example and the eloquent life of the wise and benevoleht Pastor. Such, indeed, was Mr. Reese. His social intercourse and friendly manners, attached him to all within his circlehis benevolent deeds impressed the thoughtful with a sense of his goodness--his zeal for his faith led others to investigation-his extensive knowledge and eminent ability enabled. him to instruct the inquiring and confirm the doubting. His active sympathy with sorrow in every form made him known, even with those who hated his sect, as preeminently good.

In earlier years he had been employed in learning sacred music. As in every thing else, he was most thorough in the understanding of its principles--and skillful in practice. One evening of a week he spent with the young people instructing them in the pleasing art. He also prepared for publication a new work on music designed for schools, which he wrote entire. He was negotiating with his publisher when called to a distant field of labor-and the new cares and responsibilities of the change, led him to abandon it for a season-and it was never resumed.

His societies were all in the highest degree of prosperity. At N. Bloomfield they had erected a fine edifice which had been dedicated to the worship of God. Rev. S. R. Smith, whom Mr. R. selected for the occasion, preached the sermon. In the magazine Mr. S. gave a flattering account of the church, the state of the cause and the high esteem and deep friendship and affection entertained for their able and worthy pastor. At Victor where Mr. R. had introduced the new doctrine as early as 1826, and had labored with them a part of the time for three years, the society was strong-had a meetinghouse and embraced much of the moral worth and influence of the

town. He is still remembered and beloved, as the messenger of peace-who brought glad tidings of great joy to a multitude of the doubting and unbelieving.

A society was organized at E. Bloomfield which gave many signs of promise, and which subsequently were favored with his residence in their midst. In these moral changes that were going on, there was many a severe contest with the devotees of the less hopeful views of Partialism. Rev. Mr. Millard, distinguished in the Christian denomination, engaged with him both in written and oral controversy--but soon abandoned the field since "wisdom was the better part of valor."

At this period, however, self-styled Orthodoxy was not the most formidable foe which the doctrine of the Restitution had to fear. Bitter as was the enmity of those who were governed by the prospective and fanatical spirit of the times, the denomination was more seriously disturbed and shaken to its centre, by the open atheism of Mr. Kneeland and the half concealed infidelity of Mr. O. A. Brownson. Robert Owen had come from England with his infidel theory. Robert Dale Owen was publishing in a smooth, polished style --and with much apparent philanthropy, the darkest skepticism under the captivating assumptions of "free enquiry." Miss Frances Wright, a woman of rare ability, striking and persuasive eloquence, came on with a boldness and heroism worthy a better cause to plead for human emancipation, not from priestcraft, merely, but from the gentle restraints and sacred principles of Christianity it

self.

Mr. Brownson's paper plainly indicated that his heart was taken and his head bewildered by the new philosophy, and while his Advocate was

nominally supporting Christianity, its columns were evidently bearing the poison of unbelief to its numerous readers throughout the land. Yet it was so artfully concealed--it was so shrewdly interwoven with pretensions of loyalty to the Christian faith, that while the Universalist would understand him as wishing to teach Christianity, the infidels were fully convinced that he was doing their work where they themselves were powerless.

Never were our ministers more

severely tried. They were anxious They were anxious to save the Advocate and its editor. They gathered hope from his professions, but were stung to the heart by his malignant thrusts at the vital principles of Inspiration itself. The mind of Mr. Brownson seemed like the cloud that attended the exodus of Israel. Towards the Israelites--all was light, but on the side of the Egyptians was the blackness of darkness. The infidels occupied the ground of the Egyptians, and they gloried in that darkness. Mr. Reese was comparatively a young man, but he was well known as an able defender of Christianity. He had recently published in the Magazine four able and instructive sermons in its proof, showing an extensive acquaintance with his subject, and a familiarity with the views and arguments of the unbeliever. He cautiously attacks Mr. B. through the columns of the Magazine. Brownson takes the hint, and complains that Mr. R. was endeavoring to prove him an infidel; upon which Mr. Reese writes the following letter, which appeared in Volume VII, No. 15 of the Gospel Advocate, July 25, 1829:

MR. BROWNSON:

Dear Sir:-The manner in which have been pleased to notice me you in the 13th number of your paper, if allowed to pass without any remark

from me, might lead the public to suppose, that I had been engaged both publicly and privately, in plotting your ruin; and that this proceeded from a hostile disposition towards you.

you

have re

What information ceived from private letters I cannot say. I have spoken to several persons about the course you were pursuing, in plain terms, and without disguise; and what I have said, in the first place, originated in the inquiries of others, of what I thought of some of the sentiments you advanced. I could not in conscience approve of them, nor could I consistently withold an answer. But this I aver as the truth, I was silent as long as I could be, compatibly with my feelings.

The "charges I have preferred publicly," are no personal charges to to you, for the letter you doubtless allude to, which is published in the 2nd number of the "Utica Evangelical Magazine," neither mentions your name nor that of your paper. What

I have said in that letter, I think is fairly deduced from your writings, I designed it as cautionary, and meant no evil. This is all I have made public; and if your notice of me did not call for this communication, it is probably all I should ever have writ ten on the subject.

The letter I wrote Mr. Doubleday was caused by a fact, which I am confident will not be considered unworthy of notice by yourself. But that letter was private, and originated in the following circumstance:a worthy patron of the Advocate, and far less timorous than discerning," who, by his upright deportment, and laudable endeavors to procure the papers read by the opponents of Universalism, made it extensively useful while it was conducted by Bro. Everett, informed me that he

did not pretend to put the Advocate into the hands of opposers any more, but used the Religious Inquirer (a Universalist paper published in New York city: Edited by Rev. Henry Fitz), for that purpose. My object in writing to Mr. Doubleday was to remove this unpleasant embarrassment. This is the sum of my offending.

In entering your columns which I never should have done on this subject, had you not invited it, I hope to be governed by the meekness of the Gospel, and the candor true philosophy always inspires." But I assure you, sir, that should I have occasion to write my creed before I get through, I shall not urge the necessity of believing that Jonah swallowed the whale," or any such marvellous stories-nor shall I trouble the reader with the levity you have manifested on a serious subject. And if you "will reason the point to the satisfaction of the pious," and prove yourself" a firm believer of the Gospel of Christ," I shall feel a satisfaction which I have not experienced for a length of time. I should rejoice at being persuaded that you are "a firm believer in the Gospel of Christ." But I should regret to have such a believer write and publish what you have. And, sir, if now, on reviewing your essays and sermons, I could say I have been mistaken about your sentiments, I should be happy to acknowledge it in the most public manner.

In this letter I shall confine myself mainly to what you have written on the existence of God, and the inspiration of the Scriptures. I am not ambitious to prove you are not "a believer in the Gospel of Christ," but would heartily prefer proving that you are one. And though I shall endeavor to treat you and the subject fairly, I shall not spare where you have betrayed the cause of truth,

and apparently aimed at its crucifixion.

You say, "The only kind of inspiration which to me appears rational is inspiration by suggestion."-"The inspired person feels a certain impulse, under the influence of which he speaks. If he feel the impulse of truth, what he says will be true; if the impulse of error, what he pronounces will be false." Adv., p. 86.

Nothing is here provided to suggest to the mind of the inspired person whether it is a good or a bad being, or any being, that gives the impulse; for under its influence he speaks, and he may speak truth or falsehood, by the same spirit, according to the impulse it may give. This is the only guide or ground whereby we are to know whether any part of the Bible is inspired or not-that is— on this "attenuated thread" the whole fact of inspiration is suspended. You indeed allow the use of reason to examine what is inspired, and what is not. This is well. But it leaves inspiration, to say the least, very doubtful; and indeed it seems difficult to view it in any other light than as the mere accidental fancy of the person acting by such an impulse. And alluding to the professed inspiration of the apostles, you say, "perhaps the testimony of such persons would have weight in a court of law, especially three thousand years after their death, though rejected with contempt by their contemporaries!!" But the conclusion you finally arrive at about inspiration is-"The sacred writers were inspired then by a holy spirit, and wrote what such a spirit or disposition induced them to believe to be correct. I do not call this inspiration supernatural but extraordinary." Adv., p. 87.

The sacred writers appear to have been well disposed men, and, inspired by their good disposition, they were

prevented from "falling into known and willful errors." We have many persons among us inspired in the same way now. But how do you arrive at the conclusion that these holy men were enabled "to do and say what they never would have thought, and what none would ever have conceived under other circumstances whatever" unless it is, merely, that being inspired by a good disposition, they were better circumstanced (as all good men are now) to desire to do good and speak truth, if they could only know what it was. This spirit prevented them from falling into known and willful errors. This spirit is professed by every truly good man now. You say "I do not call this inspiration supernatural but extroardinary." It is truly not supernatural, nor is it even extraordinary: for it has been quite common in all ages, and in some degree, in all countries. And, if the world has improved, we have more of this kind of inspiration now, and, perhaps, in as high a state of cultivation and perfection as it ever has been professed in any former period.

But if inspiration be not supernatural, it is "not above nature," nor "the course of nature." And if it be not beneath nature, it is natural, or it is nothing. On your ground, then, should I adopt the whole, I would say "I can see nothing in nature nor in revelation that appears able to originate the idea of a God in my mind because inspiration is not supernatural, but natural, or a part of nature." This is the highest round of your theory of inspiration. You, of all other men, have need of supernatural inspi ation. For if nature cannot originate the idea of a God to your mind, nothing else that you are in possession of, can, for it is the only inspiration you admit, and hence you

have nothing but nature for your guide, yourself being witness.

Inspiration is not so much on your ground of argument, as you have called it. You say it is extraordin ary. But does this make it so? Truly, sir, you have made it a very common thing. The spirit that inspires, is only a holy or good disposi tion "the governing power of the mind" which prompts the inspired person with a wish to benefit his brethren, by telling them the truth, and keep him from falling into known and willful errors (this is not very extraordinary) but leaves him unable to trace the origin of discoveries beyond his own spirit, or disposition to tell the truth, because there is nothing supernatural it it. If you believe in a God what has originated the idea of his existence! Nature has not, because it could not, yet you call it wonderful. You say you take your belief from the Scriptures. But revelation is deficient, for according to your own telling, it is only natural, exceedingly common, and can neither be wonderful nor extraordinary. A person inspired in this way could not learn there is a God without learning it from nature, for you allow of nothing else. An atheist may profess this gool disposition, or holy spirit, be inspired in the same way, and be prevented "from falling into known or willful errors." And yet the holy spirit would not reveal to him the idea of a God. He would be still an atheist.

But if you believe in a God, what is he? He must "be nature or a part of nature. This is the This is the same as Atheism." This conclusion is inevitable. For by putting the most favorable construction on your language that I can, and I wish to do so, I connot discover, nay your words deny that you believe in any inspira