out here following it up,-What ought we to do?

He confessed, too, the sins of his people. These, he knew, had occasioned their calamities; and these, acknowledging himself to be one of the entire community, he confessed, though he had not been personally guilty. And the Christian will look around him, not as an uncharitable censor indeed, but yet as a faithful subject of Almighty God, who grieves to see the laws of his Sovereign violated, and as an affectionate member of a large family, who loves his countrymen, but who cannot shut his eyes on their sins; and whose kindest affections are wounded by the sins which he knows to be the cause of calamity.

In his review of national sins, he will ascertain what sins are most frequently and generally committed; and which, by this frequency and extent, assume a national character. And if he perceives that the Legislature, participating in a very general opinion and feeling,-though precisely the opinion and feeling that ought to be discountenanced,should show itself even more than inclined to give official and legislative support to what is decidedly sinful, (purchasing what seems to be a present convenience, by a guilt which exposes the whole country to danger,) the man of God, in his closet, will deplore this, and place it among the sins of his people which he acknowledges; and for which, through the infinite merits of the all-prevailing Intercessor, he pleads with God to pardon.

For he not only confesses, but prays,-prays with great earnestness, with that sacred and importuning perseverance which our Lord, in the course of his public ministry, so solemnly enjoined. The recorded language of Daniel shows what we might almost term the vehemency of his spirit in this matter. It is not a clear, but cool, intellectual statement, saying a prayer, and leaving it; but as the strongest feelings of his heart were concerned, so were these feelings engaged in his addresses to God. "I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by

prayer and supplications." He set his face, he did it to seek. Here is no performance of external duty, as if such performance were all,-turning prayer into an unmeaning ceremony. Daniel prayed for an answer, and he obtained one.

And thus, likewise, in circumstances of a similar character, will the devout Christian act. There will be earnest prayer; the prayer of one who sets his "face unto the Lord God," for the purpose of seeking the removal of evil, or the bestowment of good, by earnest-I may say, wrestling-prayer and supplication. It is false in philosophy, as well as in divinity, to suppose, that there is in this anything inconsistent either with the majesty or unchangeableness of God. It is the transfer to God of the notions derived from fallen man; and the real design is, not to honour God, but to gratify our own pride, our desired independence. The Christian knows that prayer is both heard and answered; and, therefore, he prays. He knows, too, that God approves of earnestness; that Christ has commanded it, even as it might look like importunacy. And with this pleading, continued, sometimes agonizing, earnestness, after the example of Daniel, he will pray for his country.

But to all this Daniel added "fasting," with those appearances of fasting and humiliation which, in those ages and countries of signs, were customary,-" and sackcloth, and ashes."

Upon the duty of fasting there could be no hesitation, if, unhappily, some persons had not taken up the notion, that Christianity is a totally new religion; and the New Testament, as the record of it, a totally distinct book, separate from the Old Testament, and to be taken by itself. The Apostle Paul sets that question at rest. "Whatsoever things were written of old time, were written for our instruction; implying that it is our duty to search the more ancient records of inspiration, as well as the more recent. What belonged to Judaism, as such,-and honest piety will find

no difficulty in discerning this,-is to be renounced: what belongs to religion in general, is to be retained, —care being taken to apply the great principles and rules of fullydeveloped evangelism, and to connect nothing with Christianity but what Christianity has been permitted to form according to its own proper nature.

These rules will remove the sackcloth and ashes, for they were merely signs; and the day of signs has now gone by, so that only those are to be retained which are commanded: but fasting is not merely a sign; it is a real exercise; and, in its place, it is as much an expression of feeling as is language. Our Lord, by giving direction for its proper performance, teaches that itself is to be practised. It is, therefore, a Christian duty.

The example of Daniel shows, that when we set our "face to seek unto God," when we set apart a specific time for this object,-fasting is to be connected with confession

of sin, and earnest, persevering

prayer.

And this may be personal and private, when the individual himself thus resolves devoutly to seek for God's blessing on his country; and may be done, therefore, according to individual judgment. It were well if it were done more frequently. The effect of these private exercises would be found in great public blessings. Happy were it for the church and the land, were Christians to go less into the turmoil of earthly schemes and assemblings, where they often sustain great injury to their own souls, and where they can only give the sanction of their character and presence to plans whose principles are anything but Christian; and more into their own closet, to imitate the example of Daniel.

It may be done by the appointment of the state, as in the case of the King of Nineveh. It is well when the rulers of a country thus acknowledge God. There may have been much of mere form connected with such public fasts, but there has been much of a godly sincerity too;

and very frequently have they been the preludes to the removal of calamity, and the restoration of prosperity.

And it may be done ecclesiastically, when the members of Christian churches, united under one form of discipline, administered by Pastors united in one body, being called to it by the proper persons, observe a fixed time, on which all of them unite in thus seeking God's blessing on themselves and country. And should there ever be, unhappily, a period in which great national distress, is connected with a disinclination on the part of the rulers of the land to have recourse to religious means for its removal, it becomes the duty of the Pastors of every branch of the Christian community, to call on those in connexion with them to humble themselves before God, and to seek him both for the revival of his work in the churches, and the restoration of prosperity in the state.

The Wesleyan Methodists have their Quarterly Fasts. Were the subject of fasting seen in its true simplicity, as a Christian duty,—a duty of religion,-these would be better observed, and found to be very profitable means of grace. It is hoped that the present paper, in which it has been attempted to develope the principles of the whole subject, will aid in directing at tention to this particular branch of it.

Sometimes the united body of Wesleyan Pastors has called the united members of the community under their care, to make one of these general Quarterly Fasts special and particular, in reference to cer tain objects deemed to be sufficiently important to justify, and even to require, such a call. National distress would be one, even though it were found connected with religious prosperity; and religious declension, though associated with national pros perity. The strongest call is that which takes as its reason the combination of national distress, and religious declension; and when special prayer is required in reference to the restoration of the bless

ings both of providence and of grace.

The recently concluded Wesleyan Conference, believing that such a juncture had actually occurred, appointed October 7th to be observed as a day of special fasting and prayer, in reference to the outpouring of the Spirit, for the return of religious prosperity, and for the blessing of Providence, that temporal prosperity may be vouchsafed to the nation at large. The subject has been investigated in the present paper, for the purpose of bringing its important principles distinctly before the reader, and thus reminding him of duty, and encouraging him in its performance. Let no Wesleyan ever even seem to adopt the principles of Epicurus, thus

turning himself from God to second causes, and provoking God to withdraw his blessing, and so to make second causes powerless. It is a fashionable system at the present day. It is hoped that every Wesleyan will bear a full testimony against it; and that this will be done, as, generally, by the acknowledgment of God in all their ways, so, particularly, on the approaching opportunity, by a devout imitation of the conduct of Daniel. God is faithful. The Hearer of prayer does not say, "Seek my face," in vain. And even if others refuse to be benefited by the intercessions that are made for them, they who make them shall not be sent empty away. E. T.

THE "Christian Remembrancer," which may be generally described as a "High-Church" publication, and, so far, as one of the organs of Puseyism, has, in the Number for September, devoted a page to Mr. Jackson's "Letter to Dr. Pusey." If we had had any doubts before as to the power of the Letter, they would now be entirely removed. The Reviewer is evidently angry, very angry. The "Letter" has struck a home-blow, under which the party, so far as represented by the Reviewer, winces in no ordinary degree; and, like all other angry men, so manages his reply, as, in point of fact, to surrender the whole point in dispute. But of this our readers shall be enabled to judge for themselves, as we shall follow Mr. Jackson's example, (who has, with a fairness not often exhibited in controversy, quoted the whole of Dr. Pusey's attack on Methodism, that the reader may see the character of both the attack and the reply,) and place the entire article before them, interspersing a few remarks of our own with its several sentences. If this be a fair specimen of HighChurchism, it is time that it were

perfectly understood. We do not deny the right of the party to hold and to express their own opinions; nor do we claim any right of interfering in the affairs of other Churches. But the Church of England stands on ground altogether different from other branches of the professing church in this country. It sustains a twofold character. It is not only a Church, but it is an established Church. Now, when we have defended the great principle of an ecclesiastical Establishment, we have not considered merely the question of the privileges which such an Establishment must possess, but the duties which likewise devolve upon it. A Church is not established only that it may enjoy certain privileges. Those privileges are the remuneration which the State furnishes for the duties which it requires to be performed. And it is this circumstance which gives to every member of the State the right of interference. A Church is established for the benefit of the nation; and the nation, which pays the price of the Establishment, has as much right to require that the Ministers of the

Church so established, who thereby become public functionaries, do honestly perform their covenanted duties, as to require that other public functionaries-Judges and Magistrates for instance perform theirs. And as in this latter case the duty would not be performed by the administration of whatever the legal functionary chose to consider as law; so neither do the clerical functionaries perform their duty by teaching whatever they choose to call divinity, but only by teaching that divinity which is recognised and declared by the establishing enactments. Let them disestablish themselves, and they may teach what they please, subject, of course, to the notice and animadversion of the public; but while they remain established, they are bound, in all honesty, to conform to those original documents which enter into the bond of establishment; and the nation has a right to inquire whether the teaching do in reality correspond to these legal standards. In the case of the Church of England, those standards are before the public; and they who do not belong to the Church have yet, as liable to the legal charges of an Establishment, a right, as belonging to the national community, to expect, and even to require, that they who receive the emoluments which the legal Establishment furnishes and secures, do faithfully preach those doctrines to which these standard documents refer. Whether the High-Church party, as represented by the " Christian Remembrancer," be faithful or not to the weighty trust reposed in them, is a question on which our readers may form their own opinion when the language of the Reviewer is before them. But the members of this party may be assured that they have overshot the mark. They will not be permitted to ride rough-shod over their countrymen at their own pleasure, as if they were perfectly independent. They may wish to be so. The fetters of an Establishment may possibly gall them. We believe they do.

But till they get rid of them, they must be reminded of their existence, and required-yes,

REQUIRED-to occupy the prescribed ground, and to do so in a better manner than latterly they have chosen to do.

The Reviewer says,-" As was to have been expected, the Methodists are in fearful wrath at the recent exposures of the rottenness of their system, and of their complete abandonment of the principles of him whose name they bear." No, indeed. They do not admit that there have been any exposures of the kind. The Reviewer may say that their feelings are those of "fearful wrath," if he pleases. He may just call them by what name he likes. But let him represent the facts with common honesty. Their feelings, be they those of anger or of grief, are excited by seeing a man, occupying the position in which Dr. Pusey stands, describing a case which does not exist, and imputing to them principles with which they have no concern, justifying his proceedings, not by referring to any of the standard productions of Methodism, nor to the standard documents of his own Church; but by assuming that his own very peculiar opinions are the standards of truth, and then condemning as heretical whatsoever disagrees with them. Nor is even this all. In describing what he designs to condemn, he attributes to the Methodists doctrines which they do not hold, which they never did hold, and which, as they are put by their accuser, they repudiate as strongly as he himself can do. The real charge against Dr. Pusey is, that in his Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury," he says of the Methodists the thing that is not." This is the real point at issue between the parties; and Mr. Jackson, by giving the allegations of the Professor entire before he commences his reply, affords the reader the opportunity of deciding for himself as to its relevancy and sufficiency. Whether the Methodist system be rotten or not, the reader of Mr. Jackson's pamphlet may judge, for it is there faithfully described; but any conclusions as to Methodism drawn from the statements of Dr.

Pusey would be utterly worthless; for they do not possess the merit even of caricature resemblance.

But we proceed with the Reviewer. "Dr. Pusey's allegation of heresy appears to have nettled them most. Hæret lateri lethalis arundo." It does no such thing. It struck an armour which it could not penetrate, and fell to the ground. "It seems to us to come to this,-that their system and that of the Romanists is morally the same. In either case, the theoretical teaching is one thing, their practical application of it another." The Reviewer, it seems, is compelled to acknowledge that "the theoretical teaching" is not heretical. How he makes out his charge of unsoundness in its "practical application" the reader shall be shown. "It has always been held a good argument against Rome to say, 'It may be all very true that you do not formally and in terms recommend, or even countenance, the worship of the blessed Virgin;'"-We interrupt the quotation just to point out the insinuation of the abstract correctness of Romanist teaching. These writers can never refer to Rome without showing the strength of the family affection. They are always ready to explain, or extenuate, or excuse where Romanism is concerned :-"but is it not a fact that your people do substitute the mother of God for the Saviour himself?" O yes. A few ignorant Irish Papists may fall into error; but Dr. Wiseman and the Pope, they never "formally and in terms recommend the worship of the Virgin." Their teaching is only accidentally wrong; it is substantially right; and a few explanations will be sufficient as articles of peace and union. "So say we of the Methodists,It is of no use to quote Wesley's Sermons.'" The reader will notice the words we have put in italics. It is an easy way of trying to evade an unanswerable argument. To show what is Methodism, Mr. Jackson quotes the standard writings which the Methodists acknow ledge. O, says the Reviewer, "It is of no use to quote Wesley's Sermons." Perhaps not, to the predetermined

Reviewer. Among the reading public, however, there may, after all, be some who wish to know, when the question relates to Wesleyanism, what Mr. Wesley himself has said. Does the Reviewer think that the Methodists have dealt with Mr. Wesley, as he and his friends have dealt with the Homilies, and men like Jewell? "We care nothing for what Mr. Thomas Jackson chooses to tell us of the doings in the Cityroad, which may be true or not; the fact is"-After having so cavalierly dealt with the subject of quotations, the Reviewer professes to come to facts. We request the serious attention of the reader to the statements which now follow. will see why we said above, that anger completely blinds the judgment.

He

Had it not done so, common prudence would have suggested the propriety of carefulness on a doctrinal question on which the Church of England has spoken explicitly, if it have spoken explicitly at all-" the fact is, talk to the Methodists, and you will find out in five minutes that they identify the gift of justification with that personal act of the will instigated by fancy, or feeling, or what not, which wishes, or thinks about, or, as it is technically phrased, apprehends the sufferings of Christ." This is a curious sentence: "That act of the will which wishes the sufferings of Christ?" What does the writer mean? The other members of the sentence are less ambiguous. The Methodists confound the gift of justification-justification itself-with "that personal act of the will which thinks about, or, as it is technically phrased, apprehends, the sufferings of Christ." The Reviewer is so totally unacquainted with the subject, that he knows not even how to describe erroneous views respecting it. He confounds the blessing itself, and the condition of its attainment. The Methodists will tell him, as to the first, that justification is the forgiveness of sins; and as to the second, that it is faith in the propitiation of Christ: they know better than to make no distinction between the

gift, and the prescribed condition.