Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1840-09-17

q
Here, then, is a narrative intentionally
or uninie nientionalIy SD constructed as 10
produce the effect OF deliberate and grave
assertion, and duplicating in no triflng
degree the character Of men and cIasses
OF men.
Were we TO examine il in this light,
we should wish for little more exact in
formation. We would ask who were
MIR. Smith, and MIR. w, man. and Mr..
Wilson, and who were the clergymcn
associated in his study who basely insult
ed an enquirer after truth, and who,
when he had retired, confessed 10 each
other, without blushing, their own hide
GUS ny pocricy
All these points would Of necessity, be
considered, five contemplate this work
as a personal narrative. Without such
AN examination, we should be unable tu
decide whether Charles Elwood was tho
party snned against, or the party sim
ming But the means of such an invesii-
gatlon are not afforded US and we must
leave the question as we found il. IL
may not, however, be an,iss 10 suggest
TO our author that individuals and classes
OF men may be libelled by matter pur-
porting 10 be a narrative under feipncd
names. 1t is not long since clergyman
of Massachusetts suffered Imprisonment,
for publishing the story so well known
under The name Of Deacon Giles Dis
iillery. Christianity, as zee understand
II teaches us to speak evil Of no man.
Before we leave this part Of The su,.
ject, there is, however, one topic on
which we are disposed to bestow sim
gle remark. Charles EIwood informs
Us that he was betrothed TO a very es-
Unable and lovely young lady and that
the engagement was broken of in con-
sequence Of the inpertincnt and obiru-
sive advice administered by q priest
named Mr., Smith. For the oLtfusiou
OF one man upon the affairs Of another
we make no apology, for we have none
to make. Charles Elwood himself, by
no means a novice in giving uiterance
TO the language of Indignation, could
feel no more indignant at such conduct
than ourselves. II any man, priest or
no priest, has thus inferlered with the
personal relations Of his neig hbors, let
him be despised. We shall be the las.
to utter word 10 pallialion Of this Of
ience. While, however, we freely say
all this, we cannot but add, that thero
seems strange aspect Of Inconsistency
spread over the face of the NARRATIVES,
which leaves us wholly unable To- ascer-
tam ~ how far Mr.. Smith was the au-
thor OF Charles Elwood's misfortunes. -
MIR. Smith, it is true, is represented a.
urging Miss Wyman to break off her
engage nent because the apostle forbids
us 'lo be unequally yoked ,oge,her1
with unbellevers or, at least, 10 suspend
her consent until her intended husband
had renounced his iniidelny." Miss
Wyman herself gives the following ac-
count OF the matter: "To you, do my
best, ! must, unless you should be con-
vcr,ed TO religion, soon appear weak
and silly woman My relig ious zeal will
be IN youI estimation mere fanatacisH.
and my love to God will seem so much
abStracted froms that you will claim as
due 10 Yourself Difference Of belief
will lead to difference Of feeling, TO a dit
ference Of tastes, and aims, and then to
GOODNESS, neglect, perhaps disgust and
mutual wretcheJness. With views Of
religion SO widely different as ours are,
we can never enjoy that union of soul
which we should both crave, and whou.
which we could not be happy" But
when our author gives us, in his own
words, the reason for his heroine's con-
fItc nd a 4. T..
both the above. Ii is in these words
"Sbe had just dedicated herseIfto Cod,
she must be his and his only. Did she
not owe every thing TO God ? Should
she not love him with her whole heart,
and ought she not TO sacrifice eye-
ry thing to him p? Was not religion
in It's very nature sacrifice Would
She not be violating its most solemn in.
functions, il she retained any thing which
she loved more than God Did she not
IN fact love me more than him | was
jearer to her than all the world beside;
but, then, would not the sacrifice OF me-
|" God be so much the more me,itorr.
Gus Z" According, therefore, to our at.
lhor's own showing, Miss Wyman did
not act from the motive sug2 2ested Ivy
MIR. Smith, and really, to our seeming,
her own account OF the affair ~ the only
piece of common sense in the history Of
the whole Transaction.
But let us look nj this work from the
other point Of view. Suppose that the
persons introduced are all mag mary,
und that without any intention Of de-
signaling persons, our author merely
desires TO represent classes a, present
existing in society. The question then
arises, Are these rcproseniions tiue'
l.ci us take Charles Elwood rs the rep
'cscniaiive oi atheists, the priests,
Smith and Wilson, as the representa-
lives Of those classes Of clcrgymen who
believe IN the existence Of rcvusis, and
George Wyman rs the representative
of lay men Of the sane Mhef, md let
Us usk, Are these delneaiions faithful
pictures oi those several classes ~ ovf
fellow citizens
Charles f,Iwood is mar ycmning
for communion with bis hind, ever resdy
To syrnpaihiz. with them Ip ttcM Joy ar
their sorruw," unconscious of guilt"