Newspaper Page Text
T. 1). MARTIN. Editor.
VOL mV.-Vew Series, Vol. 24.
‘an as era. vi Mi •
• i. iti Oh.imi ‘S Ismh; is a weekly publication.—
Fifte uaiahermff Hw rrsr see matte.* •< < ach gnbscri
; ->r ter %'i 50, or $2 00 in ad ranee.
i, r>i*f:oTitinuanee may be ordered hy ihe subscriber*
ii tli.* idos>> of any year, nil arrearage* have
>i paid: or by tile Rditor, at hi* discretion, whenever
•store, than mi year's subscription is due.
-S. Any piston who remits $lO in advance for five
n.-iv -ab.-aribers. may receive the paper for one year. ;
l. Any minister of the gop<d who remits |S in ad
/ time for four new stihserihers. may reeeivc she paper
one year.
>. Oomraunieations should be addres?e<i. poot-Vaid, to
the Chrint’im
The Law of Newspapers.
I. Subscribers who do not give express notice tp the ,
• >.itrarv, are considered as wishinz to continue their
subscription.
•. If subscribers order the discontinuance of their-j
i ■ vsr.ap.rs, the publisher may continne to send them !
inti I all arrearnzes are paid.
•!. If subscribers neglect or refuse to take their aewe
papers from the offices to which they are directed, they
are held responsible until they haye settled the. bills
and ordered them discontinued.
1. If sub.eribers remove to oth* r places without in j
•'ariiimr the poblh.hcrs and the newspapers arc |
the former <lire.*rion. sch -y arc held responsfb!'*.’ , ;
>. Tlie Court-= have decided that refaatog to take :
i.-w-pap'-rs from the orfiee or removing and leaving
t hem uncalled for, is priiiia./ncie ovuh-neeof intention !
t! fraud. .
t The ITtiiied States Courts have also rep.Rtedly dc
•ided that a Postmaster who neglects to perform Kls j
duty of giving reasonable notice, ;t r-djuired by the ,
Post Office Department, of Hie neglect of a person to
t ike from the office newspapers addressed to him, ren
ders the Postmaster liable to the publisher for the sub
scription price. i
1 ■ “■■■—• i
From the New York Examiner. “* j
THE BAPTIST CHURCHES.
.Yolo# on their Principles and Prentice, t
NO. XXVII.
In my last paper I endeavored to show j
that we, from our love of imitation, had
violated good taste, and ft mi promised our
principles in the matter of church archi
tecture. We certainly are as able to de- i
termine what we want, as others are to j
determine it for t|s. We are as competent j
to select a style of architecture suited to j
our wants, as others arc to select it for ns. ;
Let ns then have respect for ourselves, and j
carry our principles into practice.
There are, besides these, several other i
minor particulars, in themselves of small S
moment, bur which derive importance
from the tendency which they cultivate. j
To some of these I will now allude. 1 j
shall here refer chiefly to our usage in eon- j
ducting public worship.
Our services in the house of God have
suffered no change. They consist of (gen- j
orally) a prayer of invocation, singing, !
reading the Scriptures, prayer, singing,
sermon, prayer, benediction. In some of |
our churches we sing twice, at others three j
times, and in others, the prayer at the ;
opening of the service is omitted.
According to our former custom, we j
stood in prayer, and sat in singing. Os j
late, we have adopted, in part, the prae- j
tiee of our Episcopalian brethren, by ;
standing in singing, and sitting in prayer. ;
l say in part, for the prayer-book directs j
the congregation to kneel during prayer I
and their news are generally adapted to ;
this posture. If, however, they do not j
kneel, they bend reverently forward, and ;
shutting out external objects, remain in i
this position to the close of the snpplica- j
tions. We do not profess to kneel, and
the result is that our congregations sit, for !
the most part, gazing about irreverently, ,
while the minister is offering up solemn j
petitions and adoration. In this-respect ;
we have, certainly, suffered loss. The so- •
lemnity of our service is diminished. The
imitation is, at least, unsuccessful. To !
kneel in prayer is exceedingly appropriate* >
and I wish it could lie universally adopted. ,
To stand is expressive of reverence, when
we approach into the presence of God j
To sit listlessly gazing around, when we ;
profess to Ik; offering up our supplications j
to God, can surely be justified neither by ;
religion or good taste. I must, therefore, 1
consider our change in this respect, to be j
a failure. I think we had better remain I
ed as we were. Our love for imitation has
over-stepped itself, and excluded what was j
good, both in our own usage and that of i
others.
Again, our notion of worship is sitnplv j
this- W e meet together on the Sabbath
to offer up to God, each one for himself,
the sacrifice of prayer and praise, and to
cultivate holy affections by the reading
and explanation of the Word of God, and
by applying its truth to our own souls.—
The preacher has a particular portion >f ;
the Scriptures to which he directs our at
tention. It it his design to nnfohl tin
mind of the Spirit, as it is made known
in this part of revelation. To this end he
selects his hymns, and the portion of Scrip
ture which ho reads, desiring, so far ;u.
possible, to have every part *f the sendee
aid in producing a definite moral effect-
From beginning t,o end it is one act of
worship. from which everything irreve
rent, or oven irrelevant, je to fie, from the
nature of the case excluded. Nothing
should divert the mind from the great
moral object for which the assembly has
convened. This idea was formerly carried
out among us. .No notices were read, or
announcements made, except they pertain
ed to the religious meetings of thechuryli,
and lest these should distract the attention
Qlljf (Eljmfum ittkr
i of the audience, they were given at the
i close of the last singing, just before the
congregation was dismissed.
The Episcopalian theory of service is
somewhat different. With them, the read
ing of tho liturgy is the essential portion
of worship, and the sermon is merely an
addition. Hence, they base adopted the
’ practice of reading notices, publishing
j bans, Ac-, at the dose of rhe liturgy, just
! before the commencement ol the sermon
They', however, have been always careful
of the nature of their announcement*, and :
notbing.-speulm*, or disconnected from the
services of the ehnfeji. is ever heard ‘from
their puTpfts ’ *•
In this respect we have fallen into a
strange variety of practice. Some of our i
brethren imitate the ..'Episcopalians, and j
read notices* Ac., akc take collections im- j
| mediately before the sermon. Other*
choose for this purpose the time immedi
ately following the prayer for the presence !
and blessing.of the Holy Spirit. Others |
have no rule,-but take sometimes one time i
and sometimes another. Nor i e this all. !
We not unfrequently hear notices for all :
| sorts of meetings, lectures, Ac., read from j
i the pulpit, breaking up the Continuity of i
| the worship, and distracting the attention ;
■of an audience. I have known the wor
’ ship of God interrupted to inform the eon
gregatiqn that some itinerant showman
would admit Sabbath School scholars to*)
visit hits panorama, on n certain day, at
half-price. A multitude of cases .of this j
’ sort wrll,T doubt not, occur To the reeol- j
lection of most of my readers.
Here again, by our facility of imitation, j
wo have acted at variance with onr priuci- ;
{lies, and introduced a variety of practice !
eading to-disorder. Nor Is this all. We i
have, as it seems to me, detracted from I
the solemnity of the house of God, and j
materially affected for the worse the char- j
acter of our service. The great idea of j
worship is in danger of passing away, j
through onr various and changeful inno J
vations. We desire to impress a eougre- [
gation with the idea that they come up to I
the sanctuary to converse with God —that j
they are in the immediate presence of
Christ. How can they believe us, when j
we are ever ready to interrupt our service |
in the most, solemn moments, to make an- !
nouncements, to publish notices, to take j
collections, or perform any miscellaneous i
business in itself alien from the idea of. I
%orship. Suppose we were visiting at j
the house of a frifend, and were uniting j
with him in family devotion; bow strange- j
ly would it strike us, if after reading the I
Scriptures, before he engaged in prayer, i
he gave to his household their various di- j
rections for the labors of
would he still more strange, if ne gave as ‘
a reason tor his practice, that they were
there all assembled, and that his direc
tions would lie better remembered, if ho
gave them in the midst of his devotional
exercises. ,
I ask,.then, what we have gained by the
change in this respect? Would it riot have
been better to adhere to the old usage?
Would it not be lietter now to return to
it? Would not the solemnity of our ser
vice-be increased, by allowing nothing to
be read from the pnlpit which conld inter
fere with the solemnity of worship, and
that the necessary announcements be made
.after the last singing, or after the whole
worship was closed?
Other minor divergencies from our com- j
inon usages may deserve a passiug notice. ;
For instance, onr usual formula of bap- I
tism is simply, “I baptize thee,” 4ee. — i
Some of our brethren adopt the EpLeopa- ,
lian form, prefixing the Christian name of!
the candidate, John, James, Elizabeth, I
Ac. If onr object is to designate the in- j
dividual, we should give the whole name, i
for merely tiie Christian name designates |
no one. If it designates nothing, I see no .
reason for adopting it, except, that of thi- j
lowing the example of another sect, who j
always use this mode in baptizing children, j
In fact, the common belief is, that it is ‘
this act which gives the child its name. j
Our principles lead us to entire sitnplic- j
ity in every form of religious service.— j
We naturally shrink from everything rit- i
ual which has not been commanded, even j
in different things, because, we wish to j
bear testimony against all human addi- i
tions to the precepts of the New Testa- j
ment. Hence in the performance of the !
marriage ceremony, and in funeral servi
ces, we have always avoided ‘everything I
but simply religious service. Not with- i
standing this, however, I learn that- some i
of our brethren are introducing rhe cere-
mouv of giving a ring in marriage, and ;
1 hat others at funerals are in the habit of]
using a large part ot the Episcopal service,
and evyu some of the ceremonies of that !
denomination. How extensively these 1
changes have been adopted, I am- unable !
to affirm, but I think I do uot err in saying !
that cases of this kind have occurred, and 1
I think the tendency is at present, decided- i
ly iii thi* direction.
I know it will be sard, that in these re
marks, I am interfering with the Baptist
doctrine of the independence of ministers.
1 reply, I did not know that the indepeu
deneo of ministers was over a Baptist doc
trine, though -it is the doctrine of some
: other sects, independence of churche# is
a Baptist doctrine, and this 1 think would
: teach us that no minister has any right m
; introduce any usage not eommou to us,
i Without the direction,'or at least the cod-
PeafieM, Georgia. Thursday March 29, 1856.
sent of the church of which lie is the yae ‘
i tor. These two ideas are very dissimilar,
and I regret to perceive that they are in
| danger of being confounded. The diatine
pt-ion is of greet moment, and is worthy of*
; serioUs consideration.
If a church sees tit to forsake our tnvu
usages and adopt those of other sects, I
do not,doubt the right, but I may certainly
; be allowed to question the expediency.
Task, Are not our Baptist usages as 5
good as any other? I ask again, as they,
are illustrative of bur own essential prin
ciples, are they; not for ,/v better than any
other. ‘ A fTA V ..
.'2. Dde's it not show more self-respect to
continue a usage common to us and to onr
! brethren, than to forsake them, and borrow
j usages from the other sects with whom we
j chance to associate? Are we so chamelion
|. like, that we must, of necessity, take the
tinge of every object with which we come
! in contact?
f 3. if we adopt this principle of con
i formity to others, what must be the result?
! Our children will be led to believe that
: not only our usages, but the principles
f which govern them, are matters of no con
; sequence; that we sink them as far as we
. are able, and are only waiting tor an op
portunity to forsake them altogether. If
we put them in the road leading to other
communions, what wonder is ft if they fol
i low it to the end?
I know it may be said that these are all
| trifles, wholly unworthy of any public re
-1 mark. To this I reply, if they are such
| trifles, why should we, for the sake of tri
; fles. destroy the visible unity of our own
: people? I reply again, whatever affects
| the unity of our Baptist churches is no tri
fle. These little things indicate tenden
cies, and great things as well as small, fol
low their tendencies. Small aberrations
lead to wide deviations. The greatest
mass becomes powerless when broken into
fragments ami pulverized into atoms. A
cockade is a-very little thing, but a cockade
has changed the destinies of empires.
ROGER WILLIAMS.
THE RHODE ISLAND KNOT*
There is a kink or knot in Rhode Island
history, which the enemies of that little
common wealth have zealously endeavored
hvuse tef its disadvantage, and which some
sincere friends have thonght. it difficult to.
unties The allegation is -that in 1663-4,
immediately on receivingjhe second Char
ter, th§ Legislature enacted a law in the
words following—the clauses in brackets
being the ones .which arc made the subject
of reproach : “'That no freeman shall be
imprisoned, or deprived of his freehold, or
condemned, but by the judgment of his
peers, or the law of the colony; that no
tax shall lie imposed or required of the
colonists, but hy the act of the General
Assembly; that all men [professing Chris
tianity] of competent estates and of civil
conversation, who acknowledge and are
obedient to the civil magistrates, though
of different judgments in religious affairs
[Roman Catholics only excepted] shall be
admitted freemen, or may choose, or be
chosen colonial officers.”
, The allegation was made by Chalmers,
chief clerk in the Plantation Office in
England, acent-nry later, and is understood
‘to rest upon original documents to which
he had access, as welf as upon the first
printed edition of Rhode Island Laws—
the earliest copies of which, now extant,
bear the date of 1744 or 1745. That the
blemish is in the printed editions of the I
laws, there can be no doubt, though how !
it came there is matter of conjecture only. ;
The late Hon. Samuel Eddy, ior a longpe- j
riod Secretary of State in Rhode Island,
examined the records of the colony with
great care, with reference to this question,
and affirms positively that there is nothing
there to justify the charge, though there is
much to refute it. Left totally to conjec
ture, he supposes the exceptionable clauses
to have been interpolated, without legisla
tive sanction, hy revising committees at !
some period subsequent to 1719, and for ;
the purpose of pleasing the anti-Jacobite
government in England. Certain it is
that when French ships, with Catholics on
board, came into the harbors of Rhode
Island, during the Revolutionary war, the
nugatory clauses were erased bv positive
enactment. These clauses had never in
terdicted freedom of worship; they had
simply excluded Catholics from voting or
holding office; but the moment they be
came practically iu vidious eveu, they were
oblitei-ated.
Professor Knowles argues conclusively j
against the responsibility of the people of j
Rhode Island for the insertion of these !
clauses. Bancroft restates the argument j
; °f Professor Knowles, and supports it j
| pi-ootS, whioli increase the !
lustre of Rhode Island history. Not only |
, are tho records of the colony, of the year j
; .in question, silent as to this transaction, !
but transactions which were recorded pre- ‘
viouslv, contemporaneously and subse
quently, are so palpably inconsistent with
i such legislation, as to render it. impossible
; that such legislation should ever have oc
curred. Professor Gammell follows a sim
i pie line ot argument, with a similar result.
• Hildreth gives a qualified credit to the iin-
I peach meat of Rhode Island, though gene
■* rally well disposed towards her claims, as
i the orginal home of religious liberty. It
j is impossible, he says, to tell when these
1 restrictions were introduced, though proba*
THE TRUTH IN LOVE.
jl|rjnpt till after the English Revolution
J6BB.
y ISie only vulnerable point in the defense
of Rhode Island—and perhaps this was
thy. lingering difficwtfy of Hildreth—re
lates, as it seems to us, to the access of
Chalmers to “original documents” in the
Plantation Office. These documents apart,
it is enough for Rhode Island to say, Our
cbjonial records show no such legislation,
bWk an abundance which is contradictory
ft—it eatne irito the printed laws (print
ed fin* London;-- if -we are not mistaken)
our knowledge, and was removed
foe mornent it became practically in vidi
ou&. The question of the “original docu
ments,” however, to which Chalmers had
access, still remains. What is the solu
tion of this difficulty? If the exceptiona
ble clauses were really in the transcripts
of the laws which were lodged iu the Plan
tation Office, how came they there?
Some light may*, perhaps, be thrown
upon this question, by the lately publish
ed “Documents relating to the Colonial
History of New*York.” Ten years after
the Revolution of 16SS, the Earl of Bella
mont was Governor of New York, Massa
chusetts and New Hampshire, and was
charged likewise with the performance of
incidental duties in Connecticut and Rhode
Islaud. Between Lord Bellamont and the
Rhode Island authorities, there existed a
strong mutual dislike, displayed on his
part by the bad character which he gave to
them in his reports to the Lords of Trade,
and on theirs by the obstacles which they
interposed in the way of his carrying out
his instructions. Among other tilings, he
was instructed to procure a transcript of
the Rhode Island “Laws and jousnals,”
aud the call tor this, though they complied
with it, was met by the Rhode Island gov
ermneut with the declaration that it was
an imposition. In a letter to the Lords of
Trade, dated Boston, Jan. 6, 1699, his
Lordship gives the following account of
this affair:
“I send your Lordships duplicates of
my letters by the last conveyance, * *
some whereof have relation to the inquiry
I made into the mal-aclministration of the
Government of Rhode Island. The origi
nals were carried from hence this day
month for England.
“I received not the laws of Rhode Island
till the 23d of last month, which I nqw
trsttffftnit to your Lordship;!. H seems that
Government have taken all this time to
prune and polish ’em, and yet after all, I.
believe the World never gaw* such a parcel"*
of fustian. * * * * * I desire your
Lordships will please ts> observe the Gov-”
ernor of Rhode Island’s letter to me of the*
22d of last Tnonth, wherein he calls it an
imposition upon their government that
your Lordships should require a transcript
of their Laws, and that I have done the
same by the King’s command. I did (as
the King’s Commission and instructions
impowered me) appoint four or five gen
tlemen of thift island, by an Authority un
der my hand and seal,” to call * for their
Laws and Journals, and to inquire into
the irregularities of .that Government,
which thing Governor Cranston resents iu
his said letter to me, though I am confi
dent without any just reason;*ftr Icauuok
find those-gentlemen have in the- lea6t
abused the power I conferred on them* but
ha"ve acted with the moderation and
prudence that conld be them.”
—Documents , cfee., Vol, iv., p. 600.
Here then we have the “Laws and Jour- j
narls” of Rhode Inland, ‘“pruned and pol - !
wlud” for the .express purpose of being
sent to the mother country, at a time when
nothing would be more likely to conciliate
the home government than a strong indi
cation of anti-Jacobite tendencies. The
laws aud journals were not then in print,
as now, and could he famished in trans
cripts only. Those sent to England would
not be likely to come hack again for com
parison. Undoubtedly, if they were“prun
ed and polished” in such way as to change
their original force, the transaction is not
to be justified on moral grounds, but what
evr may be tho view taken of the morali
ty of the thing, is not this the probable so
lution of the interpolated clauses? The
secret perished for the time with those
who were implicated, and the transaction
bore its natural fruits when, a generation
afterwards, these transcripts were consult
ed by the committee who collated the
laws for the press. The Legislature of
Rhode Island had never anything to do
with the offensive clauses till it blotted
them out, and the responsibility of their
existence must rest with the few who par
ticipated in the transactions.
The dates of tb Earl of Bellamont’s let
ters, published iu- these “Documents” in
dicate the directions in which faither ref
erences may be found apiqng the papers oi
the English government* The field,is an
inviting one foi* the Rbodo Isla/vd anti
quary.—.Y. TT. Examiner.
SUGAR AND VINEGAR IN MAN. ’
From thorough investigations the fol
i lowing ecinchisions have been gathered:
) That snffar is a normal product in man;
I that it fs secreted in the liver, and
j this is a normal function of that prgau.
j The source of- its supply is from nitrogen
i ized elements, and the food furnishes it to
i the system. All this we find iu a medical
! work. We propose to add to it
! discovered by chemical anfysis or micro
’ scopic examination, but by dint of expe
! rience, and observations of the naked eve,
without glasses. The human system pm
: duces vinegar as well as sugar; we riught
add gall too, but that is Preserved for an
other occasion. Onr attention is now re
’ stricted to tjie acid in huipu.i nature
Persons Chough may be found, ny doubt,
j who are Skeptical of the sweet said to ie !
1 discovered in the liver,[or elsewhere; hat j
: we should like to see one* who questions s
the fact, that menV faces are frequently I
fall of vinegax. Neither is that all; tor
notwithstanding the liver diStiUs,sugar, it
giins, where .the acetous’ \ei*nn ; j
j constantly going on, from wlucli any quan
j tity of the best of vinegar—not the New
’ York grocer’s drug of that name—may he j
| obtained. In truth, a man rffav be regard- j
ed as a huge vinegar cruet, as well as a
sugar bowl. These two ingredients arc
laid up in his system, to he used from.time
to thpe as flavors for action mid conversa
tion.
These sweets and acids require only to
be dexterously distributed, to constitute a
piquant character, and a not unpleasant
companion. When intercourse becomes
rather flat and stale, it imparts to’ it an
agreeable relish, and helps to wake up
drowsy people, if a scruple or two of sharp
acid be dropped into the dish of discourse.
And so, when crab-sticks prevail inordi
nately in your club or association, to in
troduce a real sugar cane of a man among
them, full of the juice of love aud kind
ness, has an admirable effect. We have
known the experiment to work almost a
miracle. Every one of the crabbed sticks
as if ashamed of himself, would try to ap
pear as genial and melting as his saccha
rine brother. It was a failure, it is true,
but if they possessed not his rich flavor
and fatness, their acidities were cousidera
bly mollified, which was a clear gain.
But it will not do to have too many vin
egar bottles in society. It is to be feared
that they are already too numerous for the
sugar canes. Under this impression, and
apprehending that the disproportion is in
creasing, we have engaged some chemists,
particularly those who are distinguishing
themselves by doing so much to fertilize
our soils and improve our candies, to try
and see what discoveries can be effected in
the’human microcosm. They have been
“•eepeemlly enjoined to inquire if other or
mins beside the liver do not yield sugar.
®ur own opinion is, that the “heart, ought
to he the most abundant producer of sugar
iu tlje whojCe organism. And we are sure
one thing, which is, that however small
’or large the quantity might he from that
pure source, the real value of it would far
exceed that of all other organs of the
body put together.— Newark Daily Adv.
“MY OWN WORK.”
There is work for all of us; and there is
special work* for each. It is work not for
societies of alliances, but it is work for in
dividual miuds and hands. It is a w*ork
which 1 cannot do in a crowd, or as one of
a mass, but as one, man, acting singly, ac
cording to my own gifts, and under a sense
of my personal responsibilities. There is,
no doubt, associated work for me to do. I
must do my work as a part of the world’s
great whole, or as a member of some body.
But I have special work to do as one indi
vidual, who, hy God’s plan and appoiut
| ment, have a separate position; separate
j responsibilities, and a separate work—a
; work which, if I do not do it, must be left
undone. No -one of my fellows can do
that special work for me which I have i
come into the world to do. Fie may do a
higher work—a greater work—but fie can
not do my work. 1 cannot hand niy work
over to him, any more than I can hand
over my responsibilities or my gifts. Nor
can I delegate my work to any association
of men, however well ordered and power
ful. They have their own work to do, and
it may be a very noble one, but Yhey can
not do my work for me. I must do it with
these hands, or with these lips, whfehGod
has given me. I may do little, or I may
do much; that matters not—it must be my
own work. Aud by doing my own work,
poor as it may seem to some, I shall bet
ter fulfill God’s end in making me what 1
am, and more truly glority his name, than
if I were either going out of my sphere to
do the work of another, or calling in an
other into mv sphere to do my proper
work for mo. The low grass-tnft is not
j the branching elm, nor is it the fragrant
rose; but it has a position to occupy, and
a work to do, in the arrangement of God
for this earth of ours, which neither the
elm nor the rose can undertake.
WHAT 18 LAW!
Law is like a fire; and those who meddle
with it may chance to “burn their fingers.”
Law is like a steel-trap very easy to get
iu, hut very difficult-to get out.
; . Law is like a lancet, fiangerous in the
hands of the ignorant; doubtful even in
the hands of an adept.
Law is like u sieve, you may see through
it; but you will be considerably reduced
before you can get through it.
Law is like an ignis fatuus, or Jack o’
Lantern; those who follow the delnsive
guide, too often find themselves inextrica
bly involved in*a bog or quagmire.
I Law is like Prusqjc acid—a dangerous
! remedy; and the smallest dose is generally
i sufficient.
J. T. BLAIN, Printer.
THE GREAT DIFFICULTY.
| To combine business with religion* to
! keep up a spirit of serious piety amidst
| tbe stir and distraction of a busy aud ac
! tive life—this is one of the most difficult
; parts i/ a Christian’s trial in this world.
| It is comparatively easy t<> be religious in
* the church-—to collect our thoughts and
j compose onr feelings, and. enter, with an
! appearance of propriety and decorum, into
! the offices of religious worship, amidst the
quietude of the Sabbath, and within the
still and 6aered precincts of the house of
pray er. But to be religious'iu the world
—-to oe pious and holy and earnest-mi tided
in tho counting room, the manufactory,
the market-place, the field, the farm—to
i carry out onr good and solemn thoughts
and feelings into tbe throng and thorough
fare of daily life—this is the great difficul
ty of our Christian calling. No man not
lost to all moral influence can help feeling
his worldly passions calmed, and a degree
of seriousness stealing over his mind,
when engaged in the performance of the
more awful and sacred rites of religion;
but the atmosphere of the domestic circle,
the exchange, the street, the city’s throng,
amidst coarse work and cankering cares
and toils, is a very different atmosphere
from that of a communion-table. Passing
from the ouo to the other has often seem
ed as the sudden transition from a tropical
to a polar climate—from balmy warmth
mid sunshine to tnirky mist and freezing
cold. And it appears sometimes as diffi
cult to maintain the strength and stead
fastness of religious principle and feeling
when we go forth from the church into
the world, as it would be to preserve an
exotic alive in the open ail* in winter, or
to keep the lamp that burns steadily with
in doors from being blown out, if you take
it abroad unsheltered from the wind.—
John Caird.
CHARACTER OF CELEBRATED INFIDELS-
But to speak directly of tbe morals of
leading infidels. Bolingbroke was a liber
tine ot intemperate habits and unrestrained
lust. Tern pie was a eorruptor of all who
came near him —given np to ease and plea
sure. Emerson, an eminent mathema
tician, was ‘rude, vulgar and frequently
immoral. Intoxication and profane lan
guage were familiar to him. Towards the
close of. life afflicted with the stone, he
would crawl about the floor on his hands
and knees, sometimes praying and some
times swearing.’ The inorals of the Earl
of Rochester ars well known. Goodwin
was a lewd man by his own confession, as
well as the unblushing advocate of lewd
ness. Shaftsbury and Collins, while en
deavoring to destroy the Gospel partook of
the Lord’s Supper, thus professing the
Christian faith, for admission to office—a
gross blasphemy.
Need I describe Voltaire—prince of
Scoffers, as Hume was prince of sceptics ;
in childhood initiated inte infidelity ; in
boyhood, infamous for daring blasphemy ;
in manhood, distinguished for a malig
nant and violent temper, for coldblooded
disruptions oi all the ties and decencies of
the family circle; for the ridicule of what
ever was afteeting, and the violation of
whatever was was confidential. Ever in
creasing in duplicity aud hypocritical mau
| agement, with age and practice—those
whom his wit attracted, and bis buffoonry
amused, were either disgusted or polluted
by his loathsome vices. Lies and oaths in
their support were nothing to them. Those
whom he called his friends, he took pains
i secretly to calumniate; fluttering them to
their faces, and ridiculing aud reviling
them behind their backs. Throughout life
he was given up “to work all all unclean
ness with greediness.” Such was the witty
Voltair, who in the midst of the all his
levity, bad feeling and seriousness enough
to wish he had never been born.— Dwight,
QUARRELING.
If anything in the world will make a
man feel badly, except pinching his fin
grs in the crack oi a door, it is unques
tionably a quarrel. No man ever fails to
think less of himself after than before.—
It degrades him in the eyes of others, and,
what is worse, blunts his sensibilities on
the one hand, and increases the power of
passionate irritability on tbe other. The
more peaceably aud quietly we get on,
the better for our neighbors. In nine
cases out of ten, the better course is, if a
man cheats you, quit dealing with him ; if
ho is abusive, quit his company, and if he
slanders take care to live so nobody
I will believe him. No matter who he is,
or bow he misuses you, tbe wisest wav is
to let him alone, for there is not Ling bet
ter than this cool, calm, and quiet way of
dealing with the wrongs we meet with.
The whole numher of churches in Lon
don is 663, of which 344 are connected
with the Church of England. The Inde
pendent or Congregat.onal churches num
her 111; Baptist, 78; Wesleyans, 73; Ca
tholic, 28; Unitarian, 18; Friends and Jew
ish, 10 each; Presbyterians, 9; Scotch, 8;
Primitive Methodist, 7; Calvinistic, 7;
Irvingite, 6; Lutheran, 5; Calvinistic Me
thodist, 4; Latter Day Saints and French
Protestant, 3 each; Methodist New Con
nection and Greek, 2 each; Moravian,
Swedenborgian, Danish, Swiss Protestant,
and Bible Christian, 1 each.
Number 12.