Congress. Several of the priests were in regular attendance, but how far they became obedient to the faith of peace principles I cannot say. This abbé is one of the most popu lar orators in France. His manner is commanding, easy, and graceful ; his voice full-toned and melodious; his articulation clear and distinct; and, above all, he appears to breathe an excellent spirit. The audience

received him with emotions of veneration. Few, if any, of our speakers surpassed him in effect, and none appeared animated with more temperate and becoming zeal.

66

His

entire address is well worth preservation. Some portions of it are so good, that I cannot withhold them. The Abbé de Guerry, unlike other French orators, was not tied down by a written manuscript. After a brief and lucid recapitulation of the matter adduced by previous speakers, he congratulated the assembly on the rapid progress of peace principles. 'It has," said he, "entered into the national assemblies of the United States; it has crossed the threshold of the British parliament, in that august assembly it was treated with respect." Here the speaker was interrupted by his countryman, M. Bouvet, who, jealous for the honour of France, exclaimed, "We also treat it with respect!" "Wait a moment," said the abbé, "it has also been introduced, but with more timidity, into the legislature of our own country. We were then too much occupied by our intestine commotions to attend properly to this important question. But now it is advocated in this vast meeting; it is defended by men endowed with the most overpowering eloquence, and its success is certain. I have already said that all the progress which we have made is due to the idea of universal peace-the existence of religious liberty-all may be ascribed to the idea of universal peace. This preliminary triumph has met with enormous difficulties; it was a long time before men could be persuaded not to shed blood in the name of Christ; but the Gospel assures us that loving faith can remove mountains, and faith will,

therefore, remove all difficulties. The spirit of Christianity is such that it makes men to have only one soul and one heart." Here the abbé was again interrupted, by a gentleman handing to him a small slip of paper. The abbé glanced on this, paused, and changed colour; shortly he recovered himself and proceeded, but in a solemn and subdued tone, and in measured cadence, evidently much affected with sorrowful emotions. "I have," said he, "just had given to me a paper on which is inscribed a name, a word, a date-a date of which this day is the anniversarya melancholy, a fearful date, since it calls to mind the horrible massacre of St. Bartholomew. I will not dwell upon this execrable event, further than to ask, Could a more striking example be given of the advantages of peace and the frightful evils of war? Yesterday allusion was made to the temporal power of the Papacy, yet in few words, perhaps out of deference towards me and some others. Permit me in brief to give my ideas on this subject." Here, I may remark, the abbé ventured on very tender ground, of which he seemed fully aware, and therefore tripped over it as lightly and as soon as possible. He observed, I do not approve of restorations by foreign intervention; on the other hand, I do not approve of revolutions effected in a country by foreigners. Revolutions effected by foreigners give to a nation whose political education is as yet incomplete a species of nourishment which is not suited to its weakness. Restorations made by foreign armies necessitate the employment of a force which is intolerable and cannot be maintained, and which while it lasts only increases the violence of the volcano, which sooner or later will burst forth and scatter far around tears, blood, and ruin!"

Returning to his subject, our orator descanted with telling effect on the means to be employed for the attainment of our object. He ventured gently to chide the impatience of his countrymen in most of their endeavours to effect reforms, and concluded in the following delight

ful strain: "Statues will no longer be erected to any except the benefactors of mankind, and the most magnificent will be raised to those who have done the most good. Yes, I see the idea of universal peace

seated on a throne, and I hear these words re-echoing through the universe, Egotism is overcome; and Christ at length reigns upon the earth!'"

A minister in calling at a house in one of his Bible visits, and finding that it was without a Bible, was assured by the woman that her husband would upon no account allow a Bible to remain inside his walls. He went away surprised and discouraged, but he determined not to give the unpromising up. He paid a second visit, and took a Bible with him. He found the man at home, and, after making known his errand, the man begged, in an angry tone, that he would give himself no further trouble; "For there," said he, pointing to a large box, "is my chest of truth." The minister, however, was resolved to cast his bread upon the waters, and left the Bible behind him. When he was gone, the man took up the Bible, not to read, but destroy it! And ashamed to do this in the presence of his family, or any of his neighbours that might come in, he took it with him into the fields, intending to throw it into the river. But as he went along, he thought he would just take one look before he destroyed it, and see what it said. He read; and the word was made quick and powerful, and he could not, he durst not, destroy it.

He read again, and he began to feel the truths of the Bible all-important to him. But what was to be done? He was ashamed to take it home again, or to be seen reading it; so he left it in an out-house, and went every now and then to read a little in private. At length he got courage to tell his wife how happy he was, and she sent him to the minister who had taken the Bible to his house, and whose instructions were that to the full relief of his mind, and to his establishment in that blessed truth which he before had laboured to destroy. He soon set up family worship in his house, and was a surprise to all his neighbours. Well, the 5th of November drew on; and he said to his children, "My lads, you shall have a great treatI intend to make you a famous bonfire." The hour came, and he told his lads to help him to draw out his chest-his chest of truth, in which lay about ten pounds' worth of infidel works, written by Thomas Paine and other ungodly men. All the

contents of the box were torn up and thrown into the fire, and while they were blazing, the father and the children sang a hymn.

Our

MY DEAR SIR,-I am glad that the state of the Paternal Fund is attracting the attention it demands. Mr. Robinson's communication is valuable for its satistics alone. lay-brother, at Macclesfield, has a soul, as well as a place for one. The appearance of his letter is a happy coincidence, which you have not failed to notice. Perhaps a few sentences from a minister who never was a claimant on the fund may

give some additional force to these epistles.

The principal reason which induces me to write is, the persuasion that amongst the many prudent plans suggested for raising the requisite amount, one has been omitted, without which we shall yet fail. I allude to bringing the matter before our members in their respective classes, at a season of the year deemed most convenient. This is as just as it is ex

pedient. The justice of such a fund is demonstrated by the fact that the salary of the minister is quite inadequate to meet the expenses of a family, large or small. You, dear sir, have openly and truthfully described our position as one of “ comparative poverty." The equity of appealing to the whole church in behalf of the Paternal Fund is evident from the fact that the small sums allowed for children form part of the minister's support. We need have no scruples here. During the whole year, we have but one Connexional collection made in our classes; and the amount required of our friends in humble life would be very small.

To facilitate this business, let the

financial committee fix the sum for each circuit; and, with the sanction of Conference, let the amount be printed in the minutes, that all may understand from the commencement of our ecclesiastical year. Let also the circuits, as well as the superintendents, be held responsible.

When we have formed plans which practical men believe to be efficient in the sustentation of our funds, we shall find no difficulty in obliterating the handwriting against us in the ledger. Let us clearly show that we have based our institutions upon rock, and we shall no longer be exposed to the ridicule of building on sand. Yours very affectionately, JOHN BENSLEY.

North Shields.

The

MR. EDITOR,-May I appeal to your sense of justice and fair play in the commonwealth of letters, for a page or two in your Magazine, to explain and defend myself against the misrepresentations of a quarrelsome reviewer? Some months ago, we published a little book called "Faith and Assurance," which professes to be no more than a popular and concise exposition of the subjects indicated in the title. By our own people and by some not of our denomination, it has been well received. "Wesleyan Association Magazine" of this month, contains a long review of this little book, extending over nine pages. The reviewer begins by stating, that some of our statements "are open to serious objection;" he hints doubts concerning our orthodoxy on "natural depravity" and "regeneration by the Holy Spirit;" nay, he says some of our views have "surprised" him, others have "startled" him, and others have even "astonished" him. When our eye glanced over these words, we said to ourselves involuntarily, “ Alas, alas! we have been unconsciously perverting the truth of God, and the book we have written to edify the saints is charged with deadly heresy; and yet, 'tis strange, passing strange, that not one within the near or remote circles of our friendship has been able to detect it, or at least has had the frankness and fidelity to tell us of his discovery." "But," we continued, "here is a se

66

cond Daniel come to judgment,' a man obviously remarkable; let him be heard." We then sat down, and with indomitable patience waded through the whole nine pages.

We do not intend to notice all the offensive points in this elongated review, that would be no pleasant task to ourselves, and no profitable employment of your pages. We have stated on page 4, that "Christianity makes no change in the mental or moral constitution of man; nor does it require the exercise of any disposition which does not originally belong to his nature." The reviewer found it convenient to his purpose to leave out the following sentence, which is connected with and exigetical of the former: "It only requires that these dispositions be exercised upon a given class of objects." The mental and moral constitution of man may be changed by giving new and additional powers, or by taking away some which he now possesses, but does Christianity give new mental and moral powers to its disciples? Is its office anything more than that of correcting, elevating, and sanctifying those powers which constitute the man's proper self? Are not these the ideas which the sentences express? The same things have been written and spoken a thousand times by the most faithful ministers of God's truth. And yet the reviewer says, "We were startled at reading the preceding." Why startled? Does he deny its literal

truth? No; but, generous soul! he thinks it "likely to perplex many who believe in the doctrines of man's natural depravity, and in regeneration by the Holy Ghost." We venture to affirm that no one in our denomination has been for a moment thus perplexed; we therefore infer the reviewer intended to compliment the intelligence of the Wesleyan Association. But he tells us: We admit that Christianity does not impart to man any additional mental or moral faculty or disposition, and this is all, we suppose, Mr. Hulme intended his readers to understand by his statement." What remarkable sagacity must dwell with this reviewer! He can see the meaning of a passage which is hidden from others, and his mind is luminous while others are perplexed. Is he not as modest as he is generous?

We

We have used the word nature as a synonyme of character, in which sense it is popularly used and understood; hence the reviewer labours to establish a contradiction between what we say at page 4 and at page 37. We state at page 4 that, "Christianity makes no change in man's mental or moral constitution," that is, he has, both before and after regeneration, the same understanding, memory, will, &c.; but although Christianity does not thus change the mental and moral constitution of man, it redeems him from the degrading influence and effects of sin. Still, however, as sin did not destroy man's mental and moral powers, the office of Christianity cannot be to give back that which was never lost. therefore state, at page 37, "So changed is man's nature by sin." How and to what degree changed? Do we say that his mental or moral powers are changed? Do we say that the change which sin has made is organic or constitutional? Had we said that we should have contradicted ourselves. We only say, "When sin entered the world, the paternal relation of God to man was broken up. The child became a rebel and the Father an avenging Judge. So changed is man's moral nature, or character, and so entirely has he lost the image of God, which stamped his heavenly origin, that he is declared to be a child of the devil; and so fully does he resemble the wicked one, that he is declared to do his works." Who except this petulant critic has discovered or ever will discover a contradiction between the two passages?

The reviewer proceeds: "Mr. Hulme says the Bible is not a book of mental

analysis or moral definitions." Does he deny this? No, for he says, "We admit that, it is true; the Bible does not formally propound metaphysical distinctions, which generally darken counsel." If he does not object to the statement, why does he bring it forward in an objectionable form? He adds, "But its (the Bible) statements are correct and consistent." And have we said the statements of the Bible are not correct and consistent? We respect an open and honest opponent, but the man who has the cowardly baseness to shield himself behind a review, and thence by the aid of insinuations, hints, and implications, endeavours to brand with heresy the character of a Christian minister, demands the unmitigated reprobation of every independent and upright mind. He before insinuated that we deny the doctrines of man's "natural depravity," and "regeneration by the Holy Spirit"-not, he says, that we intended to impugn them, and we may so explain our statement as to avoid denying them-and now he insinuates that we charge the Scriptures with want of correctness and consistency. There is a word now trickling down our pen which would characterize the conduct of this reviewer; a word which every Englishman understands, and which fills his breast with indignation and abhorrence.

While the reviewer acknowledges that we have clearly explained the nature of faith, as consisting of credence and reliance, he nevertheless takes the following objection: "Mr. Hulme, however, on this point has employed some illustrations and made some statements which will not bear strict examination. For instance, he says, 'The sick man may believe a medicine is suited to his case, and calculated to restore him to health; but unless he rely upon its suitableness and efficacy, and take it as prescribed, he never will be healed.' We do not demur to the importance of reliance on Christ, but we demur to the illustration just quoted, and we object because it is palpably untrue." Why is our illustration palpably untrue? The reviewer says, "Because persons have been healed of their diseases by the use of medicine on which they did not rely as to its suitableness and efficacy." And have we said that the patient's reliance upon the medicine was necessary to make that medicine efficacious? Certainly not, any more than we have said that the penitent's reliance upon the atonement is necessary to make that