us.

Were the maturity of Christ's mystical kingdom wholly deferred to the eternal state, we could not conceive a necessity for any other instrumentality than that which was conducive to individual correction and improvement. The accomplishment of mere personal good- I mean the conversion of the wicked or careless, and the growth of piety and virtue in those already converted,--would be the sole conceivable ends to which ecclesiastical institutions could be rationally adapted. The simple question between rival bodies of religionists would then, of course, be, which makes the greatest number of moral converts, and can produce the largest proportion of pious members? But, were such the standard, what could be said in behalf of such a national Church Establishment as ours? I cannot help thinking that, by this rule of judging, the most obscure pious sect which has existed since the eighth century (when those bodies first became conspicuous), would carry away the palm from the Church of England, or any similar Church. You know it is accordingly asked, what have your Church dignities, and pompous formalities, and theatrical celebrations, to do with the salvation of souls? and, in truth, were the salvation of John, Thomas, or Mary, the sole object—that is, were nothing more in view than the proceeding as hitherto, until an elect number should be completed, I could imagine no satisfactory answer to such a question. But, no sooner do we admit the prospect of collective renovation, than we feel the expediency of other means beside those adapted to mere individual good: we feel it for this reason especially, because, in proportion as individual good

becomes an exclusive object, a spirit of seclusion from the world has been ever, as it were, the instinctive concomitant; and I doubt not, it would be found that, in every such case, a relaxation of this avoidance has been the prognostic of vapidity and degeneracy. That agency, therefore, cannot be adequate to the moral regeneration of society at large, which must keep religiously aloof from society, in order to its own preservation. But, were even this obstacle removed, what could we reckon upon in society at large, from any imaginable extension of such influences as have hitherto been most successful in effecting individual conversions? The uncertainty of their occurrence, the mixed character which they manifest, the aberrations to which they are liable, the disproportionateness of their utmost conceivable efficacy, afford decisive evidence of their insufficiency for establishing the universal and permanent reign of righteousness. According to the most candid estimate, they would seem to be providential means of invigorating the mystical leaven, much rather than of diffusing it through the three measures of meal.

The instrumentality adequate to work effectually on society must be proportioned to its subject, in extensiveness, durability, natural attractiveness, and steadiness of operation. We look in vain for these properties in any of the movements of epidemic piety which have occurred hitherto ; nor, I conceive, do we discover them, at this day, any where, except in Episcopal establishments: we do not find any thing of the kind in the best of the one; we find much in the worst of the other. In the Church of Rome, in spite of accumulated

errors, speculative and practical, true faith and holy feeling have been preserved from generation to generation. In no sect, on the contrary, that we know, has a century elapsed, without a declension either in faith or in feeling, or in both. I am persuaded there is something in nature which precludes the attainment of present sensible effect, and deep lasting result, by precisely the same means. If, therefore, both present effect and lasting result are needed in the Divine economy, we would expect to find correspondent provision; and when we actually find such a twofold provision, we are no longer in doubt of its necessity, when we take cognisance of an equally twofold purpose. Thus, the admission of an ultimate reign of righteousness on earth, explains providential phenomena, otherwise not to be accounted for; and furnishes with a master-key to what, I presume, are most eminently to be called "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven."

In this view, I conceive that a just apprehension of the purposed' Avazepaλaíwors is indispens able to our study of God's providential operations, whether in the world or in the Church. And as no species of knowledge (except the experimental knowledge of Divine grace) either implies such true wisdom, or affords such solid consolation, as a clear insight into the movements of Providence, it is of the highest importance that the question should be settled-Is righteousness yet to triumph in this present world; or is this glorious event ́wholly reserved for eternity?

277

SECOND LETTER TO JOHN S. HARFORD, ESQ. ON THE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, AND ON CATHOLIC TRADITION.

MY DEAR MR. HARFORD,

I Do assure you, neglect has had no share in delaying the acknowledgment of your last acceptable letter: within these few days only, could I sit down with a mind sufficiently free, or even with time enough at my disposal, to say any thing worth your notice on any of the points you bring before me. Let me, in the first place, most sincerely thank Mrs. H. and yourself for your kind wish to see me in England. Various hinderances concur to prevent my availing myself this year of your friendly invitation. Should Divine Providence permit such a movement next year, you cannot fail to see me, as your neighbourhood is the point to which I am uniformly drawn: and were it otherwise, I could not but sensibly feel the new attraction which you present me.

I have not been inattentive to your query respecting the Moorhgov, but after having said a good deal, unusual indisposition prevented the completion of my design. When I can, I will add what remains to be said, and transmit it to you. I thank God I have been able to write a little during

the last three or four months: but several matters pressed upon me, which made postponement of other desirable things indispensable.

Possibly you did not read Edwards with the same predisposition to make allowance that I felt : considering him as the most systematic Calvinist of his time, and one of the most settled Dissenters, I was far more surprised at his enlarged and exalted views, than revolted by the intermixture of dogmatism that every now and then occurred. Perhaps, too, in some of those instances which appear to you over-confident, a coincidence with ideas of mine may have made me partial, instead of sceptical. On the whole, I consider it one of the most interesting works which latter ages have produced; but yet, rather as opening a view, than as placing it satisfactorily before us: it has made, I conceive, a very noble beginning, in a course of investigation, than which none other can be more interesting on this side heaven.

I quite agree in your comparative estimate of Smith and Worthington; and I am gratified by what you say of Nicole. I am sure your praise of him is founded, and I do not question the justness of your candidly qualified exception to his austerity. I own, however, I wish earnestly for some new class of writers who would combine the excellences, and repel the errors, of those who have gone before. I particularly regret that, at this day of increased activity and extended inquiry, one cannot point out a single book which directly and distinctly, simply and comprehensively, introduces an inquirer to the sacred science of Christianity.