Come, sir, declare which you prefer to believe in this matter. The two are irreconcilable; they contradict each other pointedly, not in a question of doctrine, but one of fact. Here, sir, is a matter that a child can understand, and, sir, it stamps the Book of Mormon with falsehood. You may flounder, but, sir, you cannot escape the deep. disgrace of being concerned in spreading and advocating falsehood."

*

P. S. Elder Page, in Monday's Chronicle, stigmatizes the con.. gressional document from which certain quotations are made, exposing the wickedness of the leaders of Mormonism-"a mobocratic documen! Will the Elder explain? Is the Senate of the United States, by whose order it was printed, a mob? Is the Court in Missouri, before which this evidence was taken, a mob? If so, why did the Mormons appear with their witnesses and the best attorneys in the State? This wont do, Mr. Page.

Not feeling that I have any personal difference or controversy with Elder Page, I cannot consent to bandy hard language. What I have said concerning the use of the mariner's compass by Nephi, 2000 years before it was discovered; the quotation from Shakspeare ages before he was born; the piling of the earth on the city of Moronihah-the ships and genealogy of Jaredites, are matters that can be ascertained by reference to the first edition of the Book of Mormon. The Elder quotes from the third edition, and although the translation was professedly made by divine inspiration, I am prepared to show that there exist essential variations in the third from the first edition. Will you join issue, Elder?

That part of my communication of Wednesday last which claims superior attention, is the charge brought against the Book of Mormon, namely, that in two important facts it contradicted the Bible. These are, First.-The Book of Mormon records it as a fact that Jesus Christ was born in Jerusalem. The Bible records that he was born in Bethlehem.

Second. The Book of Mormon informs us, that at the time of Christ's crucifixion and burial, there were three days of darkness. The · Bible informs us of only three hours of darkness.

Here then, in two plain matters of fact, about which there ought not to be the slightest difference, the Bible and the Book of Mormon contradict each other and I defy the ingenuity of Elder Page, or any other man, to reconcile them. The Book of Mormon claims to be ivinely inspired. The Bible we all believe to be from God. Now, if both books were dictated by the same author, why are matters of fact recorded so very differently? Both of these records cannot be true, one of them must be false.

Which is it? Certainly not the Bible. Then it must be the Book of Mormon. I say then triumphantly, that I have established it as a fad, admitting the Bible to be true, that the Book of Mormon is false. Dagon has fallen on his face before the ark of the Lord.

Why has Elder John E. Page, in his communications of yesterday and the day before, taken no notice of the quotations from the Doctrines and Covenants, from the Book of Mormon, from the Voice of Warning, from Congressional Documents, quoted in the articles head

ed "Mormonism Exposed"? From Elder Page's former notice of these articles I had expected from him an exposure of the "falsehood" and "slander" contained in these quotations; but instead of that, we are furnished with a reprint of a pamphlet published by the Mormons, in relation to their troubles in Missouri. If I understand the matter, we have very little to do at present with the history of those troubles. We are interested to ascertain the truth-the designs-the spirit of that system called Mormonism. The questions are, Is Mormonism of God? Is its design the good of mankind? Is its spirit a benignant one? Mormonism Exposed' attempts from authentic documents to demonstrate that it is from the Devil-that its designs are wicked, and that its spirit is malignant. Are the quotations furnished in "Mormonism Exposed" fairly and correctly made? If so, Mormonism is to be regarded and avoided as a pestilence. If these quotations are wrong, why does not Elder Page expose them?

It is a favorite adage of Elder John E. Page, "The wounded bird is the first to flutter." Has my short note of the 14th stripped this bird of its borrowed feathers, or broken a wing, or what, that it makes such a chattering? In other words, why is it that Elder John E. Page declines to show to this community the falsehood of the quotations made from his own books, and from Congressional Documents, in the pamphlet entitled "Mormonism Exposed," lately copied into the Morning Chronicle of this city? The public expect this at his hands, and that too on the strength of his promises. Why, then, does he lose his good nature, and forget the courtesy due to a respectful inquiry, when called on with so reasonable a request? Does Elder John E. Page imagine that this community will accept of abuse towards "A Disciple" in discharge of his previous promises and threats? Come, come, Elder, admit the truth of the quotations made in "Mormonism Exposed," or prove them false. I now, to you, and to this community, pledge myself to sustain them. What say you-will you join issue? I intend to make it my business to mind you for a little while. One word in conclusion-What has become of Martin Harris and Sampson Avard? Are "turkey buzzards" plenty in the vicinity of Nauvoo?

*

The impudence of some men is truly surprising. How can Elder John E. Page hold up his head in this orderly community as a good citizen, much less as a preacher, and least of all as an Apostle, (all of which he claims to be,) with such facts as the following staring him full in the face?-facts authenticated under all the solemnities of an oath, and recorded and laid up among the congressional archives of our country. Is Elder Page entirely lost to all sense of shame? or is assassination a virtue in Mormonism?

Let it be borne in mind that these are the people who claim to be endued with the Spirit of God, and in a much higher sense than Christians, that they profess to work miracles-to converse with angels-to have seen God, and a thousand other things equally ridiculous and false, Look then at these unparallelled pretensions on the one hand, following

unheard of atrocities on the other, and then estimate the true character of Mormonism.

The following quotations are made from a congressional document, printed by order of the Senate of the United States in February, 1841, No. 189:

Mr. Rigdon then commenced making covenants with uplifted hands. "The first was, that if any man attempted to move out of the county, or pack up their things for that purpose, that any man then in the house, seeing this, without saying any thing to any other person, should kill him and haul him aside into the brush, and that all the burial he should have should be in a turkey buzzard's [unfit to print,] so that nothing of him should be left but his bones." This measure was carried in the form of a covenant with uplifted hands.

"The next covenant, that if any person from the surrounding country came into their town walking about, no odds who he might be, any one of that meeting should kill him and throw him aside into the brush."

The third covenant was, "conceal all these things."

Mr. Rigdon then observed that "yesterday a man had slipped his wind," and said he, "the man thal lisps it shall die."

Horrible! horrible!! horrible!!! My soul sickens at the reading of such awful wickedness.

If the righteous indignation of a moral people could be awakened a few years since by the story of the abduction of one man, what must be the feeling produced when we are assured, upon the highest authority, that there is in our country a band ot religious fanatics banded together by oaths to assassinate unoffending men, Who is safe if such things are tolerated? And shall we quietly permit the vile emissaries of such a diabolical banditti to come among us enlisting associates under the hypocritical pretence of religion. "By their fruits ye shall know hem."

There is in the Mormon church, a band called the "Danite Band," composed of the members of that church, and bound together by the following oath:

"Now I do solemnly swear, by the eternal Jehovah, that I will decree to hear and conceal, and never reveal this secret, at the peril of coma itting perjury, aud the pains of death, and my body to be given to be shot at and laid in the dust. Amen."

This band has its signs, and is bound to assist one another, right or wrong to swear for one another, and in the event of one of them deserting, to kill him privately, wherever they may chance to meet him!

This band executes the orders of the Presidency of the church on dissenters from the Mormon faith, in putting them to death, and casting their bodies into "the hazlebrush to become food for turkey buzzards." If it be a good rule that the value of any system is to be ascertained from its results, what are we forced to think of Mormonism, which while it affects to clothe itself with the spotless robes of Christianity, is found polluted with innocent blood and enriched with the plunder of unoffending citizens? The Lord deliver the country from such a curse! A DISCIPLE.

DEATH OF CHRIST.

Ir is the leading fact of the gospel that "Christ died for our sins according to the [ancient] scriptures." This astonishing event, productive of so many marvellous and glorious consequences, cannot be too reverently pondered, nor too closely examined. There is much more in it than at first strikes the attention. However simple in its enunciation, it is most extensive and various in its aspects, its tendencies, and its relations. However familiar in terms, it is most strange in signification-deep and large and high and full of meaning-the more frequently overlooked and unconsidered for the very reason that the fact itself is known to all.

Multitudes of men haye died; but only one Christ. Others have died By sin; but he alone FOR sin. The exalted character, then, which he possesses, no less than the object of his death, give to this subject an interest belonging to no other. Nor is the nature of the death which he suffered a point of less moment or of inferior import. It is upon this I invite the reader to meditate with me.

There are deaths of various kinds. No word perhaps in scripture is more various in its application than the word death. I know of no one that requires more to be made the subject of a special essay. How interesting it would be to examine and unfold its various meanings by the light of the lamp of divine truth! At present, however, we have to seek its import only in relation to Christ, or to trace its meaning in such cases as are illustrative or explanatory.

Let me ask, then, Would it not follow that in whatever sense Christ died for his people, they should never die? Or I might vary the question thus, Would it not follow that in whatever sense Christians do not die, in that sense Christ died for them. It matters not here about the controversies respecting the extent of the atonement by the death of Christ, or respecting the substitution of Christ for the guilty. We are speal ing now of his people only-of those who have truly an interest in his death; and of such it is conceded, whether upon the hypothesis of substitution or upon that of pardoning mercy only, that they are released from death in whatever sense and to whatever degree they are affected by his death at all. If he died for them, they have died in him, and in this sense can therefore never die. If we can ascertain then, the sense in which Christ's people are released from death, we shall have that in which Christ died for them; or, in other words, the nature or character of his death.

Perhaps, however, this may be more readily understood by inquiring first: in what sense, or in what respect, are Christians not delivered

from death? It is evident that they are not delivered from what is called natural death. They die like other men. Christ, therefore, did not die a natural death for them:-that is to say, the giving up of his natural life, that life which he enjoyed in common with the race of Adam, has not in this respect affected them-they are not released from this death. The giving up, indeed, of natural life would seem no more than a natural consequence of Christ's partaking of human nature and being constituted in all points as we are. Subject as the Son of Man to all the necessities of man's nature, in giving up this life he complied only with the law of that nature which he had assumed, and could not therefore in this respect fulfil the destiny of others, but his

own.

It is not a little strange that so superficial a view of the death of Christ is commonly taken, and that those bodily sufferings which be endured the means by which his life was taken away, are dwelt upon, often exclusively and with emphasis, as though these were the chief or the only eircumstances to be regarded in this wonderful event-as though the mere giving up of natural life were the chief sacrifice he made. These sufferings are undoubtedly to be regarded--attentively regarded, and to be considered and reflected upon with mingled emotions of sorrow and gratitude, for they indeed formed a part of those circumstances which exhibited the malignity of sin and the love of God. Indeed, although his mere loss of what we have called natural life be not primarily considered, two points in regard thereto are not to be forgotten-viz.-1st, that this death was inflicted by cruel and violent means; and 2d. that it was premature.

That corporeal sufferings were not the chief agonies of Christ, may be ascertained perhaps by asking the question: What was it that he feared? or, What caused his anguish in the garden of Gethsemane? Can any one suppose that he who never in the most dangerous and trying circumstances betrayed an emotion of fear; who was unmoved and calm amidst the tumults of the people; and could sleep in peace in the frail bark amid the raging of the winds and waves, while those inured to storms quailed with terror, would now be overcome, and through dread of any degree of corporeal suffering or loss of natural life, be induced to pray thrice that he might be permitted to escape? By no means. To endure the highest degree of bodily suffering urmoved, and to meet death with unwavering firmness, is not beyond the power of even common mortals. If such, then, were not the source of his deadly anguish in the garden, to what may we attribute this anguish? We may answer: To that of which he complained. That which a sufferer dreads most beforehand, is that of which he is most