or even greatly misunderstood But, Apostolic piety must be sustained by Apostolic principles; if any of these be wanting, the result must be defective; if they be misconceived, the result, I conceive, will be vitiated in proportion to the misconception. I believe the distinct, simple, and cordial acknowledgment of three Divine Persons in the essential Godhead, lies at the very bottom of those principles; and I cannot help thinking that, even in persons of the very best intentions, error, or even obscurity, in this point of faith, has uniformly affected the tone of their devotion.

The facts of Christianity fully, simply, and humbly apprehended, through that quickening as well as illuminating light, which He who commanded the light to shine out of darkness communicates to the heart, are the sustenance, as well as subject-matter, of devotion: of those facts, the God with whom we have to do, is the supreme. Devotion in exercise, is converse with Him. But in order to converse with God, we must have just views of God; and we can have just views of God, only so far as we receive, humbly and implicitly, his own manifestations of Himself. This will be the case wherever a sound understanding is in due subordination to an upright and faithful heart. And then, devotion in all its exercises will be,* in some sort, a natural habit; prayer, especially, will be the inner sanctuary of the soul, in which, regarding God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with childlike simplicity, it adores each, and

* I mean, because it then employs the whole mind in its natural order.

it adores the essentially united Three. Its thought may fix on either, without jealousy of doing wrong to the others; and its love, when really spiritual and divine, so instinctively, as it were, embraces them in one comprehensive exercise, as to make the Divine unity a matter of spiritual feeling. I do not mean to speak mystically; I mean simply to express what I think is uniformly exemplified in the Apostolic writings, and is discernible in all the subsequent luminaries of the Catholic Church. By this sublime simplicity of apprehension, the piety of the faithful has been kept pure, and elevated, and effective; and through God manifested in the flesh, they continually have had access by one spirit unto the Father.

But where this Catholic and Apostolic simplicity is vitiated by obtrusive and sophistical opinions, the exercise of prayer must necessarily suffer the first injurious influence. Presumptuous speculations on the Divine nature, must affect the mental contemplation of that nature. They must mingle themselves with all acts of devotion, and make that, which ought to be the repose and solace of the heart, the chief scene of its perturbation.

It would be well if the individuals most concerned were necessarily conscious of this inward disorder. But, in what concerns our mind, we are liable to endless self-impositions. Besides, in such a case there may be no corrective standard whereto to recur; as, possibly, true Christian devotion may at no time have been possessed. Of such devotion, I humbly conceive, the root is

moral. But I am not sure that the language of the person, whose letter has been sent you, affords any evidence of strictly moral affection. It seems to be to a love of something called the truth, rather than to a love of God in himself, to which she professes to be brought. I can therefore understand, that even the falsest views of God should not consciously disturb a mind which takes truth as its chief object, and supposes those views to be truth.

My dear Madam, believe me

Most truly yours,

ALEXANDER KNOX.

427

ANSWER TO A LETTER, EXPRESSING A DOUBT WHETHER THE PROMISES WHICH RELATE TO THE FUTURE STATE OF GLORY AND BLESSEDNESS AWAITING THE SAINTS IN HEAVEN, ARE TO BE LITERALLY FULFILLED; AND WHETHER HEAVEN WILL BE THAT STATE OF UNMINGLED FELICITY WHICH WE ARE LED TO EXPECT.

MY DEAR SIR,

You were perfectly right in supposing that the tract on the Lord's Supper was sent by me. I was desirous to bring myself to your recollection, and I thought it possible that you might not disapprove of the attempt I had made to bring again into view the old Catholic doctrine, as retained in our own established formulary. I need hardly assure you, that your agreement with me gratifies me sincerely.

The latter part of your letter has engaged my serious thoughts. The doubt you have mentioned was new to me; but it appeared to call for close consideration. I think, however, it admits of a completely satisfactory answer.

It is certainly true, that the realities of life are often at seeming variance with the promises of the Gospel; but I apprehend that this is the case only when particular promises are separately regarded, and those qualifications which the Gospel itself affords are not sufficiently kept in view. When

the whole New Testament is considered in connexion, and due attention given to the illustrative cases as well as to the verbal declaration, I cannot but think that we shall find the most perfect agreement with all that has been since experienced in the Christian world.

Promises of temporal good, in the New Testament, are in general made with express limitation; and it is every where implied, that their fulfilment is to be regulated by its consistency with our spiritual and eternal interests. We are uniformly assured, that God doth "not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men;" and yet we see St. Paul beseeching the Lord thrice that an affliction might depart from him; and after all, receiving only an assurance of sufficient grace, but not of specific deliverance. I cannot but consider this case of St. Paul as replete with instruction to all Christians, in all ages. It clearly and forcibly teaches, that we may rely upon God for grace to sustain and improve our lot in life; but that the ordering of our circumstances must be left implicitly to the unerring wisdom of our heavenly Father.

The spiritual promises are made without limitation, but not without condition. They are made in terms the most exalted and extensive, but being made to free agents, actual fulfilment must ordinarily be in proportion to co-operation. Hence necessarily arises a variety of completion, which, though not intimated in the form of the promises (where such intimation would on many accounts have been unsuitable), is largely explained to