The Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1852-1853, 1852-12-15
[TERMs-s1,5o IN ADVANCE.


How much more holy, sacred is that church.
as a church, or the wood and mortar that
compose 1t, after It's consecration than before?
Does the quality of holiness belong to mat
Ter! Docs Il not belong exclusiTelysto 10
mind? Perfect nonsense TO consecrate, hO-
lily, wood, plaster, pews, steeplel Too ab-
sufd to require exposition" 3. gi-es
Perfectly foolish, was it Mr.. Fowler, for
the Jews to consecrate an ark to the Lord,
Tor the desecrstion of which the Phihstines
were smitten and sorely plagued, q Samuel
V and which was SO sacred, that when re-
moving it from Baale to Zion, "Uzzah put
forth his hand to it, and took hold Of it. for
the oxen shook it, And the anger Of the
Lord was kindled against Uzzah and God
smote him there for his error; and there no
died by the ark of God?" IL Samuel WIG,
T.. Perfectly foolish, was it, to consecrats
the ancient Jewish Temple, part Of which
was SO sacred that even the priest was not
at all times allowed to enter it. under the
penalty Of death? LEV. XVI, e.1 a
Page 90. "Let Phrenologists take the
atheist by the hand as cordially as they do
the faithful" But the scripture answers to
this with the voice of dissent: land as it
crosses SIR. Fowler's track so regularly, 7
suppose that according to page Sth, the "Bi-
bic must go by the board. y II Corinthians
vi, IA, DC. "Be ye not unequaliy yoked
together with unbelievers; for what fellow.
ship hath righteousness with unrighteous-
ness? and what communion hath light with
darkness? and what concord hath Christ with
BeilaI? or what part hath he that beleyesh
with an lntidel? And what agreement hath
the temple Of God with idols? for We are the
temple of the living God; as God hath said,
will dwell in them and walk in them: and
l will be their God, and they shall be my
people. Wherefore come out from among
them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord,
and touch not the uuclean thing, and will
receive you, and will be a Father unto you,
and ye shall be my sons and daughters,
saith the Lord Almighty" sa
, Page 80. 'Neneration prays. Prayer
IS then our duty rs it certainly is our pleas
ule, This has been already shown. BUTT
remains to answer the questions q. Does
praying for any given thing have any ten
dency TO bring about the end desired?-
Does it alter the course of the Deity? Does
It change the immutable plans of the AL
mighty? Does it set aside the laws of cause
: and effect? No neither. Then chow can
It be etticaciouS?" Simply thus: we cannot
, pray for thing very earnestly, without de-
string it as earnestly. Indeed PRAYER is but
desire X Now who does not know
S that when we desire given thing very
: rauch, we naturally put forth corresponding
{ efforts TO obtain the end desired, or, what Is
the same thing, prayed for? We pray for
every thing We want, and every single thing
we effect is but an answer to prayer 80
have always understood prayer to be an
offering OF our desires to God, in the form Of
petition; but never knew before thst pray
er aud desire are synonymous: nor do i
know iynow Fowler says that vensration
Prays, but according to his definition. do
not all the other faculties pray also? Does
not acqusitiyeness desire weslth? Does
; not approbativeness desire applause, ard
does co2nbstlveness desire revenge? Why
then does he specially point to one of the
moral faculties as the source Of prayer.
when it equally belongs to the animal pro"
pensities?
+ Again: lf(as he afirms, prayer Is moth
ins more or less than desire, and the answer
thereof is only the effect of our exertions.
then answers to prayer are eatireIy iude,
: pendent of naeral purity, or heavenly inau-
: ences, depending upon the strength Of eaus.
ality for their development. The Apostle
: declares that "the efectual feryent prayer
Of the righteous availeth much" James ".
l6.) But Fowler's theory strips this pas
sage Of all pretence to meaning for If u be-
Iue Aeproy" Of tie wieked Is just ass9ss-
7 taal.a For they may desire as strongly, and
I put forth as strenuous efforts to secure the
object Of their desires, as the righteous. and
if their mental powers are equal in strength
they will be likely to succeed, Morsover,
: is it not perfect nonsense to'reqaest Of God
the possession Of blessings, and then 20 and
> obtain our ends by our own unaided strength
" But "to the law and; to- the testimonyt,, |,
" Christ said to his disciples, q short time pri4
I " to hiS death: whatsoever ye shall ash
IN my name, that will do, that the Father
: nay be glorifed in the Som 81, John XIV
: l3. Mark it; he does not say S"WhatsoeE-.
er ye ask, put forth youaetforts, and shusiby
: doing it yourselves, ye sAall have thc answeF'
to your prayers but Eg-"I WILL 10 III"
ST. james Nv, aye lust, and have not; re
: kill, and desire to hare, but cannot obtain: "
a fight ard war, yet ye have, not, because We
! ask aG" From thspassage we learn two
things, which are against Fowlers theory.
: l. Those who were herein addressed, had at
Il desi I to have yet they did not yaY--they
# asked not. Therefore prayer and desire ars
/ not synonymous. g. And they putforth De.
ermined efforts too, for The accomplishment
of their purposes, they even fought and war
red, Yet they had not, for the simple reason
u that they asked not. Therefore personal
# effort was not the proper inode Of obsainlng
) their desires in This case. sEg
w L..a o.za,,,,i,.s .,,.1x~J.,d ~ az CO.