Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1823-02-01
NEAAGIOVS.
From the Illinois Intalligencer
DEFENCE OF THE TRUTH.

DEFENCE OF THE TRUTH.
Having observed in late number of the n
Eaois Igfeli rencer, letter atldre to Nathan
Pollard, editor OF the Family Visitor, published
ina part of the country where he has no OPP
portuni.y of defending MS character, feel it
my duty TO offer the following remarks on it in
defence of truth.
1t is not a foudnes, for controversy that
causes these remarks, but because think the
attack made on his character unfair; and most
of the readers of the Illinois lntelligencer not
having any opportunity of seeing Mr.. Polarcl's
paper, may be led to give undue weight to the
charges made in that letter.
am not about to complain of Mr.. Parller's
writing this letter to the editor of the Family
Visitor, but what complain of is, that these
charges should be made in part of the coun-
cry where Mr.. Polard's paper is not generally
read, The people should know the truth, and,
according to Mr.. p. should hear both sides.
Let us view this letter calmly, and without
che heat of party feelings. Mr.. p. first com
plains of being deceived with specious title.
This is not wonderful: titles in our day are not
much of clue to character; and for man Of
the age and experience of MIR. T. to hide him
self behind such shelter, appears rather sus-
pcious. But let us look for ourselves at the
charges he brings against Mr. Pollard and lis
paper.
Inc first he makes, is his introducing in his
paper, "philosophy and enticing words OF
mems wisdom, that lie in wait to deceive"
Here am somewhat at loss to know what he
means, as he has not referred us to a single eX-
ample Just before he SAYS that his paper
seems to be full Of the important matters Of re-
Ggion, dressed in fine pleasant language, cal
culated to rouse the affections of the tender
hearted saints" Nowifthis be the philosophy
60 which he refers, | would wish to know
where he gets his authority for contlemning il,
or what harm there is in that. have read
most of the numbers of the Family Visitor;
they are full of plain narrative offacts, with &C.
casional remarks of the editor. And are we
tossuppose that this must be put in the most
vulgar language, before it is fiji vehicle to
convey the news of religion Search at the sa-
cred Scriptures-the Psalms, the prophecies
OF Isaiah, and Ieremiah here we find the most
sublime thought, and the best language. Look
ct the reasonngs OF Paul before Felix, Agrip-
pa, and at Athens, and see if there be not elo-
quent language. This then cannot be the
philosophy to which our Saviour alludes in his
caution. But as Mr.. P. has not referred us to
. single example, but only made the broad as
sertion, and left us to find it where we could,
we must leave bin on this point
The second charge will notice is, that
though he appeared to belong to neither party,
yet lie only printed cone side of the mission
subject" But what does he mean by charging
bin with negecting or refusing to print on
both sides of the question! He has not given
Us single example: on the contrary, in the
very paper to which Mr. p. refers, the editor
has stated the objections as far as they went.
Or are We to understand the gentleman to
mean that Mr.. Pollard himselfought to support
both sides of the questions! If so, then sup
pose we may lopl, for a piece in some future
number of the Illinois Intelligencer, against the
principles Just advanced, from the same au-
thor; because If he do not write or both sides
of the question, he is establishing Popery, ac-
cordng to his own principles. But what is
most snrprizing is, that after Mr.. p so loudly
complains of our editor for refusing TO print
on both sides ofthe question, he should yet be
d;c,ator,a manner Command n di h;Ann AMI 4 u nost
and show what side he supported. always
supposed that if a man only supported one
side Of contested question, there was not
much difficulty to know which side he was on
20 all who knew what the question was.
The next charge is of a more general nature,
though directed Immediately to the editor. 1t
strikes at once at all learning, and with an en-
phasis to which might reply with Job. ~"No
doubt thou ar the man, wisdom will die with
thee"--he pronounces it a dreadful evil He
attempts first to persuade his readers, that in
oil theological scminares, religion is no part
Of the qualifications required for preacher.
Has the gentleman ever been in one to see for
HIMSELF Has he taken the proper steps to as
certain what is required' II he have not, he
asserts, or strongly insinuates, what he knows
po.hing about. His language is, speaking of
men who have been educated in seminaries,
"These counterfcts may be imposed on their
ignorance )" referring to the heather. But if
he have made himself acquainted with the
qualifications that are required in those SEMI
nares, he has asserted what am under the
painful necessity of asserting, was known
faIsehood. In either case, therefore, would
humbly ask, whether there is not some reason
% believe that he D under the same kind of in
Auence of the Pharisees and Lawyers, who re-
iccted the counsel Of God against themselves,
being not baptized with the baptism of John
Luke vii. &c. have had the honor of being y
short time in one Of those dreadfully dangerous
seminaries, as he is pleased to call them, and
have had some opportunity Of knowing little
about the customs Of others from their men,
beers; have never been at any PLACE where
more care was taken that all (as far as human
wisdom could go) should not only be regene.