soul (if under the influence of party spirit) as well as wounding his Savior, and the religion of the Gospel.

Should it be objected, that such is the state of the country, that even the subject of brotherly love cannot be thus treated with out giving offence to Christians, in case the church be composed of members of both parties, it might be sufficient to answer, that our churches then contain but little religion. The minister, or the members, or both, must be highly in fault. But another answer, more honorable to the Christian name, is now given. The writer is acquainted with facts to the contrary of the foregoing assertion, and that in the very case supposed. Let the Christian character appear in the preacher while he addresses his brethren, and the objection is wholly removed. Then might it be said, as it was of old, "See, how these Christians love one another."

3. It is not sufficient that ministers only should feel this subject, and act as reason and Scripture require. Their people ought also to be impressed with the importance of the subject. Various methods may be taken to effect this. Ministers, by conducting as is here urged, would contribute not a little. These few ideas may be read by some of the influential members of our churches, who can lend the helping hand. Our religious publications may present this subject to their readers in different points of light. Common Christians should be taught to join their prayers in aid of so desirable an object. Mutual regard, sympathy, and harmony, should

be inculcated. We should be taught our own weakness and infirmity, and our exposure to do wrong.

The view which has been taken is calculated to fill the hearts of Christians with serious reflections. Much is depending upon their conduct. If they will with one heart do their duty, we shall have great reason to hope, that the evils, which now afflict our country, will ere long come to an end. May all be disposed to unite with engagedness in so good a work; and may the blessing of the Lord rest upon our land.

BERK.

ON GIVING MONEY IN CHARITY

To the Editor of the Panoplist.

Sir,

I KNOW not that you are in the habit of giving advice; or that you will deem it compatible with the objects of your Miscellany to lay a plain statement of a difficult case, before your readers. But, believing that your sympathy will be excited by my painful situation, and that you will be disposed to do any thing reasonable for my relief, I submit the following account of my perplexities.

It is a notorious fact, that the present time is remarkable on account of the multitude of demands made upon our property for objects termed charitable. I am sure no age was ever burdened with so many charitable societies, and charitable subscriptions, and charitable calls, laying continual siege to a man's purse. Our minister, Mr. Editor, has caught this phrenzy, (for such I esteem it,) and he is borne away by the popular current beyond the bounds of reason, and (as it appears to me,) beyond the dictates of his own judgment. He holds it to be a privilege to live in such an age as this, when demands on our charity are so rapidly increasing. He alleges that there is in the Bible such a text as this; It is more blessed to give than to receive. Consequently, he often inculcates the duty of giving away money, as a mean of increasing our own happiness. And, preposterous as it may appear, I have heard him pray, that opportunities for exercising our charity might be multiplied, in order, according to his doctrine, that our own happiness might be proportionably increased.

But our minister, sir, is not content with barely preaching and praying in this style. If he were, I should not trouble you with this complaint. For I can brave out pretty hard things from the pulpit, if nobody will throw them into my face and eyes on week days. But whenever the minister rides up to my door, I am afraid of seeing some subscription, some constitution of a charitable society, in which money is the prime requisite of membership. I expect to hear something about the poor heathen, or of some young man who must be educated for the ministry, or some other proposal, equally hostile to my purse and my inclinations.

By his many good qualities, and known integrity, our minister has great influence with his people. And whenever he proposes a plan of charity, it receives pretty general patronage.

This practice of giving is becoming so customary among us, that any one who refuses his support to charitable purposes will feel himself in some danger of being counted niggardly.

Now, Mr. Editor, I and my wife have, by our industry and good management, scraped together a handsome property. We know that we have as much money as our neighbors, and we love to have others know it too. We wish to hold a respectable standing in society. We have as good a house, appear as well clad, and set as good d'a a table as any around us. And we intend to do so still. But then, Sir, we came hardly by our property, and cannot think of throwing it away. We have never profited by the charity of others; and we can't see how others have any claim on the fruits of our hard labor. To give away our money for the various charitable purposes proposed, would be totally contrary to all our ideas and rules of economy. I was never convinced, that charity meant giving away money. I wish my fellow creatures well; I have as much feeling for them as any But I believe it was never

man.

understood in former times, that charity implied the giving away of our property: This is certainly a new coined doctrine. So, Mr. Editor, I am in conscience opposed to this new plan. Besides, Sir, I have several children. And my wife, though she is notably industrious and frugal herself, intends to make ladies of her daughters. Fashions you know run high. We think we can afford to support our children on a level with the first. And to educate my sons, to indulge my daughters with frequent parties, to keep up with the numerous improvements in fashions and manners; all this takes off my loose change, so that I have nothing to give, if my conscience were not opposed to the plan.

Now comes my difficulty. It wounds me exceedingly to fall behind my neighbors in any thing. I can't endure to be thought mean or stingy. It hurts me intolerably to put off a charitable subscription, on which I see the names of many, who are not so able as myself. A thing of this kind will sometimes make me feel disagreeably a whole month. I am afraid that many will think I am not so rich as my neighbors, because I do not give away so much as they do.

In a word, I am brought to this dilemma; I must either give away my money, or run the risk of being regarded as an underling, and of losing somewhat of my minister's good opinion, for you must know that he thinks me quite a reputable man.

Now I see no way of relief, unless our minister and his friends can be induced to suspend their exertions for charitable purposes. This would bring us all to a level again, and my money would be safe. I know of no one more likely to have influence with our minister than yourself Mr. Editor. He places confidence in you; and does not fail to read every thing which your work contains. Now what I have to request of you is, that you, or some of your keen correspondents, should produce a piece on the mischiefs of multiplying, and hunting up, objects of charity. Be pointed and severe in your strictures. Tell

P. S. While I am about writing, Mr. Editor, I ought to put in a word for my wife, whose situation is fuil as painful as my own, and who agrees with me fully in my sentiments on this subject. You must know, that the women in our town, have formed a Cent Society for charitable purposes. It is very fashionable to become members of it.

But my wife, though she wishes to be equal with any, cannot feel willing as yet to join this institution.

She has tried various methods to throw off the dreaded opprobrium of being backward in such a thing. Sometimes she wants the money for her daughters. At other times she endeavors to ridicule the society on account of its name, as a frivolous and childish thing. Were it a Dollar, or an Eagle Society, says she, I would join it. But it all does not answer. The women, she fears, will regard it as a little thing in my wife, to refuse a cent a week, when she cannot say but the object is good. And many have no more sense than to reply, to the last mentioned argument, that if a cent is too inconsiderable, she may freely put in a

The original word, according to the explanation already given, imports a change of moral character, whenever it is used to express a preparation for evangelical enjoyment, or for a future state of happiness. This change of moral character implies many things; of which one of the principal is sorrow for sin. Perhaps among new converts, generally, self-loathing, or a deep abhorrence of their past character and conduct, is the most prominent feeling. It is not strange, therefore, that the Latin translation usually called the Vulgate should have adopted a word expressive of sorrow for past conduct; especially as the Latin tongue has no single word which gives the exact meaning of the original. Conformably to the Vulgate, many modern translations have expressions equivalent to our repent. This has not, however, been the universal practice. Beza has generally taken a word much preferable, and which conveys the idea of a return to a state of sanity and wisdom. Still he has not hit the exact meaning of the Greek. The error in most cases has been the taking of a part of the meaning conveyed, or rather implied, in the original, instead of expressing the whole. Dr. Campbell, for instance, finding that the evangelical change here required is durable in its effects and consequences, lays much stress upon the idea of permanence, and expresses the change by reformation, which, according to him, is a permanent change from worse to better. Now the original word does not of itself convey the idea of a permanent change; but when used to designate the great moral

change which the Gospel requires, the idea of permanence is perfectly compatible with all the ideas really conveyed: and we learn from many passages of Scripture, that this change is in fact permanent.

Let it be observed, also, that the word repent, in its genuine acceptation, has no reference to the moral nature of the action repented of, nor to the moral character of the person repenting. Thus a miser may repent that he gave a trifle in charity just as truly, as Paul repented that he had persecuted the Christians. Learned divines, however, have perceived in every age, that the common translations of the passage in question, and of others like it, needed explanation. They have defined repentance and the equivalent words in other languages, by explaining very fully the moral change above mentioned, and all its effects and consequences. An excellent Latin compend of theology, now lying before me, defines repentance, (i. e. the Latin word used by Beza,) to be the circumcision of the heart, a conversion to God, a spiritual renovation, sanctification of the man, the new creation, and the first resurrection. Though these are good definitions of the great moral change required by the Gospel, they are much too extensive for the meaning of our word repentance. On attentive consideration, therefore, I am confirmed in the opinion, that the French translation above referred to, and which is equivalent to convert yourselves, or be converted, is the best translation I have met with. The following paraphrase of the 17th verse is