Newspaper Page Text
solicit that more labourers may be 9*nt!
forth into the harvest, which appears to be
fully ripe.
From the Boston Telegraph.
PALESTINE MISSION.
In January, 1823, Messrs. Fisk and King
spent several days at Alexandria, in Egypt,
and travelled thence to Rosetta and Cairo,
in company with Mr. Wolff, an English
Missionary. During the ten days they
spent at Alexandria, they distributed 1000
tracts, gave away 70 copies of the Bible, or
parts of it, and sold 100 copies, for about
$34. At Rosetta they distributed a num
ber of testaments and tracts, amoog the
Greeks and Copts. One of the Coptick
priests had an Arabick Bible, which he had
bought of Mrs. Belzoni, wife of the cele
brated traveller, who has since died at Be
nin. Population of Rosetta, about 12.000,
and declining. At Cairo they visited two
Jewish synagogues, and the synagogues of
the Carites. While at the synagogue,their
names ware asked, and then a benediction
was pronounced upon them in Hebrew,
which Mr. Wolff translated thus: “the
Lord bless with a blessing Jonas King, the
son of King, and give him the dew of Heav
en, and of the fatness of the earth, and per
mit him to enter Jerusalem.” A similar
benediction was pronounced upon each of
4hem.
From the Christian Watchman.
CEYLON MISSION.
The native free schools attached to this
station, promise great benefit to the youth,
from whose moral improvement much may
be expected. By the journal of Rev. Mi
ron Winslow, it appears, that at a publick
examination of all the schools, there were
234 boys present, who recited in their va
rious books, including a dictionary of their
language, and in the catechisms, and por
tions of Scripture put into their hands, with
a degree of promptoess and accuracy, which
would not have disgraced the schools of a
Christian land. Much of the labour of the
Missionaries is directed to show the folly as
well as the guilt of idolatry ; and although
they often succeed in manifesting its absurd
ity to the understandings of those who prac
tise it, but few are made to see its evil as a
sin against !he living God. Some, however,
sppear to be divinely enlightened, and ex
press them°elves in a manner to encourage
the hope, that truth may have found access
to their hearts.
BOMBAY MISSION.
But few Minion station? have had less
success thaD this. The Missionaries, how
ever, discover a zeal and perseverance in
their labours, which gives encouragement
that they have placed such trust in God,
and feel “uch a sense of dependence on his
gracious influence, as that ho will in due
time acknowledge them as hi* friends and
servants, and grant a special blessing on
their efforts. Mr. Graves has speut much
time in preaching tours, and in communica
ting such instructions as occasional inter
course with the pe.ople afforded him the
means of doing. Many were bold blasphe
mers of the truth, but some would lend a
listening- ear.
CHEROKEE MISSION.
At Havvies, the place selected for a Mis
sionary station, by Mr. Jobo C. Ellsworth,
a school is established under his direction.
Mr. Evarls, the Corresponding Secretary,
spent Lord’s day there, April 4. It is about
a mile north of the Coosa river, and not
many miles east of the chartered limits of
Alabama. On the Lord’s day, an Indian of
the name of John Arch acted as interpreter,
and a Cherokee, who has been named Sam
uel J. Mills, exhorted and prayed at consid
erable length. He is a member of the
church at Bramerd, exemplary in his con
duct, fluent in speaking, and ardently en
gaged for the conversion of his countrymen.
At Carmel, there has been a pleasing atten
tion to religion. Lord’s day, March 21, 18
Cherokees were admitted to a profession of
personal religion. In this revival, “ the
gray-headed sinner of 70, and the youth of
18, have been made to rpjoice in the salva
tjon of God.”
THE TEN TRIBES.
Among the communications to tbe Lon
clou Jew 9 Society published in the Exposi
tor tor May, is a letter from Thma. a Jar
re'.t, Esq. Acting Secretary to the Madras?
Corresponding Committee, on tbe supposed
discovery of the long lost Ten Tribes. It
is dated Madras*, Sept. 19, 1823
The letter is mainly occupied with an
account of Mr. Largon’s Mission in search
of tbe “ Beni Israel,'” its result is the state
ment of the following particulars respecting
the people among whom be prosecuted his
inquiries.
Ist. These people, iu dress and manners,
resemble the natives so as not to be distin
guished from them, but by attentive obser
vation and inquiry. 2d. They have He
brew names of the same kind, and with tbe
same local terminations, as tbe Sepoys iu
; he 9th Regiment Bombay Native Infantry.
3d. Some of them read Hebrew, and they
have a faiot tradition of the cause of their
original exodus from Egypt. 4th. Their
common language is the Hindoo. sth.
They beep idols and worship them, and use
idolatrous ceremonies-intermixed with He
brew. 6th. They circumcise their own
children. 7th. They observe the Kippoor,
or great expiation day of the Hebrews.
Sth. They call themselves “GorahJehu
di,” or White Jews, and they term the
Black Jews “ Collah Jphudi.” 9th. They
speak of the Arabian Jews as their breth
ren, but do not acknowledge the European
Jews as such, because they are of a fairer
complexion than themselves. 10th. They
use the same prayer as those of whom we
have already heard, namely, “Hear, ©ls
rael, the Lcrd our God (Jehovah Elohim)
is one Lord, (Jehovah).” Deut vi. 4. 11th,
They have no Cohen, (priests,) or
Nasi among them,under those terms, though
it appears they have elders and a chiet in
each community, who determine in their
religious concerns. 12. They expect the
Messiah, and when he comes, that they will
all go to Jerusalem ; that the time of his
appearance will soon arrive, and their re
turn, at which they would much rejoice,
since at Jerusalem they would see their
God, worship him oaly,and be dispersed no
more.
Mr. Jarrett observes that the account
given of these people by Mr. S. is, in his
opinion,sufficient to prove them “Israelites,’
and not Jews of the two tribes and a half,
and probably we may, trom all the circum
stances, safoly include them among the off
spring of the long lost ten tribes. FJe
remark* that they have, however, adopted
some of the idolatrous practices of the Hin
doos, fulfilling the prophecy of Moses. The
Lord shall scatter thee among all people,
from one end of the earth to the other,
and then shall thou serve other gods, which
neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even
wood and stone. [JV. Y. Ilfl. Chron.
RELIGIOUS.
[Having published two or three communica
tions from different individuals on the subject to
which the following letter alludes, we feel our
selves in some respects bound to admit this, tho’
we must conftss we should have been belter
pleased with it if it had not quite so muVi the ap
pearance of inviting controversy. We ought,
however, to say, in justice to the Rev. Gentle
man whose name is given with his communication,
that we believe he wishes to see no other spirit
prevail among the churches than that of peace Sc
brotherly love.]
TO THE REV. JOHN S. WILSON.
My dear Brother —Ever 9ince I saw your
proposition for a more close nnion of the
different denominations ofChristiaDS, I have
felt a desire for one of my faith and order
to write on the subject, and requested a
brother to write, whose talents would have
done far more justice to the subject than
mine. He partly agreed to write, but I
have not yet seen any thing from him.—
Though 1 am one of the least of our order,
yet I possess so uiuch arrogance, that I have
concluded *o do what no other Baptist will.
Perhaps there is no person on earth more
desirous to 9ee a good understanding and
general onion among all the Israel of God,
: than myself. Love to the brotherhood is
I one of the strongest test 9 of our religion,
for by this shall yc know that ye have passed
from death unto life, because ye love the bre
thren, and by this shall all men know that ye
are my disciples if ye love one another. —
Should any inquire who is my brother, 1
will answer, tbe bulk of Adam’s family are
brethren, children of wrath, of their father
the devil. But there is another brother
hood, called in Scripture God's elect. These
have been called out of this large bulk, and
maJe heirs of God, and joint heirs with
Christ. God, who is rich in mercy, for his
great love wherewith he loved us even when
we were dead in sins , hath quickened us to
gether with Christ, and hath raised vs up to
gether, and made us sit together in heavenly
places in Christ Jesus. For we are his work
manship created in Christ Jesus unto good
works, which God hath before ordained that
we should walk in them. (Eph. ii.) The
above quotations give the brotherhood a
mark by which they are known by the
world, and by themselves, and although
doubting is almost an epidemical complaint
among Christians, yet they have marks pe
culiar to themselves. The day’ of general
union you speak of was a pleasant time
among them. O that they were now as
they then were. If Christians would live
up to their duty, they no doubt would en
joy much more of tbe life and comforts of
religion, and possess a much stronger faith,
for they that are born of God have a wit
ness in themselvei ; and if all books but the
Bible were laid aside, and all opinions re
ceived from men, and we all had a real de
sire to be united, as in the Apostles’ day, it
does appear to me so desirable an object
could be effected. This i9 the deeire of
my heart. I would not be understood to
discard the idea of reading book9—in doing
that I should condemn my own practice ;
but 1 mean not to form an opinion or follow
any practice I don’t find supported by the
Bible. The Great Head of tbe. church has
not left us to grope in the dark, without an
infallible guide. We have a brief history
of the Christian “Church in the Apostles’
day, and that church in the present day
which most closely adheres to that, must be
the nearest correct. (See Acts ii.) They
were first commanded to repent and be
baptized, &c. for the promise is to you and
your children, and to all that are afar off;
even as many as the Lord our God shall
call—so the promise is to the called of oar
children and those afar off, and all that be
lieved were together—and the Lord added
daily to the church such as should be saved
—and it is said they continued steadfastly in
the Apostle’s doctrine and fellowship, and
in breakiog of bread and in prayer. I have
the honour (though very unworthy) of be
ing united to a people who, from tbe best
account I can get, ever since the Apostles’
day, have separated themselves from the
world—that baptize none but those who
give a reason of the hope they have in
Christ, and request baptism. lam of those
who believe all men have not faitb, and
without faith it is impossible to please God.
Consequently I believe the practice of bap
lizing those who have not faith, is a de
parture from the apostolick practice, aod
this, my brother, is the very thing that has
separated us, aod a9 1 have come to the
wall of separation, do my brother, permit
me to open a few battering engines against
it, and not suffer your feelings to be hurt”
This I consider a tradition of the Fathers ;
I call it 90 because I cannot find precept nor
•-xample for it in the Bible. If the Head ol
the Church had required this of us, no
doubt he would have given us 9ome direc
tion about it. Since the constitution of the
Gospel church, I know we frequently read
of children, but never where baptism is
spoken of—They brought little children to
Jesus, but we are not left to conjecture for
what purpose. It was that he should pray
for them. One of the Evangelists tells
us he took them in his arms and blessed
them, and John tells us, Jesus himself bap
tized not. In all the Acts of the Apostles
we have no account of their baptizing chil
dren. Though households were baptized,
we have no reason to believe there were
children—we have two reasons to believe
there were none. First, the jailor’s house
all believed and rejoiced. Paul entered in
to Lydia’s house and comforted the breth
ren when he was going to depart. Sec
ondly, I don’t believe they baptize children
because they were faithful, and if they bad
baptized ibem they would have acted con
trary to their instructions. When they be
lieved Phillip’s preaching they were bap
tized, both men and women. In Scripture
where an allusion is made to children, they
are named. So many were fed besides wo
men and children. lam aware, my broth
er, you are impatient by this time, and con
demning me for departing from the subject,
but my object is a general union as in the
Apostles’ day. I wish the union to be a
full aod free one. For all to meet in tbe
manner you proposed, would have a ten
dency to make the conduct of the Baptists
look unfriendly. Presbyterians and Melh
odist-s are in the habit of communing to
gether, and I do not see so much impropri
ety in such an unioo. It is generally known
that Baptists think none should be admitted
to the Lord’s table but those who have
been immersed on a confession of their
faith in Christ—that they do not commune
at the Lord’s table with any but their own
order. We think, as the church in the-
Apostles’ day continued steadfastly in the
Apostles’ doctrine, aod admitted none but
such as held themselves separate from the
world—that there should be still a separa
tion ; and as other denominations do not
contioue that separation, we cannot invite
them without opening a wide door to the
world. Our Presbyterian brethren insist
that infants have a right to church mem
bership—this we have not yet agreed to.
They hold that Baptism is a pre-requisite to
communion, and so do we ; but we have
not yet believed infant baptism to be a gos
pel baptism. Therefore, to invite Presby
terians would be inviting those we think
have not been legally baptized—coose
quently should act inconsistently with our
faith. The same objections would arise to
the Methodist brethren, and some others.
Ifcomiug to tbe Lord’s table implies a fel
lowship in faith and practice, some of U 9
have so far departed from the doctrioe of
the Apostles, that to me it appears it would
be more reasonable and scriptural for each
to hold a communion to themselves, till
they are united in doctrine as in the Apos
tles’ day, when they with propriety could
all unite together. We hope we have the
love of God in os, and feel disposed at all
times to cultivate brotherly affection with
all our Father’s children ; and in every good
work we feel disposed to meet you, aod
though we are all aiming at the same ob
ject, yet in some of our institutions we
think it best and most likely to promote
peace and friendship, to be separate. It is
seldom that two families, though closely
related, do so well when living in the same
hotise together, but let each have his own
farm to himself, and how neighbourly they
live. In our efforts to Christianize the In
dians we all aim at the same thing, but we
think it best to have our foods separate,
though occasionally we contribute to yours,
and you to ours, and we have our separate
schools. This we think is best. As to our
close communion, I know it is not for want
of brotherly affection that we separate.—
Although Presbyterians and Methodists
commune together, where I have been ac
quainted, there is no better understanding
between them than there is between Bap
tists and Presbyterians. As far as I have
seen the experiment made, there has been
most order and good feeling when they
have had meetings to themselves. I have
long been in the habit ol inviting them into
my pulpit to preach when they visit me i
and of accepting of their invitations, and
have enjoyed many of the comforts of re
ligion with them. To cultivate love and
good feeling it i9 very desirable that some
practices should be discontinued, which to
my knowledge have too long existed among
Baptists and Methodists—speaking evil of
each other, and misrepresenting each oth
er’s doctrine. This conduct I have ob
served, proceeds from the most ignorant
and most self-conceited preachers, to their
own discredit. 1 think as long as our sen
timents are as different as they are, it would
be most conducive to tbe peace and pros
perity ot Zion to act like friendly neigh
hours—Visit each other when convenient,
and when together converse and preach on
those subjects on which we agree ; and al
though in our own pulpits we occasionally
bear on controverted points, let it be doDe
in the spirit of meekness and love, and
when we hear these points mentioned in
this manner, though not in accordance with
our sentiments, we should not suffer our
feelings to be hurt. Let us all try to make
it mamtest to the world that we are the dis
ciples of Je9U9, by our love looue another,
and I would intreat our brethren of other
denominations not to try to prejudice the
minds of our people against u a , because we
canuot as yet 9ee our way clear in open
communion. Respecting our children, we
have a practice, (at least some of us) of
presenliog them to the church, or rather
to the Pastor, to pray for them, as they
brought them to Christ for him to pray for
them. In this practice I 9ee no improprie
ty. But to call it dedicating them to the
Lord, I have not as yet felt reconciled. To
give them to the Lord would be giving him
what belonged to him before. Hannah
lent her child to tbe Lord as long as it lived.
This 9he did in reality. See 1 Sam. i. But
it i9 our duty to take care of our children
ourselves, and there is nothing can bind the
obligation ou us more strong, than the com
mand God has laid upon us, to bring them
up in the nurture and admonition of the
Lord. The practice of some of the Bap
tists in dedicating their children to the
Lord (as they call it) has caused me to ex
amine the Scriptures on the subject, and I
have not yet succeeded 90 far as to find any
precept or example for it. I find houses k
things dedicated, but no children. These
remarks respecting dedicating our children
to the Lord by prayer, are intended for my
Baptist brethren. Though this is not an
ordinance, yet I wish we all could rightly
understand our duty and discharge it to- j
wards our children. 1 have no doubt but
we generally neglect the religious instruc
tion of them too much, for which neglect
many of us are very guilty, and have no
cloak for our sins.
Messrs. Editors—l know and approve of
your practice of not admitting any thing in
your columns calculated to irritate feelings,
and you also hold them open equally for
all denominations. My object has been to
show the world the reasons for our con
duct. You must judge of the propriety of
admitting it. As Mr. Wilson has made the
request, aod set tbe example, I suppose my
name will be expected, though I give it
with reluctance. E. BATTLE.
Mount Pleasant, June 1824.
m wismmAiFg*
MOUNT ZION, MONDAY, JULY 5, 1324.
THE “ CATHOLTCK MISCELLANY.”
The following article is copied from the “ Cath
olick Miscellany,” of May 19th, and is referred
j to by the Editor of that paper, as a triumphant
I answer to the sophistry with which Catholicks
1 are charged in proving the infallibility of the
| Church from the Scriptures, and the Scriptures,
| from the infallibility of the Church. We copy
it not so much for the purpose of questioning the
logick, as to shew its utter inconsistency with
their other arguments. A simple denial of the
charge would have amply supplied the place of all
this verbosity.
BAD LOGIC.
Sophistry op Papists.— Vicious Circle.
Dr. Watts, in his Treatise of Logic, and other
writers of his description, charge Roman Calho
licks with gross and palpable absurdity in their
arguments, and sxemplify the sophism of the Vi
cious Circle , by reference to the arguments of
Catholicks, viz
“ A vicious circle is wheH two propositions,
equally uncertain, are used to prove each
other. Thus Papists prove the authority of the
Scriptures by the infallibility of their church, and
then prove the infallibility of their church from
the authority of the Scriptures.”
To a school-boy this appears a formidable bar
rier against Popery, and many a sage professor
has learnedly declaimed against Popish absurdity, j
In the detail of the exemplification. Stamped i
with the authority of a dictum, of the schools, the j
example passes with equal currency as the def
inition.
Let ns meet the mighty adversary. To do so,
we must take the following three several cases.
Case 1. A Papist argues with a person who
believes in the authority of the Scriptures, but
who does not believe in the doctrine of the infal
libHty of the church. No one will tell us that
the said Papist is guilty of bad logic and is a so
phist, when he thus addresses such a person—
! “ Sir, you acknowledge this book to be anthnrihl
I shall shew you from several passages thereof!
• that the church is infallible.” This is not u V :1
cious circle, for there is no queitin betwe J
them of the authority of the hr npture, ai.<t ,1
such a person the Papist does not prove the!
authority of the Scriptures, by the iniallibihly 0 J
the church. Hence, in this case, there is no vij
cious circle, for if he do prove the infallibility a
the church from the authority of the Scripture
he only proves that which has been quesiionJ’
from that of which there was no question. ‘
Case 2. A Papist argues with a person who a ,
knowledges the infallibility of the church
questions and doubts the authority of certai
hooks. No one can say it would he sophistry t
address such a person in those words—“ Sir y 0 °
allow the body of true believers, that is tu
Church, does certainly know what God has re.
veuled, and can point out with infallible certainty
the books which do contain his revelation. Sir
that Church testifies to you that those books do
contain his revelation. Therefore, by your pri n
ciple, you must receive those books as the word
of God.”
This certainly is not proving one questionable
proposition by another, and then proving thef .ee
ond by the first. But it is proving that which has
been questioned and of which there was doubt
by that of which there was no doubt. This i s
sophistry.
Case 3. A Papist argues with a person who
does not believe either in the infallibility of the
Church, or in the authority of the Scriptures. | u
this case he cannot assume either as a principle.
What is he to do? Wfiat would a Protestant do”
The Catholick can do at least as much. The
Protestant says that without the authority of an
infallible Church, he can prove the authority of
the Scriptures. The same arguineuts will, in the
mouth of a Catholick, lead to the same conclu
sion. Therefore, if it be possible for the Protest
ant, it is possible for the Catholick—therefore the
Catholick needs not the infallibility of the Church
to do what his neighbour oan do without it. ’
Having proved the authority of the Scriptures
thus, the Catholick may next proceed upon Wiat
he has proved, now assuming as a principle that
of which there can be no doubt. Thus we are
brought to case 1, in which there is no sophism.
Or the Catholick may find without the authori
ty of the Scripture, reasons to convince a person
that if God speaks he must establish some mode
by which man may infallibly find what he teach
es ; and next that this mode is by receiving the
testimony of the great body of the Church, and
thus we are brought to case 2, in which there is
no sophism.
Thus, whether a Catholick or a Papist argues
with a person who allows the authority of Scrip
ture, hut does not allow Church infallibility, or
argues with a person who allows Church infalli
bility, but does not allow Scriptural authority ; or
argues with a person who does not allow either,
he proceeds to prove both .points without sophis
try. He does not argue in a vicious circle—he is
not a violator of the rules of sound sense or good
logick—and Ur. Watts and his imitators, either
were very ignorant of the manner in which Cath
olicks argue, or were very ignorant of what is
meaut by the sophism of a vicious circle—or were
dishonest men who deceived their pupils upon an
important subject, and who bore false testimony
against the best and most numerous, and most en
lightened society in the whole world.
We leave to their admirers and followers it-eir
choice of the several portions of this good disjunc
tive proposition, & we trust that each day wiil add
new light to the intellect, and new desires to the
will, so that true knowledge may increase, sophis
try be detected and exposed, and the most im
portant concerns of men be brought more closely
under the eye of reason and the regulation of cor-,
rect judgement.
A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drmk deep, or taste not the. Pierian spring.
Those shallow draughts intoxicate the brain /
But drinking largely sobers us again.
Pope.
We shall neither say that Dr. Watts was very
ignorant of the manner in which Catholicks argue,
nor very ignorant of what is meant by the soph
ism of a vicious circle, nor a dishonest man who
deceived his pupils, and bore false testimony
against the best, and most numerous, and most
enlightened society in the whole world. W.e shall
neither impute to him nor take to ourselves any
part of this good disjunctive proposition, but will
produce testimony from their own lips to sup
port the charge.
As we have lo deal with logical men, it be
comes necessary at the commencement, to define
terms. “ A vicious circle is when two propo
sitions equally uncertain, are used to prove each
other.” So says Dr. Watts. What Logick is
that by which the authority of the Pope is proved
from the Scriptures, and the Scriptures from tluj
authority of the Pope ? no logics, or bad S
gick—So says the Miscellany, p. 328.
We will leave his first and second cases entire
ly out of the question, because they have nothing
to do with it. What the Miscellany’s object was
in introducing them, we cannot divine, unless he
meant to place them in front, as a kind of screen,
behind which he might the more effectually prac
tise his sophistry.
Before we take the third case into considera
tion, we shall introduce the testimony which we
promised ; and it is from the Miscellany of June
16, pp. 372, 373.
“We should feel ourselves indeed at some loss
if we had not some person or persons to inform us
of the authority of any book. We should not
know what to say, for instance, if going into a
strange country with a copy of the Holy Bible,
we called upoD a man and told him to listen to
the word of God, and he should put the question
to us, “ How shall I know that what you read to
me is the word of God,” unless upon the princi
ple of having some witness or tribunal to testify
that it is the word of God, and that testimony be
ing sufficient to satisfy a rational being of the
truth of the facL We know not how this roan
could be asked to believe what was read to be
God’s word. Now who is the witness? What is
the tribunal? We say, the Church, that is (be
congregation of the faithful, an undying, per
petual and still-living body, in whose hand this
took has always been, and who at first saw evi
dence of its being the word of God, and who has
preserved the book and the evidence, and by its
publick tribunal gives me both the book and the
testimony of its divine authority.”
The testimony is now before us. Dr. Watts and
his imitators, (if he wilt have it so) say that Cath
olicks argue in a vicious circle, as it respects the
case in question. The Miscellany says they do
not. Let us apply the proof;—and in doing
this we will reduce it into several distinct propo
sitions.
1. The Miscellany would be at some loss if he
had not some person or persons to inform him of
the authority of any book.
2. He would not know what to say in a strange
country, with a copy of the Holy Bible, if any
one questioned its authority, unless he had some
witness or tribunal to testify that it was the word
of God,