we should know its occasion, and the place which it occupies in his work. I will therefore give no opinion upon it. It is a very nice subject, and it requires several important distinctions referring to the different conditions or frames of a believer's mind. I do not know whether he makes those distinctions; but it is no business of mine to defend Hervey.

"With respect to the passage from Marshall, it is a tissue of subtilties, and is very far indeed from our sentiments. It is false, absolutely false, to say that faith rests upon no evidence. The proposition is absurd, and at the same time very censurable and dangerous. But never, no never, has any one of us entertained such an idea. Whether it has been uttered any where else than in our Canton, I am totally ignorant. If it has been so, would it not have been better for you to have named the persons, or have quoted their works or letters; instead of applying it to them under the general description of certain Swiss ministers, a description which, in the eyes of the public, cannot but include us, us who are innocent, us who have never advanced any such principles! I say that the description includes us, because it is a Letter from the Canton of Vaud which you have taken for the text of your remonstrance. And yet, let it be observed that this same letter does not contain the smallest mention of such an opinion.

"You say that the ablest advocates of the kind of faith which you attack, acknowledge that it is not a belief of the truth, and that it has no promise or declaration of scripture for its foundation.' I protest this is the first time in my life that I have heard such an inconceivable opinion uttered! Nothing in the least like it have I ever met with in the Canton of Vaud, or in any other part of Switzerland.

"You lay upon us the charge of applying the terms, a legal disposition, a spirit of bondage, to a strict attachment to the great points of practical obedience. God preserve us from it, and that for ever! -How could such an idea enter your mind, my brother?-Let any one examine our new churches in the Vaud, formed upon the principles of gospel-order; and see what would be the answer!-Let any person, who has a sacred sensibility to perceive the sweet fragrance of the knowledge of Christ and the life of his spirit, make a visit to my little flock; and let him make his report, whether they are not true Christians, Christians blessed by God in the full strength of the expression. Come and see.

"Permit me, in passing, to make an observation on Rom. iv. 17-20. The connexion fixed by the inspired Author himself, (ver. 23, 34.) obliges us to apply to the christian faith what he so

emphatically declares concerning the faith of our father Abraham,' which is strongly confirmed by Gal. iii. 6, 7.11.

"I shall not recur to what I wrote briefly in my first letter, upon the nature of faith. Only let me advert to an expression or two in your last paper, which belong to this part of the subject.

"You seem to disapprove the sentiments of those who think that faith assures for ever the salvation of the believer, from the very moment of his believing. It also appears to me, if I apprehend correctly your meaning, that you allow a believer only to hope that he will be saved; and that you regard as "bold" the confidence which a believer may have that he is actually and already saved. Let us, then, open the good word of God, our ground of safety and our only strength. I will take, for instance, John vi. 37. 39. My conscience bears me testimony before God that I come to Christ,

and to Christ alone, for the salvation and sanctification of my soul. He declares that he will not cast out the soul that cometh to him: then my poor soul will not be cast out; it is impossible, for Christ cannot lie. Since I come to Christ, the Father has given me to the Son; and since it is the Father's will that of all which he hath given to him he should lose nothing, I, a poor sinner, shall not be lost. Can all the powers of heaven, earth, and hell, outweigh these declarations of my Lord and my God? Can it turn out, at the Jast day, that his words have been deceptive?

Again, if you please, let us take Heb. vi. 16-20. In my inmost soul I know that I flee for refuge to the hope set before me. Well, then the immutability of God's counsel, his promise and his oath, two immutable things in which it is impossible that God should deceive, are the assurances of my salvation. Reposing upon the very oath of the God of truth, can I be deluded in my hope? It would be an act of impiety to

say so.

"Once more: John v. 24. I do believe on Him who hath sent his Son, that whosoever believeth on him may not perish, but may have everlasting life.' I do believe the testimony which God himself has given me, namely, that he hath given to me eternal life, and that this life is in his Son.' (1 John v. 10, 11.) I believe this, even I an unworthy creature, because God has said it to me, and has even declared that, if I believe not this testimony which he has given me concerning his Son, I give him the lie!

"Thus, according to the clear, formal, and irrefragable declaration of the Son, who is ONE with the Father, I have eternal life. I shall not come into condemnation; yes, I, a creature mean but happy, even I shall not come into

condemnation, but am passed from death unto life. For pledge of this I have my Lord himself, who hath spoken, and will not go back. He hath said it, and shall he not do it? He hath spoken, and shall he not make it good?'

"You know, my dear brother, you know the innumerable multitude of passages of this kind, upon which the soul which flees for refuge to its Saviour may found the same full assurance of hope.

"Remark well, that it is said of the believer that he hath at the present moment eternal life, that he is already passed from death unto life. This style of speaking, which holds forth the salvation of the believer as an actual thing, a thing done and made sure of, is found in an infinite number of passages: for instance, by grace ye are saved;-by whose grace ye are saved; he hath translated us from the power of darkness into the kingdom of his beloved Son ;-ye are no more strangers and foreigners;-ye have now obtained mercy:'

and so likewise believers are represented as already raised together, and sat down together in the heavenly places with Christ,' &c. &c. &c.

It

"You say that no truth of Scripture can be contrary to the just dictates of reason. But Scripture declares, that the things of the Spirit of God are foolishness to man in his natural condition. most expressly declares, that before our conversion, we are void of understanding with respect to spiritual things: how then can we esteem them to be wise? To say that the truths of Scripture are in accordance with the reason of the natural man, is it not the same thing as maintaining that man is wise, that he has not lost his original uprightness? By our nature, says the Bible, we are under the influence of the prince of darkness, the foe of our salvation: is it possible that he should produce in us

any thing but darkness, so far as respects the matter of salvation? The spirit of the world is opposed to the Spirit of God? Is not the cross declared to be foolishness to man? Is not the preaching of the Gospel called the foolishness of preaching? In fact, what objections, insuperable to human reason, are found in the expiation and sufferings of Christ! And who can ever make to square with the dictates of reason, the doctrine, for example, of predestination; particularly in connexion with original sin on the one hand, and everlasting sufferings on the other? It is impossible and I defy the most skilful divine ever to effect it in such a way as shall be satisfactory to the understanding of an unconverted man. The celebrated Dr. Chalmers appears to me to be in exact accordance with the spirit of the Bible, when he says, that as soon as a man is convinced by the evidence of testimony of the divine authority of the Bible, he has nothing at all to do with reasoning upon its contents, but merely to ask, What is written? How readest thou? and then to believe.

"I must make an end. I hope, my dear brother, that you will receive this letter in a state of mind answerable to that in which it is written. I feel a genuine love for you, and I speak to you in the spirit of kindness.

"This is my conclusion in the presence of God. As the children of Israel, mortally wounded, looked to the brazen serpent, so my soul, smitten with the death-stroke of sin, looks to Jesus its Saviour, as made unto me, on the part of God, wisdom and righteousness, sanctification and redemption. As such I believe in him: and God, declaring by the Saviour's own mouth (John vi. 40.) his sovereign will, that whosoever looketh to the Son, and believeth on him, shall have eternal life, I firmly rest, with humiliation and adoration upon this

promise of a God who never lied and never will lie. I must have eternal life, because God has said it; and he cannot but be found faithful in all his words. Such a privilege, given even by oath to a creature so worthless as I am, sinks me into nothing before his throne, and makes me long in the most ardent manner to live, in body and soul, for HIM. When my faith becomes weak, is covered, is obscured, then my sanctification immediately declines. The faithful God arouses me by the loud calls of his word, and also by his providence, sometimes by comforts, sometimes by chastisements, sometimes by alarms. Then, humbled, I return to the throne of grace. I return as a sinner, without excuse and without any resources in myself, to rest anew on Christ by the same faith, which now urges me on anew, with prayer, to the commandments of my God, and according to his promise, (James i. 5, 6,) brings me new strength from himself. Thus, with delight ever increasing, I experience the truth of the declaration thrice repeated in the New Testament, "the just shall live by faith." On nothing else, I most solemnly assure you, can my soul live in the view of the law of God and his eternal judgment.

"I beg you to receive the cordial assurance of my affection in Christ, and of those sentiments of respect with which I have the honour to be, &c. &c.

30th Jan. 1827.

REMARKS ON SOME PASSAGES IN PALEY'S MORAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.

SOME time since I was present at a public meeting, when Dissenters were recommended to read the chapter on Religious Establishments and of Toleration, in Paley's Moral and Political Philosophy.

The recommendation was accompanied with an intimation, that the perusal would probably moderate the feelings of Dissenters on the subject of ecclesiastical establishments. On my return home, I lost no time in complying with this advice; but the result was quite the reverse of what had been anticipated.

If I have not mistaken the Archdeacon's argument, there are parts of this celebrated disquisition which inculcate some of the most reprehensible dogmas that were ever obtruded on mankind. The Archdeacon asserts, that it is lawful for him (the magistrate) to interfere, whenever his interference, in its general tendency, appears to be conducive to the common interest;" that "there is nothing in the nature of religion which exempts it from this interference;" that "the acts of the legislature, the edicts of the prince, the sentence of the judge, may deprive me of liberty, of property, and even of life itself, on account of my religion; and however I may complain of the injustice of the sentence by which I am condemned, I cannot allege that the magistrate has transgressed the boundaries of his jurisdiction:" and on the supposition that "human laws have dictated the object, or the mode of divine worship," he affirms that the subject cannot allege any plea to excuse his compliance."

Dr. Paley seems to have been aware that he was placed between the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, he knew very well that the above are really the doctrines of the Church of England; on the other, he plainly saw that these positions are pregnant with the most dangerous and destructive consequences. Grant a pagan or a papist these premises, and he will be at no loss to justify all the cruelties that have been practised, all the blood that has been shed

on account of religion. He therefore employs a great deal of jesuitism to gloss over these principles, which as a Churchman he could not deny; but which, as an intelligent and humane man, he could not vindicate. In this chapter he can be considered only as the perplexed apologist of "things that are."

Every intelligent reader will readily perceive that this dictating the mode of divine worship opens a door for every conceivable superstition. But the Archdeacon tells me, I cannot allege any plea to excuse my compliance, and if the magistrate deprive me of liherty, of property, and even of life itself, I cannot allege that he transgresses the boundaries of his jurisdiction. But this celebrated writer does not stop even here; this dictation, says he, may extend to the object of divine worship. If the magistrate command his subjects to worship the sun, the moon, a stock or a stone, the Archdeacon says, the subject cannot allege any plea to excuse his compliance; and if the magistrate deprive him of liberty, of property, or even of life itself, on account of his religion, he cannot allege that the magistrate has transgressed the boundaries of his jurisdiction.

But shocking as these principles are, they are the authorized and avowed doctrines of the Protestant Church of England. Surely they are not much calculated to moderate the feelings of Dissenters, on the subject of ecclesiastical establishments. The Church of England claims power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith (article 20th):-Power to decree rites and ceremonies, this is precisely what Paley calls. dictating the mode of divine worship:-Authority in controversies of faith, this includes dictating the object of divine worship. As the Church of England claims this

dictatorial power, so she insists on a right to enforce her dictation. She maintains that an Englishman cannot allege any plea to excuse his compliance; that if she deprive him of liberty, of property, or even of life itself, on account of his religion, he cannot allege that she has transgressed the boundaries of her jurisdiction. The same Protestant Church of England which decreed the rites and ceremonies, and which fixed the faith of the national establishment, has enacted many persecuting statutes and canons against all persons who allege any plea to excuse them from compliance.

The Church of England still claims this power; she has never renounced this assumed right. She has sentenced and actually put men to death for denying this pretended right. Several barbarous statutes have been repealed, but the power to re-enact them is still maintained. Several of the canons assert the Church's power to inflict an ipso facto excommunication, with all its shocking and barbarous consequences, on all persons who allege any plea to excuse them from compliance with the mode or object of divine worship which the Church has dictated. Dr. Paley, therefore, as a Churchman, was perfectly correct in what he wrote; that human laws may dictate the object and mode of divine worship; that the subject cannot allege any plea to excuse his compliance; and that if the Church deprive us of liberty, of property, or even of life itself, on account of our religion, we cannot allege that she has transgressed the boundaries of her jurisdiction. This is undeniably the doctrine of the Protestant Church of England. But can such principles reconcile Dissenters to ecclesiastical establishments? If so, we may return at once to the Church of Rome, for she never claimed more than is included in

Paley's positions. When a mem ber of the Church of England reproaches Roman Catholics with the intolerant principles of the Romish Church, if the latter retort the charge, his adversary, however shrewd, will find it impossible to extricate himself. As Dr. Paley's work has lately been printed in a cheap form, and is now widely circulated through the country, such antichristian principles ought to be publicly exposed and reprobated.

A. B.

PRINCIPLES,

CONGREGATIONAL
RELATIVE TO THE CHURCH OF
CHRIST.

THESE principles are not found in the New Testament in a systematic form, but are to be ascertained, sometimes by a distinct proposition, sometimes by an undeniable inference, and sometimes by a clear practical example.

1. A church of Christ is a congregation of persons, who, believing each other to be true disciples of Christ, have voluntarily united themselves as a society, for observing all the ordinances and commandments of the Lord Jesus.

2. There may be several of these churches of Christ in one neighbourhood, and many in one district; but there is no authority in the New Testament for what is called "a National Church."

3. Christ is the only head of the church. Neither the' civil magistrate nor any other secular power can lawfully interfere in the concerns of the church of Christ. An alliance between "the church and the state" is antichristian.

4. There are but two permanent officers in the church of Christbishop and deacon: a bishop is the pastor of one church; a deacon is the assistant of the bishop.

5. Every church has a right to