called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." By the same unerring hand were traced, with the utmost precision, in another place, events which the Christian world has seen verified, and the effects of which have not subsided to this day. "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their consciences seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." "'*

3. In the last place, the preservation of the Christian church, amidst the numberless dangers to which it has been exposed, by outward violence and inward corruption, stands as a decisive argu ment of the patronage of heaven. We draw this conclusion from the promises of Christ that his church should survive every attack aimed at its existence and purity, and from the interference of divine power by which these promises have been accomplished. The continued existence of a church, founded on principles entirely spiritual, during so many ages of unrelenting opposition, furnishes us with a fulfilment of prophecy, clearly distinct from every conjecture of human sagacity. All the probabilities which serve as guides to the foresight of men, were decisively adverse to the perpetuity of the Christian cause, when Christ declared that it was founded on a rock, which should successfully resist all the combinations of its enemies. Nothing inferior to that penetrating eye, which beholds with equal clear

* 1 Tim, iv. 1, 2, 3.

ness the present and the future, could have predicted such an issue of the preaching of Christ and his apostles, opposed as they were, to all that is formidable in numbers, worldly policy, and in determined malignity.

In

For the completion of this argu ment, we have still to consider that the existence of genuine Christianity is, in all times and places, a demonstration of the presence and agency of God. Every real Christian is a living witness of the divine original of the Gospel. In him is exhibited the power of omnipotence. the purity of his heart, and the sanctity of his manners, are the gracious promises of God verified. "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes; and ye shall keep my judg ments, and do them."* force of this argument Christians themselves are indeed the most susceptible; yet such is its na ture, so little to be effected by means merely human, that it stands an indelible monument of the power and grace of God, expressed in characters which infidels may read, and in which the opposers of the Gospel may behold the sure indications of their utter defeat, and the presages of the final ruin of their cause.

Of the

We have thus, with a rapidity indispensible to our object, surveyed the history of the revelation which God has given to man by Jesus Christ. Though merely a sketch, and that a very imperfect one, of what the friends of

* Ezek. xxxvi. 25--27.

the Gospel have to offer in de fence of their faith and hope, yet, attentively contemplated, it will furnish to Christians a satisfactory proof, that they have "not followed cunningly devised fables," but that in their reception of the doctrines, and their obedience to the precepts of Christ, they are following the path which infinite wisdom and goodness have traced out for them: a path, which all the dispensations of heaven, in these later ages of the world, are conspiring to render more distinct, and with greater clearness, to show its termination in everlasting felicity and triumph. That the reader may pursue, with increased confidence, and with growing energy, this path of light and peace, is the highest object of our wishes, and will afford an abundant remuneration for all our exertions in his service.

Ar a meeting of ministers held recently, some conversation took place respecting briefs for collecting charity in behalf of sufferers from fire. It appeared to be desirable to all present, to ascertain, if possible, what is the real state of the law, and the real condition of dissenters, with regard to these briefs. It is well known, that very serious objections lie against this mode of raising money, however laudable the object itself may be; and it is important to obtain accurate knowledge as to the kind of obligation which dissenters are under to pay attention to such requisitions. Some ministers read the briefs from the pulpit, or at least their titles, conceiving that they are bound to do SO. Others return them with a small sum from the deacons, with out bringing them before the congregation. Others throw them by, without taking notice of

them in any way. I have, at this moment, several in my possession, and some have been lost or de stroyed. I have sometimes published them, from the pulpit, without their producing any mo ney; and sometimes the deacons have taken charge of them, in what way I know not. If any person, who is competent to form an opinion and to give instruction upon this subject, will be so kind as to communicate the same through the medium of the Congregational Magazine, he will confer a benefit and a favour upon many.

EPAPHRAS.

REMARKS ON AN ARTICLE IN THE ECLECTIC REVIEW FOR NOV. 1821, UPON TURNBULL'S COMPARATIVE VIEW OF FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT.

(To the Editors.)

THE function of a Reviewer, while justly possessed of power, ought not to be exempted from responsibility. Sheltered, however, by the concealment of his name, he is too often tempted to utter things, which he would not have the hardihood to do, face to face. He has the opportunity of indulging his private motives, without fear of being discovered. If guilty of an injustice toward an author, that author has no redress in the pages of the work, where he is injured; for when was it known, that a a Reviewer acknowledged himself in the wrong? An author who feels himself injured, therefore, must bear it as patiently as he can, or find out some quarter, where he may be likely to make his complaint heard.

As the author of the work above referred to, I think it due to the subject I have treated, and to myself, to take some notice of the very unfair and uncandid criticisms on it, which have appeared I am in the Eclectic Review. quite prepared to encounter a dif

to the church of Christ, by “bringing forth things new and old.”

Moreover, if my work be so worthless as the Reviewer pretends, why labour so much to expose it to contempt? He might have said all he had to say in three lines: "This book contains nothing very novel; and what is the author's own, is. not worth reading: he is only a smatterer and blunderer in these things." This is the substance of the Review. But the labour bestowed upon it, at the same time, betrays a fear lest the book should enjoy any reputation. What the Reviewer's motives may have been, it is not for me to determine. There certainly appears to be some personality in them not the most creditable to him, whoever he may be.

ference of opinion on this or any other subject; but I ought not to pass over what I cannot but consider a wilful and designed misrepresentation. The Reviewer does not like my book. He is a stiff and rigid Independent; and he has entered upon the work of review, with an evident intention of bringing the book and the author into as much disrepute as possible. The whole review, (and it is not a short one) is employed in endeavouring to catch at a mistake, or discover an inconsistency. This spirit, though not the most lovely, I should have borne with for the sake of advantage to the subject, had it shed any such light on my mind: I remember my school lesson, fas est ab hoste doceri. But when I find a Reviewer straining every nerve to expose me as a blunderer, incapable of putting two ideas together, I see reason to aim at reaching his conscience by expostulation; and at confuting his misstatements at the bar of the public.

The Reviewer sets out with an endeavour to prejudice his readers against my work, by stating, that it offers " no considerations of a very novel kind." On the subject of church-government, if any thing can be said that is at all novel, supported by evidence, it is surely worthy of some attention. I know not what wonders of novelty this Reviewer is looking for in a subject that has occupied the thoughts of all divines for eighteen hundred years. But if old truths are placed in a different light, and old facts employed for a different purpose, some greater degree of usefulness may be the result. If the Reviewer be really acquainted with the subject on which he writes, he must know, that several of the views I have taken of it, are by no means usually found in authors of reputation on Church Government. But my object has not been no velty. I have studied to be useful

At any rate, he writes in the true spirit of a retainer and a partizan. For my part, I can honestly say, that no such feeling has possessed my mind; and, in fact, the pages of the work may be safely appealed to for the proof.

The Reviewer proceeds; and, in the next line, tells his readers, that my "principal point is, to illustrate the authority of Christian ministers." This is not true. The principal point is contained in the title of the book, viz. A Comparison of Three Systems of Church Government; and, by the Light of Scripture and Church History, an Endeavour to form a proper Judgment on their respective Merits. The Reviewer takes no notice of this matter! Can he be called a just judge, or a faithful witness— which ought to be the character of a Reviewer-who can be guilty of so gross a misrepresentation? is impossible for any one who reads the work to consider this as a mere oversight; for the design of the work, according to the title, is strictly kept in view throughout the whole, and enters into all its forms and arguments. But the Reviewer, instead of noticing the

It

real and manifest design of the work, chooses to tell those who may be waiting to receive his report of it, what is not true; and then falls immediately to nibbling and carping at insulated particulars. He first misrepresents the design of the whole, and then endeavours to falsify several of the parts.

He, at the same time, affects to consider mine as a feeble attempt to revive a project, which he had the honour of crushing about two years ago: and, if a person were to derive his information from the Reviewer, he would suppose, that "the project" is some new-fangled scheme which was never heard of before;-some kind of religious imposture, a-kin to that of Joanna Southcott, and the American prophet; which he is rendering the public a special service in detecting and exposing. He does not tell his readers, that the system which I advocate is, at this day, in operation among large bodies of Christians in America; and that, a hundred and fifty years back, it was substantially acknowledged and practised by the fathers of the present race of Dissenters. It did not suit the Reviewer to go into the historical part of the subject, except to catch me in an error, if he could. But, surely, a man of his extensive knowledge in churchhistory, is well acquainted with all the facts to which I have referred; and I am sure he would have denied them if possible. I suppose, however, all I shall get from him in reply will be, that all these people, both of old and of modern times, were in the wrong together with me: that "they cannot be allowed to rule our judgments;" and, therefore, they are not to be heard. Herein he condemns Elliot, and Mather, and Cotton, and Ames, and Robinson himself, and Dr. Owen, and I know not how many more of name amongst us. Though I am not insensible to the right and privilege of private judgment, I would

hold it modestly; and I shall not be ashamed to err with such men. They may have been fools ;-so am I: they may have had sinister designs on the church of Christ;

so, it seems, have I. Why does not the Reviewer formally, as he does by implication, condemn them as senseless, and so forth, because they were not strict and rigid Independents? I have done my best to bring forward the sentiments of these revered men to the view of the rising generation, to whom, for the most part, they are unknown. The Reviewer would not have people to read them. He is welcome to his fears, or to his anticipated triumph. He seems to think he has "put down," not only my little book, but the sentiments it maintains. I can assure him, that he has not. While I hear from every quarter how much his Review is disapproved of, I have, at the same time, received sufficient corroboration of the soundness of my principles, in the cordial approbation of those, whose judgment I ought to esteem; and this, too, from persons of different denominations. Moreover, I know, what, it seems the Reviewer has some scent of, that many, dissatisfied with his rigid and levelling Independency, have been long waiting with anxiety for light to direct them in a path, which is none of the smoothest or plainest. Some have confessed the justness of those positions to which they were before hostile; and others have declared themselves as set at rest and ease, by those views which I have brought forward. The Reviewer may succeed, in some cases, in preventing persons from read-. ing the work, and in giving those who are strangers to me, a bad impression concerning me personally. If he can derive satisfaction from reflecting on his achievement-let him. But who, in the name of mystery, is this potent lord of books, and authors, and of the

My limits will not allow me to enter seriatim into the particulars of this unjust and ill-natured critique; nor, speaking generally, do I think it worth while. I believe that the prejudices of the Reviewer will not allow him to look at any thing out of his own sect with approbation; and if we may gather any thing from his favourite phrase of" putting down," which he has abused, one would think he cannot even look at it with toleration. On this phrase of “ putting down," which he quotes with great glee from Dr. Wardlaw, and which I knew the Doctor had used, and in what connexion, as well as he could tell me, while I was quoting those sentiments which suited my purpose; I have to say, that the Reviewer has been guilty either of an oversight or a misrepresentation. I have pleaded for a local association of ministers and churches, with which shall be connected an appeal and inquiry concerning moral and religious conduct. Dr. Wardlaw says nothing about this in his sermon. What he says, relates to the Congregational Union of Scotland, which embraces all the churches of that denomination in that kingdom. I have not pleaded for a Congregational Union of England, as possessing this power of appeal and inquiry; nor did I intend so to do. According to the Reviewer, I have pleaded for a national congregational union of all the churches in the kingdom, possessed of the power of churchdiscipline. "This is only the figment of the Reviewer's own imagination." What I mean to contend for is stated in pp. 16 and 100 of "The ComparativeView;" where

the association proposed is confined to those churches which are conveniently situated as neighbours for the benefit of Christian communion. In the close of the work, I have intimated the possibility, as it must surely be deemed a thing desirable, that all true Christians may be brought into closer union with each other, as members of one great family, and more particularly those whose sentiments approximate to each other. This kind of general union is not to be confounded with the local association referred to.

The Reviewer's sar

casms on this subject are, therefore, wasted. He may gather them up and reserve them for a happier occasion.

Moreover, I know that some of the Congregationalists of Scotland, think in the main with me on this subject. They are jealous (and so am I) of the abuses to which any such interference is liable; but they distinctly admit the necessity of the thing,

I am

The Reviewer endeavours again to bring me into contempt among the unlearned, (the truly learned will know how to appreciate his contempt,) for quoting an epistle commonly ascribed to Ignatius, and addressed to Heron, a deacon of the church at Antioch, the greatest simpleton, and so forth, for quoting this epistle as genuine, when all the world knows, that it is spurious! The fact is, I never entered into the question, whether it was genuine or not. This would have been quite out of place in my work: and most probably from the temper of the Reviewer, had I entered into any discussion of the subject, and thought proper to reject it as totally worthless, he would have brought against me the opi nions of those learned men, who have considered this epistle as genuine.

It suited my purpose to quote it as an ancient document, going under the name of Ignatius. When we are quoting