The Litchfield County post., 1828-07-24

might be accumulated indefinitely and as certain of the expressions, quoted exCeplionable, may, by some, perhaps, be supposed to be warranted, by scriptura example; hope to be induiged, in making few brief remarks, in explanation of what deem objectionable, in each of them.
 1. The terms, ''brother," and "friend '' when ad- dresed by any created beingO the Deity are not on-
 y irreverent and prOfane; but, in sTicness of an- guage blasphemous-however pardonable innocence of intention may render them. For both wOrs espe- ciay when addressed Co another, clearly expres sve of at Ieas equality in the speaker, to the per- addressed; and are often understood, and intend- ed to imply inferiO'ity in the latter. Thus, among men, superior occasionally gives his inferior the title of "friend," or "brother;'' and in such cases the term is of courtesy, and such, is considered conferring O6HgutOn faUOur, upon the party to whom it is applied. But either of these terms, ad- dressed by interior his superior would be un- Versaly considered, disrespecfu and rude. Abra- ham, it is true, is styled in scripture, 'he friend of God" But it is to be recollected, that this appella- ton, thus given, to Abraham, is the language of D vine condescenSOn and therefore beftting the Divine character. Yet with what horror, would that emi- patriarch, and saint, have shrnk from the very thought of addressing the Almighty, as his frIendT Such an address, the part of any mortal, would be nothing less than profane, and impious pre- sumption.
 Our Saviour, also, has declared, by figure in Ian guage, that whoever shall do the will of God, is his ''brother, aud sister, and mother" This, too is expression of kind condeScension. But can such con- descenson justify Christian disc,ple, convert, in giving the appellaton of brother to his Almighty Re- deemer, and final Judge !-To try the question: by a rule of propriey, in the manners and intercourse of society :-It is confessedy courteous and obiging in a seniOr, ather, in any of the professlons-as in that of divinity law, medicne-to give to a youth- fl member of the profession. the title of broth But, for the latter address his Senior, by the same title would be grossly unmannerly, and arro- gant. How immeasurably more arrogant daring,ana presumptrous, must it be, in hepess erring, fallen morta to address, by the familiar and irrever ent title, the "Ancent of Days' the Creator, Law gver, and Ruler of the world With what astonisl,~ ment should we hear the eminent female Chris tian, addressing the Saviour, her Son But it is perfectly manifest, that if his words, which have just been quoted, can in any instance auth otse his fol- lowers, to give him the appeation of brother; that of son, would be, in the instance last supposed, equally justifable.
 ?. The expression, ''my Jesus,' is objectonabe,a being rudely jamiiar disrespec5ul, and irrepaem. am not objecting to the expressions, ''my LoTd "my God"-"my Rsdeemer,' or any similar conpeIlztion. But these several tles it is to be observed are ap- JInt: and may be proper, on the same principle, on which subject would be justified, in saying, 'my sovereign
 "a servant, in saying, "my master'-or a child, in saying, "my parent" Whereas Jesus is proper name, or what is termed a name of baptism, like
 ola or Joseph; and therefore, the expression. "my Jesus" is analogous to that of 'tmy John," or tiny Joseph:" form of address, which would be most of- fensvey fdmstiar and disrespectfui, towards a human digntary, or superior and the epithet 'dear es prefxed to the address, would render not only douby rude, but ridiculous aso
 To illustrate the subject, more, by analogy subject qay with proprety, say, of, to- the mon- arch,to whom he owes allegiance, ''my kin3," or ':my sovereign: But what would be thought of the rever- ence, loyar, or understanding ofthat subject who, in solemn address to his sovereign, should commence with, "Ny George,' or "IVy Louis?' and more es- pecalIy, with 'My dearest George" &c. servant; who should call his mastcr ''my -Richard,' or ''ny Thomas," would be deemed guilty Of gross insoence: and what duui child, of the age of discretion would, on any occasion, and especially, in humble appeal to his parents, be capable ofgviug them the address, "lly dearest John and Mary?''
 The expressions, marked, as objectionable, in the Sd and 4th quotations so grossly fond, sensual, anu amatory, all modest criticism, ,at defiance And as they cannot be characterized in decent lan- guage, dismiss them, without further comment.
 How, then, it be endured, that such grossly ir- reveren presumpuous, and profane forms of address, as have now been quoted, should be presented to the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, the Father, and Governor, of the Universe! The natural, and direct tendency of such expressions, and fall otherso sim
 liar kind sto promote rreverence to the Deity, to de grade and sensuaize devotional thoughts, and Ian- guage, and to inspire, and cherish, that principle of spiritual prid which is the bane ofevery evangelical grace, and social virtue, and which has often brought more Scandal on the Christian !roesson, than open immortality. BLAIR.
 UNIVERSALISTS.-Of,h this order of religionists, there two classes spoken of and referred to in all