of the week, yet it does not follow that the same orders extend to modern churches; they are differently circumstanced, from the apostolic churches, therefore the apostle's orders, to the latter, in the case referred to, do not apply to the former. Arguing at this rate we might get clear of most of the christian institutions. We should have nothing to do, according to the tone of the objection, but to say that the churches now, are in very different circumstances from those in which the primitive churches were; therefore, very little that Christ or his apostles said to them, applies to us. This involves its own refutation.

3. It is objected that, though the apostles ordered the churches to collect for poor saints, on the first day of the week, this will by no means justify us in making collections for general religious purposes, on the same day of the week. It would certainly be assuming too much, for any one, to say, that though the contributions of the churches, in the days of the apostles, were largely applied for the aid of the poor saints, that they were not, in any part however small, either directly or indirectly, applied for the support of a gospel ministry, or procuring places of public worship, or paying for bread and wine for the Eucharist,— -or for helping to defray the expenses of apostles and Evangelists and other teachers, in carrying the gospel throughout Judea and the heathen nations. It does not appear to have been common for these servants of Christ, to be supported miraculously while employed in extending his kingdom. Accordingly the apostle says, "for so hath the Lord ordained that they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel," that they who minister, in holy things, should live by the contributions of those among whom they labour. Were there, at the time the apostle wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians, many poor belonging to the church at Jerusalem? and did they, through the hands of the elders of the church, partake of the contributions which were made by many churches of the Gentiles? Is it not obvious that these poor would apply, a certain portion, of what they received, to general religious purposes? Yea it is likely, as christians in those times so much preferred spiritual food to the bread that perisheth, that a large proportion was applied in this way. Is it not probable that the elders, in the exigencies of the church, would reserve a certain part to be by them directly applied to the same ends? Besides, when collecting for the saints is mentioned in the first epistle to the Corinthians, in that place, already cited, the epithet poor not applied to the saints, It is plain that their collections were for religious purposes, and for the benefit of the saints. The apostolic order, therefore, for collecting for the saints on the first

is

day of the week, as addressed to the churches of Galatia and Corinth, is sufficient authority to all the churches of Christ, to collect, on the same day of the week, when worshippers are assembled together, and that, for all the religious purposes for which money is requisite

We think, collecting for the saints, according to the apostolic plan, therefore, and that on the first-day of the week, is an ordinance of God and belongs to the means of grace, and that the neglect of it, so generally, in the western American churches, in their present circumstances, tends to bring down upon them the divine displeasure.

The opportunity of collecting, when the church is assembled on the first day of the week, is better than what is common at other times; for men being engaged in the public worship of God are likely, to be under a stronger impulse, to honour the Lord with their substance.

Some other ways of attempting to raise money for religious purposes do not, in my opinion, promise the same success, and the funds collected thereby are not likely to be productive of so much good; and for this reason, that they have not the same sanction of divine authority. The primitive churches of Christ appear to have taken this view of the subject, and so far as I know the greater part of the Protestant churches have done the

same.

The above I by no means consider as in opposition to what your judicious correspondent in the Nov. number of your magazine, says, nor do I think it is altogether superseded by what he states. What I have said regards more the mode of raising funds. Ego's plan rather respects the application of them; holding out, at the same time, some motives of temporal interest, to excite to liberality. I am doubtful that collecting by private and personal solicitation, or sending out beggars among the people to gather money, though it might do for a time, would not be of permanent benefit. I have but little hope, until the minds of church members in general, come to be impressed with the conviction that collecting for the church is a religious duty, and required by divine authority, that there will be much improvement in our funds. Were men thus impressed, and were collecting on the first day of the week as customary in our churches, as it is in Britain and Ireland, and some parts of the United States; were it as common, with us as to meet for public worship; were the man of wealth to be branded with public infamy, upon his repeatedly neglecting to help the collection, as is the case in the places mentioned; we should then, I am convinced, have funds enough

to answer all the religious purposes, the friends of Christ would desire to see promoted amongst us. When the Lord builds Zion, and appears to men in his glory, things shall be so. May the Lord hasten it in his time.

I am &c.

D.

SIR,

For the Religious Monitor.

To the Editor of the Religious Monitor.

I have been induced to send you the few following remarks, in consequence of some statements which I have noticed in the Evangelical Witness, a monthly paper edited by the Rev. James R. Wilson A. M. If convenient I will thank you to give them a place in your next number.-Yours &c. A. H.

REMARKS ON STATEMENTS MADE IN THE

EVANGELICAL WITNESS.

It is observed in the Evangelical Witness," that distinct ecclesiastical bodies, in the same nation and neigbourhood, holding no ecclesiastical communion with each other, however nearly their respective creeds approximate, are necessarily involved in controversy. The few points of difference become prominent and are argued with concentrated vehemence." Vol. IV. p. 505. Now although it be true, that the early history of the Reformed Presbyterian and Secession churches clearly shows, that their respective champions have often been engaged in controversies more violent than edifying, yet I cannot think that the approximation of their creeds should necessarily involve them in controversy. I am rather of opinion that this very circumstance should have a tendency to promote harmony of sentiment and friendly feelings between the two bodies. I will readily allow that if we are to view them as champions contending for the mastery, then the nearer they are matched the harder would be the struggle and the longer would the contest be maintained. But I am rather disposed to look upon them as honest and candid enquirers after truth, and I would therefore argue that the nearer their respective creeds approximate, then the more harmonious must be their sentiments, and of course be so much the less room for controversy. Moreover, if it be found that they are agreed on almost all the articles of truth and duty, surely the meekness and gentleness inseparable from real Christianity, should lead them to treat each other with candour and to guard against misrepresenting each others principles.

From the respectful terms, in which the editor of the Evangelical Witness speaks of the Associate church, and even of your own Miscellany. I am disposed to believe he would not designedly misrepresent any of the religious principles held by Seceders. I have been in the habit of taking the Evangelical Witness and your own Monitor, and have been much gratified with their general agreement respecting evangelical doctrine and christian duty. And I think it would be desirable to see still more harmony of sentiment among the Friends of Reformation. Principles. It is with a view to contribute something towards this desirable end, that I have ventured to write these few lines to you. To this I have been greatly encouraged by the favourable notice taken of Seceders in several parts of the Evangelical Witness; wherever they are mentioned they are represented as a religious and moral people. In one place, it is said "there has been among the Secession people more attention to the practical duties of religion, more soundness in the faith, and more religious knowledge than among any other body of professors in Great Britain, with the exception of Reformed Presbyterians." Vol. IV. p. 507. Now supposing we have not degenerated on this side the Atlantic, and that there is among us "C more attention to religious duties, more soundness in the faith, and more religious knowledge" than among any other body of professors in the United States, the Reformed Presbyterians always excepted; (Far be it from me to make so vain glorious an assertion, for even were we much better than we are, there would be but little honour in boasting of our goodness. And perhaps our brethren of the Assembly and even the Reformed Dutch might think this boasting no great evidence of our Reformation.) But supposing this to be our friend's estimate of our principles and conduct, I am sure he would think still more highly of us, could I convince him that the "slavish doctrines" of which he speaks (vol. iv. p. 507.) have been unjustly imputed to Seceders, that they are not to be found in their published principles, and are absolutely disavowed by them.

As it is said, (p. 506.) that the Secession clergy maintained certain principles offensive to Reformed Presbyterians, in order to justify their connexion with the government, I may begin by stating the well known fact, that the Secession Church in Scotland never had any connexion with the British government, further than her members being subject to it. It is true, that in this land of liberty, the members of the Associate Church are entitled to equal privileges with their fellow-citizens of other denominations: But in Great Britain, Seceders, on acconnt of their reli

gion, are shut out from many privileges, to which the members of the established church are admitted, and if a Seceder be admitted to any office under the British government, it is indispensible that he renounce all connexion with the Secession church. It is an indisputable fact, that in Great Britain, Seceders have no more connexion with the government, than Reformed Presbyterians. This is so well known that it is quite unnecessary to detain you for a moment, in attempting to prove, what no well informed person will call in question.

I now proceed to mention "the slavish doctrine" which I conceive to be unjustly imputed to Seceders in the Evangelical Witness and in Reformed Principles Exhibited. Here I will First, produce a few passages from the books above mentioned, to show that the principles in question have been, and still are imputed to the Associate church by Reformed Presbyterians; and Secondly, some extracts from the publicly acknowledged principles of the Assoate church, to show that the principles in question, are not held by her. The following passages are extracted from Reformation Principles Exhibited: "They, (the Associate Church,) condemned all distinction between such rulers as happened, in Divine providence, to have the power of a nation, upon unlawful principles, and such as ruled by the divine approbation. The only question which they would permit a Christian to ask is in relato the matter of fact-Is there any person actually in power? If so, he must be recognised as the ordinance of God." Id. "The Scottish Seceders exceeded the university of Oxford itself in maintaining the doctrine of passive obedience. They deny that there is any difference, as to lawfulness, between one government and another." Id. p. 114. "They maintain, that Divine Revelation is not the rule by which men are to act in their civil constitution and laws, that Jesus Christ does not as Mediator govern the world. His authority is confined to the church." Id. p. 114, 115. In the Evangelical Witness it is said, "the Secession ministers were driven to maintain, that the laws of God recorded in the Bible, are not the rule of civil government-that the Bible as such, has nothing to do with civil government, but merely to bind men to submit for conscience sake, to obey conscientiously, and support every government, even the most despotic and abominable, that has ever existed on earth." Vol.IV. p. 507.

Now Sir, I have been connected with the Associate church for many years, and have frequently had occasion to examine her avowed principles, and never have discovered that she held any such principles as those imputed to her, nor would I have believed, that any person, or professing body could have ascribed such