Volume 3. Number 8. March 6, 1826, pp. 220-225.

• Review of a Sermon on the Duty of the Church to Prepare Pious Youth in Her Bosom for the Gospel Ministry.--By the Rev. Gideon Blackburn, D. D. Pastor of the Church in Louisville, Ky.--Text, Eph. iv. 11, 12. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 220-222.
• A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things.--No. XI.: To the Editor of the Christian Baptist by J. H., pp. 222-223.
• Reply to the Above [To the Editor of the Christian Baptist] by Alexander Campbell, pp. 223-225.
• The Bible by Alexander Campbell, p. 225.
• The Many against the Few by Alexander Campbell, p. 225.

      "And he gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ."

      THIS is that Rev. Gideon Blackburn, D. D. who boasted that he had "swept from the arena," [220] a discourse of mine before the legislature of Kentucky, in 1824, on the subject of what he calls "the gospel ministry;" and whom I had invited to do in my presence what he had so easily done in my absence. This he has since declined and begs to be excused. But as a substitute he has offered this sermon on that subject, fraught with all the logic and rhetoric for which he has been honored with the title of D. D. We may then expect to find in it all those arguments which "swept from the arena" my cobwebs; which dissipated to the four winds of heaven the dust of my reasonings, arguments, and proofs. As a fair and full specimen of what the Doctor can advance in support of his views, we are bound to consider it. This is his cool, deliberate, studied, and, no doubt, best effort, against what some "wiseacres" have said against modern clergymen as the successors of the apostles, as the ambassadors of Christ, as the called and sent of the Holy Spirit. We shall therefore bestow a little attention upon it. For as the author of it is at the head of the priesthood of his state, and as he is one of the honored called ones, whom the Holy Spirit has sent to Kentucky; and, in attestation of which, and to show how far the men of this world have approved of the Holy Spirit's choice and work, they have honored him with two capitals of mighty power and awful import; and as he is a father in Israel, his sayings and reasonings are entitled to great respect. It is but seldom the patrons of the science of this world approve of the appointments of the Holy Spirit. For of the thousands whom he calls and sends, not more than one in ten is recognized by colleges and their trustees as worthy of an honorary title. When, therefore, the Holy Spirit, the presbytery, and the patrons of science, infidels and all, concur in attesting an ambassador of Christ, most assuredly we ought, with due submission, to sit at his feet. But this rebellious heart of mine wants something more than all the presbytery and the board of trustees can confer, in proof that Gideon Blackburn, D. D. Pastor of the church in Louisville, is sent by the Holy Spirit, and a true ambassador of Jesus Christ. It is true that this sermon exhibits him very much in the true character of an ambassador, for as soon as an ambassador has proved his mission, his mere assertions and say so's are equal to all the logic and rhetoric of Demosthenes and Cicero united in one head. Consequently the Doctor, laying infinite stress upon his own infallibility, has not adduced one single scrap from Moses to John, to prove the subject of his discourse. This is, indeed, ambassador-like. The Holy Spirit, the college, and the presbytery, having chosen, and called, and sent, and honored him, it would have been beneath the dignity of them all that he should have to prove what he says. This would be placing him upon a level with a Methodist or Baptist elder. This would destroy all his high pretensions. It is necessary for a Methodist or Baptist teacher to prove all that he advances, but entirely unnecessary for Gideon Blackburn, D. D. Right well he knows this! and consequently, in the true style of an ambassador, he deigns no proof!

      His sermon is intended to proclaim that it is the duty of the church to prepare in her bosom pious youth for the gospel ministry. Now this is really a new message from the skies, for there is not one word, from Genesis to John, which says that it is the duty of the church to prepare pious youth for the gospel ministry. This point could not be proved from the words of any previous ambassador, and it is unnecessary for an ambassador to prove his own communications to be true. But now this reverend ambassador informs the world that it is the duty of the church to train young men for the gospel ministry, and of these young men to make presbyters or elders.

      His text, to have been pertinent to his purpose, ought to have read, "When Jesus ascended to his throne, he gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, supernaturally qualified for the work, and in a moment prepared to discharge the duties of their calling--and then gave orders to the churches to train up young men, artificially and mechanically, to be their successors in the manner hereinafter specified." This text would have suited his subject. But I am wrong. An ambassador, prophet, or evangelist, &c. ought to take no text at all, but make a text for himself. The taking of a text implies inferiority and dependance, every way unbecoming "the legate of the skies." And the Rev. Doctor is aware of this; for although he conforms to the custom of his modern peers in writing a text at the head of the page, he simply adduces it as a motto, and troubles his head no more about it, but proceeds to something more sublime and glowing from the skies--no old revelation, but one new and brilliant, occupies his tongue and pen.

      This sermon occupies twenty octavo pages, and has not one argument in it to show that the text has any more bearing upon the present day, nor upon his subject, than "Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob." Indeed there is not a single sentence of scripture adduced in the way of argumentative proof, in the whole discourse. Some two or three scraps round off as many periods, and the bible is upon a par with the Koran through the remainder of the sermon. But this was wisely done, for the bible has nothing to do with his object or design. His mock explanation of apostles, prophets, pastors, &c. is a burlesque on modern commentators. The "teachers" mentioned in the text are represented as professors of divinity and presidents of theological schools. "Some teachers," says he, "whose business it is particularly to explain the doctrines and regulations (canons) of the church, and carefully instruct young men in the course of theology taught in the bible."

      His method of sweeping from the arena all argument and proof, is fairly exhibited in the following words:--"The general idea implied in the office of minister or ambassador for Christ, was designed to continue in the church to the end of time; but the special idea attached to the ministry, under the word apostles and prophets, ended with the completion of the canon of scripture." This single assertion of one D. D. "sweeps from the arena" all that ten thousand such as I am might say in a century. So the Doctor thinks, for he adduces no more. This is just the topic, too, in substance, on which all turns, and every thing is decided, that came upon that "arena" which the Doctor swept so clean. This is a besom of destruction, indeed! this mighty, this omnipotent assertion. 'Tis well for you that you are an old man, and of a privileged order; for had a pious young man asserted so roundly, we would have demanded the proof. But there is no need of proof--an ambassador from the skies says so!

      But after all, the assertion is a little wanting in common sense, and borders upon what, amongst young men, is called nonsense.--A "general idea" continues in the church till the [221] end of time, and a "special idea" died with the completion of the inspired canon. This reminds me of a waggish epitaph written on the tomb of the materialist and sceptic historian, David Hume. A student in Edinburgh is said to have written it.

So the general idea implied in ambassador and minister is immortal, and the special one is in the tomb of the apostles! I yet remember the rhetorical flourishes of this textuary when I last heard him, and this is a pretty good sample of them, excepting what pertains to his hands.

      In describing this general idea which is found in the persons of modern ambassadors, he says, "He," to wit, the idea, "must have a correct knowledge of theology in its radical principles," [the branches, no matter about them,] "its systematic arrangement," [at Westminster,] "and the dependance of its parts," [the five points,] "upon each other, together with, a good knowledge of the classes of texts on which each leading idea is bottomed." He has only to study the classes of texts on which the leading ideas of his system is bottomed. Thus the Doctor aims at making a good textuary.

      But in farther describing this textuary, who on a sudden becomes a general idea, and assumes to be an ambassador with his good knowledge of general ideas, bottomed on classes of texts, he says, he "is employed by Christ to be his agent on earth in negotiating with the souls of men." What a general idea is this! A pious youth becomes a beneficiary, then a textuary, next a minister or ambassador--Christ's agent, negotiating with the souls of men!!! A fine picture! an important office! a high calling!

      In finding a model for this plan of procedure, the Doctor ransacks the bible in vain; but he finds in some old copy, or, may be, in the apocrypha, a piece of church history I never saw before. Perhaps it is a new revelation. As it is of great consequence to the community, I shall therefore quote it. It is designed to tell us how the primitive church got a supply of the general ideas, called ambassadors:--"Some one who appeared to be best qualified to lead the devotions, was appointed to that office. He devoted himself to reading and study, that he might acquit himself properly in that station. After he had acquired sufficient theological knowledge and a good degree of boldness in the faith, he was set apart to the work of the ministry by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." This is a precious piece of ancient history, and we shall ever after quote it as of undoubted authority, because an agent of the Saviour's in negotiating with the souls of men in Kentucky, has favored us with it.

      In dividing these agents into proper classes, and in assigning them their portion of labor, he wills some to be editors of religious newspapers, and authors, who are to be qualified "to defend the minute parts of the Christian system." Some to be able "logically and mathematically to explore the whole field of theory, and to clear off the heterogeneous matter cast on the truth by the sophistry and wickedness of men of perverse minds." Some "for parochial duties." Some "for pioneers in the wilderness," and a host of "minute men on all the essential doctrines of the gospel." These are to be ready at a minute's warning to put on their armor of texts, and to march into the field panoplied with general ideas.

      But the doctor aims at a new plan of augmenting the number of the presbyterian clergy, from 1080, the present number, to twenty thousand, in the lapse of twenty years. Theological schools will not answer the purpose--too slow in their operation. He laments that pious youths of respectable parents are deterred from becoming ambassadors. "Many parents even discourage their pious sons from preparing for an office so destitute of pecuniary returns." The poor, then, by means of gratuitous contributions, are to be converted into agents of Heaven; and he will have every fifty members to make one priest in five years. It will not do, he says, "to leave to parents to select and educate" their sons for ambassadors. This will produce no favorable results. "There are two thousand congregations of Presbyterians in the union. Let each of these educate one beneficiary in five years;" or "every fifty members by paying 25 cents per month, could furnish one agent to negotiate for Heaven, every five years." Thus, for the small sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars, one ambassador could be furnished with sufficient "general ideas," bottomed on "classes of texts," and might become a "minute man" in all the "essential doctrines of the gospel; and thus a supply of one for every five hundred souls could be easily obtained, if avarice were subdued." But he will have those young men put under some member of presbytery to study divinity, and thus recommends a departure from that fragment of ecclesiastical history which he made known to the world.

      Unless efforts similar to these are made, "the period is not far remote when missionary efforts must be paralyzed--the very foundation of the church" [viz. Jesus Christ and the apostles,] "must give." As an argument to enforce the burden of his message, he reminds the people that he was the originator "of the plan of instruction now adopted amongst the American savages; the plan which was at the bottom of the present missions, and which now gives them support;" and hints, modestly enough, that some have not honored him for it, but "have attempted to conceal" this fact. If one plan of operation which he has introduced, and of which he is the inventor, has been so successful, it is a fair and necessary conclusion that this plan of augmenting the number of priests must be alike wise and practicable, and that similar results will follow its adoption. With such weapons as these, the Rev. Gideon Blackburn, D. D. "sweeps the arena" of all false doctrine, and carries conviction to the hearts of his hearers.

EDITOR.      

W---------- Co. Ind. Dec. 12, 1825.      

      DEAR SIR:--A SINCERE desire to know the truth as it is in Christ, is the sole cause of these lines. I need not tell you that I am not a scholar--that these lines will manifest. Neither do I approve of the popular doctrines of the clergy, or even of such an order of men; but think it my duty to let you know that I belong to a church called "German Baptists," sometimes "Dunkards," whose government is the New Testament only. They are not the same in principle or faith with those of the old connexion in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and Ohio; but an order that took rise from them in Kentucky, by one Teacher, in Shelby county, about six years ago, amounting now to about two thousand, having [222] about twenty-four teachers, and increasing fast. Our views of christianity you have expressed in the Christian Baptist, vol. 2d, and on the grace of God, volume second, Nos. 8 and 9; and in the whole second volume I do not see any thing to divide us in sentiment, though I do not approve of some things in your first and third volumes. The Calvinists here generally anathematize the Christian Baptist because it condemns their metaphysical speculations. I read your debate with McCalla, and also the first and second part of the 3d vol. of the Christian Baptist, and find myself edified, my views enlarged, and my faith strengthened; yet I was astonished, finding you so great an advocate for primitive christianity, to hear you say that whatsoever the apostles commanded constituted the practice of the first christians, and yet not notice the plain commandment of washing feet, and that of the kiss of charity; and to hear you say that the practice of the apostles constituted a law for us, and upon this ground contended for weekly communion, and yet not stating that the night was the time, yea, the only time, according to Christ's institution and the practice of the apostles to observe this ordinance. Though I am not convinced of the necessity of weekly communion, not seeing how it could be kept so often in our back country, owing to our scattered state of living from ten to fifteen miles apart; yet I think that whenever it is observed, it should be done according to the primitive model. This much I have written for your own meditation, and now request you to write to me personally, and give me your views on trine immersion. You have plainly proved in your Debate that immersion was the only baptism the New Testament authorizes; but you have not stated whether trine or single immersion is the proper action of baptism. In your Debate you state that trine immersion was practised within two years of the lives of the apostles, and we know, according to Robinson's History, that it was the practice of the christians, in the time of Constantine, and yet is among the Greeks. From the commission to baptize, Matt. xxviii. 19. I yet think it is the proper action of baptism, and think that it should not be performed transversely, but forwards, in the most humble manner of obedience, Romans vi. 5. I have written this to let you know my views; and now beg you, in the name of Christ, to inform a poor, illiterate man, who never has had the opportunity of receiving education, though he has always desired it, the whole truth with respect to this matter. I wish you to be concise and very particular, as I shall depend on what you write to me; and every earthly advantage and popularity would I freely forego to follow the truth. I am sincerely your friend, &c.

J. H.      

      DEAR BROTHER--FOR such I recognize you, notwithstanding the varieties of opinion which you express on some topics, on which we might never agree. But if we should not, as not unity of opinion, but unity of faith, is the only true bond of christian union, I will esteem and love you, as I do every man, of whatever name, who believes sincerely that Jesus is the Messiah, and hopes in his salvation. And as to the evidence of this belief and hope, I know of none more decisive than an unfeigned obedience, and willingness to submit to the authority of the Great King.

      Your objection to the weekly breaking of bread, if I can call it an objection, equally bears against the meeting of disciples at all, for any purpose, on the first day. For if you will allow that if they meet at all, there is no difficulty insurmountable, in the way of attending to this, more than to any other institution of Jesus. As often as they can assemble for worship on that day, let them attend to all the worship, and means of edification, and comfort, which their gracious sovereign has appointed.

      As to the time of the day or night when it should be observed, we have no commandment But we have authority to attend upon this institution at whatever time of the day or night we meet. The Lord's having instituted it at night, will not oblige us to observe it at night, more than his having first eaten the passover should oblige us first to eat a paschal lamb, or to observe it in all the same circumstances. We are always to distinguish what is merely circumstantial in any institution, from the institution itself. The disciples at Troas came together upon the first day of the week to break bread; and the apostle Paul commanded the disciples at Corinth "to tarry one for another, to wait till all the expected guests had arrived," which shews that it occupied an early as well as an essential part of their worship. Any objection made to the hour of the day or night in which any christian institution should be observed is founded upon the doctrine of holy times, or sacred hours, which are Jewish and not christian. Besides, it is bad logic to draw a general conclusion from any particular occurrence. We might as well argue that, because Paul immersed the jailor at the dead hour of night, every person should be immersed at the same hour, as that because the Lord instituted the supper the night in which he was betrayed, it should be always observed at night. Nay, the same sort of logic would oblige us to observe it only the last night in our lives, if we could ascertain it, and to have no more than a dozen fellow participants. We should, on the same principle, be constrained, like the Sabbatarians, to reform our almanacs, and to decide whether it was instituted at nine or twelve o'clock at night, &c. But apostolic precedent decides this point, and not inferential reasoning.

      As to the washing of the saints' feet, there is no evidence that it was a religious ordinance, or an act of social worship. Yea, there is positive evidence that it was not. Paul, in his directions to Timothy, at Ephesus, tells him that certain widows were to be supported in certain circumstances by the church. These widows were members of the church; and, as such, must have been regular attendants on, and partakers of, all its institutions.

      Now, in describing the character of those widows which were to be supported by the congregation, Paul says, "If she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have diligently followed every good work." Had the washing of the saints' feet been a religious, or what is called a church or social ordinance, it would have been impossible for her to have been in the congregation, and not to have joined in it. He might as well have said, If she have been baptized, if she have eaten the supper, as to have said, "If she have washed the saints' feet" had it been a religious institution. But he ranks it not amongst social acts of worship, not amongst religious institutions, but amongst good works. When, then, it is a good work, it ought to be performed, but never placed on a level with acts of religious worship. It is a good [223] work when necessity calls for it; and, though a menial service, the Saviour gave an example that no christian should forget, of that condescending humility which, as christians, we are bound, both from precept and example, to exhibit towards our brethren to all cases when called upon. Besides the design of it at the time he practised it, is ascertained from a regard to the mistaken and aspiring views of the disciples respecting the nature of places of honor in his kingdom.

      It was a good work, and still is a good work, more frequently in Asia than America. The soil, climate, and dress of the Asiatics more frequently called for it, than our circumstances require it. But we argue not from these circumstances--we use them as illustrations of the fact, that Paul the Apostle has positively decided that it is not a religious institution, an act of religious worship, or an ordinance in the church, but simply a good work, and I have experienced it to be a good work, in my own person, more than mince, even in these United States.

      Much the same sort of evidence exists in proof that the kiss of charity is not a social or church ordinance. A great deal more, however, can be said in behalf of it, than of either of the preceding items. It is argued that it is five times positively commanded in the epistles written to the congregations, set in order by the apostles. From this I would conclude that it had not been established by the apostles as an act of religious or social worship in those societies, as a part of their usual and stated worship; for if it had, there could not have existed a reason for enjoining it so repeatedly as we find it enjoined. Hence we do not find one commandment in all the epistles to the churches, respecting baptism, the Lord's supper, or the Lord's day: certain things are said of them, and in relation to them, as already established in the church, but no command to observe them. From the fact of the kiss of charity being so often mentioned, and from the circumstances of the congregations to which it is mentioned, I argue quite differently from many zealous and exemplary christians.

      Another argument in favor of it is deduced from the fact that these letters were written to the churches, and that consequently the things enjoined in them, were enjoined upon the disciples in their collective capacity. True in part only. For it is not a fact that the injunctions in those epistles all respected the brethren in their meetings only, but also their conduct in the world, in their families, and in all the various relations of life.

      It is admitted that the usual method of salutation in the East was, and still is, by kissing the cheek or neck of a relative or friend. In some countries, in Europe, too, this custom is quite common; but the farther west or north we travel from Constantinople or Rome, the custom is less frequent. Shaking hands is one of the most usual methods of expressing friendship and love in Europe and America.

      Christians are to love one another as brethren. This is the grand standard of their affection. Whatever way, then, I express love to my natural brother, I should express it to my christian brother. If the custom of the country and those habits of expressing affection which it familiarizes to our minds, require me to salute my natural brother when I meet him, by a kiss on the lips, neck, or cheek, so let me salute my christian brother. But if the right hand of friendship and love be the highest expression of love and affection for a natural brother, to salute a christian brother otherwise is unnatural. For example--suppose that after an absence of seven years, I were introduced into a room where one of my natural brothers and one of my christian brethren were assembled, and that I should kiss the latter and shake hands with the former; would not this diversity be unnatural and contrary to the generic precept, "Love as brethren." I contend, then, that neither the customs in dress, wearing the beard, or mode of salutation, is the meaning of the requirements, of the precepts, or examples of the apostles; but that the genius and spirit of their injunctions and examples, are, in these things, expressed by the customs and habits which our country and kindred adopt, and by means of which we express the spirit and temper which they inculcated and exhibited.

      But to make this a regular and standing ordinance of christian assemblies, appears to be entirely unauthorized by any hint, allusion, or command, in the apostolic writings. I speak neither from prejudice nor aversion to this custom. For my own part, I can cordially comply with either custom, having been born in a country where this mode of salutation was more common than in this; but to advocate or enjoin it as of apostolic authority, I cannot. When misunderstandings and alienations take place amongst brethren, and a reconciliation has been effected; when long absence has been succeeded by a joyful interview; or when about to separate for a long time, the highest expressions of love and most affectionate salutations are naturally called for, which the customs of the country have made natural. And these become holy amongst christian brethren on account of the high considerations which elicit them.

      In a word, whatever promotes love amongst christian brethren, whatever may increase their affection, or whatever expressions of it can best exhibit it to others, according to the customs and feelings of the people amongst whom we live, is certainly inculcated by the apostles. And if christian societies should exactly and literally imitate and obey this injunction, no man, as far as I can learn, has a right to condemn or censure them. Nor have they who practise according to the letter, a right to insist upon others to think of practise in a similar way, so long as they exhibit that they love one another as brethren.

      With regard to trine immersion, and the manner in which the action should be performed, we have neither precept nor precedent. In the debate alluded to, instead of two, it is, I think, in the errata, two hundred years after the apostolic age, when we first read of trine immersion. That immersion is always spoken of as one act, is most evident from all that is said about christian immersion. It is true that the scribes and elders, as indeed the Jews generally, had a plurality of immersions; but the christian action is a unit. There is no command that a person should be immersed three times in order to constitute one baptism or immersion. Nor is there an example of the kind on record, not even a hint or allusion to such a custom. Therefore, we cannot teach it as of divine, but as of human authority. And in what position the body should be disposed of in the act, is as immaterial as in what fashion a coat or mantle should be made. To bring the christian religion to inculcate matters of this sort, would be to convert the New Testament into a ritual like the book of Leviticus, and to make christian obedience as low and servile as that of the weak and beggarly elements. [224]

      Thus, my dear sir, I have hinted at the topics you proposed. I should have written to you "personally" long since; but in such cases, here the matter is of general interest, I prefer, as opportunity serves, to lay it before the public. And as to the long delay, I have to urge by way of apology, that I am this winter, more than ever before, absorbed in business of the highest, most solemn and responsible nature. I have under my care the publication of a new Translation of the New Testament. Though the translation was made ready to my hand, yet the necessary examination if every word, and comparison of it with the other translations of note, for the purpose of assisting the English reader with the best means of understanding this blessed book, has given me incomparably more labor than I had any idea of. It is indeed, to me a delightful and profitable employment, having assembled all translations of note, and even those of no great reputation, I am under the happy necessity of reading, examining, and comparing all, and in notes critical and explanatory, elucidating the text when it can be improved. But a small portion of my labor can be seen, or will meet the public eye, because, in many instances, after the most diligent examination and comparison, the translation given is adopted in preference to all others; and my labor simply results in the conviction that the translation of the standard works is the best. It is a work that I dare not delay, or yield to any other demands upon me, however imperious. I have more than sixty letters at this time on file unanswered, and many of my correspondents are got out of patience with me; but I have a good, or many good apologies to make. If they will only bear with me this once, I hope to make them returns in full.

      Wishing you favor, mercy and peace, from our Lord and Saviour, and glad to hear from you at any time, I subscribe myself your brother in the hope of immortality.

A. C.

February 25, 1826.

      THERE is, perhaps, no book read more than the bible, and it appears as though no book generally read was less understood. This, no doubt, has arisen from a combination of causes which exists in relation to no other book in the world. If any other book in the English language had as many commentaries written upon it, had as many systems based upon it, or upon particular constructions of it; if any other book were exhibited in the same dislocated and distracted light, had as many debates about its meaning, and as many different senses attributed to its words; if any other book were read as the scriptures are commonly read, in the same broken, disconnected and careless manner; with the same stock of prejudices and preconceived opinions, there is every reason to believe that it would be as unintelligible and as little understood as the bible appears to be. We often wonder at the stupidity of the Jews in our Saviour's time in relation to his pretensions and claims, and no doubt posterity will wonder at our stupidity and ignorance of a book which we read so often and profess to venerate so highly. There is a greater similarity in the causes and reasons of their and our indocility than we are aware. The evil one has the same interest in obscuring this volume which he had in obscuring the evidences of his mission; and the vitiosity of man, both natural and acquired, exhibits itself in the same aspect towards the bible as it did in reference to the person concerning whom it was all written.

      But among the myriads who religiously read the bible, why is it that so little of the spirit of it, seems to be caught, possessed, and exhibited? I will give one reason, and those more wise may add to it others. Many read the bible to have a general idea of what it contains, as a necessary part of a polite education; many read it to attain the means of proving the dogmas which they already profess; many read it with the design of being extremely wise in its contents; many read it that they may be able to explain it to others; and alas! but few appear to read it supremely and exclusively that they may practise it; that they may be conformed to it, not only in their outward deportment, but in the spirit and temper of their minds. This is the only reading of it which is really profitable to men, which rewards us for our pains, which consoles us now, and which will be remembered for ages to come, with inexpressible delight. In this way, and in this way only, the spirit of it is caught, retained and exhibited. Some such readers seem to be enrapt or inspired with its contents. Every sentiment and feeling which it imparts seem to be the sentiments and feeling of their hearts; and the bible is to their religion what their spirit is to their body--the life and activity thereof. The bible to such a person is the medium of conversation with the Lord of Life. He speaks to Heaven in the language of Heaven, when he prays in the belief of its truth, and the Great God speaks to him in the same language; and thus the true and intelligent christian walks with God and converses with him every day. One hour of such company is more to be desired than a thousand years spent in intimate converse with the wisest philosophers and most august potentates that earth ever saw.

EDITOR.      

      THE few have had a conflict with the many in every attempt towards reformation since error got the better of truth. This for a long time must uniformly be the case. Therefore, none ought to be discouraged because of the number or influence of those leagued in support of any error. The history of the world is replete with information and encouragement on this subject. Truth fairly presented, and enforced by the good examples of its advocates, has ever triumphed, and will continue to triumph till the victory is complete.

EDITOR.      

[TCB 220-224]