power, viz.,-"Is the Pulpit or the Press the more powerful? thus limiting its significancy to a secular point of view. We incline to enlist under the banner of those who favour the press as the more powerful engine in working the wonders and producing the mighty victories of civilization and peace. Let us take a view of the pulpit, as the oral instructor it is, with a view to enlighten and benefit the human race. It has, certainly, its ponderable influence in many forms;-but no sooner is the discourse ended, than its existence, in reality, is at an end, and can have no further power, except what the mind's activity and retention can produce or reproduce, a substance of thoughtfulness; but this rare virtue is not possessed by every mind in equal degrees. For our enfeebled judgment, our clouded understandings, and our natural weakness of perception, render it absolutely needful that we should possess some accessories like the press, in order that we may be adequate to the duties imposed upon us by our common Father. Certainly the delivery of an eloquent sermon is one of the wholesomest lessons that can be devised for the eternal benefit of the soul; but it is extremely limited to a very small section of the human race, who can only propagate it to their fellow-creatures by means of personal intercourse. And this method of communication has its defects; for it will be almost a miracle if some one narrator does not infuse some colouring of his own, and thus vitiate the original production. How sad would be the condition of the human race if it was deprived of the privileges of the press! Even the pulpit itself could not exist in its present potency were it not for the aid of the press. How could traditional sources have placed at our command those stores of wisdom that have been transmitted to us, by means of the press, from antiquity's noblest sages? If every individual copy of their productions had been the work of a transcriber, would they have appeared in that countless multitude that we now possess them? If we trace back our history to the time when printing commenced its mighty mission, we have the privilege of reviewing the rise and fall of empires, the revolutions of states, the mutations of sectional portions of society, the labours of these benefactors of mankind, together with the rewards of the meritorious and the punishment of the guilty; we derive a vastness of information that can never exist within the compass of the human mind, and such information exerts its influence, either to deter us from perpetrating evil deeds, or determine us in the adoption of some course that is calculated to produce the anticipated results: such are the efficacies of the press. The pulpit does its part in society, but that part is a secondary one-in the acceptation of the terms adopted above-when compared with the influences of the press. Of all the institutions for which England is celebrated, the chief is the renowned freedom of the press. Look into the institutions of other countries, and we shall perceive the impotency of that engine, in consequence of the jealous eye that is ever scrutinizing its productions. What has been done by that mighty engine since Gottenberg's discoveries have extended was themselves? How many tyrants' schemes for oppressing mankind have been discovered, and their designs thwarted, by means of the press! And such revelations as these have had their wholesome influence upon similar designs. In 1440 Gottenberg began his labours; in 1462 (401 years ago) the first book appeared-the firstborn of a dynasty destined to perform more than the sword, and outdo every human invention. In 1539 the "Book of Books printed in England; at the same time the suppression of the religious houses took place both in England and in Wales, receiving registry through the medium of the press, to be handed down to us and passed from age to age as a record for our instruction. In the custody of the press we centre explicit confidence; whereas, were we to possess no other means of record than the recitals of the pulpit, we should not be in possession of these valuable tomes of wisdom that now lie crowded together upon the shelves of our libraries. How could the pulpit flourish as it now does, were it not for access to the records of patriarchal ages? Even the seers of old could not have had an existence at this day if the press had not perpetuated that existence to this day. Can the pulpit mature an education from the home book to that stage on which academic degrees are bestowed? In what instance can it be said that the pulpit does not avail itself of the issue of the press? Do our pulpit orators compose their sermons entirely and really from their own unhelped thoughts, or do they in general avail themselves of the printed matter in which the thoughts of others are found? Those who so vehemently declaim against the press, and argue in favour of the pulpit, do not reflect that the knowledge derived from living minds is but small in proportion to the bulk derived from printed publications. To particularize all the instances in which these statements are verified would be to fill a large space needlessly. How should the pulpit adequately inform us of all the conquests of Philip and Alexander?-of the various successes of the Roman arms in the days of their greatest prosperity? Could the pulpit give us an exact account of the defeat of Hannibal by Scipio? Look at the productions of our divines,-Watts, Hervey, Baxter, Doddridge, Henry, Angell James, and how many more I know not; but had the pri vilege of deriving instruction from their oral discourses been the only opportunity, how limited would have been the privilege, as compared with that afforded by a perusal of their printed publica tions! How are we to reconcile the remarks of our friend R. S. in the conclusion of his article? He considers that the press is only a secondary agent, subject to variation, and he seems to consider that the pulpit is the source of our civil freedom. But how R. S. has arrived at this conclusion, we cannot say. He cannot surely have arrived at such erroneous conclusions by inference, for we think he could not have had any premises from which he could infer that "everything imbibed by the press is from the pulpit." This we emphatically deny. We assert that the press has an unlimited in fluence, even in matters that appertain to religion, as well as to civil polity. And we hesitate not in pronouncing that the power of the press is a thousandfold more puissant than that of the pulpit. The power of the pulpit cannot have any direct effect beyond the time and place of delivery; for it will be a miracle if some one, who is the messenger, does not deviate from the truth. How would the deeds of our philosophers, statesmen, warriors, and patriots be perpetuated if the pulpit was the only means of recording them? and how would the record (such as it is) be passed to future ages? Did Pascal raise his tube by means of the pulpit? Did Galileo measure the pendulum by orations from the pulpit? Did the still greater Newton fathom the depths of the ethereal ocean by the pulpit, and so prosecute his mighty discoveries to a successful issue? Has Dr. Livingstone been helped in his enterprising expedition in the interior regions of Africa by any aid, direct or indirect, from the pulpit? Grant and Speke, likewise, have contributed to extend the bounds of scientific discoveries; yet they have not been in any way indebted to the pulpit. How many millions have now become fully acquainted with that mysterious and wonderful problem, the solution of which has cost society so many very valuable lives! Not less important have been the researches and discoveries of our enterprising mariners. They have revealed to the world the reefs, the rocks, the sands, the currents, together with the harbours and bays in almost every sea; yet they have not in the least degree derived assistance from the pulpit. Let us take a view of our national assembly. Can we in any degree reap any benefit from the debates therein carried on, unless we have access to the press? for how many of our population could gain access to listen to the parliamentary debates? Were all the efforts of the collective wisdom allowed to pass, and die with the sounds that give them life, how much of the finest efforts of humanity would dissipate in the empty air! Whereas, with the lightning as our agent, the substance of the debates are transmitted to the printing office, and the machine is forthwith put in motion, and its issues are speedily flying to every point of the compass. If we examine the boundless regions of immensity, our thoughts are lost in infinitude. Does this branch of wisdom claim or receive any assistance from the pulpit? How do the greatest astronomers in the world record their mighty discoveries for the benefit of mankind? Is it by the pulpit? Certainly not. When the pulpit orator pronounces his discourse, he confines himself to very narrow limits; whilst the author scatters his publications in every latitude with a generous profusion, and they possess a durability and truthfulness that are not equalled by any of the effusions of the pulpit. Science, Art, Invention, are indebted to literature, but not to the pulpit. Reviewing our own position, we congratulate ourselves that we are confirmed in our decision by the superiority of the press, so ap parently visible. The pulpit in all ages has been extremely limited in the exercise of its power; and this will be very apparent when we compare together the minister and the author. How many millions can be fed with one machine, though they be scattered everywhere! The destinies of the globe, even, might be said to be under the dominions of the press. The material adjuncts of the press, in use for disseminating the effusions of the mind, possess the happy facilities for despatching these mental riches, that constitute the choicest of gifts. If we go back to the date of the Egyptian hieroglyphics, we do not perceive the capabilities of representing the number and variation of sentiments which are now capable of being represented with an adequacy not heretofore existing, either by reason of the Egyptian method, the postures of Mexico, or the knotted cord of Rome. We do not know that we can do better than by ratifying our essay by a transcription from Davenport, whose representation of the press is so graphic, that we cannot resist the temptation: "Hail! glorious offspring of the human mind, S. F. T. WAS History. THE CRIMEAN WAR JUSTIFIABLE IN ITS ORIGIN, AND SATISFACTORY IN ITS RESULTS? AFFIRMATIVE REPLY. IN every debate there must be something postulated, tacitly or otherwise, by both parties, which shall form the primal source whence all their arguments are derived, no matter how various and widely different may be the channels in which they flow. In arguing a question as to the superiority of two modes of worship, you assume at starting that worship, in whatever form rendered, is a duty; and one who should deny the existence of a Deity, or of any object of worship whatever, would clearly have no locus standi in the debate. The same may be said of one who, in a question as to the superiority of one mode of taxation over another, should deny the right of taxation at all; or, in discussing the merits of various forms of government, should call in question the necessity or utility of any government at all, and prefer a state of anarchy, in which each may do what is right in his own eyes, to one of order and subjection. In the present question the postulate is clearly seen to consist in the admission that war, on certain occasions, is justifiable. This is, or should be, the common standing point of all the writers in this debate; and this agreed upon, our next business on each side is to show what particular circumstances bring, or do not bring, this particular war- the Crimean war-within the category of justifiable wars. In debating this final point also we admit, besides our fundamental postulate, several others which spring from it, and the object of which is to afford some touchstone for the disputants, by which they may test the question. Here the nature and extent of various acts are defined, which, in the opinion of both parties, would render a war undertaken by any one government against any other perfectly justifiable. When this stage is reached, the decision must rest upon the facts of the case, and may unhesitatingly be given by any one acquainted with those facts. In the present debate, J. J., the writer of Negative Article II., has clearly deprived himself of all voice in the matter, since he starts with the assumption, which directly stifles the debate in its birth, that all war on our part is unjustifiable, because opposed, as he asserts, to Christianity. Now you are at perfect liberty to make "War and Christianity" a debatable question, as indeed was done in the first volume of this Magazine; but when you come to |