Every judicious merchant deems it necessary at least once a year to take an account of the state of his business. The sum of his indebtedness is carefully ascertained; his stock in trade minutely invoiced; his outstanding accounts assorted, and the amount which they will probably yield accurately computed. No merchant is deemed safe, no matter how prosperous he may seem to be, who neglects these prudential steps; nor is any deemed very unsafe who does not. They are steps alike due himself, and due those to whom he is often heavily obliged. They are due himself, that he may know how to conduct his business, whether to expand or contract, whether to force his chattles into sale or stiffly hold them in store for better prices,—due himself, that he may not pass his life in uncertainty, that his calling may be to him a source of pleasure, and not a life-long annoyance; they are due others, that they may sustain no losses through his negligence; they are due others, that they may sustain no losses through his negligence, and that confidence, that great inter-commercial necessity, may be preserved steady and firm. In a word, it is both unwise and criminal to omit these steps.
Nor is less, though the kind be different, expected of the farmer. He must see to it that his fences are kept in good repair, that his labor may not be destroyed by trespassers of breachy stock; his barns, moreover, must be sufficiently capacious to preserve well the results of his toil; nor must anything be allowed to go to loss when once brought to maturity; his dwelling must be roofed in due time, gutters repaired, and all other causes of decay and ruin be at once checked. Stock must be carefully tended when young, and kindly and economically housed when driving storms or nights below zero may demand. Nothing which his farm can produce, from his splendid roadster to the minnow in his pond, must be deemed unworthy of his care. Then only may he expect to be prosperous and happy.
If now in these mere temporalities a constant necessity exists to take account and be on the watch, how much more in the infinitely weightier matters of Christianity! Can even the semblance of [337] neglect be held to be innocent here? As far as the food of the spirit transcends the food of the body, or the brightness of the soul’s vestment, when it shall stand in the presence of God, will exceed the lustre of the coat I to-day wear, so far does the necessity in this case rise above the necessity in that. By the highest considerations, then, which can either determine the motives or control the actions of men, in the fear of God, we attempt to take an account of ourselves, our work, and the things which threaten and the things which favor at the present conjuncture.
Near half a century is now passed since, as a people, we came before the world with our plea for a reformation. By many that plea was not then understood, by many it is not now understood. Let us pause on it a little. As it looked to two classes of the human family, so it had two objects in view. These objects were constantly kept distinct, and defined with all necessary severity. To the saint first the plea looked, next to the sinner. I speak of it first in its relations to the saint.
The church of God is the sum of all Christians; and he only is a member thereof who is a Christian. Whatever else a man may be, if not a Christian he is no member of the church; and whatever else he may be, if a Christian he is a member of it. By a Christian I mean simply one whose sins, through obedience to Christ, are forgiven. For whatever else a man may be, if not thus forgiven he is no Christian; and whatever else he may be, if thus forgiven he is a Christian. Hence the church of God is not an aggregation of churches; far less is it an aggregation of denominations. Indeed denominations, as such, make no part of the church. They are a crime and an insult to Jesus Christ. They are, hence, not integral parts of his body. They are the offspring of the man of sin, and not creations of the Author of Christianity. They are to be lamented in tears which burn the cheek to blisters as they run. Moreover, the church of God is not an organization, except in a qualified sense of the term. Metaphorically it is called a body. In this view Christ is its head, while each individual saint is a member in it. This may imply organization, but not organization in the sense in which we apply the term to those great combinations of men we call governments, or even those less assemblages we call societies. The church of God is an aggregation, not an organization. It is composed of the whole of those who are Christians. Annihilate these, and the church is extinct; but as long as they are, it is. Hence, since the founding of Christianity, to the present moment, the church has continuously been in being; for the simple reason, that all along from that time to this there have been Christians. According to the pledge of Christ, the gates of the Unseen were never to prevail against his church. Hence from the moment of its [338] creation to the present it has never ceased to be. True, as already said, it has existed only in the individual Christians who have composed it; but it has existed not the less on this account.
Now, although the church of God is thus composed of the aggregate of all individual Christians, individuals, too, collected out of the various nationalities and tongues of earth, and hence differing in speech, color, and domestic habits, still it is provided that it shall be characterized by the most faultless unity. It is to be of one book, one mind, one faith, one speech, one practice. Above this, unity among men can not rise. But on each of these items I must speak in detail.
1. Of the one book. This must be the Bible. With it unity must begin, and without it as one we can have no unity. For if the church have more, then by so many as the number exceeds unity will we multiply the chances of division. If it have even one more; it has one too many. In this case, since one is divine, the other must be human; and on the human we can never agree. No human book can ever be perfect in its doctrines. To so affirm would be to exalt human reason to an equality with the divine; for in divine reason alone can perfect doctrine originate. With a book of imperfect doctrine the soul of man can never be satisfied. It sighs only for perfection here, and this mere human reason can never guarantee. In doctrine lies the safety of the soul. Doctrine is its light, the law of its thought, the law of its action. It hence must be perfect. This no human book can be. It hence can never meet this first great want of the soul.
But how, it will be said, do I know even the New Testament to be perfect? I answer, in and of myself I do not know it at all. In man exists no standard of perfection; hence thus I can not know it. The point is inferential. From its source I conclude it to be perfect. No imperfect thing can emanate from Christ; but from him comes the New Testament; hence the inference that it is perfect. Reverse the reasoning, and with equal force it applies to all human books. No perfect book of doctrines, touching the mystery of spirits, the nature of the future, and the destiny of man, can ever originate in human reason. The source itself is unequal to the task; and like source, like book, is a stern truth.
But on coming before the Christian world with our plea, did we find it even so far one as to have but one book? Very far from it. Here we were met, in the very outset, by many parties, each party having two books—the one divine, the other human. Brethren, we said to these parties, but only in so far as they were strictly Christian, lay aside your human books, and let us have only the Bible. If your human books contain anything true, they have derived it from the Bible; if they contain anything else good, it has the same source. The Bible, we continued, contains all the truth your creeds contain [339] and much more. Your creeds, therefore, do not contain enough. Besides, many other things are found in the Bible, which are not found in your creeds. Your creeds are hence defective. On creeds, then, we argued, scanty and defective as they are, we can never be one. On these grounds we urged their utter abandonment. We are not yet recovered from the amazement occasioned by the rejection of this plea by many.
The reply to our plea for one book was a curious reply, and deserves to be here repeated. All parties, we were told, take the Bible; the Mormons take it; we can not tell what a man’s faith is who simply takes the Bible. First: all parties take the Bible. Suppose the do; what then? Because all parties take it, and some parties abuse it, shall Christians therefore reject it? If this be not the force of the position, it has none. Call it not reason; call it folly. But Mormons and Universalists take the Bible. Be it so; I for one am glad; for in the Bible is my only hope that their crimes and errors will ever be corrected. He who has the Bible, and is wrong, may yet get right; he who has not the Bible, and is wrong, never will. Second: but we can not tell what a man’s faith is who takes only the Bible. Did lips that fear God ever utter this? Surely not. No; his faith is indeterminate who takes only the Bible? The reason is obvious. The Bible itself is a muddy book. God can not write clearly. All is dark where he speaks. But only let man write a book—a creed. All will be clear then. We can know what his faith is who takes the human book; we can not know what his is who takes the divine. The human book, then, must be better than the divine. Would it, then, not be best to throw the divine away? Or may not this be the real truth in the case: that he who takes only the Bible has no faith. Is he not an infidel? I much incline to think it. At least, what his faith is, if he have any, can not be known. Better, then, it seems to me, deny outright that he has any. This would simplify the issue. Of one thing I feel sure, that, in this day, orthodoxy is the doxy of the creed; heresy the doxy of the Bible; faith in the traditions of that is true faith; faith in the teachings of this is false faith. The judgment day will decide.
2. Of one mind. On this point, omitting an intervening clause for brevity, Paul thus speaks: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind.” If now any weight is to be allowed to one of the most solemn entreaties which it is in the power of human speech to utter, then must Christians be perfectly one mind. If exceptions exist, they must be held to be intensely criminal. Unity here is an imperious necessity. It is radical and relative, and can not be dispensed with—radical, because it is the basis of union in other items; relative, because it determines other unions. Did our plea find [340] Christians one in this respect? It would be difficult to imagine a state of things more completely the opposite. In knowledge, in sentiment, and feeling, the children of God are estranged one from another. Not only were they not one in mind, but all fraternal affection seemed to have perished in their hearts. We mourned over this state of things, and profoundly desired a change. To this end we then wrought; to this end we are still working, with too little success I am only ashamed to add.
3. Of one faith. The word faith, both in the New Testament and in the current speech of the day, has two different meanings. Chiefly and primarily it denotes simply the act of believing; but it also denotes the things believed. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God—here the word denotes simply the act of believing. But when I say, Christ rose from the dead—this is my faith; clearly it denotes what I believe. Now in our effort to give our plea success, we encountered our main difficulty in the first or primary sense of the word. We found it impossible to get all, even of those whom we recognized as Christians, to accept the term in this sense. They insisted that it denoted some occult thing imparted by the Holy Spirit. That it denoted simply the mental conviction that everything said in the Bible is true, men seemed determined not to allow. Still, our duty was clear. All we could do was to present the truth. If men rejected it, the deed was theirs. We were free. What our duty was then in that case, our duty is to-day in every case. We must present the whole truth, no more, not less. The rest remains with the world.
4. Of one speech. “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing,” is apostolic, earnest, and inconceivably important. Diversity of speech implies difference in faith, and this is not allowable. Unity among the children of God is the sublimest necessity that can exist. This must pervade the thoughts of the inner man, and be embodied in the acts of the outer. It alone guarantees success. Division among the saints is victory for Satan. Nor can this unity be partial; it must be complete; neither can it be insisted on in regard to a few things presumptuously called essential, and disregarded as to others criminally deemed non-essential. It must be insisted on in everything, from the great proposition that Jesus is the Christ, down to even the proper lettering of a word. The harmony among the children of God must be a universal harmony; no dissent in mind from mind; no collision of thought with thought, nor the semblance of discord in speech. Only then can the whole power of the church and of the gospel be spent on the world for good. But this consummation we shall never see while in the flesh. The hope of unity among God’s people is gone from earth. I insist on it because in itself right, but I expect it not. I am defending a divine theory; not forecasting a coming fact. [341]
5. Of one practice. By this I mean that both the practice of churches and the practice of individuals must be one; that is, that church must agree with church in practice, as must individual with individual. And so complete should this agreement be, that were you to photograph the conduct of one church, it would be the exact likeness of all others, and so of individuals. Only in matters purely discretionary is diversity admissible; and even here let the difference be slight and immaterial, since no necessity can exist for the contrary. The great rule in discretionary matters is, that our conduct, both in itself and in its tendency, shall be in strict accordance with the spirit and tenor of the gospel. It is not enough that inconsistencies be shunned; positive consistency must be maintained. And the rule of discretion should be acted upon with extreme caution. It must not be pleaded too far. If a doubt exist, let us resolutely stop on the safe side of the doubt. This side will generally be the side of non-action.
The foregoing are some of the items, discussed in general terms only, in which the children of God, though differing nationally and lingually, must yet strictly agree. And where this agreement does not exist, the difference is marked by crime as sure as the decisions of the Bible are final. But on announcing our plea we found not this agreement to exist. Our duty, therefore, was clear. It was to demand of the followers of Christ, in his name, that instantly, without conference or debate, they should abandon everything they held, whether it was an article of faith or an item of practice, for which they could not produce indisputable warrant of Holy Writ, or which could not be shown, being discretionary, to be consistent therewith. This demand made fearful work of the party tenets of the day. Traditions dropped away into desert places, muttering as they went, like exorcised demons. Practices fell suddenly into disuse, for which the prescription of ages could be pleaded. Bigots growled and the clergy raged. Still duty urged us unremittingly on. We were right, and therefore could not desist.
To these children of God, therefore, our plea had this extent, no more: that they should abandon only the errors they held, but strictly retain the truth. The Bible, and that only, was then laid down as the test by which error was to be tried, and the fountain from which truth was to be drawn. To this everything was to be brought. Whatever could not stand this test was to be discarded, though it were the dearest conviction of the heart; whatever could, was to be held at no matter what cost. It was only on condition of the abandonment of these errors, whether found in faith or practice, that we ever proposed either to unite, or unite with, these children. When once a clean riddance had been made of everything unsanctioned by the Bible, then it was that our plea for union was urged. We never [342] dreamed of union before, or on other grounds. But in uniting these children, we did not propose the formation of a sect or party. A Christian simply is not sectarian, neither a partisan. Hence a combination of these can in no legitimate sense be called a sect. Viewing the church of God as a building, we gladly accepted the foundation laid down by Paul, which is Jesus Christ. On this alone we proposed to build. As now we wrought with no material but Christians, we hence founded not a sect, but built only the church of God. This alone as to Christians was then our work; this it is still.
Hence we made no proposition then, neither do we now, to Christians to abandon all their faith, and accept, as is sometimes represented, a new thing. We proposed rather that they should abandon only all the Bible does not teach, but accept all it does. We felt that all Christians, though found among sects, must necessarily have much truth. This truth we proposed to hold in common with them, not to abandon it.
But we never proposed to unite with sectarians as such. To these we proposed that they should be or become simply Christians, and then as living stones be built into the church. More than this we never proposed; more than this we do not now desire.
But to the world our plea was a very different thing. Here our proposition was purely the proposition of the gospel—that men should become simply Christians, no more, no less. No partial changes were here proposed; complete ones alone were demanded. We spoke not now with men partly right and partly wrong. We spoke only to those wholly wrong. Hence the change required had to be original, absolute, and complete. We worked now for a new creature, wholly new.
To the world we laid it down, backed high above doubt by Holy Writ, that three things are necessary to becoming a Christian, to wit: belief, repentance, and immersion. We affirmed, with profound conviction of its truth, that he who does these things is saved. We flushed no hope in any man’s bosom who neglects them. Thus, while we resolutely stood for the truth on the one hand, we shrank not from being plain on the other. We felt solemnly bound to declare the whole; trembling we left the rest with the world.
We were concerned then, as still, with two great questions, one the question of the sinner, the other the question of the saint; that, What shall I do to be saved? this, How shall I live the Christian life? In answering these questions, we allowed nothing to philosophy, nothing to reason, nothing to tradition. Everything was placed on the basis of authority. Hence we ignored the metaphysics of Calvin on the one hand, and shunned the shallow discussions of free will on the other. We looked on these opposing issues as the fruitful sources of a huge bundle of traditions having no other effect [343] than to render null the word of God. These traditions were the gospel of the day. They were the standard by which everything was tried. Even the decisions of the Bible bowed before them, and were either explained wholly away or made to harmonize with them. He only was enrolled as a saint who gave heart room to these traditions, while he was down as worse than a heathen who did not. They domineered over the popular mind, and held it in bondage fearful to think of. We saw that, unless the spell in which these traditions held the world could be broken, the case of the world was hopeless. Against this spell but one recourse was left to us. There still lingered in the hearts of many a conventional, if not a real, respect for the Bible. Our first duty was to exalt and strengthen this respect. This was no easy task; for men heard with languid ears your plea for the Bible and that alone, while their souls were yet drowsy from the effect of tradition. Still, as we had but the one alternative left, our duty was to exhaust that.
Here, moreover, we encountered another difficulty of no small magnitude. We found it not an easy task in these matters to set limits to and define the province of human reason. Religion was in large part the invention of men. Here, therefore, reason played its part. It suggested and shaped religion. Its authority was hence high. To remedy this required discretion and skill. Our first duty was to make clear that the divine stands above the human, and that Christianity originated in the divine. This done, all else was easy. Now the province of reason could be laid down. It was to determine what God had said, not to invent; to sit and try the question, What is here? not to suggest. Changes now went rapidly on. The Bible took the place of reason; while tradition, as the matter and law of faith, gave place to the teachings of Christ. So far the victory was complete. Still difficulties were not at an end. In details much was met with to discourage and test our patience. But of these secondary matters I can not here speak.
But where do we now stand, or what is the sum of our achievements? Nothing, I think, can be clearer than that the following positions have been eliminated and shown to rest on an immovable basis:
1. That the Bible alone teaches a religion fully adequate to the salvation of the whole human family.
2. That all human creeds are deductions of unaided human reason, and in essence are simply bundles of traditions, and consequently tend only to make void the truth.
3. That the terms of the Bible, like the terms of any other ancient book, are to be taken in their simple natural sense; and that they are not terms bearing a mystic or double meaning.
4. That Christianity is so perfectly adapted to man, that just as he is, with no extrinsic aid, he can fully understand it and acceptably obey it. [344]
5. That the popular notion that the Holy Spirit operates directly on the human mind in conversion, in order to it, is a delusion, and condemned by the history of the primitive conversions.
6. That faith and belief are identical; that faith is the simple conviction that what the Bible says is true; and that the notion of various kinds of faith is false.
7. That repentance is the simple determination of an individual himself to abandon sin, followed by the act.
8. That faith, repentance, and immersion are necessary to the remission of sins, and that remission is guaranteed on no other conditions.
9. That in case of the believing penitent, the only thing precedent to immersion is the simple confession, with the mouth, of faith in Christ Jesus.
10. That the Holy Spirit is promised only to the forgiven, and that it dwells in such.
11. That Christians should meet on first day of the week, to break the loaf and drink of the cup, and thus show forth Christ’s death till he comes again.
12. That each individual church is in and of itself, and in its own right, independent of all other churches; that it can in no case be dictated to, nor interfered with in its acts; and that it is responsible alone to Christ.
13. That the authority inherent in the individual church is the highest ecclesiastic authority known in the kingdom of God; and that consequently neither churches nor individuals can combine to form a body or organization having any power to determine articles of faith, enact rules of practice, or decide questions of discipline.
14. That all questions of faith and conduct must be tried at once by the Bible; and that matters of opinion are to be made neither tests of piety nor tests of fellowship.
15. That he individual church in its public worship is to be strictly governed by prescription of Holy Writ, or apostolic precedent, and that all acts and things not thus sanctioned are innovations and criminal.
16. That individual Christians may, in their discretion, form voluntary associations, such as colleges, Sunday schools, and missionary societies, provided nothing therein is allowed, inconsistent with the teachings of Holy Writ.
Perhaps a few items might be added to this schedule, but these will be at once recognized by all true men in our ranks as the great fundamental principles which underlie our effort to restore primitive Christianity to the world. Of course, they are not presented as a complete statement of our faith, not as a detailed account of our practice, but as a concise summary of what, as a people, we have [345] achieved, or of the things which distinguish us. No man among us is deemed sound who repudiates even one of these items, while none is held as unsound who accepts them. They are the tenets which have given us victory hitherto, and in the severe maintenance of which alone we have the guarantee of the victory for the future. Rebate these principles, and we are merged with the parties of the day; rebate one of them, and to that extent we wreck the best hopes of earth. We can never abandon them, nor allow them to be materially modified without proving recreant to the high trust to which God in his providence has called us; and the day we begin to relax in their defense is the day in which he will begin to repudiate us, and in which he will prepare to raise up a people true to that to which we prove false. In kindness may it be granted to us that that day may never come.
From all the premises now before us our present duty becomes clear. It is to maintain inviolate the great principles through which our past successes have been achieved; and to push on our work, as far as in us lies, to a still higher state of perfection. We can not hope that even our theory of Christianity is yet as full and as exact as it should be; and as for our practice, it certainly falls far below the divine standard. Much, it may be, yet remains to be done in the way of ascertaining and defining the precise powers and functions of evangelists, the powers and duties of overseers, with those of deacons. Unless I am much in error, no small confusion still hangs over the public mind touching these items. They need to be thoroughly reconsidered from their most elemental conception up. Besides, we have yet to induce a deeper tone of piety in our membership, and a liberality in giving of which we have had no examples up to the present time. The whole flock must be required to meet on every Lord’s day, and not a delinquency be permitted. Each member must be taught, male and female, old and young, to pray in public, whenever called upon. In a word, every member must be taught that Christ has something for him to do; that he is to be a living stone in the great spiritual house, contributing to its growth, and helping it to fulfill its mission. Not an idler must be allowed. Never till the whole available strength of the church is thus put forth, till its whole spiritual power is spent on the world, shall be able to appreciate the wisdom of Christ in creating it. At present its power for good is feeble in comparison with what it might be. In my candid judgment, our churches have yet a lesson to learn of which but few even of our preachers have a true conception. But of this I can not here speak.
What, I now inquire, is likely to be our success in maintaining for time to come the footing we have now gained? Have we the prospect of complete success? I wish I had an affirmative answer to these questions; and yet, perhaps, we have no right to expect for [346] Christianity a success in our hands which did not attend it in the hands of the apostles. While Paul was yet alive the mystery of iniquity began to work, and a falling away was foreseen. The fortunes of the ancient church will be repeated in our hands. A falling away will occur, and the iniquity which will induce it is at this moment at work. The sturdy love for the primitive faith which characterized the early preachers in the reformation is cooling in men who still linger in our ranks and call us brethren. They are yet with us, but they are not of us. Their name is not legion; still they are numerous enough to do no little mischief if allowed to remain. These men are known and watched; and while the wish is to save them, save them for their own sakes and for the sake of the cause, still the belief is deepening that it will not be done. They may be easily known.
In the first place, they are intensely sentimental; rather, they are intensely transcendental. They are very clerical in bearing, soft in speech, and languid and effeminate in spirit. They are poets and ladies’ men, exquisites in parlors, and never condemn anything except their brethren. These men are of the opinion that it is a very vulgar thing for preachers to be tried by their respective churches, or to be in any sense amenable to them. They want a pompous clerical organization, to which alone they shall stand or fall. They must be “tried by their peers.” To creeds they have not the slightest objection; only they do not want the brotherhood generally to know the fact. It is not yet sufficiently popular. These are very dignified men; and pope and prelate express no offensive conceptions to them. Indeed, themselves would wear titles with rare grace. The are “beautiful” men, and preach “beautiful” sermons. Their prayers are “beautiful” things, and their songs “beautiful” songs. Moreover, they are very abstract men, and the æsthetic, the moral, the true, the beautiful, and the good are very fond phrases in their bloodless and virtuous lips.
In the second place, they have an enormous fondness for sects and sectarians; and scowl on no one so indignantly as on the brother who dares to speak against them. With them sectarians are all Christians; and it is a favorite saying among them that “we are as sectarian as any other people.” They seldom speak of their brethren except to disparage them; and never of “the other” parties of day except to laud them. In plain English, these men see nothing good in the great brotherhood to whom they are an offense, nor anything bad in the sects with whom their affinities really are. It would be difficult to account for the fact that they continue with us were it not that he who has perverted them has a deep interest to annoy us in every way in his power. If they are not to be saved, then our prayer is that the Lord will see to it that their connection with us shall be dissolved immediately. Toward them I can have no feeling [347] but one of regret. Still, regarding them as I do, as the secret enemies of Christianity, I can not desire their prosperity. Of their reformation I have no hope. The opposition to their course may become such as to break them down; but in that case they will turn moody grumblers. They will never more work with us kindly.
Another circumstance, very significant to my mind, marks the career of these men. With hardly an exception they indorse and admire Ecce Homo. And it must be confessed that no book has appeared within the last twenty-five years which embodies so much of their faith or expresses it so well as that book. The man who indorses Ecce Homo is the enemy of Jesus Christ and of the cause he died to establish. With me nothing is more certain than this. If these men understand the book, and still approve it, they should at once abandon the church of Christ. Or if they see not that it is a dangerous book, they are given up to blindness, because the love of the truth is not in them.
In the third place, there is a peculiar dialect which characterizes these men. “The reformation is a failure,” is one of their favorite sayings. Not quite true, gentlemen. You are the failure; it is not the cause we plead. Again, and especially, “I do not believe that baptism is for the remission of sins.” This is said with weighty emphasis. Why, then, do you still continue to fraternize with a people who do believe it? Your departure will give us pleasure, not pain. “We must quit opposing the sects; they are as good as we are.” This is another of the pet expressions which ripen in the lips of these men. But we shall not abandon our opposition so long as the Bible remains the law of our action. On this you may count with confidence. Further: “We must quit preaching our distinctive doctrines;” and again, “our religion lacks style.” But on these items I shall detain the reader no longer. A few samples are deemed sufficient.
To the brethren everywhere I say, see to it that your preachers are kept in the Book. Allow no departure from it; and all will end well.
That one now and then from among those whom we love for the Master’s sake will fall away is something to be looked for. All will not remain true. This should rather teach us to fear, than to move us. The same great foe who seduces them also seeks us. Let us not boast ourselves too confidently against him. It is the end of a man’s life which determines his safety, stick close to Christ, close to the truth, close to holiness, and all must end well. A failure in any one of these items is the forfeiture of heaven. We can not afford to take the risk of missing it. [348]
[Volume IV: October, 1867]