Newspaper Page Text
JOSEPH S. BAKER— Editor.
VOL. XII.
TERNS PER ANNUM.
The Christian Index, published
on Friday in each week, (except two in the
year), will be furnished to each subscriber
at $2 50 cents, in advance ; or $3 if not
paid within the year.
iCT’ Post-Masters, where the Index is
taken, are requested to forward remittances
for subscribers at their respective offices,
according to a decision of the Post-Master
General as to their right to do so. All pa
trons and .agents are requested to notice this.
Every Agent (and all Baptist Ministers
are particularly solicited to become agents)
who procure and pay for five copies of the
Index, shall be entitled to a sixth, as a com
pensation for his trouble.
Letters on business, or communications,
must be addressed to the Editor, post paid.
Advertisements may be inserted oh usual
pterins, at the discretion the Editor.
For tht Christian Index.
liro. Baker.' —l recently heard a sermon
from a Baptist preacher fiom Luke v. 12,
13. “And it came to pass, when he was
in a certain city, behold a man full of lepro*
sy : who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and
besought him, saying, Lord if thou will,
thou canst make me clean. And he put
forth his hand, saying, I will: be thou
clean. And immediately the leprosy de
parted from him.” The course adopted,
by the preacher, in the exposition of this
text, has led me into a train of reflections
which, I have concluded to communicate
to you and your rcadets, in the hope, they
wilt be useful, if from no merit of their
own, by calling attention to the subject.
The interpretation which he gave of it,
was of that sort which 1 have lieatd called,
in k cant phrase, spiritualising the scrip,
tures. The notion is still cheiished by
many, notwithstanding what has been said
and written against it, that the most of the
Sacred Volume has two meanings; the
one literal and apparent, the other spiritual
and hidden from common leaders. Many
parts of the Old Testament and Apocalypse
of the New, are, confessedly, typical and
prophetic; from whence, they are led to
infer, that almost every thing, the most tri
fling incident, recorded in the Scriptures,
tin: Nnw as well as dm.QJd, lus a mystical
Ineatiingifit could be arrived at. With
such, every adventure, every occurrence
which happened to the children of Israel,
during their forty years of wandering in the
wilderness, is supposed to shadow forth
something in “the Christian life ; and every
ornament of the Jewish temple, however
trifling. something under the new dispeu
tion. This school of divines cut what
they cannot untie, if I may so speak, and
elicit the spiritual “meaning of their text, by
means of a kind of sub-inspiration to which
they lay claim. We often hear them, in
theii exordium, affirm that they ascended
the sacred desk without the (least knowl
edge of the text from which they should
preach, but a certain one had just been sug
gested, with great force, to their minds :
they should therefore take it, relying on the
Lord to guide them in what they should
say. Such a’ declaration carries an air of
great piety and meekness in one view of it,
but in another, it is certainty assuming
a great deal. Such a claim, if sustained
and allowed, must prove them the special
lavorites of Heaven. There may, howev
er, possibly, be no vanity in all this.
The brother, id his exegesis of the fore
going text, told us, that the Leper repre
sented the sinner ; and he drew arguments
from the physical condition of the former
to prove the spiritual condition of the lat
ter. As the Leper knew that he was sick,
liad despaired of a cure from any other
source, as he came to the Saviour, came in
humility, and asked in faith; so, must we
know that we are sinners, despair of help
from any other power, must come- in hu
mility, and ask in faith, and wc would be
forgiven as the Leper was cleansed.
He went on to prove the nature of sin
from that of leprosy; that, as the latter
was a loathsome and mortal disease, (and
cut off its victim from the congregation of
Israel; so has the former, a spiiitual dis
ease, loathsome in the sightof God, brought
Oil eternal death, and excluded its victim
from the congregation of the blessed in
Heaven.
I am, bro. Editor, no Theologian, and
am unacquainted with those rules which
the schoolmen have laid down for the inter
pretation of the Scriptures. I shall there
fore, until I get other and stronger proofs
than the brother gave in support of this
mystical meaning, continue to believe that
this text means nothing more than it says,
and that it is only a plain statement of an
unostentatious miracle which the Saviour
peiformed in attestation of his Divine mis
sion. It is true, that many consoling re
flections may be drawn from it. It proves
,the condescension of our Lord, his bene/i-
THE CHRISTIAN INDEX.
cence, and his power. It gives us strong
reason to hope that what we ask of him
in humility and confidence, lie will be
stow. It does not prove, to me, that He
will forgive our sins ; yet it encourages us
to hope so, for, if He would stoop to heal
this poor outcast of a disease which could
make him miserable only in this life, would
not the same benevolent inclination lead
him to forgive the sins of one of His crea
tures that he might not be miserable for
ever?
But, granting for arguments sake, that
this transaction was designed to Jshtulow
forth spiritual things, and that the Leper
represents the sinner; still, the miracle
wiil not illustrate the forgiveness of sin,
but only the cleansing, from it -a for it wjß.ld
be absurd to say, he was forgiven iiis dis
ease when he was only healed of it. “ Nor,
indeed; is it, even, a good illustration of
cleansing from sin ; for, whereas, the Lcp
er was cleansed instantly, lor, innuedately
the leprosy departed from him; on the con
trary, the work of sanctification, according
to the creed of die Baptists, is progressive,
and is only perfected in a future slate.—
What shall we, therefore, think of the
brother’s exposition, wherein, he proved
the whole of the Christian scheme by this
text, Repentance, Faith, Redemption, Jus
tification and Sanctification inclusive?—
Such a system of interpreting the Bible,
seems calculated to lead us, not only into
many inconsistences and contradictions, but
into serious errors. For example, the
Rev. brother endeavored to delineate the
experience of the Christian by the Lepeis ;
for; as the latter, when he knew he ivaj
cleansed, rejoiced exceedingly, so, did the
Ibimer, when he felt that his sins were for
given. But, he soon perceived, that he
could not run the parallel much farther and
remarked, that it was not long before the
Christian fell into doubts as to whether in
deed his sins were forgiven ; and that he
passed his whole life betwixt (ear and hope.
Now ilseems to me, that, if the text proves
any thing on this point, it proves, that as the
Leper knew his disease was healed at first,
and, as every hour, day and week could
only confirm him in it ; so, would the
Chnsltau. instead of being harrassed with
doubts and fears, be increasing daily in con
fidence, until, in a little time, instead of a
hope, he would arrive at a perfect assur
ance. Such an attainment, however much
it may be desired, and however much it
may be a duly, does, certainly, not accord
with the experience of common Christians,
1 have heaid a great deal of this sort of
preaching, more formerly than at present.
It always affects me unpleasantly ; for 1
look upon it as a wiesting of the Scriptures
from their true meaning. Who has not
heard one of this school spiritualise the
parable of the good Samaritan, by making
eveiy thing recorded in it prefigure some
thing in the Gospel plan, from the Samari
tan who, they say, is Christ, down to the
two pence, which they say, represents
the two sacraments of Baptism and the
Supper. Those who lay claim to this
kind of inspiration, set it tip, I have thought,
upon that partofour Saviour’s instructions,
when he sent out his twelve apostles to
preach and work miracles, wherein he fore
warns them, that they shall be brought be
fore councils, governors and kings for his
sake ; and instructs them, on such occa
sions, (Matt. x. 17, 20) to “take no thought
how or what ye shall speak : for. it shall
be given you in that same hour what ye
shall speak. For it is not ye that
speak, but the Spirit of your Father which
speaketh in you.” I know of no other
part of the New Testament which author
ises the setting tip of such a claim ; and
that the one under consideiation does not,
is apparent upon an attentive reading’—
Even, if they have the right to appropriate
to themselvis all the miraculous gifts ofMie
apostles, both plenary and potential; still,
it would only be upon occasion of their be
ing called before councils Ac., that they
ought tp expect, such a divine impulse, as
would make it needless for them to take
thought how or what they should speak;
for the Saviour, in his instructions to them,
a little while before, did not leach them to
look for any such divine aid in preaching.
And, indeed, if the apostles might justly
look for such aid in preaching, and the
Ministry of this age may claim it upon the
same ground, I can see no teason why they
may not also claim, the right and power to
“heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the
dead, cast out devils,” and shake off the
dust of their feet against all such as shall
not receive them nor hear their words.
I do not aim to give offence to this class
of ministering bretlnen. I grant them pi
ous and sincete, but piety and sincerity can
never sanctify error, and they must allow
me, in candor, to say, that I believe they
lie under an egregious one. One perni-
FOR THE BAPTIST CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA,
PENFIELD, GA., AUGUST 9, 1844.
cious effect, which results from it, is that it
leads them (very consistently,) to oppose
and reject all education, study and prepara
tion, as not only unnecessary for the exer
cise of the Gospel Ministry, but as tending,
directly, to produce a reliance upon human)
learning instead of this divine illumination.!
Could this ever be coriected, it would go
a great way, I am persuaded, towards re
moving those objections and prejudices
which, unfortunately, exist, against a course
of theological study and preparation for the
Sacred office. Then might we hope to
see the whole Sacred College, (to borrow
a word from the Romanists,) reading, stu
dying and meditating, as the apostle, so of
ten, exhorts Timothy to do, upon djvije”
f reckon this the only,
perfiups not the greatest evil, growing out
of tliifferror; for, it seems to me, that
when the preacher arises to speak, with no
preparation, and relying” wholly upon this
divine impulse, he is in great danger of em
bracing and publishing many false notions.
It is therefore, on many accounts, impor
tant to have a correct opinion on this point.
1 think it would be an useful inqury, lor
every ministering brother to ask himself,
what degree of Spiritual aid lie may justly
count upon, without being chargeable widi
presumption or impiety. After all, some
no donbt, wi'.l.
“rush in
Where angels fear to tread.”
The claim of such to inspiration is
( impious I should say if it did not
sound so harshly.) at least a proper subject
of inquiry. It may he said, that such a
claim is not distinctly set up. 1 grant that
it is not distinctly and in so many words;
nevertheless, “to this complexion it must
come at last.” That degree of illumina
tion or Spiritual influence, which will au
thorise one to declare what is the mystical
meaning of a text, a meaning which does
not appear upon the Gee of it, a meaning
which cannot be inferred from the context,
nor ariived at by the common rules of con
strueing language, amounts to nothing less-
I do not mean to deny, but admit as a
cardinal truth, the influence of the Iloly
Spirit upon the heart; hut, at the same
time, 1 tlo deny to the ministers ot the pre
sent day, that extraordinary measure of it
which the apostles and holy mcnol old en
joyed, and which authorised them to an
nounce new and important truths to man :
and I again affirm, that the same measure
of spiritual influence, the same miraculous
gilts are just as necessary now, to declare
what is the mystical and hidden meaning
(if they have any.) of the Scriptures, as
was needed by those ancient saints to an
nounce original truths. Let us lake the
foregoing text as an example. We can
not find in its phraseology, nor in the con
text, the least reason to believe, the slight
est proof, that the Leper is a type of the
Sinner. If, therefore, the preacher affirm
it, have I not a right to demand his author
ity for such a declaration ; and il, he fails
to show, that the Saviour has promised him
such a measure of divine influence as wat
rants him in making it, ought I not to de
mand of him, such miraculous proofs, ol
his right to give this interpretation, as the
prophets and apostles gave, and as, even,
the Saviour himself, did not think it be
neath him to give, to prove His divine mis
sion? I deny therefore to the Ministry of
this age, these supernatural gifts, because
they cannot prove, that they possess them
from the Holy Scriptures, and have wrought
no miracles in proof of it. And, indeed,
there are unanswerable evidences, to my
mind, that they are endowed with no such
powers. Il would be impious to allow,
that the Spirit would teach a Baptist, that a
text means one thing, a Methodist that it
meant another, a Moravian another, &e.
and yet, in how many points, do these and
all evangelical denominations, differ.—
Even, if we narrow the argument down to
our own denomination, in how many things
do we disagree, among ourselves All
these discrepancies point to the fallibility of
human reasonfrand the frailties of human
nature, for tlieir origin ; for, we shall look
for them, in valff, in those teachings which
are prompted by the Holy Spirit.
Some, who practice this sort of exposi
tion, are led to adopt it, I charitably believe,
mainly, with the design ol illustrating their
opinions; or in other woids, they use it as
a kind of allegory. Yet, if they mean
nothing more by it, they are still culpable,
in essaying to prove points in theology by
a figure of speech. That meekness and
humility are indispensable to all who ask
for the pardon of tlieir transgressions, and
that, the Saviour has the will and power to
forgive sins, are elementary truths of the
Gospel; but for the preacher to declare,
that the promise is proved by the posture
and words of the Leper, and the latter, by
the act ol’ our Lord in healing his disease,
fbsurd, at least, if not wicked.| Compar
ts can be legitimately used, only, to il
h,; irate, and not to prove. A Methodist
ntightfmd a very apt figure, in the incident
•related in Acts xx. 8, 10, of Eulychus the
young man of Troas. who, having sunk
down in a deep sleep in church during di
vine service fell down from the third loft
and was taken up dead, hut was restored to
life, by means of the miraculous gifts of the
apostle, to illustrate the doctrine and danger
of apostacy, and the possibility of restora
tion to spiritual life: but. who will say
these doctrines are proved by it. A com
parison or an allegory, draw.n from the Sa
cred,. Volume, prove no more, bd itremem
than ope taken Irmii pmfaiw Itiauirp.
from fiction, or from the works of Nature
or art. The case of the Leper, or the
walling of a bushel of wheat may serve to
illustrate the doctrine of sanctification, but
cat never prove it.
I.AVMAN.
Mr. Thorn’s Comments oil our Reply to him.
Dea| brother Baker, (for 1 accept the en
dearing title of “brother” which you have
kindly tendered.)
In yijur remarks on my letter of the 2nd
inst. yoji have certainly assigned me a posi
tion which I had no desiie to assume, My
letter was not intended as an argument a
gainst the doctrine of close communion, hut
only an account of the proceedings of a
communion meeting of the Baptist denom
ination :it this place. In which 1 gave you
a short Account of the positions of one of
the officiating ministers. Which positions
I supposed were not a true exposition of the
views t/f the Baptist denomination. I add
ed suelj enquiries as I thought would give
you aiyopporlnnity (and 1 considered your
paper tine of the principal organs ofthc de
nomination) to state precisely the position
of till; Baptist church in leiation to the ques
tion. I suppose your want of leisure ut
the lime you penned your temarks hurried
you into the opinion that 1 was a Poedo
baptist. For 1 feel assured there is noth
ing in my letter calculated to produce an in
ference ol that character. On the contrary
the letter carries strong indications on its
face that it was written by a friend of the
Baptist church, who desired that the true
ground which that denomination occupies
iu defence of the doctrine of close commun
ion should be fully Uikderßlood, tout thought
that the Rev. Minister had taken a position
not assumed by the entire church. Hence
illy desire that you should “ assign u rea
solt coextensive with the practice itself.”
%ou think I have misrepresented the
in atttibuting to him the po
silit* that, Christ instituted the sacrament
iu iimtuiion of a heathen licio; Are you
tv ill i that his position on that subject
should*be considered the doctrine of the
clutrchyto which you belong ? If you are
not, yoiTshould not insinuate that I inis rep
resented him. If you are, lam willing for
those why were present to determine what
was that iosiiion.
By tlye prayer of consecration I meant
the lirstmrayer at the communion, if its the
ological technical meaning he anv thing
n n y O
more it wus not so intended by me. In
that place the won! “ dedication” would
have expressed my meaning; ns well as
“consecration.”
ll the soldiers of Leonidas had differed in
their construction of his orders, would those
who happened to he in the right, have tfie
prerogative to prohibit those in the wrong
from any participation in the vow f I pre
sent the question to you, because in your
comments, you seem to have been satisfied
with the Rev. Minister’s reference to the
sacramcnlum of Leonidas. Though until
I saw your observations, 1 did not suppose
lhat position was really occupied by
your church.
I regret exceedingly that (to me at least)
the most important enquiry in my letter
shared so small a portion of your attention,
and that was to ** assign a cause coexten
sive with the practice.”
Many plausible and specious reasons for
auglul know may be given, but when the
true cause is ascertained it will (according
to logic) be precisely coextensive with the
effect or practice. If a difference of opin
ion, on the subject of baptism, (and for the
present I admit immersion of believers to be
correct) be the ground for a close commun
ion, why do not all who are properly bap
tized commune together? Why do you
not invite threr Freewill and Primitive Bap
tists ? And which branch of the Baptist
church, alone, correctly administers the or
dinance of baptism. These questions un
avoidably grow out of the position assumed
by the baptist church, together with the
reasons assigned for them.
I had much rather occupy th? place of an
enquirer, than take the post of a disputant.
Though I am not insensible to your gener
osity in offering ine your columns, particu
larly as you supposed me to be a Poedo
baptisi. One principal objection to becom
ing a disputant in this mallei is, I am now
endeavoring to form a correct opinion on
the subject; and am desirous of the assis
tance of your reflections. Should 1 become
a disputant, there would be great danger
that my prejudices would darken in my
mind a porition of the light which might
otherwise be reflected from your sugges
tions. It will be soon enough after 1 have
learned your views and your reasons for
them,to oppose them inyourown columns.
And it is by no means certain even il I(
should not believe all your positions to be
correct, that 1 should have the vanity to
place my pen on the arena against yours.
I desired my letter and your observations
thereon to be published in order that many
ol your readers, whom I supposed had their
minds occupied with the same enquiries as
my own, might have the benefit of your in
vestigations.
I hope this letter will meet thesame kind
ness as did the fust, whilst you will do me
the justice to believe, 1 desire through life
to remain to yours and every Christian or
der, a friend and weHVisher.
REUBEN THORN.
Dahlonega, 11 ill July, 1844.
REMARKS ON TIIE ABOVE.
it .crtiTs,- from ine n ttl.il wot ettrros- ‘
pondent is neither a Baptist nor Poedbbap
tist,
“But qs it were an after dinner’s sleep,
Dreaming on both.”
We inferred that he was a Poedobaplist
from his stating that he was raised under
Baptist influence, and that he was friendly
to the Baptists. That was so much like a
Poedobaplist, that we concluded he must
certainly be one. They generally, when
about to strike a blow, profess much friend
ship for us, and if they are only fouitli cou
sin to a Baptist, they are pretty sure to tell
us of their Baptist connexions.
The case of Leonidas is brought up li
gnin. We have nothing new to say on the
subject. We think it certainly justifiable
to refer to the soldiers of Leonidas, or any
other general, to illustrate the subject oil
which the brother spoke. “If the soldieis
of Leonidas had differed in their construc
tion of his orders,” we certainly do think,
that his under officers should have admitted
none into their ranks, who did not come
equipped as they understood iheircommand
er-in-chicf to require that they should come.
If they were tequired, for instance, to ap
pear with a badge of white, those who ap
peared with badges'of crimson should not
have been enrolled. Baptism, according to
both Baptist and Poedobaplist views, is a
badge of discipleship. The Captain of our
salvation does not allow us to receive any
without it In a ease like that which we
have supposed, one might appear with his
crimson badge, lie might plead llial Uis
a matter of no consequence of what color
the badge is. We should reply, il may be
so ; but our Commander has not so said.
He has liot authorized us to deviate, in the
least, from his instructions. His orders are
express, to admit as many as appear with
while badges. If, therefore, you wish to
be admitted, you must apply at head quar
ters, and obtain a special license. Produce
a warrant from our commander, and it will
afford us much pleasure to admit you.—
Were we to admit others than those with
white badges, and were our commander to
inquire, “Who hath required this at your
hand?” we should lie convicted, in our
own hearts, of having transcended our au
thority! Ifthcapplicantargued that “white”
often means “ clean" —that the command
er only meant by “ white badge,” a “ clean
budge,” we should reply, that our com
mander gave us no intimation that he used
the words in any other than their ordinary
acceptation, and that we were, consequent
ly, morally bound to interpret them accor
ding to their ordinary acceptation, until ev
idence was produced, under his own hand
and seal, that when Itesaid white, he meant
clean or crimson.
In answer to the inquiries based upon the
supposition that our views of baptism are
correct, we reply, Baptists do admit to the
Lord’s table all whom they believe to have
been baptized in gospel order, so long as
they continue to walk orderly ; but we be
lieve it to be disorderly to countenance, in
any manner, those who depart from the
gospel of Christ. While one is guilty ol
such disorderly conduct, we may admit
him to our own table, but we cannot, con
sistently with our views of the requisitions
of tbs- gospel, admit him to the Lord’s ta
ble, even though there may have been no
thing defective in his baptism.
Our correspondent seems to think we
did not assign a reason tor our practice coe
val with it. We think differently ; lor we
referred to the icord of God, which is cer
tainly as old as immersion, and atgued, that
there was no warrant there for a contrary
practice. We thought this sufficient, as it
is admitted that the word of God is the only
unerring rule, both of faitlr and practice.—
We know that Poedobaplists sometimes
plead, that the word of God does not forbid
receiving into the church, and to the Lord’s
table, those whom we exclude ; but we
hope our friend or brother—(a brother we
know he is in one sense, if not in another)
—will not sanction this popish argument.
If it is lawful to do all that is not forbidden,
then we may join with Romanists iu say
ing mass for the dead, in administering or
receiving holy unction, Sic. Sic. for these
Pitbliriijer— BENJ. BR A NTLY
are not forbidden in the scripltiics. If our
correspondent will assume that it is our du
ty to do all that is not forbidden, we will
afford him an opportunity of evincing his
faith bv his works. Does he possess houses
and lands? Has he merchandize ? or oth
er valuable property ? We would say to
him, he may send us a deed of conveyance
of all his possessions by mail, at our risk
and expense. The scriptures do not pro-
Mbit his doing so. Has he believed, te
penled and been buried with his Lord iu
baptism? These ate aets which the scrip
lutes not only do notfffebul, but expressly
enjoin.
‘lf our brother is, as he intimates, in
vfu tw-uuUt vtrge
upon him the importance of having an eye
single to the glory of God, and taking the
word of God as the sole guide of his con
duct. Be deaf to what the world, or friends,
or kindred, or self-interest may say; but
treasure up, deep in your heart, every word
ol God, and you will never have cause to
repent it, either in timeoi in eternity.
The essayson the subject of communion,
which tve promised, will appear in due time
—our promise in reference to this matter
shall not be forgotten. A brother, who
wields a masterly pen, has engaged to com
ply with our request, in reference to this
matter.
Reply of Mr. llall lo Mr. Heavours.
Pixeville, June 7th 1844.
lira. linker. — l have just seen in the
Index ol 24th of last month, a communica
tion from bro. J. B. Deavours concerning
mine published 12th April last.
After quoting a portion of what 1 said,
he says 1 “describe 45 miles long audio
or 17 broad.” Why this is the very
“southern boundary” over which so much
lamentation has been set up. And I was
particular in stating the length and breadth
of it, that I might if need be, prove that
there was no “destitution” lietc, by pub
lishing the names of the preachers, and
designating the places of worship located
within it. Bro. D. says he is not for war,
and that lie has not been getting up reli
gious controversies here. I did not charge
him with either. I only spoke of his re
port. He then sets out to “reason” with
me by supposing a case. But the case he
supposes is not like i\e one made out in the
report. To be like that he must suppose
that there is none of any sort “to cast in
■Gospel seed.” If any one, and especially
.if an “anti-missionary” were to say of
Talbot Cos., what bro. D. said of “the” de
scribed district;” lam persuaded that but
few would hesitate to say he was “a man
of falsehood;” as bro. D. says I have
charged him. And yet I believe it would
be as nigh the truth as was the report. And
I only wanted to say ol bro. D. in language
too as inoffensive as I was capable of
using, that he had misrepresented the con
dition of this country. But he says he had
no means of knowing any thing certain of
our people ; the doors being shut against
him; and the sword of an uiifellowship
that turns.every way lo keep our good
things secret from him a missionary bap
tist!! Surely bro. I), does not study the
import of the terms he uses. Why he
knows that lie is just as much at liberty to
go into our houses of worship, hear our
preachers, see our order, and the general
deportment of our people, as one of our
selves. J’lie old-school baptists have as
few secrets, either as to doctrine or practice,
as any people upon the lace of the earth.
He asks how is he to speak of our quiet
ness, sobriety, hospitality, good neighbor
hood, and love of the tiuth ; when he is
not permitted lo participate in any of our
religious devotions as a minister of the
gospel! ! This truly is a strange question.
Is no one qualified to speak of a people as
to the above named partioulais but a minis
ter of ‘.lie Gospel ? Am! is not even a min
ister qualified, unless he participates in their
religious devotions ? I will leave to your
readers to answer. Any one who can read
can answer. And I think even hro. D.
could testify at least to the hospitality of
the people here-
If bro. 1). had made as free use of the
terms “ministers id’ our order,” and “mis
sionary baptists,” in the report, as he has
iu the latter part of his letter; you would
not, nor would your readers ever have been
troubled with one word from me on the
subject. For I wish it distinctv remember
ed that it was not of the missionary opera
tions here that 1 complained; but, of the
report of the “missionary.” As to the
“destitute” place which bro. D. says he
found within three miles of my house; I
will only say that it is within about that
distance of four meeting houses, one of
them of the “missionary order.” Bro. D.
accuses me of watching him for evil and
not for good. Now I assure you, and
him, that he is much mistaken. It is al
ways wore pleasant to me to have a favor
able, than an unfavorable opinion of any
one; and is always painful tome, to be
obliged to withdraw, in any degree, mv
confidence from any one who har had it.
I became acquainted with bro. D. soon af
ter lie first came amongst us, and I confess
he made a very favorable impression upon
my mind. We had much friendly conver
sation; and though we differed in some
things, he knows I treated him kindly.—
He knows too, that he expressed m\u&.
NO. 32.