The doctrines which you teach meet my views. The path between Calvin and Arminius, in which you steadily walk, is, in my opinion, the right one. I have all the volumes of your valuable work; and I deem them an inestimable treasure to me, secluded in the bosom of this continent. It may excite gratitude in your mind as a Christian to know, that the best judges of literature and theology in the United States deem themselves deeply indebted to you for the Christian Observer. I, as an humble individual, on the bank of the Cumberland, most unfeignedly thank you for enlightening my mind on many subjects.

Permit me to mention, that I am sorry that you have formed a bad, and, as I think, an erroneous opinion of General Jackson. In your Number for March, 1825, you intimate, that "perhaps it is for the peace of the world that the Presidency of the United States was reserved for a less violent spirit." I am persuaded that even a slight personal acquaintance with the General would induce you to change your opinion. I am honoured with his friendship. He is one of the most upright men in the United States. 1 know his moral and religious principles. They correspond to what you teach. He has given the most unequivocal proofs of his friendly disposition to the kingdom of Jesus Christ. I officiate as a minister of the Presbyterian order, in the church which he, in connexion with a few of his neighbours, lately built. He is not disposed to disturb the peace of the world. He has ample domains of his own, on which he now, during the recess of Congress, follows the peaceful labours of an agriculturalist. He never sought any office in the State. His merit alone has raised him to the height of popularity to which he is now elevated. You may rest assured, that he has no resemblance to your boisterous and his unprincipled associates, Yours very respectfully,

WM. HUME.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. YOUR correspondent R. J. is anxious to know, if any traces remain of the Jansenists in France. I could wish that it were in my power to render the following statement more detailed and circumstantial; but, in the absence of more satisfactory information, you may perhaps deem it worthy of a place in the Christian Observer.

While on the continent last summer, I had the happiness to meet a truly devoted and pious Christian pastor, who had recently completed a tour through a considerable part of the South of France. He appeared to possess talents and acquirements of the most respectable order; the ardour of his zeal for the diffussion of the Gospel was chastened by the spirit of wisdom and of prudence; his manners were conciliatory, and I found from the report of those who knew him best, that in a remarkable manner he disarmed the opposition even of those who were opposed to his doctrines. From this excellent pastor I derived much information, at once distressing and consolatory, relative to the state and prospects of evangelical religion in the South of France. He told me, that there is a considerable number of Jansenists still subsisting in France. He mentioned, in particular, St. Etienne, as the head-quarters of a large body of that celebrated sect. He had lived among them for some time, and had been treated by them with great affection. In reply to many inquiries as to their tenets and religious condition, he stated, that they hold in the clearest manner the doctrines of the Trinity and of justification by faith; but that he was extremely sorry to be compelled to acknowledge, that he did not observe in them generally so much of that vital spirit of godliness as might have been expected from the orthodoxy of their sentiments on these points. He said, that, while their kindness to him rendered their society very agreea

ble, and formed a striking contrast to the illiberality of some of the Arian and Socinian Protestant ministers in the neighbourhood, they generally turned the conversation from the grand truths of the Gospel to the peculiar tenets of the RomanCatholic Church. In answer to his repeated declarations, that it was not his object to preach either Protestantism or Catholicism, but simply Jesus Christ and him crucified, the Jansenists generally urged on him the necessity of conforming to what they considered to be the true church. Other particulars I learned from the pastor to whom I allude; but, as I took scarcely any note of our conversation, regard to accuracy forbids me to go farther.

Most cordially do I unite with your correspondent in the wish that something might be attempted, if practicable, through the means of the Jansenists for the extension of the Gospel in France. There is at present a considerable excitation of mind in regard to religion in many parts of that great kingdom. Three leading principles are evidently contending together for the mastery. POPERY is straining every nerve to regain in France the empire she has lost. In every town, in every village, on every road, fresh traces are to be seen of the zeal of the Jesuit missionaries and of the zealots. INFIDELITY, on the other hand, reluctant to yield its iron sceptre, labours to pervert the minds of the ignorant by every possible art, and to stab Christianity by confounding her holy doctrines with the wily devices and pretences of Jesuitism. Unhappily also Arianism has lately gained an accession of strength in some most influential quarters among the Protestants. But in the midst of all this, silently and without observation, the kingdom of God is advancing in France. RELIGION is in many places triumphing over the deceitfulness of Popery, the baneful influence of Scepticism, and the chilling influence of Socinianism. This ought surely to quicken

the zeal of every orthodox and pigus French Protestant to promote, to the utmost of his power, the extension of pure and undefiled religion; and in so doing he may justly expect the prayers, the sympathies, and the cordial assistance of his fellow-Christians in other lands.

A CONSTANT READER.

After

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.' THE author of an interesting recent publication, entitled "A Plea for the Protestant Canon of Scripture, in opposition to the Popish Canon," in reference to the late controversy respecting the circulation of the Apocrypha, gives, doubtless unintentionally, an unfounded and injurious view of the conduct of the Church of England with regard to superstitious saints' days, which it may be worth while to notice and correct, especially as the mistake is not uncommon. quoting from Dr. Doddridge the assertion, that "the insisting upon reading some portion of these books, instead of lessons from Scripture, in the daily offices of the Church of England, was an unreasonable and cruel imposition on those who fixed the terms of conformity in England in the year 1661," he adds in a note, that " on the 22d of November, the day consecrated to St. Cecilia, the first lesson in the Morning Service is the fourth chapter of Baruch;" and that "on the 23d of November, the day is consecrated to St. Clement, bishop of Rome, appointed by Paul or Peter. In honour of this eminent saint, the writer of an Apocryphal Epistle, the Church [of England] has appointed as her first lesson the edifying book of Bel and the Dragon. This book was first introduced as a lesson at the Savoy Conference in 1661.”

I fully believe that most sound churchmen would be heartily glad to be freed from the burden of the Apocryphal lessons; but whatever

It

may be the opinion of any individual on this subject, the foregoing statement is quite erroneous. is neither true that the Church of England consecrates St. Cecilia's or St. Clement's day, nor that she selects Apocryphal lessons as appropriate for those occasions. The simple fact is, that, having admitted, (I think most unhappily, though many eminent persons have thought differently,) a course of Apocryphal lessons, two happen to fall, in the regular order, on the 22d and 23d of November; which days happening, in the Popish calendar, to be dedicated to two Popish saints, the Church of England is blamed for the coincidence. The

Church of England does not solemnise either of these days, and is scarcely more responsible for them than an almanack maker who inserts them in his list without meaning to acknowledge their authority. The reasons why the Popish holy-days are retained in our ecclesiastical calendar (where, however, they are typographically distinguished from the Protestant fasts and festivals,) are various. Some of them were retained because the courts of justice usually dated their transactions from those days; others, because different classes of handicraftsmen, &c. were accustomed to keep their festivals on those days: wakes and fairs were also held on those days; and the histories written before the Reformation frequently dated events from those days; and the people had been so long accustomed to use them as current epochas, that it was not thought prudent or necessary to risk the success of the Reformation from excluding them from the ecclesiastical almanack. But the admission was merely nominal; for, as Wheatley justly observes, the Reformers did not retain them "with any regard of their being kept holy by the church," which practice they forbad, both " on account of the great inconveniency of such a number of holy-days," and "by reason that many of the saints

thus consecrated [namely, in the times of Popery,] were men of none of the best of characters; and their histories were often found to be feigned or fabulous."

I venture to think, and the event seems to me to prove, that our reformers sacrificed too much to apparent expediency both as respects the Apocryphal lessons and the Popish saints' days in their calendar; but let us remember the formidable difficulties under which they achieved their great work, and, at all events, not exaggerate the extent of their well-meant concessions.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

THE paper of Mr. Faber, on the Use of the Fathers, to which I am happy to find that one reply has already been inserted in your pages, states in substance, as I understand him, that studying the Scriptures without "note or comment" is not sufficient to make us wise to salvation. If so, they are not fit to be put into the hands of the unlearned; lest every "crude interpreter, depending solely upon his own unassisted judgment, should strike out a theological system for himself;" and," before our faith can be fixed, we must have such an exposition of the Bible, as, on solid grounds, must be thought to propound its genuine sense.' Now, this appears to me the very reason urged by the Church of Rome for prohibiting the indiscriminate use of the Scriptures among its members; and for establishing the pope's veto, grounded on the "true and legitimate use of the Fathers." Without stopping to point out the various evils which must result from the adoption of such an opinion, I will only ask, What line of conduct am I, and thousands of other persons, to pursue, as it respects ourselves and families? I am only a plain English reader: it is true, I have heard of such men, and I revere their memory, as Justin Mar

tyr, and Origen, and Polycarp, and Tertullian, and perhaps many others; but I have only heard of them. Or if I have read some partial extracts from their writings, I have only read them. Besides, how are persons like myself to learn their opinions? Mr. Faber's references at the end of his paper, are to us all heathen Greek. I know of no English translation of their works; and the originals might remain in my closet for ages without being of any greater use for "fixing my faith" than the shelves that support them.

But leaving the study of the "Fathers" to those that understand them, I proceed to notice the two controverted points which Mr. Faber has selected in order to establish his opinion, that the Bible alone cannot be its own interpreter; namely, Transubstantiation and the Godhead of Christ. I quote his own words:"In the Socinian controversy respecting the Godhead of Christ, or in the Romish controversy respecting Transubstantiation, how will your correspondent manage to make the Bible alone determine the question? Such controversies respect, in truth, the meaning of the Bible. Whence, it is evident, that if two men differ as to the meaning of the Bible, the Bible itself cannot determine their controversy. Can the Bible alone, for instance, determine, &c., the two controversies to which we have alluded? Clearly it cannot." Will then Mr. Faber maintain, that because two captious polemics may choose to quarrel about a passage in the Bible-no matter what is the subject-that the Bible cannot determine the litigated point to the satisfaction of any impartial and candid reader? Mr. Faber asserts, in terms which I am at a loss to understand in one who has subscribed the Second Article of the Church of England, that the Godhead of Christ cannot be proved from Scripture. Why then does he believe it? Because it may be inferred from the fathers of the primitive church? This answer will CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 290.

not satisfy Mr. Belsham; nor will it satisfy a plain man like myself. I am a member of our Established Church, and stedfastly believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, but not because the Church believes it. If the doctrine cannot be proved from the word of God, without calling to its aid the opinion of man, I am no more bound to believe it than I should have been if the church of which I profess to be a member had denied it. But is the evidence supplied by the Bible for believing this fundamental article of our faith

indeed so scanty as Mr. Faber seems to intimate? If it be, the Socinian stands precisely on the same grounds as the Trinitarian ; but the truth is, that the Socinian does NOT implicitly receive the whole of Scripture as a revelation from God. He is compelled to reject, as spurious, such passages as militate against his own system, or to put such a construction upon them as neither learning, reason, criticism nor common sense can justify. Not so the Trinitarian. He takes the Bible as it stands, and receives the whole as given by inspiration from God. He acknowledges, indeed, that there are some things hard to be understood; but what he cannot fully comprehend he still believes, because "the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." I will not trespass on your pages by reciting the passages with which the Scriptures are replete, to prove the Godhead of Christ; or mention the GLOWING, the SUBLIME, the MAJESTIC, the AWFUL descriptions given of Him who is the Root and the Offspring of David they are so numerous and obvious that we may, without any difficulty, "manage". to make the Bible alone determine the controversy.

So much for Mr. Faber's first difficulty. With regard to the second; namely, the doctrine of Transubstantiation; I need only say, that either it can be proved from the Bible, or it cannot. If it can, as a Christian I am bound to receive. N

it. If it cannot, as a Christian and a Protestant also, I am bound to reject it, without waiting a moment for the decision of the “Fathers." Besides, if the Bible do not deny the real presence in the consecrated elements in terms strong enough to satisfy Mr. Faber, I am sure he is the last man to deny us, on this or any other subject, the free exercise of our reason; and I know of no place in Scripture where a sensible object is proposed to influence our belief in direct contradiction to the evidence of our senses. Therefore, when I see, and feel, and taste real bread and wine, and am told at the same moment, that I am actually eating, and drinking real flesh and blood, the assertion carries its own contradiction along with it. Mr. Faber considers it absolutely necessary for every man, before his "faith can be fixed," to take, "not only the Bible, but also such an exposition as, on solid grounds, may be thought to propound its genuine sense." Here, again, a question of no small difficulty arises-Where is such an exposition to be found? I confess that when I observe the frequent mistakes, controversies, and sometimes absurdities, of commentators, I am inclined to distrust all human expositors. And here I

might ask Mr. Faber himself, What "solid grounds" have we for believing that that Omnipotent Being who, when HE "rode into chaos and the world unborn," where "confusion heard his voice, and wild uproar stood ruled," who said, "Let it be, and it was so," was six and thirty thousand years in modelling and remodelling the earth which we inhabit, before he brought it to such perfection as to pronounce it "very good?" And when we speak of man's "unassisted judgment," I would ask, may not the humble Christian, who "knows, yet knows no more, his Bible true," whilst he prays that he may be able to "mark, learn, and inwardly digest" what he reads, expect, without incurring the charge of enthusiasm, the assistance of God's Holy Spirit? The sacred writings are so full of texts which warrant such expectations, that I think it needless to quote a single passage. It is a painful truth, that these things are too often hid from the "wise and prudent," in their own estimation, but are revealed to "babes;" to those who, like "little children, desire the sincere milk of the word, that they may grow thereby."-" If the Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost!"

W. B.

The Epistles of Paul, the Apostle, translated, with an Exposition and Notes. By the Rev. THOMAS BELSHAM, Minister of Essex Street Chapel, London. Hunter. 1822. 8vo. 4 vols. pp. lxxxiv. and 2247.

ONE of the first qualifications, commonly expected in a translator, is a profound admiration for his author. This qualification is the more necessary in the translator of an inspired writer; because his sentiments are not of earthly origin; and

it is impossible for any one to exhibit them throughout with sufficient fidelity, who is not thoroughly imbued and impregnated with the sentiments he would record. But if any such qualification as this be demanded from the translator of whose work we are now about to give some account, we fear he will be found to fall short of it; for, in his judgment, St. Paul was neither "a profound metaphysician," (vol. ii. p. 488,) an "accurate" reasoner, (vol. i. p. 126,) nor a correct writer, (vol. i. p. 110;) but, on the contrary, was