position of Christianity, that Jesus, its Author, is the Son of God, I would blaze the tidings to the poles. I would roar it around the distant sea-coasts with the voice of the ocean. I would call aloud in the midst of the benighted nations. I would descend into the islands of the sea. I would lose my "life" here to preserve it hereafter, and suffer poverty, and shame, and misery, in their most mortal forms, but I would make his name revered. Christians are supremely at fault. Julius. We are at fault. Nereus. Farewell awhile. You Farewell. W. S. NEWMAN'S "PHASES OF FAITH." I HAVE read Newman, and still pick him up occasionally, and he has confirmed in me the Scripture, that there is among men no other way to perpetual happiness, but through Jesus Christ-through that name. 'Tis the only one given, and Newman gives us nothing but his conscience which tells him of God's sympathy with him. He says that it is necessary that Immortality should be revealed, and does not seem to know that that was the mission of Christ. He is the most entire slave to logic that I ever read; and yet-strange paradox! - is content to rely upon his consciousness absolutely. But as he is a sincere, honest-hearted man, I have hopes of him; though I much fear that he will in the end be found with his brother, the Puseyite, or his faith will undergo a yet more disastrous "phase." One of his phases brought him to our ground, but there was no halt in him. He still went on in his hunt for cardinal points, and has found none that I could rely upon, however satisfactory to him. As to the sympathy of God with individual man, what Christian doubts it? Is it not the great and true cause of all revelation? He learns this truth from consciousness, and we learn it from that and revelation. And how are we to know of this sympathy without revelation? And if this sympathy for man exists in the Deity, would it not be revealed? I confess I can make nothing of the book. It only serves to make me sympathise with one who, disgusted with the cant of the religious systems within his ken, travels, therefore, clean out of the inspired record, and makes man his own religion. As we have Latin, Greek, &c. taught now-a-days without a master, so we are to have religion without a teacher, or every man his own inspirer. R. F. F. SEASONS OF PRAYER. ANY moment or any hour may be an acceptable season of prayer, but we ought voluntarily to appropriate particular hours which might be regarded as redeemed from the world. There are some seasons which both nature and custom unite to appropriate to this improving privilege. Among these the morning of each day has the sanction of the greatest and best men that ever lived upon earth. Many reasons may be assigned for it. The mind is most free from excitement-sleep has allayed the violence of life's fever-the attention is less distracted, and our spirits partake more of quiet 'ere the tumult and hurry of business are entered upon. The ordinances of nature, returning light-the dispersion of night's dampness and darkness, and the brightening heaven's awaken our devotional nature, and every thing seems ready to raise our aspirations and enkindle our love. Before the moving spectacle of the wisdom, power, and goodness of God, we feel our helplessness and mortality. And 'ere we enter upon the dangers of the day, how fitting to invoke the divine protection and blessing. Gratitude for preservation under the insensibility of sleep will awaken confidence in God, that if we lean upon him he will not allow us to go astray in the scenes upon which we are compelled to enter, and he will be near to inspire to good deeds as opportunities may offer. Every day offers privileges to serve, and temptations to deny, our Redeemer. We may be abandoned in temptation, or delivered from evil--we may be encouraged to do good, or defeated in all our undertakings-we may make advances towards heaven, or retrograde toward death. We need to begin right-to recognize a watchful Providence encompassing our path, which thought is the greatest of all preservatives against sin. If the thought of God be near us in the morning, it will be likely to be with us in every crisis during the day. Now we would rise early to meet a beings, and the social instinct cannot friend we esteemed—to answer a call of be outraged without pain. There is business, or commence a day of earthly hardly any habit more unfortunate than pleasure. Can we not rise to meet, and that of readily taking up an evil report, and commune with, and seek strength || or of easily imbibing a suspicion of the from our Almighty Friend and ever conduct or character of our fellow-men. present Father? It is a habit which finds many incentives in our evil natures, and the world we live in. Every man has his sinister side, and society is at best but a cracked mirror, in which no man's character or motives get a full and fair reflection. It is easy to find in almost every one, same flaw which may be suspected to be an irreparable leak; or some speck upon the surface, that may sometimes seem to indicate a radical rot at the core. Few, indeed, go through life, not only without wrong, but the appearance of wrong; and if we suffer ourselves to suspect the worst when we see the least, we shall inevitably find ourselves surrounded with rogues, and breathing a very atmosphere of corruption. II. But the evening also calls to prayer. The shades of night deepen round our fields, counting-rooms, and shops of business. They invite us home to the glad or sombre hearth-stone. The labors of the day are over. We are invited to review them, and to review our conduct in the light of our Christian principles. The heavens above our darkened dwellings shine brightly in sympathy, and shall not our souls look up to Him, who marshals their hosts for protection for the night. Had we strength for the duties through the day?-let us be grateful for it. Were we involved in guilt?—let us confess it, and seek forgiving mercy. In a word, let our lives pass in review before us, and our souls go forth in prayer. Do we make these regular seasons of prayer? The habit of devotion will grow upon us, and we will be prepared to pray at all seasons, whether public or private, and with "all prayer;" and our spiritual graces will grow with our years, and we will learn to feel in joy and sorrow, in hope and disappointment, in life and death, embosomed in the mercy. guidance, and power of an Everlasting Presence, which solicits our affections with increasing benefits, temporal and spiritual. Relying upon that Presence we will be able bravely to bear the evils that overtake us-cheerfully to perform the duties that are near: fear shall not confound us by the way, and death shall find us ready, and as a solemn and mysterious herald, shall conduct us where we may dwell beneath its fulness of joy for ever and J. B. F. ever. un Wholly to avoid suspicions of men, is impossible, because there is mistakable occasion for them. But if he is happiest who is freest from them, we should be slow to entertain them. It is better to think well than to think evil of any one. It is better to find a good motive for a doubtful deed, if a good one be possible, than an evil one. It may be nearer the truth-and if not, it will confer a pleasure upon ourselves. Our suspicions often do great wrong to their objects; justice, no less than charity, should make us cautious in indulging them. And if we do not injure them, such is the retributive law of life, we would ourselves drive charity weeping from our hearts, and deprive ourselves of the blessedness of kind thoughts. It is a loss on all sides. We lose our peace, and our friend loses the joy of our confidence. Charity is profitable as well as right—it is due to our own peace of mind as well as to that of others. It is one of the most awful points of view in which we can consider God, that, as a righteous governor of the world, concerned to vindicate his own glory, he has laid himself under a kind of holy necessity to purify the unclean, or to sink him into deeper perdition.— Cecil. MORMONISM. WHAT has all this (Mormon) trouble been for? Visions upon visions, angels after angels, revelations, contests with the Devil, fightings with the wicked, translations by miracle, miracles all through !—what, I say, has it been all for? Not that we might know that God is, and is the rewarder of all that diligently seek him, for we knew this before. Not that we might know that God gave his Son, that Jesus died for sin, that he arose, that he ascended, that we must believe in him, repent, be baptized, observe his ordinances, keep his laws, love God, love his children, &c. for all this we knew before. It seems these mighty efforts have been made, chiefly that we might know the American Indians are the Jews! Famous discovery! Nay, but it is said the angels gave authority-authority to preach, authority to baptize. I deny it. There is no proof of it. Nor did we need such authority. That authority was in possession. God had given that authority to his children; and he had never recalled it (Acts viii. 4, xi. 21.) We main tain that the voice of God in his Word is as authoritative as the voice of any angel. The Lord sent his apostles with his gospel to "all the world." And because the apostles are dead, has their word now no authority? Yea, we are to "be mindful of the commandments of the apostles" (2 Peter iii. 2.) The gospel is here, with all its authority: thank God! and "He that believeth and is baptized shall be baptized." The question is, Has he believed?—and, Is he baptized? And not, Who preached to him? who baptized him? The baptized believer is saved, by the testimony of God—whether he had been baptized by an apostle, a prophet, an elder, a pastor, a teacher, or by any brotherwhether the baptizer held office or no office in the church. Mormonism will take root in superstition and the love of the marvellous. It is destitute of evidence—it is a delu sion. Opinions are, after all, but probabilities. They can never rise higher than a strong probability; but faith produces in many instances absolute certainty, and is evidently intended to be a most powerful principle of action. F THE BIBLE.-No. I. Cor. iii. 6-14. THE OLD TESTAMENT-ITS NAME. THE name of the "Old Testament" was given by Christians to the Hebrew Scriptures, because they contain the tution of Moses, as also the history of history, laws, &c. of the ancient instithe people who lived under it, and in contradistinction to the New Testament, which was so called because it contains the history, commands, promises, &c. of the new institution of Christ: the term "testament" from 2 he kaine diatheke, v. 6, and he palaia The Greek phrases, diatheke, v. 14, are rendered in the old Latin translations, novum testamentum and vetus testamentum, and most of the the version of Jerome called the Vullatter translations, following too closely others, adopted its language. In the gate, have in this case, as in many rendering of these passages, the Vulgate has been followed by Luther, the Italian, Spanish, French, and English Italian and the French of De Sæcy, versions. Some of these, however, the render the phrase in the 6th verese, the former by patto, (Lat. pactum, a covenant, a treaty,) the latter by alliance, words are far more expressive of the signifying the same thing. These original term, than testament. Why the Vulgate should have adopted this term, &c. would have represented the idea is not clear, as the words pacium, fœdus, much better in Latin. Beza, who has given us the most eleAccordingly New Testament in Latin, has uniformly gant and classical translation of the rendered diatheke by fœdus, a covenant, Septuagint, always corresponds to the or treaty. The word diatheke, in the Hebrew berith, which in every case signifies a covenant, as in Gen. xv. 18; xvii. 2-7, et al. In these places the Vulgate always gives us pactum. Why not have done so in 2 Cor. iii? Latin tongue, was universally used in As the Latin Vulgate, as well as the the Western churches, up to the time of the Reformation, the names "Old Testament" and "New Testament," taken from it, became stereotyped in usage among Christians, and have remained so to this day. Some of the books of the Old Testament, at a very early date, were called "The Book of the Covenant," as we find in Exod. xxiv, 7, also in 1 Macc i. 57. At a later date the volume of the EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ITS The books of the Old Testament were transmitted and received by the Jewish people from generation to generation, as the genuine productions of the authors to whom they are attributed. Not a period can be pointed out in Jewish history, since any of these books existed, that they were not so received. If the Jews had been disposed to betray this trust confided to them, and had dared to corrupt these writings, they would have had sufficient motives to do so. Instead of laudations, flattering national vanity, these books contain constant reproofs, denunciations, and prophetic threatenings of terrific judgments against them for their ungodliness and perverseness; and their histories faithfully record their rebellions, their deep humiliations and punishments, that were calculated greatly to break down their national pride and vanity. These writings, historical and prophetical, stand forth as awful witnesses against them. This would have been motive enough for the Jews, had they dared to do it, to destroy or corrupt them. For the same reason we may conclude, also, that it would have been utterly impossible to have imposed them upon the Jews at a later date than its authors claim to have lived. The well-known character of this nation, vengeful and bigoted-jealous, above all others, of their national glory and fame-the treatment which many of the prophets, as well as Christ and his apostles, received at their handsall prove that infamy and death would have certanly been the doom of any man who would have attempted to impose them upon the Jewish people. When they were received, it must have been the most incontrovertible evidence of their truth. Finally, the true knowledge of the origin of these books could not have been corrupted or lost, as an entire tribe was set apart to guard them and preserve them pure; and their own glory and honor depended upon it. Again, the canon of the Old Testament, the same as is now received by us, was translated into Greek at Alexandria, some 282 years before Christ. This is the version commonly called the Septuagint, of which we design to give some further account hereafter. This proves that we have the identical books which the ancient Jews regarded as genuine. Jesus Sirach, also, who wrote some fifty years afterwards, in the SyroChaldaic dialect, mentions expressly the Old Scriptures, some of them by name; and the prologue states, that his grandfather studied "the Law, the Prophets, and the other books of our fathers." See his book in the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. As the books of the Old Testament claim to have been written at different periods-some of them at long intervals from each other-we would expect to meet with changes and differences in the style of the various books, though not so much as in other languages, as the Hebrews had little intercourse with their neighbors, and these speaking a language much like their own. These changes and differences, critical Hebrew scholars have shown to exist in these books. Moreover, the pure Hebrew language ceasing to be a living language after the Babylonish captivity, it would be impossible to forge any writings in that language and impose them upon the Jews. The eagleeyed shrewdness and jealousy, and the literal punctiliousness of the Jews, with reference to the purity of their sacred books, which they have ever manifested, preclude altogther the idea of such a post-Babylonian imposition. None of the criteria here applied to the Old Testament, can be applied to the books of the Apocrypha. These were never extant in the Hebrew language, and are never quoted in the New Testament, nor by the subsequent Jewish writers, Josephus and Philo. They state many things fabulous, false, and contradictory to the canonical Scriptures. We must notice here, also, as a principal argument for the genuineness and authenticity of these books, that they abound in statements of particular circumstances of times, places, and persons, and of customs and manners. The books of Moses are full of such CORRESPONDENCE. REMARKS ON THE PAPERS, "THE reigning principles of that age in the hands of the priests, just as the apostate state of Christianity has been down to our day? But there is another passage in this Epistle "We wrestle not (only) with flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers, and with spiritual wickedness in high places." By flesh and blood, it readily appears that he refers to the persecutions they had to endure. But what more? Have we not, and had they not, to contend with those who enforced ecclesiastical law? What is Popery but spiritual wickedness? And what were the high priests of Heathenism, but wicked spirits in dignified places? They were the principalities of that age, as our bishops are of this age? and it should be known to all, that the clergy under Heathenism is a principle continued under the Apostacy, and is, therefore, represented as the beast that was, and is not, but yet is. I cannot pursue all that is introduced in these chapters, but will venture a few inquiries, viz. :-Can it be shown that the existence of such a being as Satan is described to be, accords with the revealed character of Him who would have all men to be saved, and come to a knowledge of the truth? We are told that "God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ," according to Paul's gospel. Can it then be shown that the influence of such a tempter is in agreement with the moral responsibility of man? What are we to understand by the language of Moses, that the Gentiles sacrificed unto demons, and not to God, but to gods that came newly up? - that of Isaiah, who affirms that they could not save, nor do MR. EDITOR, The papers headed good or evil?-that of Paul, who says "Spiritual Universe," of which we have that an idol is nothing? We all know had seven-and you are pleased to in- that idols were made of some material, form us three more are coming-look- and in this sense, therefore, could not ing at the evidence adduced, I am not be nothing: it must be that the idea able, as yet, to perceive anything more they embraced was nothing. Is it so definite than that adduced by Milton that the gospel is founded on the prinlong ago; and surely, if the doctrine be ciple of fear? Can man be actuated according to godliness, it can be con- rather by fear than by love? Then might firmed by the current of Scripture. True, it require an object to be feared, rather we have a variety of names taken from than God to be loved. The passage in Scripture and applied to Satan as a per- Jude 6, constantly pressed into service son; but I question the application of on this subject, requires a passing resuch terms as "prince of the power of mark. Jude there sets forth the chathe air." We all know that the god-racter of certain persons who had crept dess Diana was the object of worship into the church unawares, whom he afwhen this letter was written; and is it terwards styles "filthy dreamers, who not in agreement with the rest of the defile the flesh, speak evil of dignities,” Epistle, to conclude that he meant the &c. I would here ask, how could |