of the PROUD state of public affairs of the PROUD pre-eminence which Britain holds amongst the nations of the world-or other PROUD epithets or exultations not less demonstrative of soaring above reliance on PROVIDENTIAL care and protection; and even daring to say, almost in the very words for which the prophet Isaiah rebuked the proud king of Assyria: "By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom, for I am prudent," I have been forcibly reminded of the words of the wisest of men: "A HAUGHTY SPIRIT GOETH BEFORE A FALL!" I willingly admit that Great Britain, as a nation, has cleared herself from some very foul stains; that, compared with some other empires, we may rank higher in the scale of moral rectitude and true religious zeal;-but, let us compare and judge ourselves by the standard of the Bible, to which all our religious denominations appeal as the common criterion to judge of right and wrong. Let us compare the state of morality and religion, either in our farfamed metropolis, or in our humblest villages, by this JUST AND UNERRING STANDARD; and then all our boasted, our unparalleled number of benevolent institutions, whether for the bodies or the souls of mankind, added to all our religion and righteousness, when they come to be heaped beside the sum of immorality, wickedness, and iniquity, which abounds in every rank of society, will appear small indeed in the comparison.

Whilst then 1 am disposed to view our state of prosperity as the gift of Heaven, as an evident demonstration of the blessings of PEACE ON EARTH; and, may I add ? as a reward, not of debt but of grace, of some material acts of obedience; yet, I cannot but tremble, when I see the language of FRIDE and exultation boldly and unblushingly stalk forth into open day; because, in my humble opi

nion, whilst we ought to receive with thankfulness the favours of Heaven, we are bound to manifest our gratitude, not in uttering empty words, but by corresponding works. Can we fail distinctly to hear the language of Omnipotence proclaimed in these words; "I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel! but for MY HOLY NAME's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went ?"

If Christians in general had sanctified the name of Christ in their dealings and intercourse among the heathen, we should not at this late hour, after a lapse of almost two thousand years, have to behold the work of evangelization only in its infancy. Shall we then ascribe any thing to ourselves for these tardy efforts? Let us rather take to ourselves, as a nation, shame and confusion of face, that we have not done far more and far better, and done it in ages bypast and gone. And let us of the present generation be aroused to a faithful discharge of duty, with minds HUMBLY thankful, that a merciful God is pleased to own with acceptance what may be compared to the evening sacrifice.

I would not by this term infer the gloomy foreboding, that our glory (if I may be allowed the use of such a term in reference to ourselves, without derogating from Him to whom all glory belongs); and that our prosperity, as a nation, are upon the eve of their departure; because I am willing to hope that the God of all grace may have higher and better things in store for Britons, as instruments in his holy hands, to accomplish his sacred purposes. But let us awfully remember, that, "before destruction, the heart of man is HAUGHTY :" and, that the same Divine Being, who would doubtless have made Israel his agents for good, had they kept faithful to their God, can as easily accomplish his own purposes in our destruction, as HE has wonderfully exalted himself in theirs.

The preceding remarks have been written several months, but have lain dormant till my attention was lately turned to them by the late commercial distresses, which I can. not but consider as being permitted at least, if not sent, as a tender and fatherly chastisement; and as extending a loud call to us to humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God, and to place our DEPENDENCE on Him who can

bless and blast at his pleasure. Happy may it be for us, if, in this correction, we hear and regard a voice, like that of our blessed Lord to the impotent man who had lain at the pool of Bethesda: "Behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." And such, doubtless, is the new year's lesson which the Christian Observer would wish to urge upon his readers.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

HAVING felt much interested in the various papers in your last volume, respecting the actual condition of the French Protestant Church

on the one hand, and of the ultra and Jesuit portion of the French should be happy to learn from any Catholic Church on the other, I

of your correspondents, what traces remain of those celebrated "borderers" between the two-the Jansenists; men to whom judicious Protestants once looked as eventually the probable reformers of their own corrupt communion, and many of whose writings, notwithstanding the glaring errors which abound in them, are amongst the most valua

ble which have adorned and edified the Christian church.

any

Are there scattered remnants of this persecuted and almost exterminated body of Christians still to be found? or, rather, is there in the present French Catholic Church any class of persons resembling them in true devotion of heart to God, and warm zeal for the salvation of mankind, though imbued with many of the errors of their acknowledged creed? If such there are, either as individuals, or in masses: might they not even yet become a germ for the communication of much that is good, and the subversion of much that is evil, among the members of their own communion? But I forbear obtruding the reflections which occur to my mind on the subject; and, having proposed my query, shall content myself with leaving it to the consideration of your intelligent readers.

R. I.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. I BEG to submit to the consideration of your correspondents a case to which events of recent occurrence have given considerable interest. It cannot be unknown to you, that two at least of our Right Reverend Prelates, the juniors, I believe, or nearly the juniors, of the Episcopal order, have virtually, if not expressly, forbidden their clergy to preach sermons followed by collections, in favour of any religious societies excepting two or three

which their Lordships are pleased specially to recommend; and that the consequence, in one instance, has been, that societies, which had been honoured with the countenance of a former diocesan, have been placed by his successor under a sort of Episcopal interdict. Their Lordships have also, it is reported, admonished incumbents not to admit into their pulpits, even for occasional ministrations, any clergyman to whom they have not granted licence or permission to preach within the limits of their respective dioceses.

Now, sir, it is obvious that such injunctions, if acted upon, would impose upon the clergy, and their congregations, restraints which have not hitherto been considered as forming any part of our ecclesiastical constitution. I shall not at present even hint in detail at the injurious consequences which would ensue from the adoption of so exclusive a system. I will only observe, that the best information on the subject which I possess has brought me to the conclusion, that the authority assumed by the Right Reverend Prelates above referred to cannot be sustained by a right interpetation of our ecclesiastical canons, viewed, as they must be, in connexion with the acts relating to church discipline subsequently passed, For the satisfaction of many clergymen and others to whom this is now become a matter of practical importance, I request from any of your correspondents who may have access to the most authoritative sources of information, answers to the following questions:

1. Has a bishop the power of prohibiting any of the clergy of his diocese from preaching in their own pulpits, or with the consent of the incumbents in other pulpits within his diocese, in behalf of any society or charitable institution whether conducted by members of the Church of England exclusively, or otherwise? Can he prohibit a collection to be made in or at the

door of any church or chapel within his diocese after a sermon preached? 2. Has a bishop the power of prohibiting any of the clergy of his diocese from admitting into their pulpits any regularly ordained clergyman? or has he the power of prohibiting any of the clergy not belonging to his diocese, from entering, with the consent of the incumbent, any pulpit in his diocese, or from preaching in favour of the objects of any society or charitable institution?

3. Has a bishop the power of preventing a clergyman in his diocese from opening his church on any day of the week for the purpose of Divine service, and for a sermon to be followed by a collection ?

Provided a bishop possess any of the powers above mentioned, I wish to know in each case what is the process by which he can enforce them, and what are the penalties for disobedience.

Any correspondent who may have the kindness to give answers to the above questions might do well to consider, in connexion with them, a case recently decided in the Court of King's Bench, against the Bishop of Peterborough.

PRESBYTER.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. I FIND it asserted by Mr. Faber, in your Number for November last, that the Scriptures alone, if I understand him rightly, are incompetent to determine the controversies between the Trinitarian and Anti-trinitarian, the Transubstantialist and Anti-transubstantialist; and that the Fathers must be called in as arbiters to decide between them. I am inclined to think there is some ambiguity in the statements to which I refer, and an appearance at least of derogating from the sufficiency and pre-eminent authority of the canonical writings. If the following remarks should have no other

effect than to induce the learned writer to favour your readers with some further elucidation of the subject, they will not have been devoid of utility. I beg to put the question, Are there not certain legitimate and approved canons of interpretation, the authority of which no man, of whatever sect he be, can rationally reject? If so, we ought carefully to distinguish these which have the precedency per se, by their own intrinsic value, estimated by sound reason, from those to which we resort, when the prejudices of education, the influence of party spirit, or an illogical perverted state of mind in our opponents, obliges us to pass by the stronger and to urge the weaker proof. We may lawfully endeavour to decide a controversy by referring to an arbiter, whose judgment our adversaries will abide by, though we know of a better to whom they will not give an impartial hearing: but when we do this, let us be very careful not to disparage those superior tests of truth to which they cannot be brought to submit. May not the order of precedency, in which the different sources of interpretation should be classed, be as follows? (it may be thought too obvious to deserve mention, but it has a bearing on the question, and is mentioned for that reason only).

1. In the first rank-a thorough examination of the passage itself, and its contents; the import of its words and phrases being ascertained by referring to approved authors. This method in a copious language, the idiom of which is well understood, would furnish the best interpretation. The construing of the passage faithfully, and with philological accuracy, is the first and most direct source of a right judgment in controversy. Suppose this fails, as from the presumed difficulty of the place it may, then

2. I would appeal from the passage and its immediate contents, to other passages in the works of the same author, and to his general

doctrine, style, and acknowledged aims and views: in other words, I would make the author his own interpreter.

3. In the third place, I would refer to writings with which the author was known to be conversant, if any such there were, as being, next to his own writings, most likely to afford a clue to his meaning.

4. In the fourth place only, I would consult the writings of his followers: if they were contemporary, they might be supposed to be well acquainted with his mode of speaking, and to be good judges of the meaning of the disputed passage: if they were hearers, not of himself, but of his scholars, there would be less weight in their testimony: if they were in the third degree from the founder of the philosophy, their authority would be still lower; and, cæteris paribus, the authority would vary as the distance from the fountain head. Now let the New Testament be the work, and the contested passages those which relate to the Trinity and Transubstantiation; then, if I rightly understand your correspondent, we are obliged to resort for evidence concerning these important controversies, to witnesses that stand only in the fourth degree in the scale of authority. the passages themselves, nor the scope and tenor of the book which contains them, nor the Hebrew Scriptures which the writers of that book were familiarly conversant with, and took for their model, can adequately convey their meaning on these momentous subjects, but only their disciples, and not their immediate ones neither, (for the Apostolic Fathers do not quote them sufficiently for the purpose,) a traditionary comment received through the hands of several generations, standing in the third, fourth, and even fifth degree of descent from the founders of our religion,-are to be arbiters and judges in doctrines of great moment; and those very arbiters are said by the few who have read them, to be remarkably

Neither

deficient in precision and accuracy of interpretation. These are considerable deductions from the sufficiency and authority of the canonical writings: they seem, at least indirectly, to admit, that the Scriptures are ambiguous and obscure, even in the doctrines of the Trinity and Transubstantiation. Some of these remarks may be inapplicable to the letter of your correspondent: I may have mistaken his meaning, but I confess its tendency appears to me to be, to weaken our confidence in the scripture proof of the Trinity, and the scripture refutation of Transub

The observations of Erasmus, in his dedication of his translation of Basilius de Spiritu Sancto, deserve serious attention

from all who would "confer the office of

arbiter" upon the Fathers. "Visus sum mihi in hoe opere deprehendisse factum quod in celeberrimis quibusque laudatissimisque scriptoribus, velut in Athanasio, Chrysostomo, et Hieronymo factum et videmus et indignamur. Quid istuc inquis? Posteaquam dimidium operis absolveram citra tedium, visa est mihi phrasis alium referre parentem aliumque spirare genium; interdum ad tragicum cothurnum intumescebat oratio, rursus ad vulgarum sermonem subsidebat, &c.....quum Basilius ubique sit sanus, simplex, et candidus, sibi constans ......ex his rebus subiit animum meum suspicio, studiosum quempiam, quo volumen reddet auctius, multa intertexuisse ;... videlicet eum qui doctissimis Athanasii libellis de Spiritu Sancto suas loquaces sed elumbes attexuit nonias, quique ad Epistolam ad Corinthios posteram et in Apostolorum Acta Chrysostomus haberi studuit. Porro sceleratissimum contaminandi genus est egregiorum virorum clarissimis purpuris suos pannos intertexere......quod in divi Hierononymi commentariis quibus enarrat Psalmos, intolerabili sacrilegio factum esse, clarius est quam ut negari possit." (p. 300.) See also several notes of Cotelerius and other annotators on the Epistle of Clemens Romanus, shewing how it has been interpolated by the insertion of passages from Clemens Alexandrinus. The discovery of the smaller Epistles of Ignatius by Usher and Vossius, has also proved the larger ones, which had before been the only ones extant, to have been greatly adulterated. We may therefore be excused, if we are reluctant to prop the edifice of scriptural truth with buttresses which need to be propped themselves; at least their foundation should be more carefully examined, before we trust to them for the support of any doctrine.

CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 289.

stantiation*. On the other hand, it contains a testimony which, as coming from a competent witness with a real signature, is of great value. I transcribe the words to which I refer; "From my own actual examination," says Mr. Faber, "I speak with confidence, that the Fathers invariably understand the litigated texts as the Trinitarian still understands them." It is doing essential service to your readers, to put them in possession of such a testimony; and it is much to be regretted, that writers of such laborious erudition do not always feel it a duty to give to the public, as they casily might, by means of a periodical publication the result of their researches: they might thus afford much relief to the painful doubts and dangerous vacillations of mind, of some who are not able to take so wide a range in quest of sound knowledge and stability in the Christian faith.

It would be a beneficial result of this discussion respecting the Fathers, if it should lead to a wider diffusion of those stores of the theology and piety of the early ages, and should contribute to fix their station in the scale of autho

rity and usefulness more accurately.

S.

That the Anti-transubstantialists can prove their point from Scripture only inductively, as this learned author intimates, many will, I think, take the liberty of denying.

The Scripture asserts, that Jesus said," Hoc est corpus meum," and proves directly (not inductively) that the disciples saw the body of Jesus and the bread in his hand at the same moment that they heard the words: which of their senses did they believe? the Pagan says, "segnius irritant animum demissa per aures."-However, the passage of Scripture proves that ocular demonstration, by which they knew the body of Christ and the sacrament bread to be distinct things, as well as proves the words which are alleged by the Papists to identify them, but does not say to which of these evidences they yielded assent. they preferred the evidence of hearing, how could they trust their eyes, when they saw the cruel and ignominious death of him who was declared by the voice of God himself, in their own hearing, to be the eternal Son of God?

E

If