If

more in accordance with the reverence which is due to the Holy Spirit, who "searcheth all things, even the deep things of God," to suppose that the literal fulfilment was not hidden from him. “E. B.” thinks otherwise, I will not enter into argument with him, not having the confidence to pronounce him "unquestionably mistaken" when he endeavours to ascertain the mind of the Spirit. But if the Holy Spirit, when he uttered that prophecy, foresaw the "material" fulfilment of it which has taken place, then who shall dare to say that the application of the prophecy to the material fulfilment, which He contemplated when he uttered it, is "treading on insecure ground."

I will only add, that I have endeavoured to adjust what I have said concerning the sacrifice of the holy eucharist, according to the standards which the church has appointed for the guidance of her ministers-namely, first, "not so to expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another," (Art. 20.) and, secondly, so to teach the doctrine of that sacrament, as "the good fathers of the primitive church frequented it." (Homily on the worthy receiving, &c.) Or, as it is more generally expressed, in the canons of 1571, "not to teach anything but what is," first," agreeable to the doctrine of the Old or New Testament, and," secondly, "which the catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from that same doctrine." And, notwithstanding "E. B.'s' observations, I am willing to hope that I have succeeded; having supported the position I advanced by the concurrent testimony of all antiquity, and defying "E. B.," or any other (as I believe I safely may do), to adduce even a single witness from the primitive ages against it; while the position itself is so far from being repugnant to Holy Writ, that it sets forth, in a striking manner, the wonderful harmony that subsists through all the dispensations of God's providence, and exemplifies the communion of saints, by shewing the uniformity, or rather unity, of their worship, all testifying their one and the same faith in the one and the same great sacrifice, by the use of one and the same type or figure of a pure and holy offering.

If my doctrine be not in accordance with the standard which the church has appointed, let "E. B." shew where I have failed, and I will acknowledge my error, and thank him too for pointing it out; but if otherwise, then let him withdraw his bitter censure of me, and acknowledge it to be unmerited.

But if, departing from the church's guidance, "E. B." prefers a less "hazardous" standard than she has recognised and appointed, he will, I trust, excuse me if I refuse to follow his steps, and prefer abiding by the counsels of that mother, "whose ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace." Ever, my dear -, yours most truly,

A. P. P.

P.S. It gives me great pleasure to inform "E. B." that his conclusion respecting the general disuse of the Scottish liturgy is mistaken, and that the custom of substituting a less perfect office of another church for the more perfect one of their own is still uncountenanced by the majority of the Scotch episcopalians. I write on the authority of one of the venerable prelates of that church, whom I have the VOL. VII.—Jan, 1835.

H

privilege to call my friend, and to whom I wrote immediately on seeing "E. B.'s" postscript. He informs me that the Scottish form is still used in a majority (not very considerable) of their places of worship; in a proportion, as regards his own diocese, of eight to one. He has kindly, also, pointed out the canon of their church upon the subject, in which (the 25th) it is declared that it "hath been justly considered, and is hereby considered, as the authorized service of the episcopal church in the administration of that sacrament," and "in respect to the authority which sanctioned the Scotch liturgy, and for other sufficient reasons, it is hereby enacted that the Scotch communion office shall be used in all consecrations of bishops, and that every bishop, when consecrated, shall give his full assent to it, as being sound in itself, and of primary authority in Scotland."

SUGGESTIONS ON THE PLACE AND MANNER OF CONDEMNING DISSENT ON INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS.

NO. II.

SIR, I lately addressed you a letter on condemning Dissent made on careless or insufficient grounds, in which I rested the duty of so doing, on the obligation of every minister to preach the word, both "in season and out of season," and not only to protest against those sins and errors which are on all hands admitted to be such, but also against those which, according to the fashion of the day, may happen to be regarded as points of indifference, or of too venial a character to require serious notice. I ventured to suggest, further, the propriety of occasional notice of this subject from the pulpit, in some of its several branches.

This is the point on which I wish at present to add a few remarks, the object of which will be to shew why it is advisable, and even requisite for the sake of the congregation, to make the pulpit the place from which this subject should be brought forward.

The former letter was rather to inquire whether it was not a matter of duty in the clergyman, for his own sake, to declare himself somehow or other among his flock on the difference between the church and dissenters as a body, without entering there upon the question of place or manner. Here I proceed to suggest whether, in duty to his congregation, and on their accounts, this should not be done in the church, because it can be done there most impressively and most appropriately. I shall not trench at all upon the consideration which was waived in my former letter,-viz., whether an anxiety for the souls of his flock should lead a clergyman to discuss this subject;but in saying "in duty to his congregation, and on their account," thus much only is meant that every congregation has a right to expect from its regularly appointed teacher an assertion and explanation of all the doctrines which are held as essentials by the church to which he and they belong, and which appeal for their scriptural foundation and origin to the Gospel, in which they mutually profess a belief. I will not go so far as to say that silence on any such doc

trine during a long ministration justifies a congregation in concluding the doctrine obsolete or unimportant, but I do say that such silence will practically have that effect, even if it be not positively so interpreted, and certainly is some excuse for the error. -"How shall they believe in what they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher ?"

The ground which I shall principally insist on is this, that if you take a congregation generally, the greater part of it-indeed all but the most educated-make a difference in their own minds between what they hear taught in the church, and what they only hear taught or recommended or explained out of the church; in other words, between pulpit teaching and tract teaching, conversation teaching, or any other week-day method of instruction pursued in a parish.. There is something attached to the form and day and place which gives it, in their eyes, a higher claim to attention, respect, and obedience than any other mode of instruction which is employed by a clergyman. And there is some ground of reason in all this, both as to matter of opinion and as to matter of fact.

Under the head of matter of opinion, I shall mention a few particulars which tend to produce and strengthen this feeling in the mind; and under the head of matter of fact, merely state what seems the main ground-work of truth, which gives support and reality to this impression.

1. People go to church more or less with a feeling that they are to be instructed there, and therefore more disposed than at any other time to receive what they hear authoritatively-with a sort of consciousness that they ought to listen with a view to learn, and not to criticise. Their thoughts are also more religiously impressed than at other times, and they are therefore more inclined to give a patient consideration to what they hear, as part of their Sunday occupation and duty.

2. The minister seems to have a higher claim to reverence in the church than elsewhere,-when clothed in the vestments of his office, than where the man, the secular priest, the neighbour, the friend, are mixed up and confused with the spiritual pastor.

3. In regard to the manner in which a subject is there brought forward:-There is more seriousness and formality in the substance and form of what is delivered, so that it comes before the hearers more as a matter of religion, and less as a matter of semi-political, semi-ecclesiastical, government. Moreover, from the sacredness of the place in which it is spoken, and the numbers in whose presence, it seems more like a painful, though solemn, testimony to the truth, made in complete earnestness, and with a full conviction of its propriety and importance, unmixed with party views, and free from all levity of expression or offensive personality, beyond that offence which will always be taken by those persons the groundworks of whose opinions are exposed and condemned.

Next, as to why, in matter of fact, there is greater impressiveness in the pastor's Sunday preaching than in his occasional week-day and parochial ministrations. The church is the place for the statement

and popular exposition of doctrine, where all necessary articles of faith and points of doctrine essential to the integrity of the church are, or are supposed, and ought to be, set forth. Now if there be some subject which is privately and on week-days talked about, insisted on, and discussed in tracts, which, however, is never made a distinct subject of discourse from the pulpit, but only touched upon in a slight, covert, and incidental manner, it is surely likely to raise in the minds of a congregation an involuntary notion that the subject must concern a truth of inferior importance, in degree, if not in kind, to those which are so repeatedly and urgently pressed upon us in church. To express this sort of involuntary distinction in wordsone subject would be looked upon as a matter of general church opinion, the other as a matter of church doctrine.

An instance, taken from some acknowledged and asserted doctrine, will make the nature of this feeling clearer :-Suppose that there was no Sunday set apart for the solemn and especial commemoration of the Trinity in Unity-that there were no creeds in use in our church, and that the doctrine was never asserted or explained from the pulpit, but only taught as occasion might offer, in private, or circulated through the medium of tracts; would not the probable consequence of this be that the larger portion of most congregations would gradually come to consider a belief in it somewhat as a matter of opinion, and by no means as a necessary article of faith? Let it not be objected to this illustration, that the numerous places in the Liturgy in which the doctrine of the Trinity is implied, or rather alluded to as an admitted fact, would alone preserve its faithful reception by the members of the church; for is not schism as clearly there condemned? And as to the Bible itself, schism is there more plainly denounced, obedience to the church more plainly enjoined, and its unity asserted, than the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity is any where in it conjointly set forth. Now, if the abandoning all public statement or assertion in the pulpit of so fundamental a doctrine of Christianity as that of the Trinity in Unity would be likely to prejudice and corrupt the general belief in it, is it too much to suppose that the modern overdelicacy in speaking authoritatively on the subject of separation in general, may not have contributed to the present lax and indeter minate notions among churchmen of the light in which it should be regarded? Why, when it is thought necessary to repeat illustrations, explanations, and proofs of other doctrines, is this, one of the paramount claims of the church, and the consequences of these claims when viewed in relation to the religious world at large, so far interdicted that it is usually the case, whenever it is brought forward, that many of those who profess to believe the substance of what is said, would still rather object to such introduction of it, as injudicious, indiscreet, or even out of place?

Further, besides this foundation in fact for the greater impression likely to be produced by a discourse in church than elsewhere, this subject of separation in particular is likely to be better handled there; for there will be more mildness, circumspection, seriousness, and calmness in the manner of treating it there than elsewhere, because,

besides other reasons founded on the character of the place in which the discourse is made and the character in which the speaker stands, it then becomes a matter of instruction in the view taken by the church rather than of doubtful polemics, and dissent would be considered in itself, and as a general question, without reference to any particular denomination. Any person who has been in the habit of conversing much, or reading many tracts or writings of the day, on the subject, will at once feel the justice of this remark. They will be at no loss to call to mind instances of how levity, which is not, upon reflection, desirable, and how something nearly approaching to personality, is apt to creep in, without premeditation; causing irritation and annoyance to the one side, and, on the other, disturbing the proper tone and gravity of thought with which this, and everything connected with the discussion of doctrines of religion, ought to be approached.

After all, the main objection to such a course seems founded upon an assumption, though not expressed, that the point in question is not a point of doctrine. Unless it is denied to be such, surely there can be no doubt of the propriety of so noticing it. Here again take some parallel cases by way of illustration. The illustration is with a view to shew, that, when once it is admitted, any given subject respects a point of doctrine; then the objections, which there might otherwise be, to bringing it forward from the pulpit, on the grounds of its making ill-will, or savouring of controversy or of over-rigid orthodoxy, and such like, ought to be set aside. Take as instances the Calvinistic question-or, the influences of the Holy Spirit-or, the doctrine of the church respecting the sacraments, their nature, importance, conditions, and effects. Now the church view in all of these has been numerously and ably opposed, and yet, does any one express surprise at these being made, from time to time, subjects of discourse, or pointed and explicit allusion, because they are still, so to say, litigated points? And is not the reason why there is neither surprise nor offence felt, in these instances, because the subjects are treated as doctrines of the church, and, therefore, such as its authorized ministers are not only justified in stating and asserting, but are in duty bound so to do, whatever differences of opinion may exist, without the church, respecting them? For it will scarcely be affirmed by any churchman, that the preacher ought to confine himself to the subjects of agreement among all denominations of Christians, and never to explain, or openly advert to, the subjects of difference. Why, then, may not or rather ought not the subjects connected with dissent to be discussed and explained in the same way ? It is true

I use the expression "church view" in its most general sense; not for the view of any party in the church, but for that general view, which, admitting of and comprehending various and uncertain modifications, (modifications, however, which have made parties within the church,) may nevertheless, as a whole, taken in its broad outlines and characteristic features, only be termed one and the same view.

+ Let it be here, once for all, observed, that, when I venture (I hope not too positively) to express my opinion that the subjects touched on in this letter are advisable—nay, more, are right and needful—to be treated of in sermons, I do not mean