young" requires vicarious promising and confessing, we may reasonably presume that these should be the acts of their parents, rather than of persons who cannot have the same interest with parents in their present and future welfare.

We pass to other remarks of the preacher, in the prosecution of his general argument:

“If we would understand what the religion of the Lord Jesus is, and what is the reality of the Christian's interest in him, viz., what is saving Churchmanship, we must refer exclusively to the above inspired records of the Gospel. The Church of the New Testament must not be loosened down to the practical level of that of the nineteenth century; but the Church of the nineteenth century must be braced up, in principle and motive, to that of the New Testament. ** The Church is a revered and honoured assembly, the aggregation of persons who, having received grace themselves, are instruments chosen of God to proffer it to others. But it is not the depository of grace and mercy. It may proffer them, in the full assurance that He will not be unfaithful to his promise, but it can neither grant them nor withdraw them. He alone giveth grace' who 'giveth glory.' This is the attribute of the everliving Head, uncommunicated to the erring and sinful members of his earthly body. It is His alone who openeth and no man shutteth, who shutteth and no man openeth.'

"For so it is with the spiritual, as it is with the natural, being of the Christian. His life is an individual life. He receives it in society; he holds it with society; and therein he exercises its faculties. But the society did not give it him: neither can it withhold it or retain it. When we speak of

the corporate or church life of Christians, if nothing more were meant than to assign to the community the property of the aggregate of persons of whom it exists [consists ?], it would in fact be a mere figure of speech; a metaphor at the most; harmless, and perhaps useful, if it had not been abused to sustain a theory which could never have been supposed in relation to a mere human society.

"When, however, we speak of the spiritual life of a Christian, we adopt no metaphor. We speak of an eternal reality, of a reality as absolute as when we speak of his natural life; of a thing alike derivable from and dependent upon God. When we term God our Father,' we adopt indeed a figure, but one which Scripture constantly sanctions, as expressive of our deepest reverence and devoted affection for the manifested power and goodness of Him in whom we live and move and have our being. But when we speak of the Church as our Mother,' we employ, not with the like sanction, an extreme personification, under which we group the sacred society in which we were spiritually trained, by the tender image of maternal care. The one being, in truth, a great reality, embodies all that is just, and holy, and affecting; the other, being a mere metaphor, leads to perversion; and is one, among many instances, in which shadows being turned into substances, and figures into categories, are found effectual assailants of truth and guardians of error."Pp. 10–13.

Mr. G. proceeds thus:

"Were we called upon to say what is the supreme characteristic truth of the Holy Bible, around which the great circle of blessed verities revolve [revolves], or rather with which they are essentially interwoven, we should probably reply, The Personality with the Unity of God. The whole of Divine Revela tion is the manifestation of a Personal Creator dealing with persons."-P. 13,

Does not error lurk in these vague, undefined allegations? We must suppose that Mr. G. has in view the doctrine of THE TRINITY; of "three persons in One God:" and, if a second conjecture may be allowed, we must take for granted that he regards this tenet as being

taught by the Jewish no less than by the Christian Revelation. He does not say thus much in terms; but we can put no other interpretation upon his language, which, though it be not explicit, is, however, modest, and may have been selected by him in preference to merely human and scholastic phrases.

To the question, what is the characteristic truth of the Holy Bible, "he should probably reply, The Personality with the Unity of God." We, too, might give the same verbal answer. We do this preacher nothing more than justice in taking no advantage of his use of the qualifying adjective, "probably." Employed by Mr. Garbet, it conveys no scruple or hesitation as to his belief of the doctrine which he intimates, but simply as to the words in which it should be propounded. We therefore wish that he had at once laid down this article of his faith in the phraseology of Scripture: not in some of the expressions which only Man's wisdom frames, but in those texts of Holy Writ which, as he assumes, distinctly affirm "the Personality with the Unity

of God."

"we probably should reply, The Personality with the Unity of God."

If by the personality of God, Mr. G. intends the personal relations which God is described as bearing to mankind,-those, especially, which He sustains towards "the household of faith," and the tenderest and most endearing of which the preacher had already spoken of,—we could not except to this part of his sermon. But personality is not, as of course, identical with personal relations. Such relations are entirely consistent with the Unity of God. Not so the personality attributed to Him by Mr. G., who, at least, would be more discriminating and intelligible, did he reply, "A plurality of persons with the Unity of God"— or, "The Incarnation of the second person in the Trinity with the Divine Unity." We do not now enter into the Trinitarian controversy, while we could not suffer ourselves to pass in silence the equivocal nomenclature and enunciation of which it is fertile.

"Divine Revelation," according to our preacher, "is the manifestation of a Personal Creator dealing with persons." Amidst substantial truth, this statement also has its fallacy.

The obvious notion of "a Personal Creator" is that of "a Creator manifesting himself personally," or immediately, and not merely by created agents and representatives. Can such be the creed of Mr. G.? If it be, we will appeal from him to the records of Revelation. Modified in perhaps a slight degree, it is the creed of every consistent Trinitarian; opposed though, in our humble judgment, it be at once to the Unity and the Spirituality of God.

"Ye have

"No man hath seen God at any time, or can see Him." neither heard his voice at any time nor beheld his shape." If the One Eternal Spirit reveal himself to any of His mortal creatures, it must be mediately. Corporeal beings alone are personally conversant with corporeal forms. A spiritual essence cannot be discerned by the eye of Sense. The analogy of Nature and Providence is concurrent with the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures in shewing that Almighty God "deals with persons" by His appointed instruments and agents.

Further: No idea can be more definite than what the word unity expresses. We are never embarrassed by it, unless when Theological systems which have their origin in human schools, attempt to reconcile

it with terms and allegations destructive of this idea. We shall discover the process of such an attempted reconciliation of contradictory words and sentiments, in the following language-" the Personality* and Unity of the Creator."

So Mr. G.:

"The blessed peculiarity of the Gospel is, that this primary truth of the personality and unity of the Creator is brought home to us in the incarnation of the Eternal Word, 'God manifest in the flesh.' It is brought home to us in the blessed realizing of heaven with earth, of Emmanuel, God with us,'” P. 14.

We shall not stop to animadvert upon the familiar practice of citing a corrupted text, false translations, and detached and, consequently, illunderstood clauses, in behalf of unscriptural doctrines. Our main object, at present, is to notice the very summary and concise, yet inaccurate, way in which the Bishop of Manchester's Chaplain sets forth the tenet of "three persons in one God:" it is "the personality with the unity” of the Creator. Now personality, even if it denote a person, cannot mean a specific number of persons: nor have we any warrant for so contrasting it with UNITY. One Being is one Person. (Pp. 13, 14.) It is with more pleasure that we read the following remarks of Mr. G.'s:

66

Every theory which tends to generalize divine verities, i. e. to alienate from individual enjoyment the evidence of spiritual privilege; every thing which tends to compress the power of godliness beneath the form; every thing which tends to keep the fallen but renovated creature from instant contact with the fountain of life, cannot be looked upon with a suspicion too deep, nor be avoided with a caution too sensitive."-P. 15.

Again:

"We cannot believe that the crimes, the persecutions, the injustice, with which the annals of the Church abound, could possibly have occurred, still less that they could have been sanctioned by men whose names are prominent therein, if these had not transferred the allegiance of their understanding and their conscience to the society in which they were engaged. Nay, to go no further than the positive duties of religion, how few would venture to offer to God in private that formality of devotion which they present in the congregation, under the delusion that the Church prays; the individual is too willing to be merged in the assembly."-P. 16.

6

This is indeed a faithful notice, remonstrance and warning. Would that it may have its just effect!

The extract that we shall next make is in the like strain:

"As we neglect or abuse the bounties of God's Providence, so do we the richer mercies of his grace. If not in name, yet in reality, some authority of men is raised above it. By setting up an idol in our heart,' we put a stumbling-block of iniquity before our face.' A superior tribunal is raised, either within, in our own perverted reason; or without, in the supremacy of beings fallen like ourselves, whose nakedness and infirmity are clothed with the meretricious dignities of Church authority or Catholic consent. Thus, though the right of private judgment be denied by some, the privilege of exercising

Personality is defined by Dr. Johnson [Eng. Dict.] as "the existence or individuality of any one;" and, for the purpose of authority and example, he cites Locke "Person belongs only to intelligent agents, capable of a law and happiness and misery: this personality extends itself beyond present existence," &c. What, then, is there of even a seeming want of alliance between Personality and Unity? Taken together, they are equivalent to "ONE-strictly ONE" being.

it is used by all; either in disregarding the will of Heaven, or in endeavouring to elude it."-P. 18.

With one more quotation from this able and well-timed discourse, we shall conclude our extracts:

"Since England has been blessed with a Christian Church, its form and the channel of its ministry have been episcopal. At the time of the Reformation, to which we owe our pure Gospel light and our civil freedom, her bishops were among the foremost in rescuing their Church and country from the galling and oppressive yoke of Popery. Whilst, then, this form of government has happily remained unaltered, and the mind of the Church, as to its scriptural claims, is thus explicitly pronounced, we are not taught to regard it as essential to the truth. Had the Church conceived it so to be, she would not have shrunk from including it in her Articles of Faith. In practice, she has ever more or less kept intercourse with unepiscopal Churches, provided they were found in adherence to one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism.' With the great Reformers of the Continent,-men second to none that ever trod the courts of God below,-with Luther, with Calvin, with Melancthon,―our English Reformers held holy brotherhood. Together with them, Cranmer and Ridley, Latimer and Hooper, contended, as alike soldiers in a holy war, for all that the Saviour had left sacred and valuable for the salvation of our fallen race. Holy and venerated names! Yet, in the infirmities of poor human nature, even these differed one from another; but the constraining love of Christ subdued it all."-Pp. 22, 23.

Excellent as this sermon is, there are certain legitimate inferences deducible from its subject and the tenor of its reasoning, on which the preacher either has not touched at all, or but slightly and unsatisfactorily these regard individual convictions of judgment, the duty of avowing those of them which the understanding and the feelings agree in deeming momentous, and the injustice of withholding the Christian name from any who, personally and in communities, make profession of a faith not only harmonizing with the belief that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father, but, as they are of opinion, eminently fitted to uphold the truth and recommend the spirit of the Gospel. Topics of this class are in themselves deeply interesting, and essentially connected, moreover, with the grand principles of Protestantism and of individual and social Justice.

"The spiritual life," be it never forgotten, is " an individual life." Let us likewise remember that it originates in faith; taking, as we do, the word faith in its comprehensive Scriptural acceptation. But "faith" concerns the intellect, while it purifies the heart, which effect of it is the token of its strength and genuineness. Now, as the result of the constitution of human nature, there must be a great variety in the judgments of individual men; not seldom, indeed, a wide and powerful mutual opposition. Cases of this sort are constantly presenting themselves; and who, except the Omniscient Witness of motives and of character, shall determine

Where frailty errs, and where we sin?

The duty of personal inquiry, then, and the right of private judgment in matters of religion, cannot be fairly questioned by any who admit that the spiritual life is an individual life. The spirituality of this life comprehends our mental, together with our moral and active powers: its individuality comprehends our obligation, each one for himself, to employ the intellectual faculties in the search of Truth, and in discern

ing between things which differ; between the shadow and the form, on the one hand, and the reality and the substance, on the other.

But in every thing which affects vital Christianity, THE SCRIPTURES -the authentic records of the two Public and Special Revelations of God's will-are our oracles. We go to them for knowledge and direction; for comfort, encouragement and hope. It follows that we should read-nay, study-these writings with diligence, in order that we may read them with understanding. Now this employment is individual. It cannot be fulfilled vicariously and by proxy; for it involves a responsibility belonging to us all, in our several capacities and stations; a responsibility which it is not possible to transfer.

We must, at the same time, recollect that all points of religious belief are not of the like sovereign moment; some being primary, and others subordinate; some being the subjects of pure revelation, and others of the nature of sentiments justly deduced from these first principles. By consequence, it will remain for the individual who examines the ground and the objects of his faith, to discriminate between what is essential and what is non-essential-what is of absolute and what of only relative importance. Let him carry on this process with care, with assiduity, and in a humble yet fearless and upright spirit: in the best sense of the words, let him always be a learner-a willing pupilsitting at the fect of Jesus, and hearing his words. Still, let him be equally intent on shunning the character of those who are "ever learning, and yet never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."* have no definite convictions of Truth-of Scriptural and Christian Truth-or, if we have, to disregard and violate those convictions— would be dishonourable and perilous. It would be ungrateful to our God and our Saviour, and signally unjust to ourselves.

Το

The spiritual life, though an individual life, cannot be devoid of sympathies, or totally-or even greatly-unconnected with society. A personal and inward principle it, undeniably, is. Even so, it may require a kind and degree of social assistance. Certainly, in whatever regards some outward manifestations, as, for example, in an avowal of faith, in a community of worship, and in labours for the best interests of mankind,-far from declining, it will court union-the union essential for those ends. Here, as in its retirement, its duties may have their snares and dangers: they may be duties not unaccompanied with difficulties: yet duties still; from which, therefore, it will not shrink.

The Christian Church exists sectionally, under a variety of separate religious communions. Many persons who cherish the spiritual as an individual life, do this partly by means of the presence and co-operation of some of their fellow-men. Now what is or ought to be their bond of union? This question either does not occur to several individuals, or is not entertained and answered by them with the serious care which it demands. Many there are who do not seem to be governed, in this instance, so much by principle as by impulse; by the deliberate convictions of personal judgment, as by example, fashion and human authority; not so much by a regard to what is intrinsically right and true, as by the caprices of Taste and Fancy. In a word, secular con

* 2 Tim. iii. 7.