I am not ignorant of the excuses made for these inconsistencies, nor can I be blind to the real cause of them. I am also aware of the difficulties that lie in the way to the emancipation and instruction of the African race in our own country; yet I think they are not greater than those which must be encountered in converting the inhabitants of West Africa, Hindostan, the Birman Empire, China, the South Sea Islands or Jerusalem, and I have no doubt our success would be greater and the expense much less at home than abroad. Here is a poor afflicted people, borne down with grief-friendless and unpitied. How sweet to their ears would be the voice of kindness, how beautiful the feet of those who should bring to them the glad tidings of the gospel. An immortal soul is as valuable in one part of the world as in another. With God there is no respect of persons, neither should there be with men. I know we cannot force our way to the accomplishment of this great domestice object, yet the combined influence of all religious societies in the United States, would go a great way toward effecting it. Were all the zeal, talent, and industry which is exerted in promoting foreign missions, bent to this important subject-were all the means of missionary heralds, bible societies, and associations of various kinds, devoted to this cause, on the ground of religious principle, I cannot doubt, that we should soon see measures pursued that would convince all, of the policy, expediency and necessity of such reformation at home, as would gradually remove from our national escutcheon one of the darkest spots that disgrace it; as would finally shake this collossal iniquity to the ground, and open to the christian patriot a door of hope for the real and permanent prosperity of his country. But until such an experiment is made, until we have fairly proved that this measure is impracticable, I cannot see why we should neglect our own business to go and labour in a foreign country. Let us set the candle on our own candlestick, before we attempt to enlighten others; let us "preach the plain, pungent, soul humbling doctrines of Christ and his apostles" at home, and put our own family in order before we spend our strength in attempting to rectify the family of a distant neighbour-let us labour faithfully in the domestic department, and make our own house clean before we busy ourselves to sweep that of another. Thus others "seeing our good works," without hearing our trumpet, may have substantial and grateful cause to glorify our Father who is in Hea

ven.

I remember to have read many years ago of a missionary who was sent into our western country to preach to the Indian na-` tives; he was accompanied by a very respectable member of the society who sent him. When they arrived at the place where

the location was to have been made, they opened to the Indians their benevolent concern: the natives called a council to consider the subject, and after long deliberation, they sent a deputation to their visitors, to inquire if the white men did not hold their black brothers in slavery-the reply being in the affirmative; they told them to go home, set their brothers free, preach to them and make them christians first-then come back to the Indians and they would listen to them. There was so much good sense and justice in the Indian proposition, that the person who was with the missionary, and who at that time held slaves, immediately liberated them all-an example worthy of universal imitation.

"Why (said our Lord,) beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, and considerest not the beam that is thine own eye! Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye, and behold a beam is in thine own eye! Thou hypocrite; first cast the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye." The force of this truly divine admonition is irresistible-how far it is applicable to our state, I willingly leave the serious reader to determine.

TO "PAUL" AND HIS FELLOW PROFESSORS.

As Paul has taken upon himself the task of instructing us in the doctrines of the New Testament, and detecting, as he inagines, the errors of our Christian profession, it must surely be of importance to us that we should rightly understand him, on a subject of such magnitude, especially if his lectures are expected to have any influence upon our conduct. For this purpose, I wish to propound a few questions to this champion of orthodox opinions, which if he will be so obliging as to answer effectually, may tend to lighten the burden of his labours, by carrying conviction to our understandings.

And first, we are told that the Bible or the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word of God, and "the only standard of religious truth." Then how comes it to pass that every sect into which the Christian world has been divided, however various and contradictory their doctrines may be to each other, have all proved them true, from this infallible rule, this supreme standard of faith? If these different sects be various

and contradictory in their interpretations of the Scriptures, they must I presume, be all wrong, or some one only right. For Christ is not divided. And which is that sect who have attained to the true interpretation?

66

Not that I believe there is any inconsistency in the Biblebut the question is, what causes these various and contradictory interpretations? And how is the true knowledge of this supreme standard" to be arrived at--seeing it is construed so differently? Not by the light of man's conscience, for this is the creature of habit-it is formed by education, and Friends never set it up as their guide in these cases.-Not by "the vagaries of a deceitful heart," for these have led the Christian world into endless disputes, and even into wars "for Christ's sake." Not by any interpretation which the Scriptures give of themselves, for this is liable to be misconstrued, as we see from the example of all Christendom.

But are not the seals to be opened? are not the scales to bo removed from our eyes before we can attam to a true and saving knowledge of the truths, revealed in the Scriptures ?—and if so, by what?

Again, we are told that we ought to be baptized with water, because it is commanded by Christ and his Apostles, as a standing ordinance in the Church, and that we may be found fighting against God, if we do not conform. Now we would like to know which is the right way of conforming to this standing ordinance; whether by immersion, or by sprinkling. If we are all enjoined to be baptized with water, we ought to know how? All things necessary to be observed by the Jews were well defined in their law; so that no ambiguity was to be found! in their statutes of standing obligation and it would seem to me that all essential duties of a Christian are well defined; but I am not able exactly to understand, how sprinkling a little water in the face can be called baptizing. And as we do not see any binding obligation either to dip or to sprinkle, until we are better informed, which is the right way, and until professors of Christianity who deem it essential are agreed about the manner of doing it, we shall be content to omit the ceremony altogether.

John indeed baptized with water unto repentance, but One that. is mightier than John baptizeth with the Holy Ghost and with fire.

Again, we would like to know what is meant by that article in your confession of faith, which says, "to the officers of the church the keys of Heaven are committed, by virtue whereof, they have power respectively, to retain and remit sins, to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, by word and censures; and to open it unte penitent sinners, &c. as occasion may re

quire." Now to which of your officers is this tremenrous power intrusted? if to "Paul," we must be in a deplorable situation indeed. For he has fairly ranked us with deists and infidels, and aliens from the visible church of Christ. Hence I conclude, if he, or such Orthodox Divines, are to hold the keys of heaven, we shall knock in vain for admission.

How can you presume to call the Pope of Rome, "That antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ and all that is called God," when you assume as your authority to open and shut up Heaven, the same text of Matthew, which the Pope claims as the evidence of his power to retain and remit sins, and which constitutes him Christ's Vicar and vicegerent upon earth ?-And was not the assumed right in the Pope to exercise this self same power, which you give to your officers, the principal cause of the separation of Luther from the Romish Church?

I will now as Paul has done, take the name of an Apostle, one whose evangelical purity, was not exceeded by any of the followers of Christ.

JOHN.

Saturday, June 30, 1821.

LETTER VII.

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

A NEW defender has appeared. Whether to answer him, or not, I am really at a loss. Not from terror at his arguments, for with truth upon my side, I do not fear ten thousand such; but because I am doubtful whether you will not disown his sentiments and decline his aid. That the writer is a deist is most palpable. The substance, and almost the words of his objections, may be found in every writer of a certain class, from lord Herbert down to Thomas Paine. Yet, as I sincerely believe his sentiments, however displeasing to a few, are the sentiments of many who are full members in your society; as I believe many of your doctrines lead directly to such sentiments; and as the style and expression give some reason to believe him a professed Friend, until he be disowned, in answering him, I shall consider myself as answering you.

In reply to his objection against a certain Confession of Faith, I would observe, that with any other Confession of Faith than yours, I have nothing to do. And though he should every week, by omitting words and clauses, metamorphose an innocent scriptural doctrine into a Popish monster, I shall not thus

be diverted from my determination to examine your leading doctrines by the light of truth, and, if possible, expose to you and to the world, the danger of your system. And I hope that in this, I have no other view but the glory of God and the good of mankind.

Let us now canvass the sentiments of your new defender. First. He denies (as usual) that the Scriptures are the word of God. "We are told the Bible is the word of God, then how, &c." This from any but a Friend would be barefaced deism; and why from your lips should it be justified? If you mean merely to say that the Bible is not the Spirit, or Christ, we admit it as readily as that it is not Peter or Paul. We do not look upon the Bible as a person, or a spirit, but a book! and if this is all you mean to say, you are welcome to the wonderful discovery! But if you mean to say, that the Bible is not a plain literal declaration of the mind and will of God, entitled to as much reverence and as implicit credit as though the whole had been or were now delivered by an audible voice from the Almighby himself; I appeal to the whole christian world, if you are not deists. If you admit that it is his declaration of truth, his speech, his epistle, his message to us, to refuse to call it his word, what is it but a quibble! A good part of the Books of Moses was spoken by the Lord from Mount Sinai and other places; the greater part of the gospels consists of our Lord's discourses; and the inspired Apostle says, (1 Cor. xiv. 37.) "the things which I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord;' and yet it is incorrect to call these very scriptures the word of God! Because this phrase is once or twice used figuratively to signify Christ, therefore it can never be used in a literal sense! The names"Son of man," "Prophet," "Priest," "King," are all applied to Christ, but do they therefore always signify the Saviour? I am confident, my dear friends whether you intend it or not, there is much deism conveyed to your hearers under this doctrine. By the rejection of an innocent, an expressive, and a scriptural term, you do lessen the reverence of your children and others for the Book of God. And if you wished to propagate deistical principles, you could not take a more effectual way. Open deism, like a naked Satan, frightens people; but veiled in a specious garb, like Satan robed as an angel of light, it seduces thousands.

Secondly. He denies that the Bible is "the only standard of religious truth." Why? because different christian sects professing to follow it, derive from it, and defend by it, "various contradictory doctrines." Now I appeal to any one acquainted with infidel works, if this is not one of the first objections which a deist brings to invalidate the inspiration of the scriptures.