ister, as alms-giving from the man of ability; that neither of them can hide his talent in the earth, without incurring the divine displeasure." Most of these opinions were not only proved, but confessed. The Cardinal of Cambray thus addressed Mr. Huss: "Your guilt hath been laid before this august assembly with its full force of evidence. I am obliged therefore to take upon me the disagreeable task of informing you, that only this alternative is offered to you; either to abjure these damnable errors and submit yourself to the Council-in which case these reverend fathers will deal as gently with you as possible; or to abide the severe consequence of an obstinate adherence to them." not Huss replied "I came here to defend any opinion obstinately; but with an earnest desire to see my errors and to amend them. Many opinions have been laid to my charge, some of which I never maintained; and others, which I have maintained, are not yet refuted. As to the first, I think it absurd to abjure opinions which were never mine; as to the second, I am determined to subscribe nothing against my conscience." He was so feeble that he could scarcely walk; yet he was cruelly sent back to a cold and hungry dungeon, and allowed one month to give his final answer. During the month efforts were made to prevail on him to recant, but he cast himself ou God,and remained inflexible. The sixth of July was appointed for his condemnation. A sermon was delivered, in which the preacher exhorted his hearers "to cut off the man of sin." The substance of the sentence is thus given:-"John Huss,being a disciple of Wickliff of damnable memory, whose life he has defended, and whose doctrines he has maintained, is adjudged by the Council of Constance to be an obstinate heretic, and as such to be degraded from the office of priest, and cut off from the holy church." He was then arrayed in priest's vestments and ordered to ascend a scaffold, with liberty to address the people. It was hoped he would retract; but he said that he knew no errors which he had to retract—that he would not injure the doctrine he had taught,nor the consciences of those who had heard him, by ascribing to himself errors, of which he was not convinced. When he came down from the scaffold, he was surrounded by seven bishops, who were appointed to degrade him. Each took off some part of his priestly attire, "adding a curse." ́ The last act of degradation was, to place on his head a large paper cap, on which various horrid forms of devils were painted, and saying, "hereby we commit thy soul to the devil." In regard to this cap, Huss observed, "It is less painful than a eroun of thorns." He was then led to the place of execution. His books were first burnt before his face. When he came to the stake, he was allowed some time for devotion, Many who had been prejudiced against him, when they heard his prayer, cried out,"What this man hath done within doors wo know not, but surely he prayeth like a christian.” After he was fastened to the stake, he was again exhorted to retract his errors. He replied, "I have no errors to retract; I endeavored to preach Christ with apostolic plainness, and I am now prepared to seal ny doctrine with my blood." The faggots being lighted, he commended himself to God and began a hymn, which he continued to sing till the wind drove the flame and the smoke into his face. After his body was consumed, his enemies were not contented; "they gathéred up the ashes and cast them into the Rhine, that the earth might not feel the load of such enormous guilt." The Thus ended the days of Dr. Huss, one of the most inoffensive, amiable, and pious men. university of Prague gave this testimony in his favor-"From his infancy he was of such excellent morals, that during his stay here, we may venture to challenge any one to produce a single fault against him.” Το preserve the memory of this excellent man, the sixth of July was for many years held sacred among the Bohemians. "A service adapted to the day was appointed-an oration was spoken in commendation of their martyr; in which the noble stand he made against ecclesiastical tyranny, was commemorated, and his excellent example proposed as a pattern to all christians." Some serious questions naturally occur:-What was the crime of Huss, for which he was degraded and burnt? Was he an immoral man, a drunkard, a thief, a robber, or a murderer? No; he was most exemplary in his morals. Was he an impious or irreligious man? No; he was eminently pious and devout. What then was his crime? It was this, he dared to exercise what he called the rights of conscience, and by allowing himself to inquire after truth, he happened to dissent from the supposed infallible clergy. But we must forbear, and leave every christian to his own reflections. THE MAIN ARGUMENT CONSIDERED. IN support of certain doctrines which have been controverted in our day, it has often beeu urged as an argument of great weight, that the doctrines have been generally believed, by great and good men, and the most pious christians, for many centuries; and that it is unreasonable to suppose that God would suffer so great a part of pious christians, for so many ages, to remain in error on questions of such im. Vol. III. 2 portance. Perhaps no argument has had more influence in our country than this. But that all our readers may be able to judge of its weight and worth, we shall quote some passages from the "Thirty four conferences between the Danish Missionaries and the Malabarian Bramans or Heathen Priests, in the East Indies." The conferences were reported by the Danish Christian Missionaries. They took place early in the last century; the first was in March 1707. In the first conference, one of the Missionaries had spoken very decidedly against the religion of the Malabarians. To which one of the Bramans thus answered, "Our religion is venerable for its antiquity, and has been professed by many pious kings and holy prophets, through an uninterrupted succession of many incircling ages; which, if false and erroneous, neither God nor man would have approved the same for so many continued durations, and progresses of time; but certainly some one or other would have honestly discovered the imposture and cautioned his companions against pious cheats and sacred forgeries." To this reasoning the missionary thought proper to give this reply; "Uninterrupted succession, and great throngs of proselytes are no characteristics of the truth of any religion; else it would follow that the devil is very orthodox: for he is as famous for the multitude of his disciples, as he is for his hoary, venerable antiquity." p. 5. In Conference 9th- "Then stood up a venerable old man and said-What you have said of God's benefits towards us, and of our unthankfulness towards him, is all very true: but that we have no true, but false Gods in our country, this you are still to demonstrate. For though the christians call us heathens, we are not so in reality; but we are a very ancient nation, whose religion is as old as the world itself." p. 108. In Conference 15th-"An old Braman stood up and said-Ihave perused all the histories of our Gods, and never doubted of the truth of their divinity; and it would look very odd in a man of my age, now to call in question a proposition so uninterruptedly and universally received." p. 169. In Conference 16th, a Braman said "Sir, we see you would fain expose us to the laughter of all the people; but we would have you to know, that these Gods, whom you so vilify, have been worshipped by our ancestors for ten thousand years; and as long as the inhabitants are contented with their Gods and religion, what have you to do to intermeddle in our affairs." p. 181. Conference 26th "We can easily guess what you would be at: you would, Sir, root out of the land, our established religion, and introduce your own in its room." p. 258. Conference 28th-"We abound more in good works, than the christians do." p. 271. Conference 31-"What! would you have us, Sir, turn apostates from the religion of our fathers?" p. 286. Conference 32nd-"I asked them in the next place if they could demonstrate that their idols were true Gods. They answered, that the matter being selfevident, wanted no proofs or demonstrations; for they had been adored as Gods, for many thousands of years, by all the sages and wise men in all the past ages of the world." p. 293. Thus we see that the grand argument, so much relied on by some people of the present day, may be applied for the support of any opinions which have been long and generally prevalent, in any country on the face of the earth. It was worthy of the same regard from the lips of a Braman, that it now is from the lips of a christian minister. It was an argument urged by the papists, against the protestants; and it was as good in that case as it is from one sect of protestants against another. It proves nothing more clearly, than the inconsideration of those by whom it is urged. An argument which will equally support each part of a thousand contradictions is unworthy of the confidence of any christian. We shall close this article with a paragraph from a Malabarian letter to the Danish Missionaries. "The Mahometan will have his religion to be absolutely the best; the Christians condemn all but themselves; and we, Malabarians, think our religion best for us; and question not but that christians may be saved, if they lead lives conformable to the precepts of their religion." p. 342. ON THE WORDS DISCIPLE AND CHURCH. THE variations which have taken place in the meaning of some words since the days of the apostles, are an occasion of many misapprehensions in reading the sacred volume. Different sects of christians become accustomed to use the same words in different senses. Then persons of each sect read the scriptures with that view of particular terms to which they have been accustom ed, without due inquiry whether that be the scriptural sense of the words or not. Hence arises different constructions of the same text; and each one fancies that his own opinions are fully authorized by the word of God. Perhaps no one sect of christians is free from errors, which have originated in this manner. We have ever preferred, and we still prefer, what is called the congregational form of church government. Yet we are not without suspicions that even this class of christians have, in some particulars, entertained incorrect views of some scriptural terms, and drawn practical conclusions, which the Bible does not warrant. Under this impression we shall frankly state what appears to be true, as to the scriptural use of some terms, and thus lay a foundation for correct inferences. If our Savior and the writers of the New Testament meant to be understood, they doubtless adopted language in common use, and in a sense which corresponded with the common acceptation. The words disciple aud church are abundantly used in the New Testament. The words thus translated were in common use among the Jews when our Savior appeared among them. But what did they signify? The word disciple signified a learner or scholar. Before the time of our Saviour, various schools existed, both among the Jews and the Gentiles. Those who submitted to be taught by Plato were his disciples, and every teacher had his disciples. Those who believed in Jesus as a teacher sent from God, and submitted to be taught by him or his Apostles, were called his disciples. Those who made it their care to obey his commands, were his disciples indeed. After his resurrection the name of disciples was probably extended to all who believed in him as the true Messiah. As the followers of Plato, after his death, were called Platonists, so the disciples of Jesus Christ were called Christians. The word translated church is of the same import as the English word congregation. In Matt. xviii. 17, according to the common translation, we read, "Tell it to the church. The same direction is translated by Dr. Campbell, "Acquaint the congregation with it." In his note on the text he gives his reasons for varying from the common translation in this instance. "I know," says he, "no way of reaching the sense of our Lord's instruction, but by understanding his words so as they must have been understood by his hearers from the use that then prevailed." He informs us that among the Jews the word was used in two different, but related senses. Sometimes it signified the whole nation considered as one commonwealth; at others a particular congregation or assembly, actually convened or accustomed to convene in the same place. When we read in the New Testament of the church that was in the wilderness, the meaning is, the congregation or whole nation of Israel that was with Moses in the wilderness, including men, women and children. So among the Jews in after ages, those who met at the temple to worship, or in a particular syna-, gogue, were the church or con. gregation. The distinction between the church and congregation, that is now commonly made, was probably wholly unknown. among the Jews in the days of our Savior. Consequently when he or his apostles used the word translated church, we must suppose that they used it to signify congregation. The term was equally applicable to a congregation or assembly of Jews, as to an assembly of christians. Not only so, it was applicable to a heathen congregation; and the same Greek word which is usually translated church, is applied to a heathen congregation at Ephesus, and is three times translated "assembly," in Acts xix.— ver. 32, "the assembly was confușed"-39, "lawful assembly". 41, "dismissed the assembly." As the Greek word, which is translated church, signified an assembly or congregation, and was equally applicable to any congregation, whether of Jews, of christians, or of heathens, so it ought to be understood in reading the New Testament; and from the connexion we must learn what congregation was intended. After the resurrection of Jesus, the apostles and their adherents were in Judea as a distinct sect among the Jews. Those who believed in Jesus as the Messiah, and received the apostles as his author ized ministers, met together for religious worship, as the disci |