alluded? Does he imagine that we fancied that Dr. Burder is not intensely anxious to promote the worship of God; or that Dr. Smith was not as hostile to Sunday drilling as any churchman could be; or that the Rev. J. Clayton is not sound as to the doctrine of the Trinity; or that the Editor of the Evangelical Magazine does not desire that marriage shall be celebrated with prayer and hallowed vows; or the Editor of the Eclectic Review that the Christian Sabbath shall be kept holy? Very far, indeed, from it. What we urged was, that they are practically undoing what they wish to uphold, for the sake of an unscriptural 'abstract principle;' which principle, when it comes to be carried out, must reduce all public legislation to the bareness of atheism."

If we could use even stronger language than this to separate the intentions of Evangelical Dissenters from the working of their principle, we would do so. Why then, when we impeach their judgment, do they fall back upon their character? We know full well the dilemma in which they find themselves involved. Their principles, honestly followed out, conduct them to the practical conclusions of Paine and Voltaire in regard to the legislative recognition of Christianity; whereas what they really wish, is to overturn the established churches of Great Britain and Ireland, and to have all things regulated according to their own views. The Education question exhibits a striking illustration of this. The Evangelical Dissenters make common cause with the Central Education Society, in opposing the National School Society's system; there must be no creed or catechisın, no connexion with an establishment; but when the Central Society people propose fairly to carry out this principle in a manner which Romanists, Unitarians, Jews, and "men of no particular religion," acknowledge to be neutral, the Evangelical Dissenters turn and say, Oh no, we meant not this; we wish to put down the Church National Schools, but we do not intend to tolerate your secular schools; we mean to set up our schools, that is, Lancastrian schools, which we magniloquently call British and Foreign Schools. The Religious Equality Society exhibits another similar instance; it carries deceit in its very name; for it is neither more nor less than an "Evangelical Dissent Society," lopping down, right and left, all members of established churches on the one hand; and all who are not members on the other, except they belong to the body called Evangelical Dissenters. It is a society which has a creed, and expects all men to conform to its exact standard. Its primary resolution is, that "It is the paramount duty, and therefore the inalienable right, of every man to worship his Creator and Redeemer, according to his religious convictions of the Divine will as expressed in the Holy Scriptures, the only authoritative rule of faith." Now the conductors of the Christian Observer, being neither Atheists, Deists, Jews, Socinians, Romanists, nor members of the Oxford Tract sect, can, and do, cordially unite in this primary resolution of their evangelical dissenting brethren; though, as the manifesto of a "Religious Equality Society," it is merely a superfluous clap-trap and catch-vote proposition; for it were absurd to say that the right of any man to worship his God and Saviour according to the dictates of his conscience is infringed upon in Queen Victoria's dominions; and the latent insinuation, that there is such an infringement by reason of the Church of England or Scotland being established, conveys-to speak vernacularly-a base falsehood. But though the resolution expresses an opinion common to ourselves and the Evangelical Dissenters, and which we have nothing to object to, except that it insinuates more than it declares, and excludes what ought to have been insertedwe cannot but maintain, and we challenge Dr. Smith to deny, that it is a creed, a declaration of faith, a code of articles, quite as much as if it embodied the catechism of Trent, or the confession of Augsburg or the Anglican church. It embraces the Being, and necessarily the attributes, of God; the duties we owe to him; the doctrine of a Divine Redeemer who is to be worshipped, and is thereCHRIST. OBSERV. No. 13.

G

fore God; the revelation of the Divine will to mankind; that the Bible is that revelation; and that this is the only authoritative rule of faith. All this is perfectly true; but why, upon the Society's no-creed principle, are we to require so much and no more? We declare solemnly, that we believe many Evangelical Dissenters who are making this outcry about liberty and equality, would be among the most intolerant of rulers, if they were invested with arbitrary power. Observe the working of this very manifesto, which professes to embrace the cause of civil and religious liberty and equality all over the world, without reference to any man's creed. Clothe the gentlemen who have drawn it up, with legislative authority; bring before them all who deviate by excess or defect from their standard; and mark how the dialogue will run. To the Deist," You do not worship a God; no liberty and equality for you." To the Unitarian, "You do not worship a Divine Redeemer; no liberty and equality for you." To the Jew, “Neither do you worship a Redeemer, though you expect one; you therefore are excluded." To the Romanist, "You worship a God and Redeemer, but in so doing, you do not make the Scriptures the only authoritative rule of faith; no liberty therefore and equality for you; nor for those Anglicans who in like manner mix up tradition with scripture as the rule of faith." It is true the words "according to his religious convictions" are introduced, but they do not enlarge the Society's articles of faith, for it is only "religious convictions" limited by the other specifications. Intelligent Jews, Papists, or Socinians, would much rather trust themselves with straight-forward conscientious churchmen, than with these pseudoliberals. "You are consistent and honest," they could say, "in professing a national religious creed; and we have perfect liberty, though we are not of your faith; but it is inconsistency and hypocrisy to pretend to do away with all religious distinction, and then when asked to carry out the principle, to embody those very distinctions in the very first article, telling us that it is our duty to believe what they and you believe, but what we do not." If Dr. Smith asks us, "Is it not then the duty of every man to believe all that the Religious Equality Society has specified?" we answer, Yes; and upon our principles there ought to be a National Church to inculcate that belief; but for the Equality Society covertly to limit rights to a creed, while professing to secure them to all classes of persons, is, to say the least, a very artful proceeding. We have no doubt that the real reason why the projectors of this society drew up their articles after this fashion, was to try to blind the eyes both of their own less-enlightened brethren, and of the members of the Church of England, in regard to the real character of their project. To bear out their practical conclusion, their preamble should have been, "Whereas it is the right of every man to worship a God or not, as he pleases; and to believe or not in a Redeemer, and to acknowledge or not a Divine revelation, as he sees fit; and it being our fancy that a National Church is a violation of this right, therefore, &c." But such a direct statement would have shocked their own weaker brethren, and hence the pious proemium to the anything but pious practical conclusion. We congratulate Dr. Smith that he has eschewed this miserable society. It cannot injure the Church of England; but a few more such freaks will make the very name of Dissent odious to all spiritually-minded Dissenters.

On turning back to Dr. Smith's note, we see that he mentions our withholding a former letter with which he favoured us. We did so, and we publicly assigned our reason as follows, (Christian Observer, September 1838, p. 600.)

"There is nothing in Dr. Smith's letter which would prevent our inserting it, with some remarks in reply; but it is useless to keep up an interminable controversy. It is not likely that we shall agree about the Marriage Act, the conduct of political Dissenters and journalists, and so forth. He has his opinion, and we have ours."

We thus went out of our usual course, to assign a reason, in order that we might not be uncourteous to Dr. Smith; but we must claim the privilege of saying that no man is obliged to give a reason why he does not print and publish whatever any body else may see fit to write. The conductors of periodical publications receive innumerable letters and papers on all sorts of subjects, far more than the limits of any magazine would contain, much less readers purchase and peruse; and as they do not ask persons to send them letters, they surely have a good right, as Dr. Smith admits, to use the best of their judgment in making a selection of what they think will interest and edify their readers, leaving every man to print his own letters if he pleases, in any way he likes. As Dr. Smith requested the return of his paper, it is possible that it has appeared in the pages of some Dissenting publication; at least this is the course which many other Dissenters have followed, when, after keeping up a discussion to wearisomeness, we have been at length constrained to say, "Satis est, ohe! libelle." It is quite fair and right that they should do so; we can have no objection to such a proceeding; but it is exceedingly unjust to talk of "suppressed letters," as is too often done on such occasions. "Rejected addresses" would be a very proper title; but suppression indicates dishonesty.

If Dr. Smith had any cause to complain, were it fifty times, of personal mistakes or injustice, fifty times should corrections be inserted; but upon matters of discussion we must vindicate the just liberty of the press, by saying that no man is bound to find print and paper to put forth the opinions of his neighbour, more especially if he thinks them unsound or injurious. Dr. Smith is not just to us in saying that his letter was necessary as a defence of the "moral character" of any person; for we maligned no man's moral character. If he means that our general remarks upon public proceedings virtually affect the conduct of A, B, or C; why so does almost every discussion, and so does every Number of every Dissenting magazine aud newspaper; and we have just as good a right to require John Search to pay a printer to publish a pamphlet in reply to the arguments of the Dissenters, as for him to expect us to do the same by his. It were a monstrous piece of injustice that the conductors of a monthly pamphlet under the name of a magazine, should lose the common rights of all other men; so that they must print not only what they think useful, just, or interesting, but also what they may consider injurious, unjust, or calculated, by its want of interest, to sink their publication.

We have asserted the right; but whatever comes from such a pen as Dr. Smith's always commands our respectful attention; and we should have been glad to have printed his last letter, if it had so much as touched upon the real point at issue. We had never said that the Evangelical Dissenters do not wish that marriage should be celebrated with solemnity: what then had his remarks upon that subject to do with any thing which had appeared in the Christian Observer? Again: as we had not been writing upon the character of the Anglican service, highly as we value it, there was not the slightest claim upon our largest candour, to circulate Dr. Smith's unfounded charges against it, of commanding hypocrisy and lies, or his unjust accusation against the clergy of marrying "intoxicated" persons, and much more equally improper. This does go nigh to concern "moral character;" but we suppose that if some clergyman were to draw up a reply, Dr. Smith would not feel himself bound to print it for him, whether he thought it just or not. We thought that it was only the Socinians who objected seriously to the Anglican marriage service; but Dr. Smith informed us that the Dissenters generally had been for many years petitioning to have their marriages solemnized in their own places of worship: and he defended the legislature for going ever

beyond this, and propounding a godless formula.-But all these points were extraneous to the real question in discussion. We were shewing that if the principle upon which a national church is founded be abandoned, there is no resting place short of legislative atheism. The new marriage act was a case in point; for it was found that if a fixed religious rite were set aside, no modified, or improved, or diluted service could be substituted for it: for even "God bless your union," as we said, was an admission of at least one article of religion, and therefore the commissioners could only say, "I pronounce you man and wife." We are not arguing with Dr. Smith whether or not some change was necessary, either for the sake of Socinians and others, or for the sake of the officiating clergyman; were all granted that is demanded on this subject, our remarks would remain unaffected.

If Dr. Smith will confine himself to the real point, his letter needs not be, as he forbodes, very long. He may omit, as quite superfluous, all that Christians have done, or can do, as individuals, or in voluntary associations; -we are well acquainted with what he has published, and most excellently, on this subject, but it does not touch the question at issue. He may also omit all devout and pious recommendations; all specification of his own opinions or those of his friends respecting the Divine obligations of the Lord's Day, together with faults of national churches, and the good things effected by Dissenters. Let him simply state in what respect, upon the principles which have been of late so broadly avowed by Evangelical Dissenters, a community of professed Christians is nationally and legislatively to differ from a nation of infiels or atheists. We assert boldly, that upon those principles the Protestant reformation could not have been achieved; the Bible could not have been nationally set forth among us, (King James, as citizen Stuart, might indeed have paid for it out of his pocket money); nor could we have any legislative recognition of the Lord's Day, any more than of the Jew's Sabbath; in short, the whole of our national proceedings-every public form and document must be altogether godless. Infidels avow this: Evangelical Dissenters lay down principles which tend thitherward, but shrink from the horrible conclusion. And let not Dr. Smith evade (we do not mean dishonestly) the real question, by specifying, as he proposes, the 66 means by which Sabbath violation he thinks may be diminished; this is not the point; the real question is, by what shadow of right, upon the principles of the Religious Equality Society, you so much as attempt the object-by any means whatever of a national kind. There are means in plenty, if the Legislature may lawfully interfere; as Churchmen think it may and ought; and the foremost of those means is the support of a national church; the inadequate state of which, in our large populations, is the most fruitful cause of the evil. We ask Dr. Smith, not for means, or apologies, or eulogies, or animadversions, but for A PRINCIPLE. It must be a principle, also, which not merely Evangelical Dissenters will wish to see carried into effect, but which Jews, Roman Catholics, Socinians, and Infidels, shall admit is based upon "religious equality."

The late outburst of the Evangelical Dissenters, (we use this epithet to distinguish them from Socinians and so forth, whose opposition to orthodox churches might be expected,) is the more to be lamented, because it conveys an erroneous notion to careless spectators of the real points at issue. Where, they say, is the unity of the Christian church, by which men were to know the truth of Christ's mission? Where indeed, we might sorrowfully reply; and yet amidst much discrepancy there is far more in common. Between pious Dissenters and pious Churchmen, there is a substantial agreement on matters directly relating to the

way of salvation: and never was there less of controversy between them; and if Dissenters would just let us alone as a national church, there might be a hallowed calm amidst many diversities of opinion. But not so when what we account pre-eminently useful, venerable, and an ordinance of God, is the object of their constant and virulent attacks. Dr. Smith is moderate and candid to incon sistency; he would not rudely root us up, but allow us to outgrow our errors; but many of his brethren are more fierce and intolerant ; and while Ecclesiastical Societies and Religious Equalities speak and act as they do, without public rebuke from the great mass of their brethren, the pusillanimous good must not complain if they share the reproach of the ostentatiously bad.

REMARKS ON CROSSMAN'S CATECHISM, AND THE DOCTRINE OF A REMEDIAL LAW.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

In an article in your Number for November, signed E. H., on the Improvement of National Education, among many excellent suggestions to which I should rejoice to see attention paid, I was sorry to see a quotation from Crossman's Introduction, calculated to lead your readers to think that he disregarded the atonement of Christ, and considered man capable of effecting his own salvation. A larger quotation will shew that Crossman entertained no such idea: he asserts that

"God sent his eternal and only begotten Son in our nature, to reveal to us the knowledge of our duty, to give us new strength to perform it, and to redeem us from that eternal death and punishment we have deserved. He came into the world, and preached the Gospel of His Father in our nature; he paid a perfect obedience to the will of God; he suffered and died in our stead and for our sins; by which he obtained for us the pardon of them, grace to do our duty and eternal happiness. Christ, by dying for us, obtained pardon for all the sins of mankind, upon condition that they performed their parts of the new covenant. Man's part to perform in this new covenant, or covenant of grace, is to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, to hope for salvation by means of his sacrifice on the cross, to avoid sin, and to live according to his gospel."

After this, follows the quotation made in your pages: "Whereas a perfect and unsinning obedience was expected of our first parents upon pain of death, we are only required to use our honest and hearty endeavours to serve God and keep his commandments." In conclusion, Crossman writes :

"If we fail in our obedience, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, who is the propitiation for our sins; and for his sake God will accept of our sincere repentance and constant care to do better for the time to come; but if we wilfully continue in sin, and the neglect of God's commandments, we can obtain no benefit from Christ's sufferings, but must undergo eternal death and damnation."

Are these doctrines "wholly contrary to the Prayer-book and the Bible ;" and in sanctioning them are our clergy "breaking their solemn vow to drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's word?" Such an assertion surely would never have been made, had your contributor considered the whole chapter in Crossman's Introduction, instead of selecting one sentence imperfect in itself. I think that you cannot, with any justice, refuse to copy the entire quotation from Crossman in your next Number, to prove that in publishing his work the excellent Society for promoting Christian Knowledge