Arkansas intelligencer., 1844-01-27

. - J
INC communication over the signature OF
This zen" The communication seems design
ImpeS+;I criticism on an address of committee OF
IL Ear West Seminary" published in the In.
i y1iis Ger in behalf of that Institution.
10 sopening of his strictures, the writer say vs.
Zen safs will impugn the motives of those per.
y :; ,o Lss he politely terms the members of the
Zee, in endeavoring " exc the literary cha.
~, q our State: But fhe propriety Of the
- which 1t is DOPE, may be questioned"
80 that ihaI motives of those persons
- ing the address, were, to exc the litera-
@acter of the State. by that, or does he mean
leir motives wore to "eke the character of the
~ by establishing the Far West Seminary.
- oiis want of that perspicuity which should
Snts fish critic. sTho manner in which it is
What is referred to here? Is it the style
- she composition, tho publication of it in the
yoncer? The next paragraph seems to in
cskA TINT when g A Citizen" said manner, he
mea,, pss.tter. "a reflection on professional
me.i. the address, IS it n portion of the matter
Of the taress or is it merely mannorl Will
the galhsman revise his logic? Although he
thinks isge is no conceivable necessity of cast
Eng Il tiYetion," set he admits its truth, and af
Arms ~ applicability to all the Western States,
"under hmiIar circumstances" If the reflection
was '.sakrnd," why does ~ Citizen" SO freely
admit truth, and increase the range of its an.
plcabty!. THAT was the unkindest cut of al H.
sa IN BE- Sudden as fash of lightning. this
.lsiuie CO ,.5t without note of warning. leaves
the add..r,ir and its very objectionable manner,
and pout ,y,fike jackaIl, upon the "Far IVES,
Seminary"--not the thing. but the name. The
rose may be very fine, and very sweet, a very
good rose. but he would rather it was called by
some other name. at appeals rather to the SYM
patty than the good sense of the people," will
our Logical critic furnish a name that will appea
TO the good sense Of the people! Will he show
Tat there IS no good sense in sympathy? Is he
feafsai that the Far West Seminary obtain the
sympathy Of the people He has too much good
sense to symPathize either with the institution, its
ranne, or lis objects though it is evident he has
little malicious sympathy with the reflection
cast on "the professional men now amongst u.s."
but with the unsectarian character of the institu-
ton, he has not the smallest particle of sympathy
t,,s god sense. even. ryolts at The idea of lit
RKtitution occupying the position or inde-
ice Of sect or party. Will "A Citizen tell
,ther the constitution Of the United States
scent, or controlling generations 10 comet"
i the same guarantees againt sectarianism
,, yLe Anglican or Russian constitution would
10 nis views better.
Il ths very face of this guaranteed religious
Lbs. and in opposition to the profsssel princi
pies, wAch are to regulate the institution, war
~ Immediately to be commenced against popery."
our critic well apprised, that popery has
D. and ever will be engaged in unspareing
nncoRfromising war against those principles Of
froedoman toeration7 Must their advocates re.
rnan entrey on the defensive, and hurl no shaft
orainst tae advancing enemyl Have the Cathol-
leg ever offered the hand Of friendship or brother
nool to he protestant church! would they accept
q III offered to them? Is not popery decided
y despoic in its principles of action and govern
msltl Shall the friends Of political and reli-
,gloas freedom shrink back aghast at the approach
ing shadow of that giant despot Must they not
6:e cue gun? What say you Mr.. Critic? are
sympalhies with US or them? With them,
presume, he will answer, founding that pro-
sumption on the objections he makes to the fol-
'o''s 9 fundamental principle of the institutions:
re oIbe is to be the standard of religion and
",o' ais."s "Here" says this learned critic. sis a
NJ at all tradition, a reputation of all confess
5 vsof faith, Of all articles, and an uncurbed
hc9ase for every i"dividual to explain the scrip.
u according to his own caprichiO." q presume
neahs caprce.) If every individual has not
." cuibed license to explain the scriptures, who
/" "a The curb? who gives the license? Has
,iAor of the scriptures appoiated any indi-
" suCCeSSiou VI INDIVIDUALS as their SOic or
sye expounders? If SO who are they and
" IS their comm; ssion? show US their com.
''''on under the broad seal of the sovereign
submit ;heir subjects and slaves. Put no. ev.
DC who has intellect and reason TO know and
has received the commission to examine,
'e. J1 and explain, not according to .capric, !" but
'fdlng to his knowledge and judgement
homish systcm cannot we'll be productive
s,conselu,nces than this principle" Saw
- Mr. Critic; the Ronnsh system reiects
ZEE 1'Ie as the standard of religion and morals.
aia y 'kes tradition and the Pope and his couclave
'he sto ndard. will you be SO good as to give us
yo''s' and tell us in what it differs from The Re-.
misa system. And tell US too what an ipsttu,io,
,o' cultivation Of literature and the diff,sion Of
BE- sdge among tho people, has to expect from
popefy. or its friends of the Anglican. church.
nnies.n b. under their exclusive control. / trus,
"s trends in the Anglican church are few.
nas poPery ever aided in building or sustaining
protestant literary institutionsl Can an institu.
eon based on the broad principles of religious
ilee'cm ever find in it any thing but an uncon
promising enemy? secret but bitter foe? The
p'Inc'Pos on which Far West Seminary are
unaeo' are an'agonistcalto every element Of the
noln'sn system. There is no use in attempting
= Conceal That antagonism. II is not the address.