full on this point; but not perceiving the correctness of what he says on it, I must object to the doctrine on my own principles, and not on his.

You see I am reduced to the necessity of resting the eucharist on the mere ground of a memorial. I am aware that by this I subject myself to the censure of Mr. Daubeny and others; who accuse me of narrowing the subject to the mere memory of a deceased friend. Before I either deny the charge or acknowledge any reproach in it, I must demand an explanation of the terms. Suppose I were told you had introduced into your family the stated celebration of the memory of a friend, cherished by you with affection, which you took this way of expressing and perpetuating. From this I should learn no more of the motive of your proceeding than extraordinary regard. But if it were in consideration of some signal benefit, I should be sensible that this might have been far short of any thing involving life and fortune. But suppose me further informed that the favour consisted in dying that you and your whole family might live, and this without your having merited any favour at his hands, and even under the weight of great demerit; and then I perceive that it is a case which, beyond any other that concerns your temporary being, challenges the unbounded love of you and yours. Now apply this to the subject, and you will perceive that the doctrine of a mere memorial gives no such degrading representation as is supposed in the language which has been bestowed on it.

And yet the comparison does not reach all the points comprehended in the sacramental commemoration. For the very circumstance that the eucharist is a memorial, makes it "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace." The grace is involved in the subject commemorated, and therefore must be imparted by the mean of the celebration. Not only so, the promises of God are hereby visibly signed and sealed. For what less is the matter commemorated than the death of Christ, as "a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, propitiation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world." On what are the divine promises founded, but on the merits of this transaction? And how then can it be celebrated by an external, appointed rite, without this rite's being significant of promises resting on a truth which cannot fail?

Bishop Hoadly has been censured for giving a diminishing representation of the ordinance in question, in his “ Plain Account of the Lord's Supper:" and the same objection has been made to Dr. Bell. But it appears to me that the ground they have given for the charge is their neglecting a view of the important truths comprehended in the idea of a memorial. Whether their faith were imperfect in this respect, is more than I shall venture to decide on. But if it were, or if their reserve were mere omission; in either case there is a fallacy in ascribing to their doctrine of the sacrament that which may more properly be ascribed to their inattention to the truths which the sacrament was intended to suggest.

Let the decisions and the services of our Church be carefully attended to, with the view of selecting every sentiment and every expression which can be thought to ascribe due importance to the holy institution, and to its beneficial tendency: and then, if there should be any thing not clearly involved in or deducible from the idea of a memorial, I shall at least think myself deficient in the character of a minister of the Episcopal Church. But if nothing farther should be found, I claim the acknowledgment, that what is believed beyond it, should be held and taught with great modesty and forbearance.

When I look back to the earlier times of the Church, I think I perceive the gradual manner in which there were introduced the notions of sacrifice, priest, and altar, with the kindred notion of the succession of the Christian clergy to the legal priesthood, and of this being an intended figure of the other. No doubt there was an unperceived bias to this in the minds of holy men, on account of the uses which they thought connected with it. But whatever temporary uses there may have been, the abuses, as a natural result, have been enormous and prominent; and this should be a warning to us, who have happily escaped the evil, by a reformation which would never have been achieved, unless by men, who perceived, not only existing errors, but the unsoundness of the foundation on which they

stood.

What the sense of the reformers was, I consider as clear as it could have been made, in what my former letter stated to you, concerning the words "iegeus," "sacerdos," and "presbyter," and I revert to it merely to mention an idea that lately occurred to me, on accidentally casting my eye over a passage from Dr. Hickes, quoted with approbation by Mr. Daubeny, in the 312th page of his 2nd volume. What could Dr. H., and what could Mr. D., thought I, have made of the argument of this passage, if it had been written in Latin? They surely would not, in defiance of the sense of their church, have given "sacerdos" for

"priest;" and yet had they, with the Church, taken the word "presbyter," the whole passage would have been nonsense. Is it not evident, that so far as our system is concerned, gentlemen avail themselves of the word "priest" in its application to two different characters? Although, therefore, I consider our use of the English word justifiable by its etymology, yet I cannot but think, with Mr. Hooker (book 5, sect. 78,) that the word presbyter is "more fit, and, in propriety of speech, more agreeable than priest, with the whole drift of the Gospel of Jesus Christ;" still, however, acknowledging, with the same extraordinary man, that, "as for the people, when they hear the name, it draweth no more their minds to any cogitation of sacrifice, than the name of a senator or of an alderman causeth them to think upon old age, or to imagine that every one so termed must needs be ancient, because years were respected, in the first nomination of both."

If I were to give vent to the various considerations which occur to my mind, according to the various points of view in which the subject may be placed, my letter would swell beyond all reasonable bounds. I therefore give over and subscribe myself, Your affectionate brother,

WM. WHITE.

P. S. I hope it will not be understood that I object to the words sacrifice and altar, as applied figuratively to ecclesiastical subjects. This may often be done with great propriety and beauty, without danger of our being misunderstood. In regard to both words, the Scriptures have set us the example.

GOOD AND EVIL OF THE VOLUNTARY PRINCIPLE.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

I AGREE fully with yourself and your correspondents respecting both the inadequacy and the injurious results of the voluntary principle; but I think that impartiality requires it to be mentioned, that, if there are many advantages in ministers being independent of their flock, there are also some evils. It is certainly very important that a spiritual teacher should be exempted as far as possible from all temptation to preach rather what his flock will approve and admire, than what he believes will most conduce to their benefit; and this temptation is diminished by rendering his income unassailable by their caprices. A clergyman who is supported by tithes, glebe, rents, or legal fees, is relieved from pecuniary inducement to trim his doctrines to the times; and this is no slight blessing; for it is a great hinderance to faithfulness where a minister feels that his children's bread depends (humanly speaking) upon his popularity. But pecuniary concerns are but one among many temptations to unfaithfulness; for even where income is not endangered, the love of ease, or of applause, or the dread of giving offence, may work the same result. Then again, though the hope of gain, or the fear of loss, ought not to be the actuating motive in concerns so unspeakably momentous, yet it is often found useful as a check against indolence, and a stimulus to exertion.

But the particular which I chiefly wished to mention, was, that though pecuniary independence enables a minister to say what he pleases, it prevents a salutary check to his excesses, where he happens to entertain erroneous opinions, and I think we have felt this of late years in our own church. Many instances have occurred in which a clergyman has taken up some novel and untenable notion, and has set himself to propagate it, till at length he has carried a large part of his flock with him, much to the distress of the more

solid and sober-minded. Now had there been some lay-influence to moderate his career, it would have been salutary to all parties; just as a royal council prevents the excesses of absolute monarchy. It will not be found that settled dissenting evangelical ministers have been so much led away with some of the fancies of the day—such as Irvingism, ultra-millenarianism, and rash views of prophecy-as some of the clergy; and if they had, they could not have carried their flocks with them; for long before the matter arrived at this issue, there must have been a separation. Dissent has, alas! enough to answer for, especially of late years; its insensate rage against established churches, and its debasing spirit of politicalism, are fast destroying its evangelical energies; and its want of fixed creeds and articles of faith, has exposed not a few of its old orthodox assemblies to the taint of Arianism and Socinianism; but even in these grievous deteriorations, the good sense and piety of some of the members of a congregation have usually prevented rapid changes originating in the unchecked influence of the minister; and it is where endowments have made him independent that he has been able, without control, to introduce the heresies which have blighted so many of the old nonconformist "interests."

From heresies of this class the clergy of the Church of England are guarded by their subscription; and if they embraced them they would be dismissed from their function. But there are some serious errors which they may hold and introduce, (though only by a misconstruction of the formularies of their church,) without the interposition of legal control; at least in the case of a beneficed clergyman. In such instances the calm resistance of a body of the faithful, who would not follow every wind of doctrine, might be of great service, and they ought to appeal to the bishop.

I deprecate the whole system of voluntaryism, but I could wish to see in operation some more efficient check, than we at present practically possess, against the occasional perversity of individual pastors. I dread to think that in the parish in which I live, our young and not very steady rector, if he should take up Oxford Tractism for instance, or any other strange novelty, has it in his power to force it upon us in a variety of ways, almost without check. Ought this so to be? And is it the system of the church? Most certainly not. Surely there should be, and is, some appointed court of reference. Ought not churchwardens and vestrymen, officially, or any parishioner individually, to refer such matters to the bishop? The salutary check would thus operate, in a legitimate manner, without that debasing and dangerous argument of voluntaryism, the appeal to the purse. The members of our church do not in general sufficiently understand and value the benefits of episcopal government. A bishop could not indeed in all cases interfere beyond administering advice or reproof; but even this would be a powerful weapon, and if such reference were more frequent, not confined to cases of gross pravity, but extended to others in which the parish considered their minister's preaching or proceedings seriously exceptionable, the result would be highly beneficial to the cause of sound doctrine and true religion.

MONITOR.

THE SIN AND FOLLY OF RASH COMMERCIAL ADVENTURES.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

I was reminded by the paper, in your Number for February, upon the Great South Sea Bubble of 1716, of the rash commercial adventures in which multitudes of our countrymen have embarked in our own day, and the sin and folly of which are not sufficiently considered even by many who profess to be actuated by Christian principles. The children of this world, it has been declared by our Lord, parabolically, are wiser in their generation than the children of light; and the truth of this declaration, which emanates from the source of all truth, is shewn by the care, and prudence, and indefatigable industry, with which the men of this world often pursue their secular interests; so that if the present world were all that is to be heeded, they might be accounted wise men.

But the converse of the proposition, namely, that the children of light are wiser even in the present generation than the children of this world, would also be true if they always lived up to their principles; for though they would not adopt the base motto "rem; quocunque modo rem ;" and must for conscience sake miss many opportunities of secular advantage which less scrupulous persons would gladly embrace; yet there is a sense in which godliness has the promise of this world as well as of that which is to come; for besides that inestimable blessing, the favour of God, and peace of conscience, the consistent Christian who is "not slothful in business," while he is "fervent in spirit, serving the Lord," may scripturally hope that God will prosper the work of his hands, and make even his enemies to be at peace with him. But in one respect especially, he is, or at least he ought to be, wiser than the men of this generation, in that he will not, while he acts according to the spirit of his holy profession, "make haste to be rich," and therefore will be exempted from the many temptations and evils incident to a rash spirit of commercial enterprise. He is indeed in a far higher sense a merchant, who having heard of a goodly pearl, sells all that he has that he may obtain it; and hence, says Mr. Rutherford, "Heaven is but a company of noble venturers for Christ;" but in this "venture" there is nothing rash or speculative; the computation is accurate, the gain is certain; we rely upon the faithfulness of Him who has promised, and will not deceive us; and the apostle Paul has described, in the eleventh chapter to the Hebrews, a noble company of those who had arrived at this sound conclusion; and accounted all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus the Lord; gladly relinquishing the pleasures of sin for a season, having respect to the recompence of the reward. Now if we have made this wise choice, we should beware of an inordinate pursuit of worldly things, which endangers both our spiritual interests and our peace of mind; for a strange anomaly and dire blot is it, that so many who profess to seek a heavenly country should be found among those who have disturbed, and perhaps ruined, themselves and their families, and others, by a wild and avaricious spirit of gambling commercial speculation.

It would be easy to exhibit the folly and infatuation, as well as the sinfulness, of such projects by many lamentable narratives. That of the South Sea speculation was scarcely less insane in plan, or more

mischievous in result-except that its mischiefs covered a wider surface-than various modern schemes, which have found share-holders and agents among those who are in general careful calculators; and —mournful to add-among some who profess to be followers of Him whose kingdom was not of this world, and whose authoritative word bids us beware of " filthy lucre." The direful era of 1825, teemed with such projects; and the "panic," as it was called, and worse than panic-the awful crash-which ensued, was an alarming judgment for our national commercial sins, especially that of inordinately "hasting to be rich." Alas! could Christian men pray over, and entreat God's blessing upon, such blind impulses of covetousness? and if they could not, what right had they to listen to them? for "whatsoever is not of faith, is sin."

Among those wild enterprises there was one class, namely, the South American Mining schemes, so extravagant, so fatally flattering, and so ruinously extensive in its consequences, that I will transcribe the remarkable and monitory account of the matter given by Mr. McCullock, in his Commercial Dictionary; in the hope, that like the South Sea narrative, it may prove a useful beacon to point out the rocks upon which so many have made shipwreck of their worldly prospects, and some perhaps of their souls; for when a spirit of venturesome and ambitious aggrandizement finds access to the heart, it brings a snare, and banishes religion. Even lawful business, too hotly pursued, will have this baneful effect; banishing peace, and faith, and love, and joy, and holy communion with God; -how much more then rapacious speculations, airy lotteries, which are to supply the place of industry and providence, and to make men rich as it were by magic.

The following is Mr. McCullock's relation. It is long; but besides the immediate purpose for which I quote it, the facts are so striking, and much of the intelligence is so new, that I doubt not it will interest your readers.

The mania for mining concerns, which raged in London, and the empire generally, in 1824 and 1825, after the opening of Mexico, and other parts of Spanish America, to our intercourse, forms a remarkable, and, we are sorry to add, disgraceful era in our commercial history. Now that the madness is past, we have difficulty in perceiving how men, in the habit of sober calculation, could be led to entertain such romantic expectations, and to pay such high premiums for shares in distant and uncertain undertakings. We may therefore be excused for appropriating a page or two to the history of an infatuation, hardly second to that which led to the South Sea and Mississippi schemes.

The mining companies formed at the outset had some sort of basis for favourable expectations, their Directors having made contracts for a number of mines in Mexico, described by Humboldt as having enriched many hundred families. This particularly applies to the Real del Monte Company, whose mines are situated in the mountainous district of that name; to the Anglo Mexican Company, whose mines are at Guanaxuato, the principal mining quarter in Mexico; and to the United Mexican Company, whose contracts, though far too widely spread, comprise several valuable mines in Zacatecas, Sombrerete, Guanaxuato, and other parts. These Associations were formed in London early in 1824, and during the spring and summer of that year their stock or shares bore only a small premium, but towards the winter it began progressively to rise, to the surprise of several of the Directors; seeing that it arose less from any favourable intelligence of the mines (for the accounts from Mexico merely reported the arrival of the English agents) than from a blind ardour and spirit of speculation in the public-a spirit which, seeing nothing tempting in our own funds, or in those of Continental Europe, directed itself to distant objects, and particularly to Spanish America. It appeared as if our countrymen were about to reap an immediate harvest; to