and preach the Gospel to every creature, in order to accomplish the great design of his death and resurrection, are we to suppose him speaking in the style of Augustus Caesar? Are we to imagine his orders were to propagate his Gospel over the Roman Empire, or over any other particular portion of the world? Is it not more agreeable to the reason of things to understand this commission in the most general sense which the words will bear? In what other words could it have been uttered to make the or in which the execution of the commission itself was practicable.* It is very true that the propagation of the Gospel was intended to be gradual, to begin at Jerusalem, and that salvation was first to be offered to the Jews; but it is as true that the nations were to be called in, and that the ends of the earth were to hear the sound of salvation. The Apostles were Jews, they had prejudices to overcome, and they could not at once be satisfied that the nations were to have the Gospel preached to them. But they were gradually led to understand the extent of their commission. Peter needed "the vision of the sheet" to remove his scruples, but when they were removed he freely obeyed the call to preach to the Gentiles; and when the Church of Jerusalem heard his report, and found that Gentiles as well as Jews were entitled to the benefits of redemption, they glorified God and acquiesced in His will (Acts xi. 18). There is good evidence that Paul travelled over and carried the Gospel to the western nations of Europe, as far as Britain. Clement is quoted for this. Some of the other Apostles went eastward as far as India and the Isle of Taprobane, which is supposed to be Sumatra or Ceylon. Christians of St. Thomas, you know, were found by the Portuguese when they sailed to the East Indies; and, if we may believe the authors of the Universal History, there, are traces of the Gospel having been once known in China. The ecclesiastical historians speak of a division of the whole world, made among the Apostles, either by lot or agreement, and that each took his province. (Eusebius is quoted for this.) They also speak in very emphatic language of the very extensive propagation of the Gospel by the apostles, evangelists, and other ministers who are named, and, if we are to judge of the travels and labours of the whole number by what we have credibly related of some of the most eminent, we may, I think, fairly conclude that whatever their prejudices and misapprehension might be at first, yet they did, in a course of time, and by the further instruction of the Holy Ghost, understand and obey their commission in the most extensive sense; that the Gospel was published in all countries of the world, so universally that there could be no hyperbole in saying "their sound went into all the earth, and their words to the end of the world," i. e. the world then known to be inhabited.*

On these considerations, I think I am not unreasonable in adhering to the sense in which I understand the commission given by Christ to his primitive ministers, even though it be allowed that the phrase all or the whole world be sometimes used in a limited sense. It is certain that is also used in a truly universal sense; and it is a rule that the circumstances and connection must determine in which sense we are to understand them. When Augustus Caesar decrees, that "all the world" shall be taxed, we must understand all the subjects of his empire. But when Jesus Christ commands "all the world" to be discipled, we must understand every nation under heaven* For this purpose were the Apostles endowed with the gift of tongues, and the power of miracles; and by these means a very speedy passage was made for the Gospel, a wide and effectual door was opened, and the Word of God mightily grew and prevailed. Here, then, my query may properly be introduced. If to serve the wisest and most benevolent purpose, these men and these means were employed at that time in propagating the Gospel over the whole world, why was it not brought to America? The easiest answer to which is that America was not then inhabited.

The other exception mentioned by your friend is that "my reasoning from the reigns of kings is inconclusive, because a nation might exist long before it had a king, as was the case with the Jews." Here I must beg leave to observe that my reasoning from the reigns of kings was intended to find out by analogy the antiquity of Manco Capac's appearance and the reduction of the Peruvians to a regular government, and I cannot at present think of a more probable way to do it. They certainly were a people, but not civilized or regularly governed before. This, you know, I not only allowed, but by comparing them with the Egyptians and Assyrians endeavoured to assign the particular period (three or four centuries) of time between their arrival in America and the revolution effected by Manco. This I own is a part of my argument, which most needs strengthening; and, had I opportunity to consult some authors of antiquity, I would endeavour to satisfy myself more fully on this point. However, I do not think the case of the Israelites at all similar, because they were not in a savage state, nor without an established regular government, before the dates of their kings' reigns.

I wish you would take time to consider the whole, and "make up your mind fully on the matter." I do not wish to defend what I have wrote merely because it is the spawn of my own brain; but I wish to satisfy myself about it, and if I find upon the whole that it is indefensible, or that any other way of solving the difficulty is preferable, I shall not scruple to give up the point. I am not anxious about its being published at all, but if you think that its publication in one of your papers, as a fugitive anonymous piece, will be a better way to collect the opinions of literary people upon it than shewing it privately, I shall have no objection. Only in that case I could wish that you would be at the trouble to send me five or six copies of it, cut out of the newspaper, and that I may have an account of whatever remarks you may meet with, either publicly or privately, on the subject.

Apropos. Second thoughts, they say, are the best, and on second thoughts I will copy it over again, with some correction and enlargement (when I get time), and send it to Powar's press at Boston, and will take care that a copy of it shall be sent to you from thence with a view as above. So let the matter rest for the present, unless you think or hear of any thing more about it, which please to communicate, as in your last.

P. S. I wish you would put me down as a subscriber for MacFingal.

BELKNAP TO HAZARD.

Dover, July 26,1782.

Dear Sir,— I observe in your papers an advertisement by one Simitier. Are you acquainted with him? Is he a man of genius and real solid knowledge in Natural History? If so, I beg you will ask him a question in my behalf. There is a bird found on some of the mountains in New Hampshire, called the Cross-bill. I understand one of them has been lately sent to him by a gentleman in these parts. I have also seen one in preservation. I want to know whether it is a bird peculiar to America, and to this part of America, or whether it is found elsewhere and where? I wish you would enquire for an English translation of Buffon's Natural History, and at what price it may be had. I should be pleased with the work of Goldsmith, which you mention, because I am pleased with all his works. But on this subject I suspect he is only a second-hand writer. I want a guide, a systematical guide, such an one as Linnoeus, and I understand Buff on has adopted his system. Excuse my giving you so much trouble. I know, however, that you will, when you consider how far removed I am here from the

means of knowledge. As to my friend , his situation

at present is painful, but he follows the advice of the most judicious persons best acquainted with local circumstances, which, in short, is to " wait with patience till deliverance shall come." He would have had a more early decision, but a due regard to the opinions of men, and good men, prevents.

I '11 tell you one piece of news, though it be not agreeable. I saw a Vermont man la^t week, who told me that a trade was opened by the way of Lake Champlain between their country and Canada. That they were offered at Crown Point a bushel of salt for 15 lbs. beef, a gallon of West India rum for 12 lbs., and of Canada ditto for 6 lbs. He added that the whole country thereabouts, and even on this side Connecticut River, would go there next winter to market, the trade being much more advantageous than that to the south or eastward, for they were obliged to give from three to six bushels of wheat for one bushel of salt carried up from these parts. It seems to me that the new ministry have adopted a plan which will drain us of our money and cut off our supplies, ruin our trade and set us a quarrelling among ourselves. Our financier complains aloud, and I am afraid our army will complain louder. Is there any hope of peace from abroad?

We have here a three weeks' drought. Our wheat is mildewed, and mowed for fodder. The spring was so wet that they could not burn in the woods, so no corn is planted on the new lands. Indian corn is here eight and nine shillings per bushel, and very scarce for that. Two