he inveighs against their principles and practices on the ground of religion alone. We refer to pp. 287 -8, for proof that he allows them all that he can allow them in consistency with the catholic creed of the Church of Jesus Christ. The moral man of the world, is not the moral man of the Bible; the virtues of the former are the virtues of its philosophy those of the latter are produced by the |