Volume 6. Number 9. April 6, 1829, pp. 531-542.

• Immersion, and Not Sprinkling, Another Presbyterian Testifies by Alexander Campbell, pp. 531-532.
  • [Letter to the Editor] by Alexander Straith, pp. 532-534.
• Presbyterian Prospects and Wants by Alexander Campbell, pp. 534-535.
  • [Extract from Report on Presbyterian Statistics] by Ezra Styles Ely, pp. 534-535.
• Remarks on the Preceding by Alexander Campbell, pp. 535-536.
• [Introductory Note to "Transportation of the Mail on the Sabbath"] by Alexander Campbell, p. 536.
• Transportation of the Mail on the Sabbath by Richard M. Johnson, pp. 536-538.
• Queries--Answered by Alexander Campbell, pp. 538-540.
  • Query XIX. (On Matthew 4:11, 12), pp. 539-539.
  • Query XX. (On Reconciling Acts 9:23 with Galatians 1:17, 18), p. 539.
  • Query XXI. (On Marriage and the Law), p. 539.
  • Query XXII. (On the Lord's Supper), p. 539.
  • Query XXIII. (On Matthew 12:40), p. 539.
  • Query XXIV. (On 1 Corinthians 15:29), pp. 539-540.
• The Word of God by Alexander Campbell, p. 540.
• To the Readers of the Christian Baptist: The Past, the Present, and the Future by Alexander Campbell, pp. 540-541.
• Infallibility by Thomas Chalmers, p. 541.
• Copy of the Indulgences, Sold by the Authority of Pope Leo, by Tetzel, Which Occasioned the Reformation, pp. 541-542.

      WE feel peculiarly happy in laying before our readers the following critical disquisition from the pen of one of our most learned Presbyterians. Dr. Straith, of Virginia, from whose pen we have published in the November and December numbers of this volume, those excellent "Remarks upon the Bible," has, after a candid, impartial, and laborious investigation of the Greek and Hebrew scriptures, decided, in a very summary and forcible way, the Baptist controversy; and has unequivocally shown that immersion is the only baptism known, or enjoined in Holy Writ as a Christian institution. Some other of our Presbyterian correspondents are fast advancing to the same issue. A testimony and criticism from a witness so learned and so honest as that of this venerable Scotsman is worth a volume of arguments from ordinary critics, and mere copyists. He has gone to the very fountainhead of all correct information upon this subject, and [531] the method on which the investigation has been conducted is the most natural, rational, and decisive that can be imagined. We would invite Doctor Wilson, of the "Pandect," and some of his kindred spirits, about to commence the "Paidobaptist," in Kentucky, to give Dr. Straith's disquisition a patient, and, if they could, an impartial examination. We should not have many such profane scoffs as Dr. Wilson's "much water scheme," if such men as he had either the talents or the honesty requisite to such an investigation as the following.

      While we give all due respect to the talents and candor of Dr. Straith, and without doubt they are worthy of our unfeigned esteem, and while we must declare that he has, in our judgment, most triumphantly proved immersion to be the only baptism, our readers will see in the close of his remarks some difference in sentiment between him and myself on the import and design of the institution. As I was long of the same views with him on this subject, I can very cheerfully make all allowance for the diversity of sentiment which at present exists between him and me on this point. Indeed I know many brethren of the first talents and acquisitions, who do not agree with the views offered in the last volume of this work on this topic. I hear patiently all their strong reasons and proofs. As I claim forbearance, I can cheerfully exercise it with those differing on this subject. Although I feel no doubt of being able most irrefragably to establish the views already offered, this affords no reason why I should not hear and exhibit, as opportunity serves, the arguments of those differing from me.

      The novelty of the views, as some of my brethren term it; or, as I, the antiquity of the views offered on this subject, being so far from the beaten track, have made some well-meaning persons afraid of the consequences likely to ensue from the adoption of them. And what calls forth the odium theologicum of such men as the editor of "The Pandect," is, that it cuts him off, and all other disobedient folks, from the hope of forgiveness. There are many who wish to have a system of religion which would promise them forgiveness without reformation. But there is a way of getting round all difficulties in argument by a new art first invented in Philadelphia--I think by somebody of Star-light erudition. It is by printing, or writing, or reporting any obnoxious sentiment with a note of admiration after it, and not a word of argument. Mr. Wilson has improved upon this a little; for he adds the words, "Look at this absurdity!!!" Pope Leo, or Cardinal Cajetan could have, by one such line, and three notes of admiration, answered all the writings of Luther, Calvin, Beza, and all the old Reformers. But let us hear Dr. Straith:

      DEAR SIR--WHEN I come to reflect on the simplicity and fewness of the means, which God employs in the performance of all his own works, and on the simplicity and fewness of the means which he has rendered necessary for his creatures to use in the performance of theirs, I feel a moral certainty that the course pursued and the means employed by the learned world to ascertain the action, the subjects, and the uses of baptism, was not the course prescribed, nor the means appointed by God for the accomplishment of that object. So entirely devoid of analogy, so strikingly dissimilar are the means employed by men on this inquiry, and the means employed by God in all his operations, that I felt assured, even before I had discovered it, that a method of deciding these interesting questions, incomparably more simple, short, plain, and certain, must exist. And to this conclusion the strongest confirmation was added, when I reflected on the ineffable care and concern of the Lord Jesus Christ, whose institution baptism is, for the tranquility, harmony, and happiness of his friends on earth, and on his perfect ability to relieve them from all the excessive labor, contention, and uncertainty, to which they have most unnecessarily and most perniciously exposed themselves for many ages. It is impossible to believe that the boundlessly kind and infinitely wise Redeemer would require, peremptorily require, his friends, learned and unlearned, without exception, to submit to, or rather perform an action, the ascertainment of which required such enormous labor, and such vast quantities of precious time, as have been expended most unprofitably and needlessly on this contested subject.

      It was the impulse of this irresistible conviction that brought me to adopt the course which I have pursued; namely, First. To endeavour to gain a precise and distinct conception of the object in search of which I was about to set out; and secondly, to extricate that object from the immense mass of irrelative rubbish in which it has hitherto been involved. Scarcely had I formed this determination before I perceived that the object of my pursuit was nothing else than the action denoted by the words baptw and baptizw, in the Greek language, at the time when the New Testament was written. For to me it appeared absolutely certain, that whatever was the action denoted by these words in the Greek tongue at that time, was the action which they were employed to denote in the New Testament; and, of course, the action in which baptism consists. And to this conclusion I was naturally led when I recollected, first, that the Greek language was the medium which the writers of the New Testament preferred and employed for the conveyance of their inspired message to mankind: secondly, that if they expected or wished to be understood by those who read their writings, it was absolutely necessary that they should use the words of the language in which they wrote in their usual acceptation, or declare their departure from it as soon as it occurred: for without one or other of these precautions, misunderstood they must inevitably have been: thirdly, that during a period of at least three hundred years before the New Testament was written a dialect of the Greek tongue had been springing up, which employed many of its words in senses in which they never occur in classical or native Greek, and that this dialect was principally in use among the Jews, and particularly in their religious writings and services and lastly, that from the current use of Greek words in one or other of these dialects, which, for distinction's sake, may be called the Hellenistic or synagogal and classical dialects, the writers of the New Testament must have necessarily learned their use of all the Greek words which they employed and of course, the meaning of baptizw (baptizo).

      The road was now plain, the course short, the object of pursuit full in view, and the certainty of seizing it unquestionable. Animated by this hope, I took up the Septuagint, (Holmesius and Boss's edition, Glasgow, 1822) the great fountain of synagogal and New Testament idiom or use of words, and read every word of it, carefully noting every passage in which baptw, baptizw, or any of their derivatives occurs; and at the same time noting with equal care the Hebrew [532] terms which these words are employed to translate: and I now proceed to place the passages in which baptw, baptizw or any of their derivatives, are found, before you in the order of their occurrence. Exod. xii. 22. Lev. iv. 6, 17. ix. 9, xiv. 6, 16, 51. Num. xix. 18. Deut. xxxiii. 24. Jos. iii. 15. Judg. v. 30. Ruth ii. 14. 1 Sam. xiv. 27. 2 Kings v. 14, viii. 15. Job ix. 31. Isa. xxi. 4. Ezek. xxiii. 15. Dan. iv. 30, v. 21. These are all the passages in which baptw, baptizw or any of their derivatives, is to be found: and I proceed to observe that tebel is the Hebrew term which baptw or baptizw is commonly employed to translate. In Genesis, however, xxxvii. 31, this Hebrew word is translated loosely by molunw, but the sense evidently calls for baptw; for the unfeeling brothers no doubt dipped Joseph's dress in the blood of the kid which they slew for the purpose. In Judges v. 30, the Hebrew, or rather Chaldee term, is tsebo, dyed, immersed, wet. In Isa. xxi. 4, as in 2 Kings v. 14, the Greek word is baptizw the whole Greek expression kai h anomia me baptizei the Hebrew peletsut botteni, (trembling has suddenly seized me.) In Dan. iv. 30, v. 21, the Chaldaic term, as in Judg. v. 30, tsebo, and is translated in verse 12th by koitazomai and in verse 20th by aulizomai Note that verses 12th, 20th, 30th, Heb. and Greek, correspond to verses 15th, 23d, 33d, E. T.

      Let me now observe, first, that baptw and baptizw belong to the small class of words which denote only one idea or object, a circumstance if immense importance in this investigation, as it renders the meaning of these words absolutely certain, and determines beyond a possibility of doubt, the action which they are employed to denote wherever they occur, and entirely supersedes the necessity of consulting context, connected phraseology, a writer's scope, or any other means occasionally resorted to for the purpose of ascertaining, in particular cases, the precise meaning of words which may be used in more senses than one.

      Second. That in all the passages in which they occur in the Septuagint and in classical Greek, so far as I am acquainted with it, or the best Greek dictionaries exhibit it, they denote, when used literally, the action which we call dipping; and allude, when employed metaphorically, to that action.

      Third. That use in Hellenistic and classical Greek, is constantly resorted to and depended on to ascertain the meaning of every other Greek word in the New Testament; and why not be employed to determine the action denoted by baptizw? Can human ingenuity discover a reason? Surely had not prejudice and interest interfered, no other method or means would have been devised. We should never have witnessed that frightful parade of irrelative argument and disgusting nonsense, which now insult us, and in which there is no fitness to decide the question. By usage alone in the language to which words belong, can their meaning be ascertained. But if usage be the only certain means by which the action denoted by baptizw can be determined, and usage uniformly employ that word to denote the action of dipping, by what authority does any human being presume to assign it a different meaning, or make it denote a different action? Does not its meaning, fixed by unvarying use, rest insubvertible on the same immoveable foundation which supports and fixes the meaning of every other term in the book of God? And could the foundation on which the meaning of baptizw rests be subverted, would not the foundation on which the meaning of every other term in scripture rests, sink with it, and the whole word of God become a chaos of hideous uncertainty?

      4. That usage presents a method of determining the action, to which Christ requires all his friends to submit, that by that submission they may be discriminated from his enemies, which exhibits the strongest analogy to that which God always employs in the execution of his purposes, and manifests at the same time the peculiarly tender concern of the Redeemer for the peace and comfort of his disciples. It is simple, short, plain, certain, and easy, requiring only the labor necessary to ascertain the action which baptizw denoted in the Greek tongue when the New Testament was written.

      5. That usage constitutes the only species of evidence that suits the nature of the investigation. Every person knows, that if we would arrive at truth, we must employ such means and such evidence as comport with the nature of the subject which we investigate. For the solution of mathematical questions we must employ mathematical evidence: questions of fact require human testimony or the natural effects of an antecedent action; matters of probability depend on analogy; so questions of philology, or the meaning of words, must be determined by usage. Indeed all other methods are irrelative, fallacious, delusive and absurd.

      6. Let it be remembered, too, that there is a natural fitness in actions, as well as in instruments to accomplish their respective ends, and that God never employs unfit means in the execution of any of his purposes. In the action, therefore, required by Christ, there must be a natural or intrinsic fitness to accomplish the ends for which he instituted it. These ends are, as we think, discrimination and representation; but of this more when we come to examine the uses of baptism. In the mean time we proceed to examine the comparative fitness of the actions of sprinkling, pouring, washing, and dipping, to answer baptismal purposes, taking it for granted at present that these purposes are the two just mentioned, discrimination and representation.

      Presuming it then to be admitted that the uses of the baptismal action are, first, to discriminate friends from enemies; and, secondly, to furnish an image of the death, burial, and resurrection of the Saviour and of the person baptized, we pass on to the examination of the natural fitness of the actions of sprinkling, pouring, washing, and dipping, to accomplish these ends. With respect to these actions we observe, that they are not only dissimilar to the eye, but are performed for different reasons, and for different ends. We never sprinkle to accomplish the purpose for which we pour, dip, or wash: nor do we wash to effect the end for which we resort to sprinkling, dipping, or pouring: nor do we use dipping for the purposes of either. We sprinkle for the purpose of obtaining the effect of a fluid or other incoherent substance applied only in small quantity: we pour to obtain the effect of such a substance in large quantity and in a short time; we wash only on the supposition that the thing to be washed is filthy, and for the purpose of separating its filth from it; and for this end we employ friction more or less: we dip an object, not because it is dirty, nor for the purpose of removing any thing from it, but on the contrary with the view of incorporating something with it or attaching something to it, and in the [533] process we use no friction. Hence the necessity of using distinct and never confounded terms to denote actions so dissimilar in their appearance, causes, and ends; and distinct terms are employed to denote them in all languages.

      We admit that to accomplish the first purpose of baptism, discrimination, the actions of dipping, sprinkling, pouring, washing, have a like natural fitness; but the three latter are destitute of the adventitious fitness which belongs to dipping, hereafter to be noticed. As to the second purpose of the baptismal action, the furnishing of an image of the death, burial, and resurrection of the Redeemer and his friends, there manifestly exists no aptitude in either of them.

      Moreover, sprinkling and pouring afford no indication or presumption of the state of the person claiming baptism, and washing furnishes a false one. The action of washing always presumes its subject to be filthy, and when morally or spiritually employed, certainly presumes that its subject is in a state of guilt and depravity; and also that the act about to be performed oil him is able to deliver hint from that wretched condition. Now we regard both these presumptions to be false and unscriptural. We think the scripture tells us very plainly, that faith in the blood of the Redeemer, without the aid of any other action performable by the sinner, removes his guilt, exempts him from punishment, and commences his regeneration. Now if this be true, the believer, when he claims baptism, and none but a believer is authorized to claim it, has no guilt to remove, his sins are already forgiven, his person exempted from punishment, and his soul delivered from the dominion of habitual depravity. The action of washing, therefore, is neither necessary, suitable, nor beneficial to him.

      The actions, then, of sprinkling, pouring, washing, being manifestly unfit to answer the purposes of the baptismal institution, let us examine the pretensions of dipping. In the first place, the action of dipping, as it presumes its subject to be clean, necessarily implies that the candidate for baptism has had the guilt of his sins removed, his person exempted from punishment, and his soul delivered from habitual depravity by faith in the blood of the Redeemer; for by no other means could he acquire that purity, which dipping presupposes. Secondly, it presumes the baptismal action to have no power to remove guilt, release from punishment, enlighten the understanding, or rectify the feelings and affections of the heart; for all these are effected by faith in the divine message, and not by baptism. Thirdly, it presumes not the removal of any thing from the baptized person, but the attachment of something to him, namely, new social rights, moral qualities, and character. Fourthly, it furnishes the fittest image conceivable of the death, burial, and resurrection of the Saviour and his friends. Lastly, if what the New Testament seems to teach be true, that dipping never was employed by mankind as a religious action, till by God's express command it was used as such by John the Baptist, and attached to Christ's new institution as one of its discriminating features, it possesses the highest degree of adventitious as well as intrinsic fitness to answer both the ends of the baptismal institution.

      If, then, God always employs the fittest means for the execution of purposes, and there be in the action of dipping a manifestly superior fitness to answer all baptismal ends, can we forbear to consider its superior fitness as a strong ground of belief, that it was the action, which God preferred and prescribed for the accomplishment of those ends? But powerful as this evidence is, we regard its exhibition, when compared with usage, as only lighting a straw to aid the sun. Usage, decisive usage, stands in no need of such feeble assistance. It triumphs in its own invincible strength and derides all auxiliary support; and had not men rejected this short, plain, easy, and certain method, which God has graciously furnished them for determining the action that constitutes baptism, and resorted to means of decision which have no relation to the subject, no fitness to decide the question, and to which, in ascertaining the meaning of other terms, they never recur, the shadow of doubt could never have arisen respecting the action to which Christ requires all his friends, without exception, to submit.

	I am with respect, &c. &c.
	ALEX. STRAITH.
February 16, 1829.

      FROM the last enumeration of the Presbyterian Israel, and from the late proclamation of the Rt. Reverend Ezra Styles Ely, D. D. which appeared lately in "The Philadelphian," and which has been repromulged in "The Western Luminary" of concentrated light, it is fairly to be presumed that this learned and wealthy church expects, like Pharaohs lean kine, to devour all the fat and well favored kine which will browze, some half a century hence, on all the hills from Maine to Florida, and from the splendid brass knocker, engraved "Rev. Ezra Styles Ely," to the Rocky Mountains.--I have not room for the whole report, else I would gladly give it. I will give a liberal extract from it, that it may be heard speaking for itself.

ED. C. B.      

      "There are probably fifteen baptized members, who are pew holders, supporters of, and attendants on, public worship in our Presbyterian churches, for every communicant in our connexion; and if so, then our body in the United States contains 2,194,620 persons. If our denomination should be kept from disunion, and the blessing of God should be continued as it has been for the last twenty years, in 1848 there will be at least 5,000,000 of persons under the care of the General Assembly; for we have more than doubled in numbers in the last twenty years. At that time, to give every thousand people in our connexion one pastor, we shall need 5000 ministers. Of our present teachers 600 will probably decease before that time, leaving of the 1479 no mere than 879. To these add the 1528 which may be gained in twenty years at the rate of our increase during the last ten years, and it will give us 2407, and will leave a deficiency of 2593 to make up the 5000: so that 2,593,000 of our people, or more than our present whole number, will then be without one man in a thousand to show to them their transgressions; if our increase of preachers shall not exceed that of any former period, in the proportion of about three to one. How wide is the field which is opening before us! Truly our portion of the harvest is great and the laborers are few. If we consider the relative strength of the Presbyterian church in the United States, every candid mind will be satisfied that we ought to perform more service in the building up of Zion than any other two [534] denominations of christians in our country; for, of those to whom much is given, much will be required.

      Two thirds of the colleges, theological seminaries, and other academic institutions in this country are under the control of Presbyterians. The Congregational churches of New England and the Presbyterian church together have the charge of more than three-fourths of all these fountains of literary influence.

      Baptist and Methodist churches in the United States, contain not far from 1,500,000 people in each, but they are comparatively poor, and contain a larger proportion of slaves than other denominations.

      Our ministers in the state of New York alone are 448; and all the Protestant Episcopal ministers of all grades in the United States do not exceed, according to their own estimation, 507.--In one synod, that of Albany, we have 206 ministers, and in the state of New York twenty-five presbyteries. In Pennsylvania we have 317 churches and 194 ministers. Four out of our sixteen synods contain 532 ministers.

      The Congregational ministers, exclusive of about one hundred Arian or Socinian, or fence riding teachers, are estimated at 720, and their churches at 960.--The Methodist ministers, exclusive of their local exhorters, who correspond very much to our ruling elders, are 1465, and their members of classes 381,997. The Baptist church in the United States is estimated at 3723 congregations, 2577 ministers, and 238,654 baptized persons, which are, of course, all communicants. The proportion of non-communicating members in these two last named societies, is far less than the Presbyterian church. Let our ministers and churches consider how much is expected from them by our blessed Lord, and act accordingly. Particularly let them decide whether every communicant ought not to form and express a purpose of contributing fifty cents, or a less sum annually, to the missionary operations of the General Assembly. The aid of others we solicit; but that of the communicants the Presbyterian church has a right to CLAIM."

      In the judgment of charity Dr. Ely counts fifteen disobedient to one obedient member in the Presbyterian church. OUR body (with fifteen dead to one living member) says he, amounts to 2,194,620. Under the divine blessing, adds he, if the Lord keep us "from disunion," or from separating the fifteen sixteenths from the one sixteenth, from putting out the fifteen disobedient out of every sixteen members; in twenty years "our body" will amount, in these United States, to 5,000,000. That is, we shall, in twenty years, have 312,500 obedient disciples, and 4,687,500 disobedient disciples! What a dangerous church will this Presbyterian church yet be! Embracing, as she expects in twenty years, nearly one-third of all the carnal, worldly, and selfish sinners in the land, without one teacher to two thousand "transgressors," should she take it into her head to make a king or a "long parliament," what could hinder her? If even the sixteenth should oppose the measure, there will be fifteen votes to one against it. A body of fifteen unsound or putrid members, for one sound and living member, must inevitably become a mass of corruption in twenty years exposure.

      Richard M. Johnson, Esq. and such men, who will not, by act of congress, sanctify the First day of the week, or make a Jewish Sabbath of it, will have to seek some new country, if they wish to wear their heads. For my part, I would as lief live a door neighbor to the Spanish spiritual court of Inquisition, as live next door to a council of such spirits as the editor of the Cincinnati "Pandect."

      But this is not all. Dr. Ely says they have two thirds of all the colleges and fountains of learning and literary influence under their control. Yes, remember the word control. And two thirds of the money also. For, he says,, the two great sects, the Methodists and Baptists, are "poor." The Presbyterian church with one third of all the sinners, two thirds of all the colleges, and two thirds of all the money, my friends, be assured, will one day, some twenty years hence, make you take off your hats and "stop your coaches." I do know it to be a fact, which all history and experience prove, that a society professing any religion, with the control of colleges, population and money, will be adored, if they have such a proportion of "baptized infidels" among them as gives to them a ponderosity of fifteen to one. I think as highly of Presbyterians as they deserve. I esteem many of their preachers and people as saints, who would not do such things. But what could or what can these do, under such a system, which, as Dr. Ely admits, gives influence to fifteen sixteenths of the whole membership, living in disobedience to Jesus Christ. I do not think that all his "communicants" are saints either. If the half of them were saints, we would have something to hope, from so much salt in so dead a carcase. But we have no good reason to think that more than a half of the communicants are real christians. If so, then on Dr. Ely's data, we would have thirty to one.

      I never saw from a Protestant pen, so proud, so supercilious, so arrogant a display, as this same report of Dr. Ely! Numbers, literature, wealth, arrayed against poverty, "ignorance," and paucity. The Presbyterian sect is as two to one against all the sects in the country, by such a happy combination of literature, money, and numbers.

      If I had not other data before my mind, and a different view of religious statistics, than Dr. Ely presents, I would really give up the contest and the ship, and sigh for the destiny of both church and state. But as things are, I do not despair. As a politician, then, we will now exhibit our data. In less than one century the Baptists have risen from about five thousand members, and an influence not in the proportion of one to a hundred, to nearly three hundred thousand members, and an influence of more than one to ten of the whole population of the United States. This is a fact for which I can, when called upon, furnish the documents.

      The Methodists have, in a little more than half a century, risen from nought to three hundred thousand members, and an influence of one to ten of the whole population. Without giving more than three of the proselytes of the gate to one of the actual members in the Baptist and Methodist societies, such is their real influence in the union. But I have no doubt that we are rather below, than up to the actual moral power of these two sects.

      There is another sect, called "Christians"--by their enemies, "New Lights," which have, in little more than the quarter of a century, risen from nothing to fifteen hundred congregations, with a membership of one hundred and fifty thousand, and an influence equal to the [535] one-twentieth of the whole population. These are "poor and ignorant too." But let Dr. Ely know that these poor and ignorant folks have wrought all the wonders that have been of magnificent influence in the annals of the world. The spoke of the wheel which is now in the mud, will be highest heaven by and by; and that which is "clean and dry" will soon descend. The rich become poor, and the poor become rich; and their children in the third generation generally change seats.

      Now what shall we say of the Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Catholics, Quakers, and the swarms of little sects over the continent. Are the Presbyterians, like Moses' red, to devour them all! The influence of these minor sects is as one to ten; nay, perhaps, as two to ten of the whole population. And when you add that great sect of mere Mammonists to the whole, we shall find that if there were to be no Millennium, there is not so much to be feared from the prophecies of Dr. Ely. The Baptists, in a single state of the Union, have immersed more adults during the last year than all the infants which have been sprinkled by all the fifteen hundred Presbyterian preachers during the year in the whole United States. The Christian sect have, in two, or at most three states, made more proselytes during the last year, than the Presbyterians have made during two years. It is easier to carry fifteen infants to church to be "christened," than to make one proselyte.

      Again, these poor and ignorant preachers, that never saw a college wall, would, in one year, cut and slash down more stubborn sinners with John Bunyan's Jerusalem blade, than a score of these nice fencers, who wear only a silver-handled dirk and a pocket-pistol. Dr. Ely and General Braddock may draw up their lines in great array; but take care of these fellows behind the trees! So much for the Doctor's prognostics--and so much for my religious politics.

      For my part, as a Christian, I must, in believing the apostles, look for the downfal of all the sects in a little time. I should not think it passing strange, both from the New Testament prophecies, and from the passing events of the day, if, before twice twenty years shall have run their rounds, Presbyterianism should be gathered to its fathers, and sleep in the sepulchre of the spiritual kings of Babylon, without the hope of a resurrection from the dead. Such an event is to my mind incomparably more probable than that in twenty years, this sect should control the government and establish itself by five millions of votes upon the throne of a new empire.

EDITOR.      

      THE following Report is rational, politic, and in the spirit of our constitution. It is one of the ablest state papers on the question, we have ever read. It cannot be resisted by good logic or sound policy. The preceding article we intended for a preface to it. And he must be blind who cannot see into the policy of these petitions after reading Dr. Ely's Report of the "wants," and "prospects;" of the Presbyterian church.

EDITOR.      

      The senate proceeded to the consideration of the following report and resolution, presented by Mr. Johnson, with which the senate concurred:

      The Committee to whom were referred the several petitions on the subject of mails, on the Sabbath, or first day of the week--Report,

      That some respite is required from the ordinary vocations of life, is an established principle, sanctioned by the usages of all nations, whether Christian or Pagan. One day in seven has, also, been determined upon as the proportion of time; and in conformity with the wishes of a great majority of the citizens of this country, the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, has been set apart to that object. The principle has received the sanction of the national legislature, so far as to admit a suspension of all public business on that day, except in cases of absolute necessity, or of great public utility. This principle the committee would not wish to disturb. If kept within its legitimate sphere of action, no injury can result from its observance. It should, however, be kept in mind, that the proper object of government is, to protect all persons in the enjoyment of their religious as well as civil rights: and not to determine for any, whether they shall esteem one day above another, or esteem all days alike holy.

      We are aware that a variety of sentiment exists among the good citizens of this nation on the subject of the Sabbath day; and our government is designed for the protection of one as much as for another. The Jews, who, in this country are as free as christians, and entitled to the same protection from the laws, derive their obligation to keep the Sabbath day from the fourth commandment of their decalogue, and in conformity with that injunction, pay religious homage to the seventh day of the week, which we call Saturday. One denomination of christians among us, justly celebrated for their piety, and certainly, as good citizens as any other class, agree with the Jews in the moral obligation of the Sabbath, and observe the same day. There are, also, many christians among us, who derive not their obligation to observe the Sabbath from the decalogue, but regard the Jewish Sabbath as abrogated. From the example of the apostles of Christ, they have chosen the first day of the week, instead of that day set apart in the decalogue, for their religious devotions. These have, generally, regarded the observance of the day as a devotional exercise, and would not more readily enforce it upon others, than they would enforce secret prayer or devout meditations. Urging the fact, that neither their Lord nor his disciples, though often censured by their accusers for a violation of the Sabbath, ever enjoined its observance, they regard it as a subject on which every person should be fully persuaded in his own mind, and not coerce others to act upon his persuasion. Many christians again differ from these professing to derive their obligation to observe the Sabbath from the fourth commandment of the Jewish decalogue, and bring the example of the apostles, who appear to have held their public meetings for worship on the first day of the week, as authority for so far changing the decalogue, as to substitute that day for the seventh. The Jewish government was a theocracy, which enforced religious observances; and though the Committee would hope that no portion of the citizens of our country would willingly introduce a system of religious coercion in our civil institutions, the example of other nations should admonish us to watch carefully against its earliest indication.

      With these different religious views, the committee are of opinion that congress cannot interfere. It is not the legitimate province of the legislature to determine what religion is true, or what false. Our government is a civil, and not a religious institution. Our constitution recognizes in every person the right to choose his own [536] religion, and to enjoy it freely, without molestation. Whatever may be the religious sentiments of citizens, and however variant, they are alike entitled to protection from the government, so long as they do not invade the rights of others.

      The transportation of the mail on the first day of the week, it is believed, does not interfere with the rights of conscience. The petitioners for its discontinuance appear to be actuated by a religious zeal, which may be commendable if confined to its proper sphere; but they assume a position better suited to an ecclesiastical than to a civil institution. They appear, in many instances, to lay it down, as an axiom, that the practice is a violation of the law of God. Should congress, in their legislative capacity, adopt the sentiment, it would establish the principle, that the legislature is a proper tribunal to determine what are the laws of God. It would involve a legislative decision on a religious controversy, and on a point in which good citizens may honestly differ in opinion, without disturbing the peace of society, or endangering its liberties. If this principle is once introduced, it will be impossible to define its bounds. Among all the religious persecutions with which almost every page of modern history is stained, no victim ever suffered, but for the violation of what government denominated the law of God. To prevent a similar train of evils in this country, the constitution has wisely withheld from our government the power of defining the Divine Law. It is a right reserved to each citizen and while he respects the rights of others, he cannot be held amenable to any human tribunal for his conclusions.

      Extensive religious combinations to effect a political object are, in the opinion of the committee, always dangerous. This first effort of the kind, calls for the establishment of a principle, which, in the opinion of the committee, would lay the foundation for dangerous innovations upon the spirit of the constitution, and upon the religious rights of the citizens. If admitted, it may be justly apprehended, that the future measures of the government will be strongly marked, if not eventually controlled, by the same influence. All religious despotism commences be combination and influence; and when that influence begins to operate upon the political institutions of a country, the civil power soon bends under it; and the catastrophe of other nations furnishes an awful warning of the consequence.

      Under the present regulations of the Post Office Department, the rights of conscience are not invaded. Every agent enters voluntarily, and it is presumed conscientiously, into the discharge of his duties, without intermeddling with the conscience of another. Post-Offices are so regulated, as that but a small proportion of the first day of the week is required to be occupied in official business. In the transportation of the mail on that day, no one agent is employed many hours. Religious persons enter into the business without violating their own consciences, or imposing any restraints upon others. Passengers to the mail stages are free to rest during the first day of the week, or pursue their journeys at their own pleasure. While the mail is transported on Saturday, the Jew and the Sabbatarian may abstain from any agency in carrying it, from conscientious scruples. While it is transported on the first day of the week, another class may abstain, from the same religious scruples. The obligation of government is the same on both of these classes; and the committee can discover no principle on which the claims of one should be more respected than those of the other, unless it should be admitted that the consciences of the minority are less sacred than those of the majority.

      It is the opinion of the committee, that the subject should be regarded simply as a question of expediency, irrespective of its religious bearing. In this light, it has hitherto been considered. Congress have never legislated upon the subject. It rests, as it ever has done, in the legal discretion of the Postmaster General, under the repeated refusals of Congress to discontinue the Sabbath mails. His knowledge and judgment, in all the concerns of that department, will not be questioned. His intense labors and assiduity have resulted in the highest improvement of every branch of his department. It is practised only on the great leading mail routes, and such others as are necessary to maintain their connexions. To prevent this, would, in the opinion of the committee, be productive of immense injury, both in its commercial, political, and in its moral bearings.

      The various departments of government require, frequently in peace, always in war, the speediest intercourse with the remotest parts of the country; and one important object of the mail establishment is, to furnish the greatest and most economical facilities for such intercourse The delay of the mails, one whole day in seven, would require the employment of special expresses, at great expences, and sometimes with great uncertainty.

      The commercial, manufacturing, and agricultural interests of the country are so intimately connected, as to require a constant and most expeditious correspondence betwixt all our seaports, and betwixt them and the most interior settlements. The delay of the mails during the Sunday, would give occasion to the employment of private expresses, to such an amount, that probably ten riders would be employed where one mail stage would be running on that day: thus diverting the revenue of that department into another channel, and sinking the establishment into a state of pusillanimity incompatible with the dignity of the government of which it is a department.

      Passengers in the mail stages, if the mails are not permitted to proceed on Sunday, will be expected to spend that day at a tavern upon the road, generally, under circumstances not friendly to devotion, and at an expense which many are but poorly able to encounter. To obviate these difficulties, many will employ extra carriages for their conveyance, and become the bearers of correspondence, as more expeditious than the mail. The stage proprietors will themselves often furnish the travellers with those means of conveyance; so that the effect will ultimately be only to stop the mail, while the vehicle which conveys it will continue, and its passengers become the special messengers for conveying a considerable portion of what otherwise constitute the contents of the mail.

      Nor can the committee discover where the system could consistently end. If the observance of a holiday becomes incorporated in our institutions, shall we not forbid the movement of an army; prohibit an assault in time of war; and lay an injunction upon our naval officers to lie in the wind, while upon the ocean, on that day? Consistency would seem to require it, Nor is it certain that we should stop here. If the principle is once established, that religion, or religious observances, shall be interwoven [537] with our legislative acts, we must pursue it to its ultimatum. We shall, if consistent, provide for the erection of edifices for the worship of the Creator, and for the support of christian ministers, if we believe such measures will promote the interests of Christianity. It is the settled conviction of the committee, that the only method of avoiding these consequences, with their attendant train of evils, is to adhere strictly to the spirit of the constitution, which regards the general government in no other light than that of a civil institution, wholly destitute of religious authority.

      What other nations call religious toleration, we call religious rights. They are not exercised in virtue of governmental indulgence, but as rights, of which government cannot deprive any portion of citizens, however small. Despotic power may invade those rights, but justice still confirms them. Let the national legislature once perform an act which involves the decision of a religious controversy, and it will have passed its legitimate bounds. The precedent will then be established, and the foundation laid for that usurpation of the Divine prerogative in this country, which has been the desolating scourge to the fairest portions of the old world. Our Constitution recognises no other power than that of persuasion, for enforcing religious observances. Let the professors of christianity recommend their religion by deeds of benevolence--by christian meekness--by lives of temperance and holiness. Let them combine their efforts to instruct the ignorant--to relieve the widow and the orphan--to promulgate to the world the gospel of their Saviour, recommending its precepts by their habitual example; government will find its legitimate object in protecting them. It cannot oppose them, and they will not need its aid. Their moral influence will then do infinitely more to advance the true interests of religion, than any measure which they may call on Congress to enact.

      The petitioners do not complain of any infringement upon their own rights. They enjoy all that christians ought to ask at the hand of any government--protection from all molestation in the exercise of their religious sentiments.

      Resolved, That the committee be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

      WHAT does the Saviour mean in these words: "He said to them, It is your privilege to know the secrets of the Reign of God; but to those without, every thing is veiled in parables, that they may not perceive what they look at, or understand what they hear?"

      Answer. He just means what he says. The language is exceedingly plain, and just in the spirit of the original Greek. It is not the language at which some good minds revolt, but at the sense. They understand the language perfectly, but they do not approbate the sense. Let the following facts be noticed, and we shall be instructed from this passage and many similar ones:--1st. The Saviour concedes that those without could and would have understood him, if he had not used figures. He had not, then, so contemptible an opinion of human abilities, even in the most depraved state of morals, as some of our cotemporaries. His enemies could have understood him, (the Saviour being judge,) if he had not veiled his instructions in parables. 2d. We also learn that his disciples could not understand him with all the internal aids they had from the Holy Spirit, unless the language was unveiled or the parables explained to them from his lips. This he did for them when apart; and having given them many lessons in secret, they improved so far as to be able to understand many of his parables delivered in mixed assemblies. These are two good lessons, which we learn incidentally from this and similar passages--worthy to be attended to, with a reference to the popular doctrines concerning human abilities, and internal aids. But this by the way.

      But this does not reach the difficulty preying upon the mind of the querist. It seems to him that there is a partiality exhibited by the Saviour, incompatible with his professed philanthropy or love of the whole human race. This is by no means the fact. And it will appear so when we reflect upon the state of the case. Some persons in a future state will be beyond the reach of mercy--some are so in the present state. They have shut their eyes--alienated their hearts--seared their consciences--and most stubbornly resisted the Spirit of God. There is a certain crisis beyond which the moral disease becomes incurable, as well as the physical. Some men here survive this crisis for a period. In the physical disease they live hours and days after the crisis when all physicians know they are incurable. It is not true in physics, that "while there is life there is hope." For there is life where there is no hope. Neither is it true as the hymn sings--

      Now many of the Jews in the days of Isaiah of the Lord Jesus, and of the Apostle Paul, had survived this crisis. The Saviour treated them accordingly. And will he not be as merciful when he sits upon the throne of final judgment, as when he stood on earth, saying, "Come to me all ye weary and heavy burthened," &c. Most assuredly he will: yet he will condemn the wicked. Those persons, then, from whom he studiously veiled the gospel, were those whose characters he knew to be such as to exclude them from forgiveness and acceptance. This is a fact, and an awful fact--that, under the Reign of Favor, it is possible for men to become depraved, so wicked, so hardened, as to be beyond the reach of cure. Unless this fact be apprehended and regarded, there will occur many passages in both Testaments inexplicable, and there will appear many cases in our time unaccountable. But it may be remarked, while on this passage, that it was necessary for the Saviour, on many occasions, to conceal his meaning from his auditors under their present views and feelings towards him, else he would not have been permitted to finish his mission. Some, therefore, who through mistaken views, would have killed him at one time, would have been, in other circumstances, his friends and disciples. It is inferrible, therefore, that even some of them from whom at one time he was constrained to veil the doctrine of his Reign, at another time, and under other circumstances, were disposed to hear patiently, and did actually embrace him in all his pretensions.

      Had Paul, for instance, at one time been amidst his auditors, it would have been necessary for him to have spoken to him in parables. And many of those who believed on Pentecost were of the same school and character.

      Moreover, it was necessary for the Saviour to speak some parables, even to his disciples, without explaining them. They would not have [538] kept the secret and it would have injured his cause. There were some secrets he dared not to confide in them all. Out of the twelve he permitted but three to be with him on the holy mount; and even these he had strictly to enjoin not to disclose what they there heard and saw while he was alive.

      But still, although these are facts, and may be applied to the solution of some difficulties, the former exposition must not be lost sight of: for the apostles themselves so understood the matter and the ancient prophecies. Paul reminded the Antiochians, the Roman Jews, as well as the Corinthians and others, that there were some of his hearers who could not believe to life, because of their long resistance of the Holy Spirit. Many, too, who had made shipwreck of faith and a good conscience, and had apostatized from the faith, were, as Peter told some, reserved unto judgment, and doomed to destruction. One thing, however, may be affirmed with the utmost confidence, and in perfect conformity to the language of both Testaments, that neither the Saviour while on earth, nor his apostles after him, in all they said and wrote, ever did veil the gospel, or shut the gates of mercy from any one who did, in the character of an humble and sincere penitent, sue for mercy.

      Can you reconcile Acts ix. 23. with Gal. i. 17. 18. In the former Luke says, Paul went to Jerusalem from Damascus, immediately after his conversion; yet in the Galatians, Paul says, "After three years I went up to Jerusalem?"

      Answer.--It does not appear, from Luke's account in the Acts, that Paul went immediately to Jerusalem. Luke gives no account of Paul's tour into Arabia. It appears from Gal. i. 17. that Paul from Damascus went into Arabia; continued there for some time, and again returned to Damascus; and then, after a long time, or "many days," when the Damascenes were determined to kill him, he was let down from the wall in a basket, and then went to Jerusalem, which was three years from his conversion. See my "Hints to Readers," new version, 2d ed. p. 27, No. 5. There is no real difficulty here.

      Is it consistent with the New Testament for the bishops or elders of churches to apply to the civil courts for license to marry?

      Answer.--Marriage is a civil as well as a religious institution. It is, therefore, a proper subject of civil legislation. As the civil law has to do with estates, inheritances, widows, &c. it is necessary that it should pay some attention to the subject of marriage. To these regulations, where there is no contravention of the laws of the Great King, all his subjects will cheerfully submit. It is, therefore, the duty of all who celebrate the rites of matrimony, to do so according to law. But there is no compulsion on any person, bishop or other, to apply for such license if they do not like it. But such as are not legally authorized, ought not to desire to officiate.

      Ought not the Lord's supper to be celebrated at night? Was it not instituted at night? And is it not called a supper?

      Answer.--It does not appear from any thing in the New Testament that the primitive churches, neither that at Jerusalem nor Corinth, had any particular hour or time in the twenty-four consecrated for this observance. Were we to seek for the precise hour in which it was instituted, and make its time of institution the hour of observance, we should have to observe it neither on the first day nor first night of the week. The first day of the week, among the Jews, began at the going down of the sun on our Saturday, and ended at the going down of the sun on our Sunday. So that the first night of the week with the Jews, is, with us, Saturday night. Again, it was on what we call Thursday night, that the supper was instituted. So that if we were to be fastidious about the time, and make the observance of it at night, because of the time of its institution, it ought to be on Thursday night.

      But, say some, why call it a supper, if not observed at night? Yes, and carry this matter out legitimately, and I ask, Why call a small piece of bread and a sip of wine a supper? It ought to be a full meal, for the same reason it ought to be at night. Yet it was not a meal at its first institution, for it was instituted just after a supper had been eaten. We cannot, then, and be consistent with reason, make it an observance of the night, unless we in all other matters follow the same guide. The ancient supper and modern dinner correspond in point of importance in the usual meals of the day. But on this I lay no stress.

      It is argued that Paul and the disciples at Troas ate the Lord's supper at night. But this cannot be legitimately made out; for they did not assemble till the first day of the week. The first night of the week was over before they came together. And if at the time that Paul broke bread for his own refreshment, it is supposed that the church eat the Lord's supper; it was then on the second day of the week on the current computation, and not on the first day or night, that the disciples at Troas broke bread.

      The breaking of bread spoken of, after midnight, after the recovery of Eutychus, was most unquestionably a private refreshment. It reads in syntax thus:--"And Paul going up again, and he having broken bread, and he having eaten, he conversed a considerable time until day break." This refreshment was a natural and requisite one, preparatory to a journey, and occurred on our Monday morning, the second day of the week. There is, therefore, no grounds to presume that there was any such idea in the primitive church, as that they must eat the Lord's supper on the first night of the week.

      Was ever the saying of the Lord accomplished which says, "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's stomach, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the bowels of the earth?"

      Answer.--Not literally. For on the third day he rose from the dead. He spoke this as a sign to those who demanded a sign, in allusion to Jonah's interment in the whale. It was in the same style, though a little more figurative, that he said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will rebuild it." Repeatedly the Lord declared, "I will rise the third day," so that it could not be in any other than in an allusive style to the case of Jonah he mentions the nights; and it is not improbable but that just in the same sense in which Jonah was three days and nights in the whale's stomach, was he interred in the earth. When he spake without figure or allusion, he always said he would rise on the third day.--Many say it was usual with the Jews to append the night to the day when it was not implied that the night was spent as the day; but such was their custom.

      What mean these words, 1 Cor. xv. 29. "Else what shall they do who are baptized for the [539] dead? If the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized for the dead?"

      Answer. The next verse gives the key of interpretation. "And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?" Why should I Paul hazard my life in attesting the resurrection of Jesus Christ, if I had not the most unequivocal proof of his resurrection? Through this medium contemplate the preceding words. Only first recollect that the word immerse is used frequently for sufferings. Jesus said, "I have an immersion to undergo, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished." I have to be immersed in an immense flood of sufferings. Also the phrase, "fallen asleep for Christ," is equivalent to dying for declaring faith in him. Now these criticisms regarded, and the elliptical verse 29, is plain and forcible--"If there be no resurrection from the dead, what shall they do who are immersed in afflictions and distress for believing and declaring that the dead will be raised? If the dead rise not at all, if they are not assured of their resurrection, why do they submit to be immersed in sorrows in the hope of a resurrection?"

      [These queries came from Kentucky, New-York, Virginia, and Ohio.]

      SO badly taught are many Christians that they cannot think that any translation of the scriptures deserves the title of the Word of God except that of king James. The translators of the king's version did not themselves think so, as we have shown most conclusively by publishing their own preface--on which preface we have some remarks to make, at a more convenient time. But to the intelligent reader no remarks are necessary to show that they had very different ideas of their version, from those which this generation have formed. Have the French, the Spanish, the German, and all the nations of Europe, save the English, no Word of God? If king James' version is the only Word of God on earth, then all nations who speak any other language than the English, have no Revelation.

      Much of the reasoning of both priests and people, on this subject, is as silly as that of an old lady who, for many years, has been deprived of her reason, from whom we heard the other day. She once had a sound judgment, and still has a retentive memory, though she has not been compos mentis one day in twenty years. Her husband was reading in the new version, the account of the cure of the blind man, (Mark viii. 24.) He came to these words: "I see men whom I can distinguish from trees only by their walking." In the king's version, "I see men as trees, walking." After reading these words he paused, and observed to the old lady, to elicit a reply, "How much better this, than the old version." "That is a good explanation," said she, "but it is not the scriptures, not the Word of God." So our good logicians reason.

      I would thank some of those ignorant declaimers to tell us where the Word of God was before the reign of king James! Had they no divine book before this good king, in consequence of the Hampton Conference, summoned his wise men? Yes; they had version after version, each of which, in its turn, ceased to be the "Word of God" when a new one was given. This I say after the manner of these declaimers. Our good forefathers, two hundred and fifty years ago, read and preached from a different version, which they venerated in their day, as our compeers venerate James, Bible.--The English language has changed, and the original tongues are better understood now than then. The common version is, as many good and learned men have said, quite obsolete in its language, and in many places very defective in giving the ideas found in the original scriptures. Taken as a whole, it has outlived its day at least one century, and like a superannuated man, has failed to be as lucid and as communicative as in its prime.

      There is no version in any language that does not clearly communicate the same great facts, and make the path of bliss a plain and easy found one; but there is an immense difference in the force, beauty, clearness, and intelligibility of the different versions now in use. And that king James' version needs a revision is just as plain to the learned and biblical student, as that the Scotch and English used in the sixteenth century, is not the language now spoken in these United States. And this may be made as plain to the common mind, as it is that the coat which suited the boy of twelve, will not suit the same person when forty years old. As the boy grows from his coat, so do we from the language of our ancestors.

EDITOR.      

      MY PATRONS AND FRIENDS,--It is full time that I should address you on the past, the present, and the future, as respects you, myself, and posterity.

      With the exception of comparatively a few witnesses in the mountains and vallies of Europe, all Christendom slept for one thousand years. Kings and priests made a golden goblet--filled it with medicated wine, of the most inebriating qualities--handed it to each other--and when they had freely indulged themselves, they handed it to their subjects, who all became intoxicated, and, like drunken sots, fell fast asleep! Luther arose and washed himself; and, like the angel that liberated Peter, he smote his brethren on the side until a number of them awoke. He led them out into the city, and left them in one of its streets. They were not as sagacious as Peter; for, instead of marching out, they took up a permanent abode in the great city, in whose prisons they had so long lain. This Reformation was too soon completed; and now for three centuries their descendants have done little else in the religious way than quarrel about it. We were born in the suburbs of the great city, and lived in its smoke during our nonage. But we have been awaked, and wish to awake our contemporaries.

      For this purpose we blew the trumpet a few years ago. We feared and hoped. More were then awake, and many more have since awaked, than we dared at that time to have hoped. Thousands are now examining and searching into the foundations of all the present religious establishments. We have fared much better than we ever did anticipate. I expected to be honored with the appellation of heretic, schismatic, Arian, or some such title, from those who have the power of conferring honorary degrees. I can say that I set out with a single eye, and I have found the promised blessing. But more than I expected: for I have found able coadjutors, powerful friends, and a candid hearing. I have, as all who have read this work with candor will testify, given both sides. My ablest opponents have been permitted to speak all that they had to say in our pages. I have kept nothing back. [540] We have allowed and invited them to occupy our pages. The result has been that they have, to a man, declined the contest, and confirmed us more and more in the invincibility of truth. I knew their strength before they engaged in the conflict. They did not know mine. I do not speak of physical, or intellectual, or literary strength. In these respects many of them may be, and some of them, I know, are, my superiors. But I have studied the whole Bible, both Testaments, in a way which, I think, none of them have done. I studied their systems too. And I know there are two ways of studying the Oracles: one with, and one without, spectacles. There is a studying of them with no other design than to know, believe, teach, and practise them.

      All men may be said to boast, who make pretensions to teach others. No man either writes or speaks as an instructer, who does not, in the very act, claim a right to the public ear. We claim that right, and acknowledge that we claim it. Whether this claim be well or ill-founded, whether it be mere conceit, or a zeal according to knowledge, our cotemporaries and posterity will decide. But whether it be enthusiasm, conceit, or right reason, impelling us, we candidly acknowledge that we claim the right of speaking what we do know, and of declaring what we do believe.

      The present is a momentous crisis. All sects are shaking. The religious world is convulsed. Atheism has opened her batteries and unsheathed her sword. Scepticism is big with hopes. Catholic and protestant Popery are plodding and plotting for the supremacy. The little and the great Popes are on tiptoe. Saints are praying for the Millennium; myriads are laboring for its introduction. The bible and the creeds are at war. There is no truce. Such is the present, and such has been the past.

      Our designs are, under the government of the great King, to contribute all our energies to the cause of real and unsophisticated Christianity. We have never yet brought all our energies into the field. They have been too much distracted. We are now going forth into a new campaign--I have in all my public efforts, followed the openings of the way according to the directions of the great Captain.

      With regard to the press, that most potent of all moral engines, we shall disclose our intentions.

      It is, with the consent and concurrence of the friends of the ancient order of things, our intention to bring the Christian Baptist to a close in the next volume. We designed to have completed it with the present volume; but we cannot fill the outlines of our plan and prospectus in less than another. But we intend to publish the seventh volume in six months, or to finish it at the close of the present year. During which time we will issue a prospectus for a periodical of a more extensive range, and in some prominent items of a different character. Of these we shall, in due time, advise our friends.

      And now we would inform all our readers that if any of them are unwilling to take the seventh volume to be issued before the first of January, 1830--they will please to inform us, either directly or through our agents, before the first of June next. Our limits in the present work are by far too confined for the public good, and we must have more room. I have no fears but the intended work will be patronised. There are so many already enlightened who know that it is their duty and their privilege to use their means and influence for the good of their own posterity, and mankind generally, that they cannot, as good stewards, withhold their support to this undertaking. I know they cannot. For the same gracious obligations that urge me to labor, urge them to add wings to my efforts. If they do not need my labors for themselves, that is no matter; they need them for their children, friends, neighbors, and they will have them. We Christians are the Lord's people. He owns us, spirit, soul, body, and effects; and we owe all to him. And, I know, that we would rather hear him say to us, "Well done, good and faithful servants," than to have all the monarchs on earth bowing at our feet. Such is our profession, and I hope we will hold it fast to the end.

      I have now disclosed my intentions for the future. I have no anxiety about them. If the Lord will I shall do as I have proposed. If otherwise, I shall be satisfied; and I doubt not, if he does not employ me in this work, he will employ a more suitable, bold, and active agent. For the earth is his, and the fulness thereof. I hope, through his favor, to acquit myself well, in whatever station he may place me. And I will ever bless his name that I would rather be a door keeper in his house, than reign over the greatest empire the sun surveys.

EDITOR.      

      "IT is said of the Papists that they ascribe an infallibility to the Pope; so that if he were to say one thing, and the Bible another, his authority would carry it over the authority of God. And, think you, brethren, that there is no such Popery among you? You all have, or ought to have, bibles; and how often is it repeated there, "Hearken diligently to me?" Now, do you obey this requirement, by making the reading of your bibles a distinct and earnest exercise? Do you ever dare to bring your favorite minister to the tribunal of the word, or would you tremble at the presumption of such an attempt, so that the hearing of the word, carries a greater authority over your mind than the reading of the Word? Now this want of doing, this trembling at the very idea of a dissent from your minister, this indolent acquiescence in his doctrine, is just calling another man Master; it is putting the authority of man over the authority of God; it is throwing yourself into a prostrate attitude at the footstool of infallibility; it is not just kissing the toe of reverence, but it is the profound degradation of the mind, and of all its faculties; and without the name of Popery--that your bosoms, your souls may be infected with the deadly poison, and your consciences be weighed down by the oppressive shackles of Popery. And all this in the noon-day effulgence of a protestant country, where the bible, in your mother tongue, circulates among all your families; where it may be met with on almost every shelf, and is soliciting you to look to the wisdom that is inscribed on its pages."

      "MAY our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon thee, and absolve thee by the merits of his most holy passion! And I, by the authority of his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and of the most holy Pope, granted and committed to me [541] in these parts, do absolve thee, first from all ecclesiastical censures in whatever manner they have been incurred, and then from all sins, transgressions, and excesses, how enormous soever they be, even from such as are reserved for the cognizance of the holy see, and as far as the keys of the holy church extend, I remit to thee all punishment which thou dost deserve in purgatory on their account; and I restore thee to the holy sacraments of the church, to the unity of the faithful, and to that innocence and purity which thou didst possess at baptism; so that when thou dost die, the gates of punishment shall be shut, and the gates of the paradise of delight shall be opened; and if thou shalt not die at present, this grace shall remain in full force when thou art at the point of death! In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

[TCB 531-542]