the discharge of duties voluntarily undertaken, it would be their bounden duty to pay that attention to caste which they would pay to those customs of a people which could not be overlooked by the government. He concurred with the most rev. prelate, that it was desirable for the government, as far as possible, to separate itself from any active interference and control with regard to the application of the revenues to idolatrous ceremonies. When Secretary for the Colonies he (Lord Derby) had acted on that principle in the case of Ceylon.

"The Earl of Shaftesbury thought that they owed to the country that some expression of opinion should be made on this subject before the bill left the house. The statements which had been made were very much in accordance with the petition which he had presented on the subject. What they did require was the assertion of the most unbounded religious liberty in India. He required that the professors of all religions should stand on the same footing. No one ought to be rejected because he was a Hindoo, a Parsee, or Mahommedan-all ought to have an equal claim to the service of the state. He was convinced that it would be prejudicial rather than otherwise if the government were to come forward and to give any direct assistance to the missionaries. They asked protection for all, and they hoped the government would not be ashamed to avow that they were a Christian government, that it (the government) regarded Christianity as the best form of religion, and that it would not directly or indirectly endeavour to turn any man from his religion.

"Lord Ellenborough quoted from a communication addressed by the Court of Directors to the government, in which they threw out a suggestion that the government would adhere with full faith to its ancient policy of perfect neutrality in matters affecting the religion of the natives, and seek to conciliate their feelings.

"The Bishop of London said the right rev. prelate had alluded to a practice, that had existed for some years, of government taking into their own hands the management of the lands by which the heathen temples were supported. That practice had not altogether ceased, and the result was that these lands were kept in a much better state, and the heathen temples were much better maintained. The matter was perhaps of some importance, there was a deep-seated feeling in the hearts of Englishmen on this subject, and he was glad to hear from the noble lord the indication he had given on it. No doubt we ought to exercise the greatest impartiality and show the greatest forbearance towards our fellow subjects; because the Christian religion could never be advanced by a government simply acting by force or power, but he did think every facility ought to be given to show the people of India that we wished not only to give them Christian justice and civilization, but that best and brightest monument of our rule, the treasures of Christian truth. "The Bishop of Oxford thought there was no doubt as to the right course that a Christian government ought to take; but if by "neutrality," alluded to in the despatch read by the noble lord, (Lord Ellenborough,) nothing more was meant than that there should be no attempt on the part of the government, either directly or indirectly, to interfere with the religious belief of our heathen fellow subjects, he could not object to it; but if, on the other hand, by "neutrality" was meant a total indifference to Christianity, then he believed that neutrality would be false and fatal, and ultimately destroy the great empire entrusted to our care. That

would be an objectionable and a wicked neutrality. He trusted that they would not mar the unity of tone that had prevailed on this subject, or that it would go forth that the English government were ashamed of its Christianity, but that it would make due provision for the supply of the Christian necessities of the natives, and troops, and civil servants of India. He trusted that this would be the only sense in which neutrality would be adopted."

The sentiments expressed by Lord Derby in reply to the Archbishop are excellent and worthy; but we fear that the "neutrality" of Lord Ellenborough was correctly estimated by the Bishop of Oxford.

The point to which the Bishop of London so delicately referred, is of vast importance. An Indian paper, the Bombay Guardian, asserts that "there are in the Madras presidency 8,292 idols and temples receiving from Government an annual payment of £87,678. In the Bombay Presidency there are 26,589 idols and temples under state patronage, receiving grants to the amount of £30,587 10s. Od., to which must be added the allowance for temple-lands, giving a total of £69,859 6s. Od. For the whole of the company's territories there is annually expended in the support of idolatry, by the servants of the company, the large sum of £171,558 12s. Od."

What a statement is this! What has not the Company done for gain! It has taken the temple lands, paid idol priests, and thus filled its coffers with the price of blasphemy. It is time this came to an end. As Lord Derby, when Secretary of the Colonies, washed his hands of the "Devil worship" of the Cingalese, so let us hope his government will wash theirs of all connection with Idolatry in India.

Thus much we felt warranted to anticipate from the conversation in the Lords; but we fear that the real spirit that will govern India is that of Lord Ellenborough, the hero of Somnath, and not that of Lord Derby.

Lord Stanley, in the House of Commons, on Friday, July 30th, quoted with approbation a part of Lord Ellenborough's dispatch of April 30th, in which he declares the determination of the government to abide by its "traditional policy," i.e., do as it had ever done; and while the transfer of the Government from the Company to the Crown would be proclaimed throughout India; at the same time the people would be assured that "that transfer does not involve any interference with their idols or habits in regard to religion."

No thoughtful person can wish the government to interfere with the religion of the natives; but if the words of Lord Stanley,* as they were understood to do by those who heard him, mean that the policy of Lord Ellenborough and the old heathen predilections of bygone days are to be the future policy of the Indian Government, he may set his house in order, for neither his talent nor his name will shield him from the just indignation of an outraged community. We hope, however, better things. We trust there is a good future for India, and that her emancipated sons shall yet learn wisdom and religion from those who are disposed to impart it to them, and derive temporal and eternal blessings from being under British Rule.

* A deputation of christian gentlemen waited on Lord Stanley, on Saturday, August 7th, in reference to the question of the Indian policy of the new Government, and received only vague and general statements. His Lordship, as Indian Minister, his council of fifteen, with their proceedings, must be closely observed.

ON HUMAN ACCOUNTABILITY.

"EVERY one of us shall give an account of himself to God." This is either true, or it is not true-if it is true, then it follows necessarily that we are intelligent, rational, and accountable creatures, and if intelligent, rational, and accountable, then we are not destitute of power as some affirm; for what is intelligence, rationality, and accountability but power ? Why any should deny we have power, I know not-at least I know no good reason. They might as well deny we have sin-indeed they do in effect deny this-for if a man has no power, he can have no sin-he is an inert mass, and like all inert masses, is irresponsible, and then the text is not true.

Power has in it nothing moral or immoral, holy or depraved. A being is neither morally nor spiritually the better or the worse for having power; he is not even accountable for having it, but for the manner in which he employs it-consequently he must be intelligent to be accountable.

There are three kinds of machinery, each of which is capable of doing good or evil, each therefore has power; but as but one of these has intelligence, but one is accountable.

I.-There is the machinery used in our manufactories, and our locomotives. These have power, but they are dead machinery, and must have an intelligent agent to set them in motion, and to manage them. Now whatever good is done by this kind of machinery, the praise is given to the agencies which make, set in motion, and govern the machine. Whatever evil, the blame does not attach to the machine, nor is punishment ever exercised towards it, but to the parties who made, mismanaged, or neglected it.

II. Then there is living machinery, but not rational. I refer now to the animal creation. In all this, there is power. The life of the creature sets the machinery in motion, and makes it act for the purpose for which it is adapted this motion or acting of the animals is power. Some have power in a very high degree-some in a lower degree, but none are responsible for what good or evil may follow their actings, since there is no intelligence or intellect in them to guide them. I am aware that in some animals there is that which bears a resemblance to intellect, and this we call instinct; but none, I believe, ever thought of beasts, birds, fishes, or reptiles as accountable creatures. Why are they not? they have power, and some of them very great power too; they exercise the power they have, and do things which may be beneficial or injurious, yet notwithstanding all this, they are not accountable. Why? Because they are not rational.

III.-Man is a piece of machinery, but not mere machinery-he is not simply a living machine, but an accountable creature. How is this? Because he has a soul, a mind; he is an intelligent and rational being. God created man in his own likeness, "in the image of God created he him." Created him in righteousness and true holiness, placed him in favourable circumstances, and in a situation just suited to his naturesurrounded him with all that was beautiful and good—told him how to act— what would be the blessed consequences of obedience, and what the dreadful result of disobedience, and then left him for a while.

He was then both able and willing to obey God, and did obey him while he retained both the ability and the disposition to do so. And here, I would observe that both these are necessary to the performance of any act; if one of these be wanting, no matter which, the act will not be performed. But Satan, the great adversary both of God and man, came to man and tempted him, he yielded to the temptation, and thus disobeyed God. Thus he gave up his will to Satan, but he did not yield up his power, and this we plainly see, for as soon as his will is renewed he returns to obedience, which he could not do if he had lost the power to obey.

Having resigned his will unto Satan, he has become his slave; but he could not even be the slave of Satan if he had no power. If he had no power he would be quiescent, and then as that which is quiescent, is blameless, so would he be; consequently he could not be a sinner.

But man though he has destroyed himself by his disobedience, yet has he not destroyed his will-he has rather transferred it from God to Satan. He has destroyed the holiness which he had originally, effaced it, lost the image of God. The will is now devoted to the usurper, and the powers which should be used for God are used in opposition to him. But if by sin we had lost all power, wherewith should we oppose him? God therefore speaks to us as men, as sinful men, but still as men. He addresses us not as things, but as intelligent, rational, and accountable beings, and to all he 66 says, every one must give an account of himself.” When God speaks to us, it implies we can hear if we will. When he commands us, it implies we can obey if we will. Accordingly all that God promises is a new heart. "A new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you." A heart to know and love him. He will take away the heart of stone and give a heart of flesh. He promises to make willing, but never promises new power. To those that wait upon him, he does not promise strength, but an increase of what they have. "They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength." What is weakness? Not an entire destitution of strength, but a lesser degree of it.

In our own experience, if Christians, and in our observations we see no new power or faculty of the soul granted, but an entirely new direction to those which we before had, and the man who is saved is identically the same man who was lost. He is called "a new creature," because he is like unto one; his views, his tastes, his feelings, his course are all new. "Old things are passed away, and behold, all things are become new.

God calleth men to repentance. To repent is certainly to do something; all men, everywhere, are called to do this. Would an infinitely good God call on men, all men, everywhere, to do what they cannot-what they have no power to do? Would it be just? Do we require our children in infancy, when hanging on their mothers' breasts, to work for a living-to support themselves? How would you feel towards a sovereign if he were to publish a decree that all his subjects should fly? You would feel he was a villanous tyrant, or that he required to be taken care of.

Christ commands again and again that men should repent, Rev. ii., 5, 16, iii. 3, 19. He says He " came to call sinners to repentance."

What is repentance? Is it nothing? We are to repent-not Christ, nor the Spirit of Christ, but we ourselves.

The Holy Spirit worketh repentance. He does not repent-but, when He is come, "He reproves of sin, righteousness, and judgment. Of sin because they believe not on Christ," &c., &c.

66

The effect of the Holy Spirit's work is a spirit of grace and supplication"—a looking upon him whom by our sins we have pierced-a mourning for him and being in bitterness, as one that is in bitterness for his first born. A departure from sin-a doing so no more-a holy hatred to it. Is this nothing? To hate sin, to avoid it; to watch, pray, and strive against, as well as forsake it ;-Is this nothing? Nothing meritorious I admit. But say what men will, they cannot make it out that it is nothing, when it is just what God requires, commands, and what the Holy Spirit works in a man to do. This is all action-mental, moral, spiritual, work-doing-and of all work, of all doing, that which requires the most attention, the most heart.

To talk of creatures without power doing this, is little better than drivelling idiocy; yea it is worse, inasmuch as it arises, not from a want of ability to understand, but from wilful ignorance, conceit, and thorough depravity.

If men repent not after such commands, they have no excuse, but shall answer to God; for " every one of us must give an account of himself to God," why he did not repent when he commanded him-when Christ called him-when the Spirit strove with him and convinced him.

It will be no use saying, Lord I thought if I was one of thy elect, I should have been compelled-I was taught and I believed, I could not do as thou commandedst me. God's servants, Christ's disciples are not slaves. God hath commanded us to believe.

"Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established: believe His prophets, so shall ye prosper. 2 Chron., xx., 20.

"This is

God is the object of faith, Christ also is the object of faith. the work of God, that ye believe in Him whom He hath sent." "Believe in God," saith Christ, "believe also in Me." When on earth,

we are told, He "preached the Gospel of the Kingdom," saying, "Repent ye and believe the gospel." "This is a faithful saying," saith Paul," and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners;" and, "how can we be saved if we neglect so great salvation?"

Believing I should say is doing something. This we are commanded by God, by Christ to do. To believe in God and Christ is to receive what is said or spoken by them-to cherish it in the heart to rely on Christ's atonement for salvation and eternal life. John says, "If we believe or receive the witness or testimony of men, the witness of God is greater." To say we cannot do this is to say in effect, God has provided a remedy which is not adapted to the end: bear in mind it is not the provision of a remedy saves us, but the reception or application of the remedy. Hence the exhortations, "Look unto Me all the ends of "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ."

the earth and be saved."

(To be concluded in our next.)