and in substance delived by many who very sparingly use its peculiar phraseology; let it be allowed, that this phra. seology has been abused by persons fanatically inclined; yet the question will occur, Does not God know best in what language to convey his own truth? And is it not presumptuous to suppose ourselves wiser in this matter than he? Besides, is there not reason to fear, that the disuse of scripture language may issue in a gradual departure from the meaning of scripture? And does not our experience corroborate this suspicion? Tillotson, and other popular divines, at the period of the estoration, led the way in substituting human expressions for those of the Bible, and they, I doubt not, meant the same things with the Bible, though they chose to express them in other words. But to what has the imitation of those divines led us? What is now generally understood by the reformation, the virtue, the good life of their vocabulary, substituted for the conversion,the holiness and the sanctification of the scriptures? Something, I apprehend, very different from what the original adopters of these modes of expression meant by them. The mere moral, and unevangelical strain of preaching, so generally prevailing in this kingdom, and so much reproved of late in the charges of our bishops, may, very probably, be traced in a great measure to this source. So that experience strongly evinces the danger of departing from scripture language in treating on divine subjects. Nor are there wanting other considerations to enforce the expediency of an opposite practice.

The language of human morals is cold, and affects not the heart like that of the scriptures; and hence what those preachers who adopt the former may suppose themselves to gain in clearness and precision, they lose in persuasion and energy. But let figures be solidly explained, and there will be no occasion to renounce the style of scripture, in order to make a wise and understanding people. Let a preacher, whose judgment is sober, while his heart is warm, teach his hearers to compare one part of scripture with another, and thes to make their Bible

its own expositor, and then no material inconvenience need to be apprehended. When one part is so explained, as not to trench upon another, but to harmonize with the whole, there will be little danger of abusing figurative language. to the propagation of extravagance and absurdity. The flighty interpretations of injudicious preachers or hearers may be always checked, and brought back within the limits of truth and reason, by the application of this rule.

Again, God may be expected to bless his own word. "If any speak, says an apostle, let him speak as the oracles of God." Does not this apply to the manner as well as the matter of preaching? In this way the people will have their understandings enlightened, and their zeal kindled at the same time, and both by the light of heaven, not by the light of a taper of our own, which we pretend, whether truly or not, to have borrowed from it.

The real truth of the case however is, that figurative language, so far from being unintelligible, is not only interesting to the imagination, but informing to the understanding, beyond all abstract methods of teaching. Hence it was constantly employed by him, who knew what was in man; and the divine wisdom which spoke and wrote by his disciples and apostles, likewise adopted it. Experience has also fully proved its advantage; and it may even be questioned, whether any one ever came to a right conception of the truths of religion, without the help of scriptural metaphors and illustrations.

For the Christian Observer.

Ir we would gain a full view of any theological subject, our first duty is to search the scriptures; and though it may be a subject which leads us principally to the New Testament, yet unexpected light may sometimes be thrown upon it, by consulting the other part of the divine oracles. God has had a church in the world from the beginning; and if our minds are restricted within proper and chaste bounds, we may often reason not impertinently by analogy, from the Old Testament to the New. The point which the writer wishes to ascertain is this; whether

several of the Apostles, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, mentions the High Priest, the Priests, and the Levites, in direct allusion to the standing orders

SIR,

of the Church in these ages. Clement's Epistle, Sect. 40,

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

I AM a plain man, somewhat advanced in years; no enemy to learning and science, but possessed of little relish for that refined reasoning and logical subtilty, which are so frequently introduced into theological' discussions.Hence it happens, that whenever I read the productions of a metaphysical divine, I feel it prudent to proceed cautiously, and with the suspicious steps of a man walking in grounds where there are steel traps and spring guns, who is aware that his safety is connected with keeping in the broad and beaten path. It may be likewise proper to inform you, that I am one of those old-fashioned persons who maintain, that what is clearly conceived may be clearly expressed; and that he who does not enable his readers to enter readily into his meaning, may be suspected of not clearly understanding himself. With such prejudices as these, you will easily infer, that theological hypotheses, inspire me with little more reverence than the reveries of a castle-builder, or the dreams of a glutton, being stubbornly attached to an axiom laid down by an old friend of mine, that a grain of sound knowledge is at all times worth a pound of speculation.

I have been a constant reader of your Miscellany since its first publication, and thank you heartily for the satisfaction it has generally given me. But I must complain, that you sometimes insert things which are "hard to be understood," by a man who generally annexes to the terms he meets with in books, their most simple, obvious, and grammatical meaning. I now take the liberty of troubling you with some difficulties which perplexed me in reading, p. 576, of your Christian Observer, for September; and if you, or the worthy clergyman its author, (if

See

WAYRING.

he be living) will condescend to explain the subject to me, in a candid and perspicucus manner, perhaps many of your readers may be instructed and gratified, no less than your sincere well-wisher.

G. S. W.

The Country Clergyman uses the word "habit," "power of habit," and power over habit," in a sense not sanctioned by common use, and not very intelligible. e. g. The power of habit, is love of that habit; the power over it, is averseness from it. (p. 576.) I formerly learned from Mr. Locke, and others, that the word habit signifies the power of performing an action with facility, in consequence of having frequently repeated it. Now, Mr. Editor, if this notion be a right one, that it is a power acquired by the mind, will you explain to me what is meant by love being the power of habit. I have always supposed love to be a power, or faculty of the mind; habit is likewise a power, or mode of the mind; to call love, therefore, the power of a power, is something like a solecism. The Country Clergyman proceeds to puzzle me still more by saying, that an irresistible habit and supreme love, are synonymous terms, or imply the same thing. But, Sir, are not habits, deeply rooted, and irresistible habits, often persisted in where there is a strong aversion of mind to them?

That the plea of habit forms no excuse for vicious indulgences, is a true and intelligible proposition, since the facility with which a criminal act is perpetrated, arising from the frequent committing of the crime, cannot lessen its sinfulness. But it does not necessarily increase the guilt; for, although it may prove the agent to be more hardened in wickedness, it does not augment the turpitude of the individual

I crave your patience a little longer, Mr. Editor, while I request the solutions of a difficulty which has perplexed me at the conclusion of the same paper. The Country Clergyman informs us, "that a man cannot be blamed for not doing what is out of his power-and that few are aware of the difference between an inability natural and involuntary, and that want of power which results wholly from moral depravity." According to the plain literal meaning of those words, I conceive, that the same arguments which will prove a man not blame-worthy, where there is a want of natural power, will prove him equally inculpable where there is a want of moral power; provided the word power be used in the same sense in each proposition. If a man be really without power, in the proper and absolute signification of the terms, whether he never had it bestowed, or lost it by his own fault, or were deprived of it by accident, can make no difference with respect to his responsibility as a moral agent. A man may, indeed, commit a criminal act, by breaking his leg; but he is not culpable for not walking.

I have only to add, Mr. Editor, that if you, or your Country Clergyman, should consider me as making an awkward figure on metaphysical ground, I hope you will charitably impute it to natural inability.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.
SIR,

As I presume that you esteem it lawful, not only to tell a person of his faults, but also (if possible) to foretel his misfortunes; I make no apology for what I am going to address to you. That I may neither torture your curiosity by prolixity, in coming to the point, nor impeach your fortitude by an affectation of delicacy, in gradually breaking to you my intelligence; I

proceed at once to inform you, that whatever you may think, and however your friends may flatter you, the Christian Observer, as it is now conducted, will not, cannot prosper.

Allow me, Sir to tell you, that your system is radically wrong; and the grand error of it is, that you consult, not the prejudices of the million, but the judg ment of the few; and thus, by sacrificing what is politically expedient, to what is morally right, deprive your work of the thousand various attractions to which the greater number of periodical publications owe their fame and circulation.

But, Sir, let me assure you, that an obstinate perseverance in your present plan must necessarily operate as a fatal impediment to the success of your undertaking and I am extremely ambitious of giving you a timely warning, that you may consider, before it be too late, and wisely amend your

system.

cumstance in your scheme, is the A very absurd and prejudicial cir maintenance of so much moderation upon all subjects. Now, Sir, where hundred and ninety-nine people in a have you lived, not to know, that nine

thousand hate moderation!

In order to illustrate my positions, and to demonstrate your error, I must take the liberty to inform you, that your moderation upon certain controverted points of religious doctrine, has displeased all the zealous partizans on both sides of the question. The bigot to the extremes of Calvinism abhors

you, for supposing that an Arminian is any thing better than a deist: and the bigotted Arminian is equally enraged with you, for not agreeing with him that every Calvinist is a madman. The rigid and intolerant High-churchman will never forgive you, for appearing to suppose, that any man can possibly be saved out of the pale of his own communion; and the dissenting zealot thinks fire and fagot too good for you, for giving such a decided preference to our excellent, venerable, and apostolical establishment.

Let me also hint to you, that the authors, whose works you review, must

needs be almost universally dissatisfied with you. You, forsooth, cannot tell us of a writer's excellences with out also disclosing his faults; so that, of wholesale unqualified praise, at your hands, no man can now entertain any reasonable expectation. You, appear to be a total stranger to the many happy little arts of conciliating literary men, especially to that of celebrating their merits in full-flowing strains of panegyric, unbroken by any ungrateful mention of errors and imperfections.-Fie on it! oh, fie!-You a reviewer!

Deign, my good Sir, to accept a few instructions from me. I do not pretend to the merit of inventing the exOn pedients which I recommend. the contrary, I confess, that I have collected all of them from some one or another of the Reviews and Magazines, in the production of which, the present rich, happy, and learned age is so astonishingly prolific.

In the first place, it is absolutely necessary for you to make a decided choice of one side or the other, upon every disputed point, especially in religious concerns.

You must not suppose that (for instance) it is sufficient for you to support simple Christianity upon the broad basis of God's word: you must, if you would be read, if you would please and be popular, attach yourself closely and exclusively to some one peculiar human system; and when you have done this, if you go all lengths with your party, call your antagonists by an abundance of severe appellations, and bespatter them, once a month, with plenty of abuse, you may assure yourself of a host of readers, admirers, and' patrons, even though you do not exhibit a grain of merit in any other in

Gospel, and are to be held, if not burnt, as heretics. I presume, Sir, to give you these hints, as I am apprehensive that you may need these, and even more, in order to put you into the right and accustomed method of exercising, with energy, dexterity, and vivacity, the rhetoric of vituperation.

You must also, Sir, either maintain that the Dissenters are the only true worshippers of Christ; or plainly intimate, that they will, one and all, be inNo middle course will evitably lost. be acceptable. It will not do for you to cleave to the Church yourself, and, at the same time, charitably hope that they, who may be educated Dissenters, or who through ignorance or prejudice forsake the Church, or who are placed by Providence in countries in which no such Church exists, may possibly be saved; for although it might be right, just, and christianlike to do so, it is not

mark me, Sir-it is not politic: for there are certain people who will affirm, that he who allows that a Dissenter can possibly be the object of the "covenanted mercies of God," must inevitably be a thorough paced Dissenter himself. Consider also that your mild spirit of liberal toleration, however it may conciliate the respect of the pious, conscientious, and soberminded Dissenter, will, however, be insufficient to satisfy, or please the main body of Separatists. To gratify them, you must not only tolerate, but you must encourage them; nay, you must justify their secession, and laud their violence against the church, as a holy zeal for the independence of man, and for the spirituality of religion.

In the conducting of your review, you must also attend to another piece of instruction, which is to be gathered from the examples of contemporary cri. tics. The main point to be considered, on your commencement of a critique upon any work, is, whether the author.be of your own party-if he be not, you must allow him no merit, and If he be, you show him no mercy.

must not impute to him one fault, although he may have a thousand; and an illimitable scope must be given to all the hyperbole of praise, in order to accumulate every imaginable honour