sent, are appointed to receive informations of that kind. Let them examine the matter, and if they find the complaint frivolous and groundless, let them rebuke the complainer; if they find it just, let them rebuke the offender, and call him to repentance." Now, in this passage of Scripture, a passage treating directly on church censures, and church discipline, we have not a word enjoining the publicity for which you contend, unless you go into the principles of Independents. If, however, the interference of the church shall fail to produce repentance and reformation, then, in that case, the of fender is to be cast out of it; and, as in the case of the incestuous person at Corinth, delivered unto Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. This awful transaction is to be performed in a public and solemn manner. If the unhappy person shall continue impenitent and ungodly, those who are within the church must shun his company, and show their abhorrence of his conduct; but, should he afterward discover sorrow for his sin, and bring forth fruit meet for repentance, they are to forgive him, and comfort him, and confirm their love to him, receiving him into their communion, and blessing God on his behalf.

C. However plausible your reasoning, I still think, that you are wrong; and as public rebuking tends most to edification, even though the divine appointment thereof be doubtful, it should not be laid aside.

T. Perhaps we shall take too much upon us, if, even with a view to edification, we teach for doctrines or for ordinances the commandments of men. Perhaps, where divine authority may appear doubt ful, the safest course is to go and learn what that meaneth, I will

have mercy and not sacrifice." With regard to edification, however, neither the nature of the case, nor matter of fact and observation permit me to believe, that the mode of discipline for which you so warmly plead, is at all friendly to it.

C. Facts are strong proofs, no doubt; let us come to facts, and just compare the general character of a parish, where a diligent gospel minister, and a respectable session, make all who are guilty of breaking the seventh commandment, appear to be publicly rebuked for their sin and scandal, with any other parish, where by a careless minister, and a worthless session, these things are either overlooked altogether, or noticed only among themselves, and let matter of fact and observation say which of these parishes contains the most respectable inhabitants, for moral and religious character in general, or which of them exhibits the fewest instances of those sins which are publicly taken notice of.

T. The comparison is not justly stated: let it be between two parishes where the minister and eldership are equally diligent and respectable, and friendly to the doctrines and morality of the gospel; and then say which of them presents the character fairest, either in a general point of view, or in respect of that shameful and awfully prevailing crime, which, as you say, is publicly taken notice of. Here let the merits of the case be tried ; I am not disposed to retract what I said when we entered on this conversation, that the mode of church discipline so often mentioned-the making of offending individuals to stand up in the midst of a worshipping congregation-is pernicious as well as unscriptural; and that, both with regard to the person who is made the spectacle, and to those who are compelled to witness the

exhibition. There is, I believe, in a great majority of cases of this kind, a very strong, though frequently an unfounded persuasion, in the mind of the individual, that he is an injured person; that the session, to whose decisions he has to submit, act toward him, rather from a spirit of lordly domination, and Pharisaical self-complacency, and affect ed sanctimoniousness, than from a feeling of conscientiousness, and commiseration, and care for his soul. Indeed, the manner in which he is addressed, the angry-like countenance, and tone, and words of his reprover, would sometimes appear to indicate a disposition to punish rather than to reclaim. The of fender, always ready, no doubt, to be partial to himself, is apt to consider himself as a persecuted person, and the consequence often act ually is, a feeling of disrespect and dislike toward those who should both deserve and enjoy the respect and the good will of all, over whose best interests they are called to watch. It is not to be thought that such a state of mind is at all favourable to that repentance, without which all outward appearances are an abomination in the sight of God; nor is it difficult sometimes to learn, from future conduct, what may at other times be plainly spoken. out; that, having got their standing over, (these are the words, and indeed there is sometimes so little besides standing, that that would require a might and a mystery' in itself,) that, having got their standing over, all was set to rights again. And with respect to others, whose warning and edification ought certainly to be taken into the account, what is the effect; let the gestures of some in the mean while, let the filthiness and foolish jesting afterward, speak it out. The commonness of the spectacle, prevents the good which in a purer state of the church might possibly result

from it, while, it is much to be feared, that it produces that very evil, which it is intended to pre vent. I strongly and honestly fear, that it tends to familiarize the young and unwary mind to scenes of grossest impurity; to harden and pollute the already depraved hearts of lewd fellows of the baser sort; and, to destroy that modesty and shamefacedness, which are at once the ornament and safeguard of female virtue.

C. Then, there must be no reproving of sin, for fear of encouraging sin: this is a false delicacy surely; you contradict yourself.

T. You mistake me; it is not the reproving for sin, but the standing for sin; it is not even the pub. lic reproving for sin, but the corporal and carnal manner of it, tó which I object. Let all sin be declared exceeding sinful; let the character and the conscience of a particular obstinate transgressor, be so fearlessly and faithfully pointed out, that both he and others may be able to say who is the man; that both he and they may fear; but at all times, and especially with regard to those sins which ought not to be so much as named, there is need for much prudence and delicacy.

1

C. The very thing so offensive to you has been the custom in the early and purer ages of the church; appointed by the wisest and best of men, for the best of ends; and, for any man connected with the Presbyterian church of Scotland, to disregard their decisions, must be conduct very rash and unjustifiable indeed.

T. That the venerable fathers of the church of Scotland were among the wisest and best of men; that the mode of church government prescribed by them, was intended, and in general calculated, to pro. mote the very best of ends; and further, that many who still ad

here to what you say is so offensive to me, are actuated by the very best of motives, is what I most firmly believe. Still, these good men, and great men, were but men; it is not impossible that they might err; and, to enforce adherence to their prescriptions, even should they appear to have erred in them, is an honour to which they could never aspire. Were the point in hand the first or only one, in which their successors had infringed on their rules, something might have been said respecting the impropriety of the innovation: this, it is notorious, is not the case; and, with respect to the origin of the custom, I only utter my decided belief, when I say, that it bears such a resemblance to the penances and persecutions of the Romish Church, as to mark its alliance to the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.

C. The church at large have as good a right as their minister or elders to witness its own discipline.

T. Both the one and the other, have just the right that the word of God gives them; and, I should suppose, that the people will feel as much inclined to claim a right of uling, as a right of witnessing.

C. I think we shall not soon agree; but their needs not be so much ado about public appearances; no person is called on to submit to that, at least so far as my knowledge goes, but such as are guilty of those abominable crimes which exclude from the kingdom of heaven; I mean sins against the seventh commandment.

T. The sin of uncleanness is certainly a heinous and abominable sin; and far, far be it from me, to attempt an extenuation thereof; but let not our detestation of that sin, assume the appearance of kindliness toward other sins; the sins of drunkenness, and profane swearing, and Sabbath breaking, are also heinous and abominable sins; and,

like all sins unrepented of, and unforgiven, do certainly exclude from the kingdom of heaven. Let them all meet with due censure and due castigation; let parents, and masters, and magistrates, show to all, that they regard no iniquity in their heart; especially, let ministers and elders be careful to exonerate themselves from the foul imputation, too profusely cast on them, of a culpable supineness in their oversight of the flock, or of an arbitrary, and unscriptural selection, in their cognizance of sins and scandals. Let the office-bearers in the church deal with transgressors with all faithfulness, as those who must give account of their stewardship; let them manifest much of that meek. ness and gentleness which become those who may themselves be tempted, and which bid fairest, through the blessing of God, to restore those who have been overtaken in a fault; let them not cease to cry mightily to God for that blessing; in short, let them observe all things whatsoever their divine master hath commanded them; and so he will be with them alway, even to the end of the world; proceeding thus in God's name; and in God's way, whatsoever they shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever they shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. It is very likely that, as you have said, we shall not soon agree in reference to all these things; then we may agree to differ, looking and longing for that world, where we shall know even as we are known, and our hearts shall be one. It is an interesting question to you and to me, are we on the way thitherward? if so, let us hold on; nay more, if so, we shall hold on. Blessed be God for this assurance! we have been call. ing each other to look at certain passages in the word of God, let me suggest another, as a parting passage for this time; and oh, may we

follow its counsel, and enjoy its comforts. " Abstain from all appearance of evil, and the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and, I pray God, your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved blameless, unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it."

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN INSTRUCTOR.

Reply to Q. on Phrenology and Conversion.

SIR,

PHRENOLOGY and Phrenologists have been so often assailed by the weapons of ridicule and abuse, that it is gratifying to meet with an opponent so temperate and candid as your correspondent Q. He is not indeed to be ranked as an opposer of the new science, for he assures us that he is." a kind of Semi-Phrenologist," though in the present instance he has entered the lists as an antagonist. But while I give him full credit for fairness of intention, I cannot compliment him for much critical acumen, his objections being founded on a complete misapprehension of the arguments contained in the paper which he has under

taken to review.

This remark is especially applicable to his first objection. I had stated that conversion consisted in the activity and right direction of all the sentiments-" Hence we conclude, that if a man should manifest the veneration of a David, and yet be deficient in conscientiousness, he has no just pretensions to the character of a true convert." It was then remarked, that "we must not think that a man who is devout, and

As

yet at the same time dishonest, is therefore necessarily a hypocrite ;" and in illustration of this it was stated on the authority of Dr. Bright, that "devout and uninformed Catholics seem to be constantly living in an ideal world, perpetually thinking upon, and accompanying our Saviour; yet in point of real imitation and obedience, are at least as far behind as the Protestants." an additional illustration, I mentioned the case which is the subject of your correspondent's animadversions, viz. that of an individual distinguished for his unremitting attention to the duties of devotion, but at the same time habitually dishonest in his dealings. Without the aid of Phrenology, the conclusion was extremely natural, that he was a consummate hypocrite; but when the organ of veneration was found to be uncommonly large, the estimate of his character was altered, and he ceased to be regarded as the hypocrite; in other words, it was inferred, that he was gratifying his natural instinct by joining in the exercises of prayer and praise, and that he was not, to adopt Dr. Johnson's definition of a hypocrite, " a dissembler in religion." Now reverse the development, and assume that " his veneration had been deficient, and his secretiveness large;" could there have been a doubt of his hypocrisy and yet for making this assertion your correspondent is pleased to say, that Phrenologists thereby arrogate to themselves the peculiar province of our Lord to judge the heart; that it is presumptien in any man who cannot understand the errors of his own heart, to judge of the estate of his neighbour; that the rule which our Saviour gave "by their fruits ye shall know them," is the only one we can follow with safety, and when Phrenologists go beyond it, they go beyond their depth. In all these sentiments I cordially concur with your correspondent;

but how they apply to the case in question, I have not sufficient causality to perceive. Through the whole of the paper, I assumed the truth of Phrenology; and granting this assumption, it appears to me self-evident, that an individual who has large secretiveness and deficient veneration, who is distinguished for his unremitting attention to the duties of devotion, but who is at the same time habitually dishonest in his dealings, must be a hypocrite. Your correspondent appears to have lost sight altogether of this important element of the character, viz. his habitual dishonesty, and, he supposes, or seems to suppose, for his argument is not very intelligible, that the estimate was founded solely on his development, while, in point of fact, the judgment of his "estate" was founded on that very rule of our Saviour, which he quotes with such deserved approbation, by their fruits ye shall know them."

And this leads me to notice another assertion of your correspondent's, viz. "That in some cases (of conversion) this knowledge can only be obtained by means of Phrenology." Now where did Q. find this stated? Not surely in the paper which is the subject of his strictures. For it is there expressly asserted, that "no phrenologist ever pretended, that, on presenting to him the cast of a head, he could predicate whether the individual, to whom it belonged, was sane or insane, educated or uneducated, converted, or not converted. Previous information is required on all those points, &c." No objection is more common, or more unfounded than this, that phrenologists pretend to predicate actions, or character, from the cerebral development. They can tell the natural dispositions and talents of an individual; and unless the development is very strongly marked indeed, it is at their own risk if they

venture farther. This has been so often re-iterated in the Phrenological books, that even a "semi-Phrenologist" ought to have known it.

When your correspondent asserts, without attempting to prove, that statements are made, which appear to him inconsistent with the sovereignty of divine grace, I can only meet assertion with assertion, "that the grace of God is free and sovereign," and that it " were absurd and impious, in the highest degree, to limit the power of the Holy One of Israel." Q. observes, that "it may be possible to give such a forced explanation as will reconcile” the statements. But till he shows that the explanation is really forced, I must be permitted to say, that there is not a sentiment or an opinion in the whole paper, which is not in perfect concordance with the doctrine in question, the truth of which I hold as strenuously as he does.

He states that what is contained at the top of page 815, col. 2, and near the top of page 816 col. 1, "is liable to the same objection, and expressed in language too strong for the limited observations which have been made." How does Q. know that these observations are of the limited nature which he here asserts ? His own observations may deserve this character; but is it fair to measure the attainments of others by his own? Now I make a counter-assertion, and state that the remarks contained in the paper, were founded on a widely extended and most satisfactory induction of facts. I repeat the statement, that "we know of no instance of a man of eminent piety, who has the development of a Haggart or a Belling ham;" but I now go farther, and assert, that if such a case can be found, it will not only destroy the whole argument which I have maintained, but it will cut up Phreno logy itself, root and branch-this brings the matter to a short issue canada