it has ever been, since the day when our fallen first parent charged the guilt of his delinquency, upon the Almighty Author of his existence, and with the very breath which he inhaled in consequence of the long-suffering mercy of JEHOVAH, blasphemously asserting" The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, &c." Gen. iii. 12. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked," and "every imagination of it, only evil;" does it not then follow-a priori, that, no good desire can emanate from such a fountain? Moreover, "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for, they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. ii. 14. Now I think, it is plain, that whatever a man deems to be foolish, he must despise; and it is equally evident that no one can desire that of which he is altogether ignorant, and which, while he continues in his unconverted state "he cannot know." If conversion of heart be not one of, 'the things of the Spirit of God" -I know not what is. But, if it be-how shall it be supposed, that the natural man will make any enquiries respecting it; unless indeed, as Nicodemus ignorantly enquired-" How can a man be born when he is old, &c. ?"

Having said so much upon the question, which your correspondent, "M. Layman" has taken for his text, I trust Sir, you will permit me to add a few observations on the exposition he has given, as it appears, in amplification of, and by way of answer to his own enquiry. He observes-"Many of our ministers might "perhaps be a little more explicit in telling their people the sim"ple steps by which this all-important matter of conversion is to "be attained; there are perhaps many hearers who feel quite con"vinced of the importance and necessity of conversion, but who "do not know how to go about it."

I would simply enquire of M. Layman-Who does? Can the corpse passing rapidly to a state of decomposition, go about to reanimate itself? No-that is the work of Omnipotence. And equally so is the conversion of a sinner-" It is the Spirit that quickeneth." Without presuming to dictate the course which the faithful ministers of God's word should pursue, I am satisfied of their concurrence, when I say that their time would be ill employed in telling sinners how to go about the attainment of their own conversion." All that they can inform their hearers, as to the mode of conversion is comprised in this short sentence-"It is not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord." The faithful ministers of the Gospel will best fulfil their solemn obligations, by speaking to their people on his and other subjects" as the oracles of God"-letting every doctrine, precept, threatening, and promise of the divine word have its place in their ministrations without giving an undue prominency to any-thus will they minister to the edification of their hearers, in the sober use of appointed means and after all, they must pray-"O, Spirit of JEHOVAH, breath upon these slain, that they may live."

Your correspondent, after describing the characteristics of one who is indeed "born of the Spirit," p. 749, goes on to say-"that

"individual has indeed come to Jesus Christ; and to him, in the "Bible, pardon is offered; he may therefore believe it HIS, and "having thus accepted it, may go on his way rejoicing-God being "now his father, reconciled to him in Jesus Christ."

"Thus," he adds, "the candidate for conversion is justified by faith, &c. &c." Without attempting to analyse the foregoing extract or other portions of this essay, which to me appear equally unintelligible, I shall merely observe "en passant"-that in the Scriptures, "pardon is offered" to all: and if any come to Jesus Christ," it is because they have obtained mercy. But, an important point to be noticed is-that, by the tenor of M. Layman's remarks, and especially his use of the term, "candidate for conversion;' it would seem as if he supposed there could be an intermediate state between spiritual death and spiritual life-and that individuals might be, as it were suspended in medio-a supposition which does not appear to be founded in Scripture; but surely, Mr. Editor, if it can be proved-you will agree with me in thinking that our author well deserves the cordial thanks of Doctors Doyle and M'Hale, et id genus omne, for furnishing them with a conclusive argument in favour of the doctrine of Purgatory: an honour to which I sincerely believe he does not aspire.

I am, Sir, yours, &c.

IGNOTUS.

PREACHING IN STRANGE DIOCESES.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-In begging to recal your attention to a controversy concerning the right of bishops to inhibit strangers from preaching even occasional sermons in their dioceses, into which you entered at some length in the year 1830, I should wish to preface my remarks by stating that at that time I had reduced the view taken by our Established Church to writing, intending to send it to you for insertion; but not being of any very long standing in the Church, "I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom". "Behold I waited for your words, I gave ear to your reasons which ye searched out what to say"-"Yea, I attended unto you, and behold there was none of you that convinced the gainsayer, (V. A.) or that answered his words." By holding back, however, too long, the matter seemed to me gradually less important, and I began to hope that your correspondent, V. A. with his coadjutors, as well as his unskilled opponents, were ashamed of the ignorance they had evinced of the great charter of rights of our Establishment.

Within this day or two, however, I found that the estimable and excellent prelate, against whose practice the remarks of V. A. seemed particularly directed, was on authority hujus generis, still spoken against, as though his conduct were arbitrary and unjusti fiable. I do not think that error is ever so successfully combated

as by a simple exhibition of the truth. I shall not, therefore, follow V. A. through either his misstatements of our canonical law or his dogmatical assertions, but proceed at once to cite a portion of the Irish act of uniformity, which seems to me clearly to define and definitely to settle the whole of the points at issue, xvi. and xvii. cap. 2. cap. 6.—It is enacted, "That no person shall be, or shall be received as a lecturer, or permitted, suffered, or allowed to preach as a lecturer, or to preach or read any sermon, or lecture in any church, chapel, or other place of public worship within this realm of Ireland, unless he be first approved and thereunto licensed by the archbishop of the province or bishop of the province or bishop of the diocese, under his seal, &c."

"And be it further enacted-that if any person who is by this act disabled to preach any lecture or sermon shall, during the time that he shall continue and remain so disabled, preach any sermon or lecture, that then for every such offence, the person or persons so offending, shall suffer three months imprisonment in the common gaol, without bail or mainprize; and that any two justices of the peace of any county of this kingdom, and mayor, chief magistrate, &c. upon certificate from the ordinary of the place, made to him or them of the offence committed, shall and are hereby required to commit the person or persons so offending to the gaol of county, city, &c. accordingly."

I trust that henceforth we shall have no more V. A's disclaiming indeed a wish to excite insubordination in the Church, though stating pretty broadly, that on the part of some (by whom he evidently means prelates) there is a disposition to "intemperate extension of power;" but rather that those who have hitherto opposed the dignitary alluded to, will acknowledge, that had he been inclined to use legally (not extend intemperately) his power, he would have caused the intruding offender to be committed to gaol, and indicted the conniving violator of the statute for a misdemeanor, in transgressing an act of parliament, by "permitting, suffering, or allowing" such a person so to preach.

I have the honor to remain

faithful servant, your CLERICUS ARMACHIENSIS.

Though we have inserted our correspondent's communication, we regret that is not written in a more temperate style.—ED.

REPLY TO THE REV. WILLIAM DIGBY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-I took the liberty of sending you a few extracts from those writers who have recorded the spiritual exploits of the French prophets in the reign of Queen Anne, perceiving in my mind a striking similarity in their views to those of the present advocates of a speedy personal reign of Christ upon earth. In the same number of your Examiner, a letter from the Rev. William Digby appears, condemning in the strongest manner "the scene of inde

cency and disorder, which is reported to have taken place in the Scots Church in London," and proving to a demonstration, that the xiv. of Cor. is decidedly against their pretensions to miraculous gifts: though in doing so he appears to have made one wrong quotation, (but perhaps the passage was used by him rather in the way of accommodation) where he says, "When that which was first spoken in another tongue in their churches, was afterwards soberly interpreted by a prophet or a preacher, so that the unlearned might understand it, and be pricked to the heart by the profitable truth it contained, the happy result should be the same as it was then-converts being convinced of all and judged of all, would be added to the church." This passage of Scripture refers, in my mind, exclusively to the effects produced by prophecy, in contradistinction to tongues, or spoken or interpreted" But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all, and thus the secrets of his heart are made manifest, and so falling down on his face, he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth." (1 Cor. xiv. 24, 25.)

Not content, however, with overturning the claims of the members of the Scots Church to the gift of tongues, he proceeds to give us his own opinion on this important subject; and in so doing, he appears to afford a kind of confirmation to the similarity of his views to those of the French people, whose common cry was, "that the present dispensation was rapidly passing away, and a new one commencing." "To what dispensation," asks Mr. Digby, "does that promise in Joel, ii. 28-32, which these modern claimants to miraculous powers are so ready to quote in their behalf, principally refer?" An humble believer in God's word might refer to the astonishing transactions of the day of Pentecost, and to the then dispensation, called the last days, and say with Peter, "this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." Mr. Digby allows himself, "that it received a partial and inchoate fulfilment at the commencement of the New Testament dispensation;" but the principal accomplishment of this prophecy does not belong "to that which now is, but to that which is to come;" in other words, this passage of Scripture does not refer principally to the New Testament, or Christian dispensation, but to a new dispensation which is shortly to commence. At what period then of this new dispensation will these signs or miracles take place? With wonderful chronological accuracy Mr. Digby again answers: "After the final restoration to their own land and the conversion of the Jewish people has taken place." Really, it is very unfair in these Rowites, as Mr. Digby calls them, to derange so unmercifully his sacred calendar of prophecy, and under the "influence of the old serpent, prematurely to mimic" those gifts which are not to take place under the present dispensation, and thus mar the work of God! And for what purpose will these gifts be restored to the Church under the new dispensation? Mr. Digby again kindly informs us-"Is it the restoration, towards the expiration of the Gentile dispensation, of miraculous powers? No but they are signs of a very different description indeed, and showed for a very different purpose, even for

N. S. VOL. I.

E

the purpose of effecting that very accission itself, for an instruction to future generations of men in the millennium age." What a flood of light Mr. Digby pours upon this passage of Scripture! The old divines must indeed be in his estimation, bordering upon dotage: for my part, I was always in the habit of drawing conclusions, the very reverse of what is here stated that the gift of tongues was not given to the church for its excission, but for its enlargement. Indeed unknown tongues was often given for the punishment of God's ancient people. (1 Cor. xiv.) "With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak to this people, and yet for all that they will not hear me, saith the Lord." (Isaiah xxviii. 11, 12.—Jer. v. 15.) But tongues that can be understood, as a blessing, that the different nations of the earth "may hear in their own tongues the wonderful works of God."

Mr. Digby now proceeds to state with his accustomed accuracy and precision, the mode in which the then "comforted, married, and triumphant church will be regulated." There will be not only a new dispensation, but A NEW REVELATION of God's will from heaven. "Now it appears manifest, that in several respects, unnecessary here to be specified, the word already given, will not contain sufficient instruction for the church on earth, when it shall have passed from its present afflicted, widowed, and militant condition, into that comforted, espoused, or rather triumphant state, which we surely believe to be before it in its ulterior destination during the millennium-when it shall have its divine Head once more visibly present with it, and it shall again be placed under a happy theocracy." It will evidently, therefore, then stand in need of a FURTHER REVELATION of commandments, "statutes, and judgments (suited to its then condition) from the Lord to be made to it." What a pity, if unfortunately these "prophetic advertisements" and "warnings" of the Reverend Divine, should share the fate of all those that have preceded them! D. A.

CITY SCENES-No. III.

Q.-Were you in church last Sunday? I had such a severe cold that I was forced to stay at home, and commune with my Bible and my own thoughts.

X.-I went to

Church, where I am not sure I was as

much edified as I might have been.

Q.-Why, what was wrong? I always considered that few churches in our city had their services better administered than the place of worship you have just mentioned.

X.-Oh, nothing could be more appropriately read than the Liturgy-nothing more pleasingly executed than the psalmody and all about this interesting house of God was decent in the fullest sense of the word, and conformable to the character of the worthy minister who presides over it—but the sermon !

Q. Why, what of the sermon? I don't like BUTS on such a vital point as this. No false doctrine, I hope-no attempt at man