christians, who are fond of making religion very intricate and mystical, instead of simple and practical, imagine that they find divers unintelligible doctrines in the Bible, which do not appear to me to be declared or countenanced by either of the revelations of God, that of nature, reason, or his written word. Christians are therefore divided into various sects and denominations, who have often by their mutual rancor and persecution, brought a scandal on the christian name. Q. To what sect do you belong? A. Strictly and entirely to none. I believe that God has appointed no human tribunal of doctrine. I bow to the authority of none of them, however arrogantly it may be assumed, from the pope of Rome down to the Presbytery of New-York. In my inquiries into the revelations of God, I am happy to make use of the labours of learned men of all denominations, and I am not unwilling to be called by the name of that sect with which I agree in the greatest number of points; but I judge and determine for myself. Q. The liberty which you take for yourself, you must allow to others. A. I do, most sincerely. Q. You must allow it even to those who cannot be convinced by the evidences of christianity. A. I should be guilty of inconsistency if I did not. I lament what I consider the error of the Deist; but if he arrives at his conclusions after serious, humble, candid, and thorough investigation, I have no right to condemn him, neither do I believe that God will deal with him harshly. Q. Will not many revile you, and refuse you their fellowship, on account of this your freedom of opinion? A. Let them! and let them answer for it. It does not make me less free, nor God less just. Q. What do you think of persecution for conscience sake? A. I think it should be numbered among the worst crimes which disgrace and degrade humanity. When it interferes with the comfort, the reputation, or the means of living of another, it is no better than robbery; and when it proceeds to take away life, it is no better than murder. Q. Have you now given me you creed? A. I have given you an outline of it. A. So firmly, that in it I will live; by it I will live; and for it-I would die. MR. EDITOR, Episcopal Funeral Service. In a beautiful, simple and impressive address, lately delivered by a very respectable young episcopal clergyman of South Carolina, at the funeral of the Rev. Philander Chase, at St. Michael's Church, Charleston, S. C. the speaker informed his hearers that the deceased had previously to his death made it a matter of congratulation to himself, that he had escaped what he deemed the melancholy error in doctrine which prevailed at Harvard College, although he had been a student there. I say nothing, Mr. Editor, of the propriety of introducing a topic like this, on such an occasion. Whe ther advantage ought to be thus taken of the opened hearts of a sympathizing audience, to increase the odium already excited against a venerable literary institution, I will leave it to every candid mind to decide. Whether, too, in point of taste, the positive religious impressions and exercises of the deceased might not have been simply enumerated, without introducing a protestation that might as well have been kept in the back ground, instead of being brought forward to strike the discordant string of theological controversy, which was probably at that time sleeping in every breast present, belongs to the province of the critic to determine.* Nor do I wish very bitterly to complain, that in all the public papers of the city, the Alumni of Harvard College in particular were invited to attend the funeral of one of their brethren, and then doomed to sit as quietly as they could, to hear a gentle denunciation levelled at their Alma Mater. I am not inclined, Mr. Editor, to expatiate on these topics. Perhaps I ought even to be grateful, as I sincerely declare I am, for the really gentle and modified terms in which a topic but too harsh in itself, was touched by the orator. I could not but contrast the delicacy and obliqueness of the censure with those unfeeling and sacrilegious attacks with which in other quarters Harvard College is assailed in the very house of God. I felt grateful to the speaker for at least complimenting the institution in question with the Would it have been right, for instance, to state at that time, the views of the deceased on the offensive points of Calvinism, on the supposition that he had in conversation reprobated them? epithet "very respectable." And on the whole, I was quite inclined to pardon the apparent breach of propriety, taste, and funereal hospitality, if I may so name it, for the smooth and polished way in which it was made, and particularly for the solemn pleasure and interest with which I was otherwise gratified. But what I wished principally to notice in reference to this occasion, sir, is the truly "melancholy" inconsistency into which the rites of the speaker's own church betrayed him almost at the very moment. Would you believe, that immediately preceding the address, in which the Unitarianism which prevails among most of the government of Harvard College, was represented in the opinion of the deceased as a "melancholy error," the highly respected Bishop of the diocese had impressively read the whole of the fifteenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians! Yes, sir, this manual of pure Unitarianism actually constituted a portion of the funeral service on this occasion. If it is not too long for insertion, I would thank you, Mr. Editor, to print it at length, so that your readers may wonder with me at the calm intrepidity with which honest and conscientious inconsistency can act its deliberate part in the full face of day. The chapter in question is well worth inserting for its combining the strict peculiarities and sublime consolations of the Unitarian doctrine. Oh, if it is a melancholy error to believe that "as by man came death, even so by man came the resurrection of the dead," if it is a melancholy error to believe all the other truths and representations with which this chapter abounds, who could wish to be released from his error? I could name more than one young clergyman of the Unitarian persuasion, who with characters as fair, and hearts as pure, and heads as sound, and parents as godly, and aspirations as devout, and recollections as cheering, and hopes as consoling, as Mr. Chase undoubtedly was blessed with, sunk down to their graves as placidly and instructively as he, though they caught hold of no other anchor than the obvious and literal interpretation of this chapter. If you cannot copy the whole, will you at least copy those portions of it which set the most peculiar and valuable articles of our faith in a prominent point of view? I know it will be said by some Trinitarians, that we ought to make the numerous passages of unitarian import which this chapter contains, bend to, and be interpreted by the phraseology in other parts of Scripture. But I wish to know by what authority we are directed to such a principle of interpretation, in preference to making other passages of Scripture accommodate themselves to the representation of this chapter? Why not take this chapter as an original standard of belief as well as any other?-especially, when we find it so rich in the most sublime, consoling, elevating, purifying, yet chastening influences of which religion can be conceived to be susceptible. But I did not intend to run into controversial speculations, and must stop with subscribing myself AN ALUMNUS OF HARVARD COLLEGE. Charleston, S. C. March 3, 1824. We thank our correspondent for his suggestion, and intreat our readers to peruse attentively and seriously the following sublime portion of Scripture. They must |