ship, and domestic comfort, and conscience, are not unfrequently offered up as sacrifices to win his smiles and secure his favor. How true is the declaration of Jesus-"No man can serve God and Mammon." When this demon has possession of the heart, there is not even a niche reserved for the Saviour.

I have known some to quit preaching because they were too poor to give the public their time and talents, and get nothing in return to support themselves and families. I have known others who were compelled to divide their time between preaching and some avocation for a living, to become rich by their industry and economy, and ultimately to abandon preaching altogether. They were compelled to devote a great part of their time to labor for the support of their families, because the people would not sustain them. Had the people done their duty, the preachers would have continued to do theirs. I do not exculpate the preachers altogether; but certainly they were less inexcusable than the people who abandoned them to the temptations and allurements of wealth. But I have yet to become acquainted with the first preacher, who, having become rich by the liberality of the people, afterwards abandoned his profession. And unless a case-yea, a sufficient number of such cases to constitute a rule can be shown, assertion and conjecture prove nothing.

Another said, the people generally were not able to give any thing to preachers. "And yet," said I, "they are mostly able to live in a fine style, and the members of some congregations annually spend more for intoxicating drinks and other luxuries than would support a preacher and his family for the same length of time. Besides, if the members of the church, who employ their whole time at their avocations, are unable to make more than is necessary to support their families, how do you think the poor preachers can support their families while they are giving all their time to the public?" This brother being dumb, another said with some warmth, "A man who is not willing to make a sacrifice for the cause of Christ, is not entitled to the name Christian, and is not morally qualified to preach the gospel."

The conversation turned to other subjects. After some time I asked that brother whether he had ever made a sacrifice for the salvation of his fellow-men? He said he had not. I asked him whether he was willing to make a sacrifice of his property for that purpose? He said he was not. "Then," said I, "according to your own sentiment, you are not entitled to the name Christian." Perceiving his dilemma, he replied, "I am not a preacher, nor am I qualified for one. If I had the talents of brother ********, I would be willing to make any sacrifice 10 preach." I replied, "Time and talents are money, or its equivalent. If a man would be willing to consecrate talents to Christ, he should be willing to consecrate to him his property also." He said he was not. "No," said I; "and if you had the talents of brother ********, would not be willing to consecrate them to Christ. You might preach the gospel, not because you loved Christ and wished to promote his cause; but because you would like to make a display of your talents. And your remark shows that, as much as you love money-so much that you will give none of it to glorify God and secure the eternal wellbeing of your fellow-men-you love fame more! You would preach only from the love of fame. A man who would preach from love to

you

Christ, if he were qualified, would contribute his money cheerfully as God has prospered him, to those who can do it successfully. His supreme desire would be to see the cause of Christ prosper and human happiness secured. And if he could not promote these ends by his efforts in this way, he would be willing to do it in any way he had it in his power. Some have it in their power to do good in one way, and some in another. Every man should act in his sphere for the promotion of the same glorious end. This is an arrangement of the Creator. He has assigned to every member its place in the body. And because the hand is not the mouth, or tongue, or head, it should not say it has nothing to do. If one cannot preach, he should, if he be able, sustain by his money, and hold up the hands of such as can do it to God's glory and the benefit of his fellow-men. Every man is responsible to God for the means of usefulness within his power; and God will hold him accountable. This is according to that principle of reciprocity which characterizes all the works of God."

So much for objections. What we have yet to say upon this subject will be confined to the means of obtaining more Evangelists and the method of supporting them, together with some observations on the kind wanted, and some additional reflections on the duties of their office. JUSTUS.

Dear brother Campbell,

QUERY.

JAMESTOWN, Ohio, September 6, 1838.

IT has been a good while since I wrote to you, and now I writte for the purpose of learning something. Does the word translated Satan, 1 Cor. ch. v. ver. 5., mean the Devil? If so, are we to understand the Apostle as commanding the church to deliver the incestuous person over to the Devil in order to reformation, that he might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus? This view of the matter would look very much like Satan casting out Satan-even after the Apostles had failed. Adam Clark supposes the Apostle alluded to the power of punishment which was given to the Apostles-such as that inflicted on Ananias and Sapphira, and on Elymas, &c. But this view of the matter would indicate that the power was derived from Satan, and would make the Apostles cast out devils by Beelzebub. I have been of the opinion that the Apostles never forced men into reformation by punishment of any kind.

Did or did not the Apostle command the church in Corinth to deliver a live man to the Devil for the purpose of reforming him? If he did not, then the word Satan conveys an erroneous idea to nine-tenths of readers; for it is generally understood that Satan and Devil are synonymous.

The Apostle in his letter to the Romans, 13th chapter, speaks of one who is appointed of God to punish such wicked wretches as the one mentioned in Corinthians.

Query.-Would not the word Satan bear to be rendered punishing? There is a power appointed of God to punish evil doers, and is it not probable that Paul commanded the church to deliver the incestuous person over to him that bore the sword, in order to the punishment of his flesh according to law? M. WINANS.

Dear brother Winans

ANSWER TO QUERY.

As scripture authority alone can have any weight in matters purely religiouus. such as are the queries you propose; and being, pro tem., engaged in attending to my son's business in his absence; I therefore take the liberty of replying to the above letter. put into my hand for that purpose.

That our Lord, by the ministry of his Apostles. has appointed in and over his church a responsible executive government, whose province it is to teach and rule, is so conspicuous in the apostolic writings, that no attentive intelligent reader can possibly overlook it. And that it is the duty of the church, as an organized body, to act consistently for effecting all the various purposes of its organization, will appear equally evident. Nor, indeed, do you question these things. But you seem unwilling to admit that the Apostle, 1 Cor. v. 5., by Satan means the Devil, lest the proposed salvation of the excommunicated should be ascribed to that malignant adversary, who goes about, as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. But, my dear friend, if we advert to the scripture account of the actual condition of mankind,-to the obvious design of church censure,-and to the language of the Apostle in the case before us, there will be no apparent reason for your apprehension. As to the first,-The actual condition of mankind, both Jews and Gentiles, see Acts xxvi. 17, 18-"Delivering thee (Saul) from the people, and from the Gentiles, to whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them who are sanctified by faith that is in ine." And 1 John v. 19-"We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in wickedness, or under the wicked One" Consequently, they, that are rejected by the church, are thrown back again into the kingdom of Satan, out of which they had been mercifully taken. Second-As to the design of church censure, it evidently appears to be intended for the benefit of the offender, not for his destruction, but for his amendment; and which also appears to have been the effect in the present case: see 2 Cor. ii. 5-8.-"But if any have caused grief, he has grieved me but in part; that I may not overcharge you all. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of the many So that contrariwise, you ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him; lest, perhaps, such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that you would confirm your love toward him." See also chaps. x. 8. and xiii. 10. "For though I should boast some. what more of our authority, which the Lord has given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed. Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the power which the Lord has given me to edification, and not to destruction." From these quotations it is quite evident, that the sole design of the communication and exercise of the penal authority, with which the Apostles and churches were invested, was the reformation of offenders. I here speak of judicial authority,-not of miraculous powers. Now, there appears nothing miraculous in the case under consideration. For-If, in the thiri place, we duly advert to the awful solemnity of the sentence, can we imagine any thing of the kind, any temporary penalty purely spiritual, better calculated to alarm the guilty,-to arouse him to a sense

of his sin and danger, than this? Consider it seriously-"In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, and my Spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." What a tremendous sentence! Still, however, presenting a door of hope to the guilty, upon the destruction of his fleshly lusts; that so the body of sin being destroyed, he night not henceforth serve sin. Rom. vi. 6. And what poor sinner, that has any feeling left, but must be awfully affected with the above sentence? And, of course, powerfully excited to avail himself of the only means of escape; that is, the crucifying of the flesh with the affections and lusts-the mortifying of the deeds of the body. Now this is the very thing that the Apostle proposes as the end of the above process;-as the effect of the united procedure of the church, and himself, by the authority, and with the POWER (dunamei) of the Lord Jesus Christ;—and not by the power, or agency of Satan, or any such influence whatever,-except the fear of a participation in his infernal torments, or, in other words, the fear of hell, might alarm and terrify.

In the mean time, however, I agree with you in rejecting A. Clark's paraphrase, and also with the reasus assigned for so doing. But cannot so easily coincide with your seemingly wishful application of the term "Satan" to the "powers that be ordained of God for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise and protection of them that do well;" and this for two reasons,-first, because the scripture styles them gods; "I said ye are gods." Second, because it would make the Magistrate a kind of church officer-an executor of its censures; and would thus be a direct appeal to physical force-the ultima ratio regum-and dernier resort of Popery.

Yours, dear brother, very respectfully,

THOMAS CAMPBELL.

Prophetic Department.

PROPHECIES-No. XIV.

STRICTURES ON THE LAYMAN'S LAST EFFORT.

Mr. Editor-I HAVE long been convinced, that the impatience of this age is wholly incompatible with proficiency in the study of prophecy: indeed, I apprehend that it precludes the possibility of any real progress in this deeply interesting science. Daniel, the Prophet, informs us, that it was in the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, the Mede, that he understood, by books, "the number of the years whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, the Prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem;" and that he "set his face to the Lord God, to seek, by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes," until he received the light which he desired.

One who reads the 25th chapter of Jeremiah, may think it strange that Daniel had not discovered, by books, sooner than the first year of Darius, the period of the Captivity; especially such a genius as the Layman, who is ever travailing in pain to be delivered of the same idea. The American family, and, indeed, the European family of the present century-are deeply imbued with the go a-head policy of this era. The celerity and despatch of travelling by land and water, have infused into the public mind a locomotive spirit, which disdains the tardy move.

ments of the sloth, so essential to the analysis and investigation of the recondite and curiously wrapt up truths of prophecy. Scarcely one in a thousand of the graduates of this generation, can command patience enough to read through Newton's Principia; and, of our theologians and laymen, not one in a myriad can abstract and devote himself to that patient consideration of history and symbolics, essential to any discovery in the unfulfilled periods of New Testament prophecy.— Hence, since the beginning of the present century, we have not had one new idea on the whole subject. Indeed, I could name some two or three writers, who lived almost two centuries since, who seem to have furnished all the oil that has been burned, not only, sir, by your editorial corps, but by all their contemporaries and predecessors, down to your friend Bush, of New York; who affirms that the Millennium is past, and has overthrown the hope of some. Your brother Evangelists and Advocates, together with my dear brother M'Corkle; and their great leaders, Elias Smith and Elhanon Winchester, are but mere dilutors and retailers of imported spirits, manufactured by the Moors, and Medes, and Newtons, from the materials of the second, third, and twelfth centuries of Christian chronology. And the still greater misfortune is, that before they have travelled through the pages of even one of these, they have brought forth children—an untimely offspring, of much more expense than profit to the Christian household.

These luminaries, Mr. Editor, affect to disparage my slow marches; neither understanding my object, which is already more than half gained in merely retarding their airy flight, and in bringing them down from the clouds and darkness with which they were clothing themselves as with a garment, under the apprehension that they were encircling themselves in the robes of light. My plan has been-first, to examine the fulfilled prophecies for data to interpret the unfulfilled: in the second place, to fix the dates of all the prophecies, that we might know what the immediate future after their delivery was; and then to examine the history of Christianity, from its birth till now, to see how much of it interprets the prophecies concerning it! When these three points would have been fully considered, we should then be only ready to commence an attempt to ascertain the order of events which are now rising to the horizon, or immediately to appear. But, sir, before I had finished my first chapter, the zeal of our lay brother was boiling over; and, unable to repress or suppress its fury, he broke silence, and again reiterated a new edition, neither much enlarged nor improved, of his literal figurative expositions.

You, sir, intimated that should I and the Layman again enter into the arena, we should select some one point, and settle it on its own evidence, before we attempted a second; and, it' I remember right, the point suggested was that on which our brother M'Corkle has, in the August number, introduced and argued. I am not sure that a discussion, such as you suggest, is either necessary or expedient: for it appears from the Layman's communication before us, that he has exhausted himself on the subject, not having a new idea in his last seven pages; and in confining the attention of the reader to his views, we should not greatly increase his stock of prophetic knowledge. It would seem better to go on with the plan I have proposed; provided only, your patience and that of your readers, were equal to the demands of the