early, so silently, so unitedly, as to have the whole truth regarded as a novelty, and denounced as a heresy, in the second, and third, and fourth centuries? Dr. Priestley has, indeed, attempted to show that the liberal system was that which was actually delivered by Christ and his apostles to the saints, and that such a change as we have supposed did happen in the progress of two or three hundred years. But, besides the utter failure of his proof, he might as well have attempted to show that the course of all the rivers in the Roman empire was reversed during the first three centuries of the Christian era, in opposition to the testimony of all the historians and naturalists of the empire, convened by public authority on purpose to inquire into the matter of fact.

5. It is a point decided by inspiration, that the martyrs who suffered under pagan and papal persecutions held the same faith; and that the faith which they held, and for which they suffered, is the faith which was delivered to the saints. The apostle John saw in vision, "under the altar, the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held."+ It is called in another place "the commandments of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ." These are the martyrs under pagan Rome. But

with reference to those who suffered afterwards, under papal Rome, it is said, "Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." The faith, then, which the martyrs held under

*See Tracts in Controversy with Dr. Priestley, by the Rev. Heneage Horsley, A. M. Also, a Vindication of the Doctrine of Scripture, and of the Primitive Faith concerning the Divinity of Christ, in reply to Dr. Priestley's History of Early Opinions, &c., by the Rev. John Jamieson, D. D., F. R. S., of Forfar.

† Rev. 6: 9.

Rev. 12: 17.

§ Rev. 14: 12.

pagan and papal Rome, and for which they suffered, was the same; and was the WORD OF GOD AND THE FAITH OF JESUS. But we know, by evidence unequivocal and undeniable, that the doctrinal opinions of the martyrs under papal Rome were the doctrines of the evangelical system, and not those of the liberal system. They exist now upon historical records and in public creeds, and are denominated the doctrines of the Reformation. The doctrines of the Reformation, then, which we denominate the evangelical system, have the seal of heaven impressed upon them, as being the WORD OF GOD AND THE FAITH OF JESUS - THE FAITH WHICH WAS ONCE DELIVERED

TO THE SAINTS.

I am now to explain the manner in which the churches of our Lord should contend for the faith.

1. By a proper exercise of their civil influence.

The rights and duties of Christians, as members of a civil community, are not, it is believed, generally understood. As, in the first generations of New England, everything, almost, was done by civil government to promote religion, the idea has descended that Christians have some influence to exert, favorable to religion, through the medium of government, without the perception, exactly, how it is to be done, in the present altered state of things. Christians, now, in their civil capacity, are members of a great empire, whose administration cannot be modified in accommodation to local religious purposes. A multitude of denominations of Christians have arisen, also, each upon principles of religious liberty entitled to impartial protection; and excluding, in behalf of any, governmental favoritism. In this new state of things, Christians are perplexed, and know not what to do. They are afraid to withhold their efforts to benefit religion through the medium of government; and, environed by difficulties and dangers,

they are afraid to exert it. For my own satisfaction, in the first instance, I have been led to investigate the subject; and, though I have not found it unattended with difficulties, my mind rests in the following results:

(1.) Christians are not to attempt to control the administration of civil government in things merely secular.

This is what our Saviour refused to do, when he declined being a king, or ruler, or judge. It would secularize the church, as the same conduct secularized the church of Rome, and bring upon her, and justly, a vindictive reäction of hatred and opposition. When great questions of national morality are about to be decided, such as the declaration of war,— or, as in England, the abolition of the slave-trade, or the permission to introduce Christianity into India by missionaries,— it becomes Christians to lift up their voice, and exert their united influence. But with the annual detail of secular policy it does not become Christians to intermeddle, beyond the unobtrusive influence of their silent suffrage. They are not to "strive, nor cry, nor lift up their voice in the streets." The injudicious association of religion with politics, in the time of Cromwell, brought upon evangelical doctrine and piety, in England, an odium which has not ceased to this day.

(2.) It is equally manifest that Christians should not attach themselves exclusively to any political party, or take a deep interest in political disputes.

No party is so exclusively right as to render it safe for any man to commit his conscience to its keeping, and act implicitly according to its dictation. Nor can any party, in a popular government, be sufficiently secure from change, to render it safe to identify with it the interests of religion. Besides, if Christians enter deeply into political disputes, they

REPLY

TO A REVIEW OF THE SERMON ENTITLED THE FAITH ONCE DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS.'

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.*

SIRI received and read the review of my sermon, delivered at Worcester, in your number of January, 1824: and most of the remarks which I propose to submit to your consideration were written in the early part of that year; but circumstances which I need not explain have prevented their publication until now.

It is not to be expected, or claimed, that an author shall, in all respects, be gratified in the exhibition which is made of his opinions and arguments; and yet, there are, doubtless, rules of controversy which the laws of equity acknowledge and protect. We are bound, for example, if we attempt to answer an extended complex argument, to give the argument entire; for moral evidence is but the accumulation of probabilities; and a partial statement of the argument is in effect a misrepresentation of it, as it supposes the writer to rely on

*The following reply was made to an article which appeared in the Christian Examiner, purporting to be a review of the preceding sermon. It is addressed to the Editor of the Christian Examiner, as it was originally designed for that work; but it was afterwards inserted in the volume of the Christian Spectator for 1825.

the argument which is stated and replied to, when it may be that he relies on it only as taken in connection with the facts which are omitted. In answering a complex argument, each particular which goes to constitute the entire argument should be stated in its logical form, and in the words of the writer, or in language equally intelligible. Otherwise, how can the reader know what the argument is, or whether the reply be relevant or not? A mere allusion to the argument, without a statement of it in logical form, may answer the purpose of evasion, or declamation, or irrelevant reply, but never will answer the purpose of fair and honorable controversy.

It is equally plain that each argument replied to should be met and answered as it is understood and relied on by our antagonist. However near the reply may approach to the point of the argument, if it does not meet it directly, the more ingenious is the sophistry, and the more provoking are the misrepresentations; because, being numerous, and of such nice discrimination, the reader is soon tired of sitting in judgment on such little matters; and the culprit, when this end is achieved, turns and hurls back on his injured antagonist the odium of nice metaphysical distinction, and of vain jangling. One might as well go out "to seek a flea, or to hunt a partridge in the mountains," as to follow up with arguments such dodging antagonists. And whether such conduct indicates a desire to know the truth or to avoid it, it is not difficult to` perceive.

Another obvious rule of controversial equity is, that where matters of fact constitute the argument, the facts be noted in their logical bearing, and be replied to in point. Facts, when relevant, constitute the most invincible argument. Theories are nothing in their presence; and no honorable alternative remains, but to show their irrelevancy, or to