pray, who will own himself wrong?) I have noticed that the most brilliant, as well as the most obscure, have their hobby-horses—I mean words or sentences,, which they use, in preaching, to great disadvantage. If these by-words or sentences, were used only in rare instances, they would not only be appropriate, but harmonious; but when they are repeated again. and again, without thought, and, indeed, in many instances, to supply the lack of ideas, no apology can be admitted, on the principle of ingenuity.

Mr. Y. was a good man, and felt the importance of the doctrine which he preached; on account of which, he contracted the habit of saying depend upon it; which sentence would not only be heard in a great part of the observations through his sermon, but would sometimes mingle in his prayer. The writer once saw him on his knees at prayer, at the close of a meeting, and heard the following words flow from his lips: "O, Lord! look down in mercy on these poor sinners, and convince them that if they are not converted, they must be damned, depend upon it."

Mr. B. is a good divine, and an excellent preacher, but he has so much apostolical benevolence, that he not only introduces every section with, My dearly beloved brethren, but often uses the address in the middle of a sentence. He was once observed to use his favoritism more than two hundred times in one sermon.

. In one section of the United States, a great part of the preachers were exceedingly fond of the note of similitude, as it were. The note frequently occurs in the New Testament. But among these preachers, the note was used so much in course, that it lost all comparison, and was made to substantiate facts. Without holiness, no flesh shall see the Lord, as it were. But, among all the vulgarisms that find the way into the desks of learned and polite preachers, none appears more clownish than the old adage, I've often thought. When we meet a farmer in the road, we expect his first remarks will be on the weather; or, if we see a merchant, we calculate to hear the din, hard times and little money. But when we hear preachers, who are in the habit of composition, telling us so often what they have thought, it naturally makes us wish that they would think a little better.

But surely, a man guilty of all of these errors, and seven times as many more, ought to be careful of casting stones, and withhold his criticisms, till he first casts the beam out of his own eye.

A LITTLE GOOD THING.

The little epistle to Philemon is fraught with good things. In composition, it exceeds all the efforts of the learned. Simplicity and benevolence are its characteristics. The tragic scene, therein contained, is drawn with more than human pencil.

The cause of the epistle follows:

Philemon was the disciple of Paul, and owed himself to him as the in strument of his salvation. Philemon had a servant, Onesimus. This Onesi. mus, not liking his religious master, instead of paying him a debt which he owed, wronged him still more, by pilfering his property, and then running away. Making his way to Rome, where Paul was prisoner, he fell in with the apostle, at his own hired house, which stood within the limits of the prison, where Paul was preaching the gospel with all rea diness, and receiving all that came unto him. Here the preaching of Paul arrested the conscience of Onesimus; and the prisonor Paul begat the fugitive servant, by the word of truth to a lively hope.

Onesimus, on this change of character, gave Paul a true account of his conduct towards his master; on which information, Paul wrote the epistle to Philemon, and sent it by Onesimus to his master, to effect a reconciliation between them. So intent was Paul to gain his point, that he wrote a bond and signed it with his own hand, to make good to Philemon, whatever injury he had sustained by Onesimus. His words are—

"For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him forever. Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more to thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord. If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself. If he hath wronged thee or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account. I, Paul, have written it with mine own hand—I will repay it: albeit, I do not say unto thee, how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides. Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord."

When Onesimus returned to his master, by his own confession of his error and the letter of Paul, a reconciliation was soon effected between the returning servant and his pious master. Philemon frankly forgave him all that he owed; and in addition thereto sent him back to Paul with a lib. eral offering to supply the necessities of the prison. After which Onesimus tendered his services to Paul, to bear the epistle from Rome to the Colossians; and some say that he became a preacher of the gospel thereafter.

Query. If the great apostle Paul wrote and signed a bond, that he would pay an unknown sum to Philemon, can any man be scrupulous of signing a subscription to pay money for religious uses?

Of all the villains that haunt the world, not one of them is more mischievous than Old They. He is generally treated as a noun of multitude, followed by a single verb, (They say,) which makes it exceedingly difficult to

identify the vagrant. Whether he is an individual, bearing as many titles as a Spanish Don, or a monster, having as many heads as a Hydra, is hard to ascertain.

If a man wishes to spread a false report, to injure his ruler, priest or neighbor, he has nothing to do, but to add, They say so, and all passes currently.

If any, however, are incredulous, and back the evil report, after passing many hands, which gave the report publicity, and drawing the ideal resi dence of They, he then plays the game of a talisman before them, or dissolves himself in air.

Others, who have been often foiled in their pursuits after the fugitive, and yet are in the habit of believing that They has said so, instead of fixing the blame on the infamous tatler, who is retailing the slander, conjecture a substitute for They, and ever afterwards consider the substitute as an enemy, when, at the same time, the poor suspected man, knows not for what. If it will not be considered too dictatorial, I will here suggest a salutary expedient.

When a man begins to retail the libellous reports of others, or vend his own choleric manufacture, on the credit of, They say to, if he will not identify his author, hold the man responsible for all he says, and let Old They shift for himself.

THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST—POSSIBLE—PROBABLE—NOT CERTAIN.

Levi, the son of Melchi, married a woman and begot Matthat. He then died, and Eleazar married the same woman and begat Matthan.

Matthat married a woman, who bare him Heli; then dying, Matthan married the widow and begat Jacob.

Heli married a wife, but dying childless, Jacob married the same woman, and begat Joseph (the husband of Mary) who succeeded to Heli; according to Deut. 25, 5, 6. Agreeable, therefore, to St. Matthew's account, Eleazar begat Matthan, and Matthan begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Joseph. And according to St. Luke, Joseph was the (ceded) son of Heli, Heli was the son of Matthat, and Matthat was the son of Levi.

SPEECH

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF MASSACHUSETTS, ON THE SUBJECT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, 1811.

Mr. Speaker: The right of private judgment, like sight and hearing, is inalienable in nature. Should an individual attempt to surrender it to so. ciety, it, nevertheless, would remain with him still in all its vigor. Whatever individuals, from the source of private judgment, might be led to say on the subject now before the house, provided the house was in the capacity of a convention, assembled for the purpose of framing a constitution, I cannot determine: but at the present time, the house is on legislative ground, under the solemnity of an oath, to legislate according to the meaning of the constitution in their best judgments. The part of the constitution, sir, which the subject before the house has particular bearing upon, is contained in the second and third articles of the Declaration of Rights. It is well known, Mr. Speaker, that the inhabitants of this commonwealth, were, when the constitution was framed, as well as at the present time, divided in sentiment about religion, and the mode of its support. From the face of the constitution, as well as from a knowledge of those times, there exists no doubt, that a decided majority believed that religious duties ought to be interwoven in the civil compact—that Protestant Christianity was the best religion in the world--and that all the inhabitants ought to be forced, by law, to support it with their money, as a necessary institute for the good of the body politic, unless they did it voluntarily. While a respectable minority, equally firm in the belief of the divinity of Christianity, and still more Protestant in their views, conceived it to be a measure as presumptuous in a legislature, as in a Pope, to lord it over consciences, or interfere either in the mode or support of Christianity. This minority, Mr. Speaker, did then, and do still believe that religion is a matter between individuals and their God—a right inalienable—an article not within the cognizance of civil government, nor any way under its control. In this discordance of religious sentiments, the second and third articles of the De

claration of Rights, are evidently a compromise of parties, in which mutual concessions are made for a general union. The language of the convention, in the constitution, appears to be as follows: "Let those towns, par. ishes, precints and other religious societies possessed of corporate powers, support their religion by force of law, but if there be any one residing within the limits of those corporate bodies, who attends other worship, and yet has no scruples of conscience in being legally taxed, his money when paid, if he requests it, shall be paid over, by the collector, to the minister of his choice. And, whereas, there are many religious societies, who have scruples of conscience about availing themselves of corporate powers; if such societies, voluntarily, in their own mode, make suitable provision for the maintenance of their ministers, all such societies of Protestant Chris. tians, properly demeaning themselves as peaceable citizens, shall not be forced by law to support the teachers or worship of any other society. But as we cannot well know how these principles will operate on experiment, we lay down one fundamental maxim, as a polar star, for the legis. lature—no subordination of one religious sect to another should be established by law!" Taking this, sir, to be a good translation of those two articles, which seem to be somewhat obscure, the question is, whether the laws, made since the adoption of the constitution, or more particularly, whether the interpretation of that part of the constitution and laws, have not effec ted a subordination of one religious sect to another? The Congregationalists, sir, have no scruples about supporting their worship, in its various parts, by law, but some other societies have--some, indeed, have availed themselves of corporate powers for no other purpose but to defend themselves from being taxed to support a worship in which they had no faith. In such instances they have been subordinate in time and expense to extricate themselves from the clutches of the Congregationalists. Others are so well convinced of the all-sufficiency of Protestant Christianity, and the completeness of its code to govern in all things, that they will not—they cannot in good conscience submit to a power, which they believe, in their best judgments, was never given to government to be exercised. These are peaceable subjects of state—ready to arm in defence of their countryfreely contribute to support Protestant Christianity, but cannot pay a legal tax for religious services; this, sir, is one of the essentials which consti tutes them a distinct sect: and what have these endured since the adoption of the constitution? Have they not been reduced to subordination? How many law-suits—how much cost—and how much property has been taken from them to support other societies? Mr. Speaker, is not this subordi. nation?

According to a late decision of the bench, in the county of Cumberland, which, it is presumed, is to be a precedent for future decisions, these nonincorporated societies are nobody—can do nothing, and are never to be