But there is another evil attending this concession. Were it generally allowed, it would have a tendency to confirm the friends of such marriages in their error, or at least to furnish them with a pretext to justify their conduct. This is in fact the use made of it (improperly no doubt) by a writer in the Commercial Advertiser of 9th Feb'y. 1827. "If the law of Moses,” says that writer, "is silent on the subject, then every man is his own judge. But there are words of Moses, in the Old, and words of Christ and of Paul, in the New Testament, sufficient to satisfy every party to such marriage that the connexion is moral and honourable." It is true, that this and similar assertions, are entitled to no credit whatever; for though the authors of them loudly complain, that no part of scripture is produced, directly condemning such marriages, and say they can find words of Moses, and of Christ, and of Paul, to show that they are moral and honourable, yet they never find it convenient to tell us where the words are found written. Nay, they cannot even produce a constructive argument in favour of them, from any part of the Bible. But still, this serves to show the impropriety of making concessions that are more than questionable, that can serve no good purpose, and that are altogether uncalled for. In a word, I cannot but be of opinion, that it would be more agreeable to truth, and certaily far more advisable, to admit with the Westminster divines, and Drs. Edwards and Livingston, and many other good and holy men, that incestuous marriages are directly forbidden in the word of God, and that their prohibition is designed by a wise and gracious God to promote the purity of morals and the general good of society, as clearly established by Domesticus.

The other objections I have to this letter is of the same nature with the one just mentioned, and probably rises out of it. It is to the rule by which the author proposes to determine how much of the law of Moses is binding on us. This rule he takes to be, general expediency, as apprehended by the common sense of mankind. "Before therefore," says he, "a Mosaic statute can be acknowledged to possess a binding authority over me, or the community of which I am a member, I must ascertain its reason, its principle. If on a fair and candid examination, I discover that the reason fully holds, the statute I pronounce to be binding. If there be a difference of circumstances, not however destructive of the general reason, I am bound to modify so as to suit the peculiarity. If circumstances be so different, that the reason ceases altogether, it is abrogated.” p. 7. In a note at the bottom of the page, expediency is explained to mean fitness;

and it is added, that expediency is just fitness to promote happiness, and that it is certain that the Almighty has never willed an inexpedient thing since the creation of the world. In this last sentiment I perfectly agree with the author of the letter. I most cordially concede at once, that the Almighty has never willed any thing inexpedient. I also willingly adopt the definition of expediency, given above, that it is "just fitness to promote happiness." But with all these admissions, I think there is good reason why "this polysyllable should startle some divines." I do not, however, object so much to the word expediency, as to the standard by which it is proposed that it should be ascertained. With all due respect for the common sense of mankind, I must object to it as the standard of morality. Were mankind possessed of infinite wisdom and knowledge, and unchangeable integrity, then there could be no possible objection to this standard. But since the scriptures declare, that the imagination of the heart of man is only evil continually-that the understanding of men is darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; and especially if it be admitted, (which cannot indeed be denied,) that the common sense of mankind has often led them to will things that are very inexpedient, I think we have good cause for rejecting the common sense of mankind as the rule for ascertaining the expediency of things. And as it is admitted on all hands, that "the Almighty has never willed an inexpedient thing since the creation of the world," therefore I argue, the will or word of God is the only unexceptionable and infallible rule whereby we can ascertain the expediency of things. God hath given us his holy word for this express purpose, and this is the use which his faithful servants have studied to make of it. "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path"-"thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever, for they are the rejoicing of my heart." Psalm cxix. It may therefore be laid down as a rule, that whatever is agreeable to the word of God, is dutiful and expedient, and whatever is contrary to the word of God, is inexpedient and sinful.

It may, perhaps, be thought that I have given too unfavourable a view of the author's sentiments on this subject, especially as he disclaims the lower and less honourable sense in which expediency is sometimes taken, and admits that "rational speculations on this fitness must never take place, above, or even along with the will of God; but they aid us exceedingly in discovering what the will of God is." Now it is just this explanation that has led me to take this view of the subject. It shows plainly

that the method he proposes for ascertaining truth, is that mankind, by their common sense, should first ascertain the general expediency of a thing, and if it be expedient, then they are to conclude that it is agreeable to the word of God, because it is certain "the Almighty has rever willed an inexpedient thing;" which is in fact to make the common sense of mankind the judge of expediency and the standard of morality. This I fear is beginning at the "wrong end;" for it is surely not showing too much respect to the word of God, first to ascertain the direct testimony it affords; and if we fail in this, it should be our next study to ascertain the general sense of scripture in regard to the subject under investigation; and if we succeed in doing this, we will not fail, unless it be through the ignorance that is in us, in determining what is really expedient.

I sincerely hope this is not the deliberate opinion of this able writer on this very important subject, but that it has escaped him inadvertently in the heat of composition; for it was written in great haste, as appears from the advertisement to the second edition. It seems there were some indelicate expressions in the first edition, and the author allows that they escaped him in this way, and that he was painfully surprised to find he had spoken so very plainly, when he had recovered from the heat of composition. Now, although it might not have been advisable to have taken Horace's counsel in this case

nonumque prematur in annum

Membranis intus positis, delere licebit

• Quod non edederis. Nescit vox missa reverti.-Ars Poet. 388.*

because the case is to be decided in May next; yet I think it would have been advisable to have read it over, after he had cooled, before he sent it to the press.

Upon the whole, though these be defects of no small moment, yet I think this letter may be eminently useful. It is well calculated to show the dangerous consequences that may result from erasing the Article in question from the Confession of Faith.I would warmly recommend to your readers to get this pamphlet, and read it for themselves; and I have no doubt they will be both pleased and profited by it. Above all, I hope it will be useful to the members of the next General Assembly; and, to use the words of the author, I hope they will pause before "they lead the way in casting down one of the bulwarks which have been erected round the domestic sanctuary."

*When you write any thing, let it be suppressed till the ninth year, your papers being laid up in your desk. You will then be able to blot out what you please, so long as it is not published; but when a word is sent abroad, it

can never return.

For the Religious Monitor.

THE CHURCH GOD'S WITNESS.

(Concluded from page, 503.)

PROPOSITION IV. In the faithful performance of this duty, the prosperity of religion, and of the visible church consists.

Were all animated with a desire to witness faithfully for God, all would diligently search after the knowledge of the truth.Conversation would be such as becometh the gospel. The way of duty would be to every one the way of pleasure and delight.— Parents would teach diligently these things, and talk of them in the house and field, when they sit down and rise up. Ministers would be instant in season, out of season, preaching diligently the whole counsel of God. And the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, would encrease to the edifying of itself in love. Confidence, harmony, and love, would mark the happy state. Prayer would be frequent, fervent and effectual. And the holy Spirit, descending as the copious shower upon the ordinances of divine grace, would make the desert to rejoice and blossom as the rose. Sanctification of heart would advance, and external reformation would keep progress with it. Christ's prayer would be answered,"Sanctify them through thy truth." In the Millennium, which will surely be a prosperous time, the people will be so completely in the spirit of witnessing, that they are represented as those martyrs, living again, who were beheaded for the word of God and the testimony which they held.

If the statements above, set forth the church's true character, as God's witness, and the nature and extent of her duty as such, the application of them to existing circumstances will give reason to infer a number of truths very important, though not very pleasing.

But before I proceed to this, the reader must observe, that we are not always to form the same estimate of the state of religion in those churches that may be uniform in their doctrince and worship; because they may have come to that uniformity in consequence of the one making progress in the ways of truth and righteousness, and the other falling back from former attainments. Two travellers may meet at one place of the highway, while one comes from the east and the other from the west. They are side by side, but their faces are towards opposite points of the compass; their moving principle, their object of pursuit and destination, are all different. From this it may be easily perceived, that the same circumstances may indicate a state of backsliding and apostacy in

one church and not in another. They may, indeed, plainly infer deficiency and short coming in all churches, in which they obtain; but in one church they may mark the highest attainment yet made, and in another, a falling off. This remark must be understood as limiting the application of the following observations.

Further, let it be observed, that the very same spirit of backsliding and unfaithfulness may be leaving all the churches, but the indications of it may appear different in every one, both in degree and kind, owing, as may be easily perceived, to their different attainments in knowledge, which acts more or less as a restraint.Suppose that one openly preaches error in doctrine, and substitutes in worship human inventions for divine institutions; another will not do either himself, but still he tries to palliate and excuse the conduct of his neighbour; a third, though he does not go this length, is wholly passive, and shows no dissatisfaction; and a fourth, may cry out against the bad effects and consequences of it, but yet even he does not go all the length of a faithful witness, and condemn it as contrary to the word of God. Though the indications be different, in each of these, yet, it is the same apostatizing principle that influences each. They may, like travellers, be one before another, and some considerable distance may intervene, but still they are all travelling the same road, and towards the same point, and if mercy prevent not, they will all certainly reach it.

Having premised these two things, I proceed to observe, that all the churches of the Reformation fall far short of maintaining their witnessing character; and some of them seem to be fast losing sight of it. To illustrate this, I shall endeavour to notice such things only, as none will dispute. First, there are extremely few of these churches that profess to consider a public standing judicial testimony to the whole of present truth as any part of their duty. There are yet some whose PROSFESION amounts to this much; but in practice, even they fall far below it. Ministers and sessions not a few, in admitting persons into fellowship compromise present truth; and multitudes of people who profess to hold such a testimony, are opposed to it and through ignorance of it know not that they do so. Of those that make such a profession, it is but a very small minority that trouble themselves to become acquainted with it, and walk consistently with it. Some churches will agree to have a standing testimony; but not as any term of fellowship. Others plead for only an occasional one. And the great multitude treat this duty altogether with ridicule and contempt. The reason of this conduct in some, we believe in charity, is ignorance; in others it is the fear of shame and reproach; and