When Christians lost sight of the rigid lines of truth in God's word, and went astray after prayer-books, liturgies, litanies, and other dead formularies.

"When did the tyranny and usurpation of popery sink into the more fatal tyranny, and still more unauthorized usurpation of dissent ?

"When men, in shaking off abuses, lost sight of the rules of antiquity, and set up a new scheme in their own imaginations."

When did the tyranny and usurpation of popery sink into the still more despicable drivellings and idiotisms of Puseyism?

When men, in shaking off abuses, lost sight of the word of God, and set up a new scheme on their own imagination.

66

Again, when does benevolence become officiousness?

"When man strives to do good, not in his place, according to the prescribed rules of his office or of society, but meddles with things and persons with which he has no authority to interfere."

When does benevolence become officiousness?

When a Puseyite is required to put his hand in his pocket, and perform an act of charity.

"When would a soldier be punished for fighting like a hero against the enemy?

"When he left the post where he was placed, and rushed into battle by an impulse of his own."

When would Professor Sewell be punished for fighting like a hero against dissenters and the devil?

When he left his post as Moral Professor of Oxford, and rushed into battle by an impulse of his own, without first consulting the wishes of the Rev. Father in God who may be his superior officer.

"When does liberality become vain glory?

"When man ceases to regard it as a duty imposed on him by God, and gives to gratify himself."

We would recommend the Professor to be liberal either one way or the other; if it does him no good, it will do the objects of his charity no harm.

"This definition of virtue accords still more precisely with those who define goodness by the will of God, since every positive institution is there traced up to God; and those men only are to be taken as our guides who are appointed by God, profess to deliver God's law, to found their whole authority on his commission. And it shows clearly the necessity of referring not only to a revelation generally, but to the catholic church as our primary authority in morals, since no other way can we learn what God did reveal to man except by the witness of the apostles;

nor what the apostles witnessed to, except by the consenting catholic testimony of the independent churches which they founded in different parts of the world."

This shows clearly that revelation is not considered the only and first authority for Puseyite theology, they want something better-something more " mysterious and awful"-something more convincing, and entitled to their reverence and regard, than the written word. And for this they apply to tradition, which, according to the old song of the apostolic succession, has been handed down as pure as the mountain stream; and that this tradition is of great value and importance we may imagine, when from its holy bosom proceed the beautiful liturgies, delightful squeaking litanies, and other mountebank mummeries.

Of baptism he says:—

"It restores him at once to a state of security and goodness, instead of requiring him to save himself by some subsequent efforts. We are not told that if we do right, we shall become new creatures, but are pronounced regenerate' already, whatever this regeneration means; we are not urged to procure. admission into the society of the church, but are declared to be already grafted into its body; we are not told of everlasting salvation as something future, but are already described as heirs of it. And if you will attentively examine the language of St. Paul, whenever he speaks of the blessings of baptism, you will find that he uses the past tense. The very things which a heathen moralist would most desire, such as the mortification of the flesh, the death unto sin, the creation of a new spirit within us, the enlightenment of the mind, the admission into a noble spiritual polity, the cleansing of the conscience, the forgiveness of sins, and restoration to the favour of God, and union with his nature; all these are described in the Bible as effected by baptism already."

If we are to believe what is here stated, our salvation is accomplished at baptism; for the devil is driven out of us by exorcism; we are become new creatures, and pronounced regenerate already, "whatever this regeneration means." It would also seem to be a doubtful thing in the Professor's mind, what this regeneration is; he does not apparently understand the signification of the word; and, we are afraid, understands its vital principle much less; and to this opinion we are led from his complete ignorance of what really constitutes scripture truth-a want of knowledge much to be deplored, as, if he had been but slightly illuminated with the revealed light of revelation, he would not have gone so far astray from the doctrines of the great and mighty Saviour.

It is certainly a lamentable instance of men being led away by the craft and subtlety of the devil, who, by encouraging them with high notions of their own importance, as well as of their office, leads them to despise the highest of all Beings, in neglecting his written testimony in preference for follies of their own concocting.

He says that the baptized is restored into a state of security and goodness. Now, is there one of our readers-episcopalian though he be (if not a Puseyite or papist)-who imagines himself to be in the state referred to? No. We are certainly justified in asserting, not one.

Then he tells us that the baptized are "dead unto sin.' Such a statement as this nearly leads us to declare the Professor mad -stark mad-wholly mad; and we are convinced that many have come to this decision ere now. Dead unto sin ! Is there a man who treads the earth's surface, dead unto sin? Is the Professor so? We would willingly go many a long mile to witness the living prodigy. The seven wonders of the world would dwindle into a shadow at the very mention of such a thing. What folly is expressed in the three words, "Dead unto sin," when applied to men sinning every

hour!

The minds of the baptized are also "enlightened." Alas! that we should have occasion to express even a doubt upon the subject; but in taking the Professor as one of the baptized, we are sorry to say that very little enlightenment of the mind has yet made its appearance.

Then the baptized are admitted into a noble spiritual polity, and their consciences are cleansed. The traditionary anglo-catholic wisdom of the Professor is here most beautifully illustrated, in the cleansing of an infant a month or two old. What a prodigy! Oh, able Necromancer! Great Wizard of the East! Why are not your nameless feats exhibited on the boards of Drury-lane? They would far outshine the insignificant delusions of your Northern rival-he is not fit to hold a farthing rushlight to you.

Then we have the grand blasphemy," the forgiveness of sins." The baptized are forgiven their sins; be they infants or adults, 'tis all the same, they are cleansed, made good and holy things; for in driving the devil out, he is forced to take all the baptized's sins along with him. Poor devil! we do pity you, if you are forced to carry all the sins a Puseyite or a papist can load you with.

Then the baptized "is restored to God's favour, and united with his nature;" and he concludes by saying that, "all these are described in the Bible as effected by baptism." That he should have come to such a conclu

sion, or thought the Bible at all necessary to be mentioned, is only a part of the inconsistency displayed throughout the whole of his reasoning.

If we are thought to have treated the subject with too much levity, it must be ascribed to the outrageous nonsense uttered, and which if we had treated as sense, we should have been justly imagined as mad as the Professor himself.

Again, as to baptism he says:

"This original sin, as well as the shame of actual guilt, the church cleanses away by baptism, typifies the fact by ablution with water, restores the mind to a consciousness of purity, enables it to look up even to God himself with an open uncowering eye, and to take its stand as a cleansed and holy thing, to enter fearlessly and proudly on the battle against the flesh and the devil."

There is a little new matter in this quotation :-First, he says that the cleansing from sin is typified by ablution with water. We deny this; as there is no part of scripture on which he can rest his assertion-if there was he ought to have quoted it, and thereby have prevented even a doubt on the question. As to the restoration of the mind to a consciousness of purity, we merely reply, that if he can produce one living person who can swear that he is so conscious of purity as to know no evil, we shall believe him; but not till then.

As to its enabling man to look up to God with " an uncowering eye," the idea itself is preposterous. The archangels who surround the Eternal's throne, are unable to face Him to whom they say continually, “Holy, holy, holy;" and is there a man amongst us purer than they who veil their faces with their wings in God's holy presence?

Such wretched nothings, such childish ignorance, is scarcely worth notice; and if it had not been that they came from one having authority, we should never have bestowed a single thought, but of contempt and pity on the miserable writer.

In continuation, he says:

"But in the ancient church, greater things than these were symbolized in the rite of baptism. It was called, not only a ' death unto sin,' 'an indulgence or remission of sin;' but 'regeneration,' 'unction,' 'illumination,'' salvation,' 'a seal of the Lord,' the gift of Christ,' a consecration,' an initiation,' 'a glory.'"

To contradict this is needless. We leave it as we find it to the common sense of mankind.

ing, the embarrassment of being suspended between two opinions."

Most sapient oracle, we will answer the question more to the point. It is because Puseyism is the next door to Romanism, and that to infidelity, so that men, in their downward course, either take the next step, or tumble over that to the bottom; and so it is with the Professor's disciples, when they forsake Puseyism, they either stumble into Romanism, or fall headlong into infidelity. Good reader, which of the two explanations seems most satisfactory?

"And then you may see the nature of that rite of the catholic church, which seals and insures to every baptized Christian, by an outward sign, confirmed by the testimony of his senses, and of which he cannot doubt, the gift, from his earliest infancy, of that Holy Spirit of God, one, and perfect, and infinite, and eternal, by which he is united to God himself, as a limb is united to the body, and is made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven."

He says our senses will not allow us to doubt of having received the gift of the Holy Spirit. In our opinion, the very opposite is the fact; our senses causing us to doubt so much, that we cannot believe it at all. But this may be from our not being baptized in the catholic church; the Holy Ghost not entering into any but the souls of English churchmen. But our senses enable us to discover that those who pretend to have received the gift, are not a whit better than their fellows who are not so highly favoured. Thus we are on a level with the Professor, highly gifted with supernatural powers though he be.

"But you will say, (at least, if you have been brought up under the miserable influence of this unbelieving age,) all this is only the profession of the church; but I want a proof that its promises are true-that the whole is not a delusion. Where is the evidence that the power of evil within me really is destroyed-that my sins really are forgiven that God really is imparted to me by the water of baptism? To give this proof does not belong properly to the ethical teacher. It is rather the business of the theologian, or perhaps of ecclesiastical history. And there was a time when to require it, would prove a mind unworthy of receiving it."

What a miserable ditty is that we have just quoted! How dolefully the Professor sings out the sinfulness of this unbelieving age! This must be a very miserable age indeed, when Professor Sewell says so, and more particularly as men are so very hard of belief, so much so, as even to doubt the reality of the church's power to work mira

cles which the combined sense of mankind cannot discern.

"And there was a time"-oh, the joy to think of that happy time when the ignorance of men enabled a corrupt and jesuitical priesthood to prey upon them; oh this unholy age, when men will no longer submit to be exorcised by the church, and pay her dues; oh this dire age, so destructive to bishops' salaries, tithes, and church-rates; what curses will not this enlightenment of the mind bring upon this unhappy land!

"That baptized Christians, therefore, do often fail in finally securing the promises made to them by the church, is no proof that those promises have not been originally fulfilled."

So we may draw a blank after all in this baptismal lottery, and perhaps there are more of the latter than prizes, and there one thing most important to be known, and that is, are there any prizes at all? our Bible tells us, none; and as we bow to its authority in all things, we must proclaim this lottery a cheat, and for the sole purpose of extorting money from the people's pockets. We were previously informed that we had secured everything, and now we are told that such is only a chance, we may get nothing; this is a pretty farce, truly! but we fear the poor victims of it think any thing but a farce.

"And therefore, when you find you really are able to act no longer by inrpulse or feeling, but of a real independent power, recognizing Christ as your master, you may rest in this as an assurance, that what the church has promised is true; and that it really has communicated to you the Spirit of God, and made you a member of Christ's body."

It is here said that a want of feeling and impulse of our own, is a sign of the Holy Spirit being in us. How this is made out, to us is not perceptible, but to the writer thereof is no doubt clear as mud.

In our humble opinion, we cannot discern the Spirit of God within us except by our feelings, as shown in our joy, love, and reverence of Him whose name is holy. So that our theory and the one quoted are completely at variance, in maintaining the necessity of our feelings showing in outward signs our love to God, before we can tell whether or not we are actuated by the Spirit of God. The Professor holds the contrary. We merely put it to any religious reader, whether he does not, in the ecstasy of his feelings, express his love to God, or whether he expresses such love in the total absence of all feelings of his own; we leave it to human nature to decide-we fear not the verdict.

We now come to one of the most remarkable passages in this truly remarkable book; a book not surpassed in originality and

absurdity by that work of the devil's incarnation, Robert Owen; for we dare to say that more ridiculous assertions and stupendous folly, were never before put together in a work on Christian morals. He says:

"But I will rather suggest the consideration of the vastness of the power claimed by the church, a power which places it almost on a level with God himself—the power of forgiving sins by wiping them out in baptism, of transferring souls from heaven to hell, without admitting a doubt of it, as when baptized infants, it is said, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved;' the power of bringing down the Spirit of God from heaven, and incorporating it in the persons of frail and fleshly man. Think, I say, of this stupendous power, and then ask if any human being could dare to assume it without authority from God himself. If such authority has never been given, then the church, in every one of its most solemn acts, is guilty of the most frightful blasphemy that man can conceive. If it has been given, is it not a fearful thing to make light of or dispute it? And when, in this dull, cold, mechanical age, men say that the age of miracles is gone by, that the time is past for spiritual gifts, and the deification of men, and supernatural communications, and all the dreams, as they dare to call them, of the superstitious infancy of the world-remember, that even now the church is upon earth, claiming every day, and exercising the same stupendous power as it exercised in the first ages of Christianity. And though the world has grown old, and faith is waxing faint, and the power of vision is departing, and man's being is sinking down into a dead shell and husk of matter, emptied of the glorious spirit which once seemed to animate and colour it, still before our eyes there is a daily miracle working, and a divine power as strong as at its first appearance, and a body perpetuating the inheritance of a supernatural gift, and a communication open between heaven and earth. And those who are sick and wearied with the emptiness of the natural world, may still take refuge in a world which is beyond nature, and before it, and above it."

Who amongst us protestants are believers in these powers, as named belonging to the church? Can ye, with the Bible in your hand, and the reason given you of God, give your consent to such an assertion as that now given unto us by the Professor in the passage now quoted? Or do not your Bibles and your reason cause you to say, in the Professor's words, that the claiming of such powers "is the most frightful blasphemy that man can conceive?" What man, a believer in Almighty God, can think of that holy and awful Being, and ascribe

powers to the church which make her on a level with Him? Is not such an assertion horrid, awful, yea, "we can scarcely bear to read it written." Can we hear the roar of heaven's artillery, and see the flash of its lightnings, and conceive of the mighty God endowing man with equal powers? the very thought is blasphemy; we dare not even imagine such a thing. No, we may be sinners, but that blasphemy which struck Satan from his angelic throne, even the presumption of equality with God, has never yet come nigh our thoughts; at thy footstool we humbly bend, great God, and confess that we are nothing in thy sight; the earth and its inhabitants are but as a handful in thy sight, great Lord of all. Save us, we beseech thee, O God, save us from such presumption; we are thy servants, thy slaves, the clay of thy formation; do with us, O Lord, according to thy will.

The Professor also can transfer souls from heaven to hell. Miserable blockhead! if he would but transfer a few grains of common sense into his brain, and transfer what is in it somewhere else, he would be conferring on himself, and those near him, more benefit than all the powers of the church are capable of giving him. He then begins his old chant of faith growing weak, eyes dim, not discovering the working of the miracles of the church. He must have second sight to perceive what no one else can attain a glimpse of.

He says, also, that the church as a body perpetuates these powers; if he had said nonsense instead, he would have been much more correct. He concludes the chapter with

"And thus, no internal objection is valid against the promises of the church; and all which is required to confirm them is a positive declaration and commission from God."

This is just what we want; and when they are confirmed by such authority, we shall bow to the promises and powers of the church catholic Puseyite.

In continuation of the above he says:

"A fact to be proved by historical testimony only, and traced, like all the other doctrines of revelation, from the present up to the catholic church, from the catholic church to the last of the apostles, from the apostles to Christ, and from Christ to God."

We

Now, most unfortunately for this historical testimony of the powers of the church, it has never been heard of by any but by the professors of Puseyism and papists. have examined, over and over again, the history of the church catholic, but there is no authority there; we have examined the writings of the apostles, none there; Christ is silent; and God speaks through Christ, Jehovah's fellow. So that this historic tes

timony must be unwritten, the only cause we can assign for its being so wholly unknown, and likewise the only reason we can allege for the Professor being so anxious to bring it forward.

"What, then, you will say, is every thing completed in baptism? Has man no future struggle to make? May he repose contentedly and securely on what the church has here done for him? Undoubtedly he may in many cases."

When the Professor feels inclined to give us the cases where or where not the baptized may rest securely, we shall be able to reply, but until then we must remain silent.

The Professor, talking of the insufficiency of external power to influence the heart, says:

"And therefore the church gives more. It puts into the heart a new principle, or rather a new being; or rather, if we may so speak, God himself, by imparting to it the Holy Spirit, and uniting it to the body of Christ."

For any Puseyite to laugh at transubstantiation after assuming this power, would show more folly than wit. For this miracle beats to nothing the Roman juggle; the latter can only make bread and wine flesh and blood, but the former can turn flesh and blood into a new being, a part of God himself, by putting God within them. We leave this for our readers' meditations.

"Nature, mankind, the church, all agree in their stipulations."

In the commencement of his work he very gravely tells his readers "never to use the word nature, but always God;" which rule he has not kept himself in many places of his work; and we are afraid his precept without practice, will be like a gun without powder and shot.

"And the church gives us this powerthis principle of virtue, for our head as well as for our heart-to 'govern our thoughts as well as our deeds'-in baptism, by implanting within us the gift of the Holy Spirit; and with this gift it couples necessarily the knowledge of God."

If such knowledge is implanted in the members of the church by baptism, it is to the great disgrace of the men who do not make better use of it. And the faith of their followers would be more firm if they, instead of making empty boasts of the possession of heavenly wisdom, would condescend to exhibit a little of it in their own lives. And, until such is done, we must deny the existence of any such knowledge or grace within them so implanted by baptism. On tithes he says:

"So also it is a question of statistics, of infinite importance at this time, what proportion of the property of the country is ne

cessary to maintain the poor, the clergy, and the temples of God. The table of the House of Commons is loaded every session with speculations and plans on this subject. Would it be fanciful to suppose that a tenth might perhaps be the amount? Such a sum at the very least, having been fixed and demanded by God himself. And may not all the fearful embarrassments arising from the irregular distribution of our wealth, be attributable to this simple fact, that we have forgotten the doctrine of revelation on this subject, and not yet struck out a better from all our political economy?"

If

We should like the Professor also to inform us, whether the Jews had a debt of 800,000,000Z., the interest of which the people had to pay, whilst an enormous pension list, and an extravagant government had to be provided for at the same time? they had not, they could pay the tenth for the purpose named; and if the Professor will relieve us from the burdens alluded to, we will also give the tenth as he requires. And, further, before any sum be allowed for any such purpose, we would strongly advise that a more equal division of the church's wealth be made. We would with our broom sweep away all the drones out of the cathedrals; we would dispense with stupid old canons, deans, prebendaries, and chancellors; and in the room of these cormorants the suckers of the church's exchequer-we would have one clergyman over each congregation, and give him no more livings; let the people pay him out of the seat rents; every clergyman in a town to have 5007. per annum, and in the country 3007. with a house and a few acres of land. And, further, we should have a fund to make up the salaries of any clergyman where his congregation was unable to pay him. And likewise we would give the full power of the election of a clergyman into the hands of the people, as we consider patronage a disgrace to the church, and nothing less than simony, purchased as it is—if not by money at least by interest, and not from the zeal and goodness of the man in the cause of the Lord. And we are much mistaken, if the great majority of the clergy would not hail with enthusiasm the plan we have proposed. We do not think our scheme a fanciful one, but one which will secure the comfort of the clergy, and them the love and reverence of the people.

On the rejection of doubt he says:

"How can any one 'promise and vow' that he will maintain his conviction, in defiance of subsequent knowledge which may possibly be given?"

"He can turn away his thoughts to other things, close his eyes, avert his ears as easily from a doubt of Christianity, as he does in