THE CHRISTIAN DISCIPLE. No. 4. APRIL, 1818. Vol. VI MR. EDITOR, FREEDOM OF ENQUIRY. I have sometimes heard it said, that those who respect the holy scriptures as they ought, will not indulge in free enquiry; and that this indulgence of itself, is proof of deficiency in proper respect for them. I cannot accede to the truth of the remark. I think I have a full and unequivocal respect for the sacred volume, and yet am not able to persuade myself that I am forbidden the most thorough and free examination of its meaning. It is true, such freedom may degenerate into boldness, imprudence and rashness, so that sacred truths may be treated with unbecoming familiarity. But this is an abuse of it; and that it may be abused, is no proof at all that it is not useful and right in itself. The best things may be abused, and any thing in its excess is bad. Zeal,one of the best things in the christian world, is bad, when it becomes intemperate enthusi asm. For the Christian Disciple. We may determine the mer. it or the mischief of free enquiry, by reflecting on its purposes. These are two, to discover, 1st what is scripture ; and 2nd what is its meaning.* May we not do this in consistency with perfect respect for the Scriptures? Let us consider. The first object is, to discover what is scripture. Now the reason that we are to reverence the Bible, is that it contains a revelation from God; and if any part of it should be found not to be a part of his revelation, then of course the reverence we feel from that cause must cease. Thus the books called apocryphal, were found not to have the necessary authority, were put by themselves, and are not treated by christians with the same respect they pay the other books. So too Luther had no respect for the epistle of James. If we desire to have the pure. word of God, we cannot but be anxious to know whether all the books which have been handed down * It will be seen by this, that the views of the writer are limited to the study of the scriptures, and have no concern with the free enquiry in its larger meaning as applied to those who speculate beyond the limits of the sacred writings. to us, have the necessary authority. Does it indicate any want of respect to ask the question? Is it dangerous to ask the question? For has it not been asked and answered, by men capable of enquiring and deciding, and are not these discussions in our hands, and yet do we not as firmly believe and honour our bible, as we should have done otherwise? But then, some books in this volume were written nearly two thousand, and some more than three thousand years ago; and during this period have been copied again and again by different persons. The question naturally occurs, is it not possible that a few mistakes may have crept in? or that some designing men may have made unwarrantable additions? When such questions arise, it cannot be from disrespect that we seek an answer. May we not say, that in no one thing has greater genuine regard for these writ ings been manifested in the christian world, than in those diligent researches which have been made to detect and expose the corruptions which have crept into them; and which have now given us such fixed assurance that providence allowed but few, that we can trust our faith and our souls to them with unhesitating confidence. If any one give us for the word of God what is not so, ought we not to reject it? and if so great a wo is denounced against those who should take away from the prophecy of the book of Revelation, would it not be wrong and dangerous in us to receive the addition with as much respect as we receive the rest? It is a false, superstitious reverence for these books, which would make us afraid of pursuing such enquiries, as if it were impious to satisfy ourselves whether they are now exactly as the holy men wrote them. It is yet worse, when an error has been pointed out, still fondly to cherish it, as if it were the word of truth when it is not. Perhaps a man will say, that if we admit there is one error, we must another, and then another, and so on without end. But it is not so. These enquiries have actually been made, by men who had means and opportunity, diligently, faithfully, honestly. And what is the result? That. scripture is uncertain ? Not at all, but quite the contrary. The result is, that during near two thousand years, these holy books have passed down to us almost unaltered. Our confidence in them, as the sure guides of all faith and conduct, is confirmed. It is idle to be frightened at their errors; for we know what they are, we know how to correct them, and they cannot lead us astray. Therefore such a mode of enquiry concerning the Scriptures, so far from being inconsistent with proper respect, appears to me the truest and strongest proof of it which can be given. The same is true in regard to the second purpose of free enquiry--to determine the meaning of the scriptures, Here is a volume of writings which claim divine authority; every thing delivered here is to be received as true and obeyed without dispute. Its doctrines and laws are upreservedly binding upon us. What enquiry then can be more important than this what are these doctrines and laws? With respect to many of them, different opinions have been entertained among christians. Some have learned that baptism belongs only to the grown, while others think it enjoined likewise on children. Some understand the bible to teach that man is utterly incapable of doing any thing toward his own salvation ; others understand the contrary. Some learn from it that the one God exists in three persons; others think it teaches there is only one person as well as one Being. There are many other differences of equal importance. Can it be irreverence or disrespect to search out very carefully and freely on such subjects, what the real intention of scripture is ?-Is it not rather a mark of regard to them? For are not our previous ideas, and our first interpretations of scripture lan guage, the result of our education, rather than our actual knowledge? We have been educated to understand the expressions of scripture on these subjects in a certain sense-the sense in which they were understood by those with whom we have lived. We have learned to affix certain ideas to certain phrases, and, having these firmly asso ciated in our minds, are not easily persuaded that they can be erroneous. For instance, to baptize, has from our infancy conveyed the same meaning to our minds as to sprinkle; therefore the image of sprinkling rises before us whenever we meet the word in the New Testament, and how difficult to fancy it with any other meaning. It is the same with innumerable other words. But when we see that others, our equals and supe. riors in religious knowledge, understand such language differently, must we not think it possible we may be mistaken? Is it any mark of proper respect for the scriptures to insist thatare cannot be mistaken ; to refuse to enquire whether we be or not? Is it not rather a blameable confidence in our own correctness? There are some who have an unconquerable dread and horror of every thing that can be said to show, that any passage in the bible means any thing different from what they have always thought it to mean. If you attempt to ex-, plain a text which they have misunderstood, they think it dangerous to listen to you ; they are afraid you intend to destroy their faith and their souls; they almost think it a sin to put themselves in the way of hearing what you have to urge This, they think, is honouring divine truth, and proving their veneration for the oracles. But they err, and deceive themselves. They but too much remind us of the Jews in the days of our Sa viour. They too pretended the utmost regard for their scriptures, and referred to them in every thing relating to the Messiah. But they had learned to understand its language in a sense, which led them to expect a different Messiah from Jesus. They were confident they could not be mistaken, and did not enquire whether they were or not. And therefore when he presented his proofs of Mes siahship, they rejected him, because, as they pretended, he opposed the prophecies; while in truth, it was their own interpretation of the prophecies which opposed them. In like manner, if we obstinately adhere to our notions of divine truth, and will not allow ourselves to listen or enquire concerning them-be lieving that all who contend against us, are contending against God-what shall prevent us from being as mistaken as the Jews? and of what worth will be our pretended respect for the scriptures? which is in fact only a respect for our interpretation of them, and serves at best but to keep us in error. We conclude then, that both the objects in which freedom of enquiry is concerned, may be pursued consistently with most entire respect to the șacred writings. Nay, if the bible be indeed from God, and be indeed sufficient to all religious purposes, then it is not easy to see how we can rest our faith and hope on any thing else, and yet hold it in veneration. RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS IN PENNSYLVANIA. WHEN Pennsylvania was first settled the principles of liber ty and the rights of conscience were but little understood in the world, and the spirit of intolerance prevailed on both sides of the Atlantic. William Penn, the proprietor and first governor of that province, had greatly distinguished himself in England by his exertions in favour of civil and religious liberty; and to him, perhaps, as much as to any individual, are the people of England and of this country indebted for the extent of religious liberty which they now enjoy. Hav. ing been personally the victim of intolerant principles, and having suffered many months imprisonment and a variety of abuses, on account of his religious principles, he resolved to establish in his own province a form of government which should not interfere with the rights of conscience. In consequence of this wise resolution, Pennsylvania became renowned as an asylum for the oppressed and persecuted of other countries; its popula tion rapidly increased, and a great variety of sects enjoyed such liberty as could not be found in any other country. This variety of denominations continues to the present day. For many years the Quakers were the majority and the government was principally in their hands; but they were not of a disposition to render evil for evil, or to exclude others from ose rights and privileges which they claimed for themselves. We shall not pretend to enumerate all the distinct denominations which inhabit that State. But there you may find, in addition to the Friends or Quakers, Roman Catholics, Episcopalians after the form of the Church of England, Fresbyterians and Independents of different names, German and Swedish Lutherans, Baptists, German Calvinists, Mennonists, Moravians, Swenckfelders, the followers of Swedenborg, Dunkers or Dunkards and Jews. Many of these denominations are well known in NewEngland; of some of them which are less known a brief account will be given. Mennonists or Mennonites. This sect takes its name from Menno Simon of the Netherlands. They, however, profess to derive their principles and practice from the ancient Church of Thessalonica. After suffering persecution in various places and various forms, on the continent of Europe, many of the sect fled for refuge to Pennsylvania, being encouraged so to do by Wm. Penn. They are now said to be a very numerous sect, and a very industrious, and virtuous people. They reject infant baptism; and in regard to oaths and war they agree with the Friends. Dunkers or Dunkards. These are also a sect of Ger man Baptists, much less numerous than the Mennonists. They are singular in some of their opinions, customs, and manners. A society of this denomination at Ephrata, in Pennsylvania, dress in a kind of uniform, wear long beards, live on a common stock, eat no flesh, drink no wine, and use no tobacco. The men and women live in different houses, or different apartments of the same building. They deny the lawfulness of oaths and war, and are a quiet, inoffensive people. They meet for worship on the first day of the week, but observe the seventh day as the Sabbath. This people are so called from Casper Swenckfeld, who at the time of the reformation was a preacher of some note. The society founded by him in Silesia; but afterwards, bewere for many years tolerated ing persecuted, they were induced to remove to Upper Lusatia, where they enjoyed liberty for a few years. Being again oppressed they removed to Pennsylvania. That they were a valuable from the edict of Frederic, Society in Europe is evident King of Prussia, by which they were invited to return to his dominions. The edict was dated March 8th, 1742." The following extract is much to the honour of the Society : "Be it known to all to whom these presents may come : Whereas we do hold nothing to be more contrary to nature |