the Lord, if we know as well as he who are his?"

In a subsequent part of the conference, Ridley remarks, that such things as were ordained of men, if not contrary to God's word might be tolerated: but with respect to such things as are contrary to the word of God," whether they ought to be borne by any Christian or no, let him judge who is spiritual, who feareth God more than man, and loveth everlasting life more than this short and transitory life."

In the same strain Ridley expresses himself during his last examination before the popish commissioners, "My Lord, I acknowledge an unspotted church of Christ, in the which no man can err, without the which no man can be saved, which is spread throughout all the world, that is the congregation of the faithful; and where Christ's sacraments are duly ministered, his Gospel truly preached and followed, there doth Christ's church shine as a city upon an hill." "I am fully persuaded that Christ's church is every where founded, in every place where his Gospel is truly received, and effectually followed."

The reader of the above extracts will not fail to perceive how very remote were the sentiments of the venerable Ridley, on the one hand, from the latitudinarian laxity which is the boast of so many modern religionists; and, on the other, from the intemperate zeal and intolerant bigotry which unhappily distinguish a few modern churchmen.

The thought of eternity and its im mense importance, pressed forcibly upon my mind; and a variety of reflections on this awful subject held me for some time in serious contemplation. Amongst other things, the danger and absurdity of the doctrine of universal salvation occurred; and I thought with regret on the profession of this pernicious doctrine, which was said to have been made on his death-bed, by a late eminent philosopher, who died not long ago in America.

A passage of Scripture occurred to my mind, as it has often done be fore, which affords a full demon stration of the falsehood of this doc trine. The terms of this passage are so clear, that they will admit of no sense but one, which proves the certainty of an eternal duration of the misery of the damned, unless we allow the doctrine of annihilation.

The idea of applying mathematical demonstration in support of any doctrine of divine revelation, may, at first sight, appear strange and ab, surd; but in this peculiar instance such demonstration will not be found inapplicable; and may be urged with propriety in confutation of such persons as boast of the ra tionality of their religious principles.

The doctrine which I mean to oppose, and which is held by too many who call themselves Christians, is this-That those who are not truly righteous shall suffer a certain degree of punishment in a future state, proportioned to their criminality; but shall at last, after this time of discipline (to use the expres sion of the philosopher, to whom I allude) be admitted to a state of eternal happiness.

This doctrine is in direct contradiction to the declaration which our blessed Saviour, the great Judge of all, made with respect to the traitor Judas.-Woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed: it had been good for that man, if he had not been born. Matthew xxvi. 24.

ration.

To demonstrate the truth of this proposition, it is only necessary to appeal to the judgment of any one, whether this woe could with truth be applied to the life of a person fa future state being now out of the question) who was appointed to live a hundred years in uninterrupted felicity, excepting the short space of a single hour, during which he should suffer any conceivable punishment. No doubt can be enter tained of the answer to this inquiry. Let us farther suppose this perfectly happy life to extend as far as the age of Methusaleh, and that the intervening period of misery had but the duration of one second of time-Could it be said of such a one, It had been good for this man that he had not been born? We must suppose the person to have lost his understanding who should hesitate to conclude that such a life was truly desirable.

Yet even these proportions of happiness and misery, dissimilar as they are, do not exhaust the force of my argument; for the least imaginable portion of time, call it the ten thousandth part of a second, bears a greater proportion to the longest limited duration which the imagination can reach, than that duration does to eternity.

The conclusion, therefore, is clearly demonstrated, that eternal happiness will not succeed to any period of misery of the damned; because on this supposition it could not be said of any one, It had been good for that man, if he had not been born.

If this awful truth had its proper influence on our minds, we should account every worldly enjoyment but as dung and dross, in comparison with the favour of God, and the

W. H.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer, I HAVE frequently regretted the discredit brought upon religion, and the little progress made in it, by many, whom I should be extremely unwilling to regard as merely nominal Christians, as possessed of the form of godliness, but destitute of its power. This, Sir, is a subject of the utmost moment; and one which forcibly presses itself on every thinking mind. Permit me then earnestly to solicit the attention of your readers to the following view of it. I shall speak, Sir, from experience; and possibly on this very account may express myself with the greater earnestness.

Christianity, there is reason to fear, is divisible not only into real and nominal, but into what may with propriety be termed general aud particular religion. Many whose minds have been strongly impressed with the supreme importance of religious truths, and who perhaps, for a considerable time, have been wholly actuated by its energetic principles, slide away by degrees, through indolence and remissness, into the general sort of religion just mentioned. Others, perhaps, never rose to the same height of Christian attainments with those last-mentioned; but from the first period of their engaging in the service of God, have conceived that there has been little more to do, and have rested satisfied with this general religion. By this I mean, that they have not been accustomed in their daily repentance, in their self-examination, in their resolutions against sin, and in their cultivation of Christian graces to descend sufficiently to particulars. They repent of sin, it is true; but in so general a way, that they are rarely very deeply affected with it. They pray for increasing holiness; but still they

deal so much in generals, as seldom to produce in their minds that ear nest endeavour to attain it, which is absolutely necessary if we would expect our prayers to be efficacious. Here then, Sir, lies the grand evil of the conduct which I am now condemning. The system here attempted to be described neither universally influences the conduct nor deeply impresses the heart. I do not mean to say that that divine principle which constitutes the distinction be tween vital and nominal religion, is wholly extirpated. But this I may safely assert, that the principle is miserably unproductive. Let me illus trate this by a practical instance. If, for example, the characters in question apply themselves to the entire conquest of any favourite sin, (though I am inclined to think that even this is seldom done with sincerity,) they do not, as persons really in earnest, trace it through all its ramifications; they do not scrutinize with sufficient, if any, accuracy, its origin and its real nature, the occasions which are apt to call it forth, or the circumstances which give it the greatest power. Again, does any Christian grace require culture? The means they employ in order to cultivate it expose the inefficiency of their principles. They pray for it in a general way, and may wish to attain the object of their prayers: but they are yet unwilling to sacrifice their love of indolence, or the pursuit of a favourite scheme to their eternal interests: they are averse to that spiritual activity, that steady vigilance, and that unfeigned sorrow for daily falls, which seems essential to a Christian's progress and success. The bent of their minds may be in the main towards holiness, and so far it is well: but do they exert that vigour, and bring into action those means which they might and ought to do, and which are well exemplified in the conduct of those who gave ALL diligence to make their calling and election BURE? Is the sin to which they find

themselves prone traced through all its ramifications? Are the motives to cultivate any virtue, frequently and earnestly and particularly pressed upon the mind? Are circumstances favourable to its exercise eagerly embraced? And when they occur is the mind resolute in profiting by them? These are some of the most powerful means for advancing religion; and they are those which a person really in earnest feels it his duty and delight daily to employ. He holds them to be absolutely indispensable to the attainment of spirituality of mind. But the characters in question, I fear, know little of such exertions. A deadly languor pervades their souls. The subject of religion is deplorably forgotten through the day; and when called to mind at the stated hours of religious retirement, it is received with a cold and wandering heart. Sin, indeed, may be opposed, divine assistance to this end may be prayed for, and victory over sin may be the real desire of the heart. Yet surely, if that desire were sufficiently fervent, sin would be more vigorously resisted, and the Divine. assistance implored with a more earnest and more undivided spirit: there would be that anguish of soul when tempted to evil, that love of communion with God, and that unremitting endeavour to overcome besetting sins, and attain the opposite graces, which bespeak a mind earnest to approve itself before God. But, Sir, is the line of conduct, which these persons pursue, sufficient to repel the advances of a foe equally subtle, vigilant, and powerful? Is it sufficient that we oppose to his indefatigable arts, feeble struggles, cold prayers, and a partial repentance? And can we expect under such circumstances to make any progress in the Christian life?

It is thus that the fortress of the human heart is assailed in its most vulnerable parts. The enemy does not venture to attempt taking the citadel by storm; he does not labour

to seduce it at once from its allegiance: this, he is aware, is too ar duous an undertaking, and might lead to the exposure, and in the end, to the defeat of his designs. It is by secretly sapping the fortifications, by watching to seize upon some unguarded pass, and by encouraging treachery within, that he anticipates their final accomplishment. In the mean time the fortress is not yet taken, nor its alle. giance withdrawn; it still in the general resists the enemy's assaults; the fault as well as danger rests in not paying sufficient attention to provide for the defence of every particular point, and especially to secure those that appear most assail able. Slight damages are not instantly repaired, nor is internal treachery an object of perpetual jea lousy. Can we in such circumstances, look with confidence on the security of the fortress? Should we not rather be filled with habitual anxiety, lest some unfortunate incident, some sudden surprize, or some successful traitor within, should deliver it into the enemy's hands?

But to drop this metaphor; I repeat a former position, there is hardly a more deplorable effect of the conduct I am now. condemning, than that it exposes and weakens the bulwarks of the soul. In the case of those especially, who previous to their acquaintance with religion had been living in the habitual commission of known sin, the danger is imminent in the extreme. For what is it to which such persons must now look to preserve their integrity, to repel the tempter, and to overcome the most alluring solicitations to evil, solicitations aided by inveterate habits, and maintaining a secret correspondence with a powerful party within the heart itself? Next to Divine aid, without which every human effort is undoubtedly vain, their only safety consists in that unremitting watchfulness to avoid sin, and that anguish of soul consequent upon any relapse, which the indolent system now repro

bated tends utterly to annihilate: These are the Christian's arms. With these he is to overcome his spiritual foes. Deprive him of these, and you leave him a defenceless prey to his enemies. True it is, that his own unassisted arm would be insufficient even to repel, much more to overpower his adversaries. But the Christian's arm is nerved with more than mortal strength. And though without that supernatural energy his weapons must fall useless from his hauds, yet it is the will of God, that the one should cooperate with the other, and that to procure from him strength for the combat, the Christian must conscientiously use the appointed means of defence and resistance.

Altera poscit opem res et conjurat amice.”

While however I thus endeavour to press on the Christian the indispensable duty of spiritual vigilance and activity, or, in the language of St. Paul, of "arming himself with the whole armour of God, that he may be able to stand in the evil day," I am especially solicitous to obviate any suspicion that places human exertion in competition with the efficacy of Divine grace. In deploring the miserable consequences of indolence, I do not forget that God is all in all.

I proceed to point out another evil resulting from a system so unworthy a good soldier of Jesus Christ. This religion of generalities not only endangers the existence of religion in the soul, it strikes at the very root of a Christian's internal tranquillity. "Drink deep or taste not," is a citation most strictly applicable to the pleasures of religion. Let the true Christian be reminded, that when he has once enlisted himself under the banners of the Captain of his Salvation, his happiness is inseparably connected with a vigorous course of active warfare. Coldness, and indifference are in their own nature ruinous. Spiritual happiness lies in success; and a fair prospect