time will remain for other occupations. Under such circumstances, therefore, to assume to himself the office of a magistrate, will be attended with a very evident disadvantage; since it will not only require of him much previous, and some continual study to qualify him for executing it, but will subject him to perpetually recurring engagements, and to endless, unseasonable interruptions. It will follow as an obvious consequence, that the duties of the magistrate will too frequently interfere with those of the minister: and since the time will not suffice for the proper discharge of both, one will often be sacrificed to the other, and probably neither of them be fulfilled in the proper manner.

But the evil ends not here. For from this interference of opposite duties, another serious disadvantage will ensue, namely, that the superior duty will sometimes be forced to give place to that which is subordinate and inferior. Without derogating in the least from the importance and usefulness of the magisterial character, the preeminence of the ministerial office cannot be denied. The awful nature of the trust committed to the minister, the solemn manner in which it is undertaken, and the highly momentous consequences which result from the faithful discharge of it, all contribute to add a degree of weight to his chaFacter, and of responsibility to his duties, which attach to no other situation whatever. His professional em ployments are clearly the most important in which he can be engaged : and yet, as I observed, it will sometimes happen in the course of his en gagements as a magistrate, that these confessedly higher duties must yield to others of very far inferior moment. I will illustrate this position, by stating a case in point. A person, for instance, is taken suddenly ill at the furthest extremity of his parish, who, there is great reason to apprehend, stands much in need of spiritual counsel and instruction. The minister is preparing to visit him; but is prevented from setting out, by the entrance of the constable to execute some passes. To this business succeeds a long examination respecting a settlement, which is followed by a no less tedious altercation between an angry farmer and his. run-away servant. At length he finds himself at liberty,

and is on the point of making his escape, when the Squire's game-keeper arrives with a man, whom he has apprehended as a poacher, and against whom he has several informations to lay, which he hopes to establish. This engrosses the remaining part of the day. The projected visit is deferred to the day following: but in the night the sick man dies. Now in this case, I should conceive, no conscientious minister could satisfy himself with the reflection that he had been doing his duty, or could justify, on the grounds of his magisterial engagements, his neglect of the soul, of which he had solemnly undertaken the care. I will admit, if you desire it,, that the case is an extreme one; but still it is one, which may possibly happen: and probably something not very dissimilar to it, would frequently occur. It is not enough to say, in answer to this, that if he had not been a magistrate, he might equally have been prevented from visiting the person in question, by other unforeseen and unavoidable interruptions. For though this be certainly true; yet the cases are not the same. The interruptions he may experience as a magistrate, are neither unforeseen: nor unavoidable; on the contrary, they are such as might have been reasonably looked for, when he entered on his new of fice, and to which he was under no imperious necessity of subjecting himself.

A third serious disadvantage, which will result to a minister from his assumption of the magisterial office, respects the influence which it will have on his own mind, in rendering him backward and indisposed in the performance of his pastoral duties. In order to a cheerful, consistent, and comfortable discharge of these, no. thing is more highly essential, than a spiritual frame of mind. Spiritual mindedness, indeed, is the same to the life of a minister, which health is to the life of the body. It is the soul of all his duties. While this prevails, they are performed with elasticity and vigour; but when this is wanting or decays, they become dull, wearisome, and uninteresting. Aware then of its great importance, the conscientious minister will endeavour to maintain within himself a spiritual frame of mind; and to this end he will carefully labour to avoid every thing which may in any degree tend to

weaken the power of religion on his soul, or to deaden his spiritual feelings. And in this point of view, the assumption of the magisterial office appears highly disadvantageous. Not only the number, but the nature of the engagements in which it will involve him, are far from being favourable to that state of mind which it is his object to preserve. The company with which he must sometimes associate, the scenes which he must occasionally witness, the doubts and perplexities which will frequently a gitate and distress him, and the matters which will engross a large portion of his attention, are circumstances which altogether will have a powerful tendency to unhinge his mind, interrupt the composure of his thoughts, and impair his religious sensibility. He will not rise from the study of Blackstone or Burn with the same spiritual alacrity, as from the writings of Isaiah or St. Paul: nor will the dull examination of witnesses kindle in his bosom the same holy ardour and enlarged affections, which a pious and edifying conversation with his parishioners, would have inspired. At the same time, Sir, I am far from intending to imply that the office of a magistrate is in itself incompatible with the exercise of genuine religion. Very different are my sentiments. On the contrary, I hope and believe, that there are many active and excellent magistrates, who are eminently religious characters, and fully actuated by a true spirit of Christianity. But I am speaking of the influence of magisterial engagements on the mind of the minister, as tending to interrupt that habitually spiritual frame, which is essential to the satisfactory discharge of his pas toral duties, and which, therefore, it should be his main point to cultivate and maintain. I believe that the grace of God is sufficient for all men, in all situations and circumstances, however dangerous and difficult; and that so long as they are in the path of duty, divine support may reasonably be hoped for, in the use of the appointed means. But then, before a minister, in the circumstances we have been describing, can reasonably apply this hope to himself, he must be fully sa tished that in assuming the magisterial office, he had a clear, unequivocal call, and has not stepped beyond the limits of his duty.

There is yet one other particular, in which the acting as a magistrate will be disadvantageous to the operations of the minister, inasmuch as it will have an unfriendly influence on his intercourse with his parishioners. The minister who aims to be eminently useful to his people, will not be contented with obtaining only their respect, he will seek to win their affections also. He will not deem it sufficient to be esteemed, but he will labour to be beloved by them. The character in which he will be desirous of appearing among them, will be that of a compassionate father, tenderly concerned for their interests, and anxiously devoted to their service. But to the attainment of this point, the assumption of the magisterial office will, on many accounts, be unfavourable. He will find it difficult to preserve at the same time the characters of the magistrate and of the minister; to blend, without confounding, the distant gravity of the former with the condescending familiarity of the latter. Or if he should accomplish this arduous point with tolerable success; yet it is to be apprehended, that his people may not be equally happy in discriminating, nor easily be prevailed on to lose their awe of the Justice, in their love of the Pastor. In addition to which, another evil may not improbably follow; namely, that some of them, at least, will mistrust the purity of his motives; will perhaps suspect that he comes among them with the design of secretly detecting their crimes, that he may the more readily bring them to justice; or at best will impute a large proportion of his activity and exertions, not so much to his tender concern for their souls, and a desire of conscientiously fulfilling his clerical duties, as to a regard to the public peace, and a zeal in discharging his magisterial obligations. But besides all this, there is in the nature of the ministerial office, something which so peculiarly distinguishes it from that of the magistrate, as, in the view I am now taking of the subject, seems hardly to admit of their being exercised together. The minister of the Gospel is the reprover, indeed, but not the a venger of sin: it is his office to hold out the golden sceptre of grace and mercy, but not to wield the iron rod of vengeance; to invite the guilty to repentance, by offers of full and free

forgiveness, but not to punish and chastise them: while the office of the magistrate is, on the contrary, the very reverse of this: and though it may be said, that as their offices relate to different ends, the one to spiritual, the other to temporal concerns, so their union in this respect is perfectly compatible with each other; yet I much question, whether many cases will not arise, in which the person who unites them, will feel greatly at a loss in what manner conscientiously to dispense the gracious mercy of the Gospel, in conjunction with the unbending rigour of the law at any rate the union cannot fail of proving unfavourable to the point in question. His useful and affectionate intercourse with his parishioners will be greatly interrupted. Regarding him as the minister of justice, they will feel more than ordinary repugnance to make him acquainted with the particulars of their misconduct. The criminal, on whom he is pronouncing the sentence of the law, will give but little credit to his professions of regard and love; while the offender, whom he has formerly consigned to the stocks, or committed to the house of correction, will but impatiently listen to instruction from one whom he siders, if not as the author of his sufferings, yet at least as in a high degree accessary to them.

con

These, Sir, are the reasons which lead me to regard the union of the two offices under consideration, in an unfavourable light. Whether they will prove satisfactory to your corre-spondent,whose enquiry has led me to state them, I cannot determine. But should they fail of bringing him over to my sentiments, I have yet earnestly to request of him that he will not hastily form a decision on the other side. By the account he gives of himself, he can as yet be but very imperfectly acquainted with the practical part of a minister's duties. Let him then become a little more acquainted with these, before he proceeds to take upon himself an additional office, which he may hereafter find it difficult to lay aside. In the ardour of youth, in his earnest desire of suppressing vice and immorality, it is na tural for him to look out for the readiest means of accomplishing his end, and with this view to regard the attainment of magisterial authority, as a desireable object. But possibly a

CUSTOS.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

As I consider the Christian Observer to be a channel opened for moral and religious instruction, I am emboldened to address to you a few lines on a subject which I conceive to be very important, as it respects the state of the heart before God; for it is in this view, namely, as influencing the actings of the mind in prayer, that I mean to consider it.

I was early taught, that it is our duty to exercise faith on the righteousness of Christ, by which I mean his personal obedience to the divine law; which obedience, apprehended by a true faith, becoming imputed to the believer, he is thereby accounted righteous before God, as having perfectly fulfilled all righteousness in his head and surety.

Now upon any challenges of conscience, by reason of omission of duty, or surprise into sin, the only relief I find is by supplication for pardon. But when I thus come as a guilty sinner, I am conscious I let go my faith of being accounted perfectly righte ous. Do I herein yield to unbelief and forsake my own mercies? Yet, if I endeavour, contrary to my own sense and feelings, to believe that I really am without spot in the sight of God, I cannot at the same time intreat his forgiveness. How can these two jarring exercises be reconciled?

Again. The pardon of an awakened penitent respects his past transgressions, but the covenant of pardon and peace, under which a believer lives, provides also for the defects of his duties, those genuine, but imper

fect, exercises of the grace he has received.

Now, oblivion of sin, and full acceptance of duty (including inward dispositions, as well as outward acts), appear to constitute all that can soberly be meant by a creature's being righteous before God. It may be said,

this will not constitute a title to heaten. I grant it, if heaven be considered locally, and distinguished from a state of reconciliation with God; since every loyal subject, in an earthly kingdom, is not admitted to live at court. But the gift of God is eternal lite, and the more abundant life which our Saviour said He came to give, is probably what is meant by the Apostle, Gal. iv. 4. &c. when he says, “God sent forth his son, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ."

If Canaan be considered as a type of heaven, we may use the Apostle's argument, Gal. iii. 18 and 19. "If the inheritance be of the law it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise" and this St. Peter says is "according to his abundant mercy.” 1 Peter i. 3.

This view of the Believer's title to heaven appears to myself satisfactory; but I have proved more than once the truth of Solomon's words, Prov. xviii. 17. "He that is first in his own cause, seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him." I wish, therefore, to submit it to the examination of your correspondents, believing the investigation may be useful to others as well as to myself.

We are sanctified through the truth, and those truths which respect the conscience, touch the springs of action both in heart and life; hence, it will assuredly be found, that we labour in vain for purity of heart, unless purity of conscience be first obtained and preserved.

A SERIOUS INQUIRER.

ON SPIRITUAL ENJOYMENTS. MEN scoff at spiritual enjoyments, and deem them visionary. But what think they, then, of the happiness of heaven? Is it not spiritual, the result of intimate communion with the blessed God, and of entire conformity to the holiness of his nature? and must not that be supposed the most perfect and exalted happiness of which human na ture is capable, which the all-sufficient God reserves to be the everlasting reward of his children and his friends?

Man is that link in the chain of being which connects the animal with the angelic nature. Compounded of both natures, he is capable, in his present state, of pleasures suited to both. It would be absurd therefore, we grant, to deny him those of the animal kind under their proper regulations; but how much more absurd (even by how much the joys of an angel must be supposed superior to those of a brute) to refuse him such as are spiritual? That men should practically esteem the former better than the latter, is a sad proof of the corruption of the human heart; that they should coolly plead for the unjust decision, and thus mistake their degradation for their privilege and their interest, demonstrates that, in the fall of man, the head has suffered equally with the heart.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. I ALSO am a plain man, and as little relish needless refinements in Theolo

gy, as your correspondent G. S. W. (Christ. Observ. vol. 1, p. 714.) but surely the Extract from my Common

place Book, on which he has thought proper to remark, classes not with such refinements, but in its design and tendency, at least, looks to consequences of great practical importance. That every habitual sinner is disposed to plead in excuse of his crime, that he cannot help it, and to think the excuse a good one, will, I suppose, be readily admitted. Any attempt, therefore, to awaken conscience to remorse, by exposing the fallacy of such a plea, is certainly important, and may fairly claim indulgence from the friends of religion.

It would be no difficult task, were I so disposed, to expose the weakness and inconsistency of several of G.S. W.'s positions; but having little ability, and less inclination for controversy, I shall limit what I mean to offer, to such brief notices of your correspondent's remarks,as may serve to explain a little farther the doctrine of the obnoxious" extract."

In the first paragraph of his remarks, your correspondent has asked, "Are not habits deeply rooted, and irresistible habits often persisted in, when there is a strong aversion of mind to them?" The manner in which this question is asked, seems to imply that the fact to which it refers is too obvious to be controverted. I can only say, that if such be the fact, to my observation and experience, in the nature of moral habits, it is unknown. I know indeed what it is to sin against the dictates of the judgment, and the remonstrances of conscience; but I have no consciousness that I have ever sinned against my will. To my understanding the thing is indeed plainly impossible, since any act so committed, being the result of force, and not of choice, would not be sin. I suspect, therefore, that G.S. W. has here confounded the operations of conscience with those of the will. I apprehend the matter, if it seem at all doubtful, may be readily referred to the test of experiment. Let G.S.W. select the drunkard, for example, whom, of all the vicious characters of that description he may happen to know, he believes to answer most exactly to the case stated in his question:-before this man, whose habit of drinking to excess is supposed to be deeply rooted and irresistible," though with " a strong aversion of mind to it," let him place a cup of the favourite liquor by which he has

been always most successfully tempted; apprizing him only at the same time, that he has mingled a dose of poison with the fascinating draught, which, if swallowed, will infallibly destroy him; and adding, if he pleases, that he has done so on purpose to try whether there be any truth in the opinion I hazarded, that "power over any vicious habit is nothing but the aversion of the will from it, and consequently that the power which such an habit has over any man, is only another name for his inclination towards it." When the experiment has been made, perhaps you will have the goodness, Mr. Editor, to give us the result in one of your future numbers.

Your correspondent charges me with "using the terms habit, &c. in a sense not sanctioned by common use, and not very intelligible." Now I rather suspect that the truth of the matter is, that I do, and that he does. not use the terms in question, in their common and most intelligible signification. Had he looked into Dr. Johnson's Dictionary, on the words habit and power, he would have found that the former is sometimes taken for "custom, or inveterate use," and the latter for "influence, or prevalence upon;" in which senses I have obviously used them. An attention to. the meaning here assigned to the latter of these terms, will do away, I apprehend, the "solecism" spoken of by the remarker; in addition to which it may with justice, I believe, be abserved, that he himself adopts not a language "sanctioned by common use," when he calls "love a power or faculty of the mind." Is it not rather the mode of a distinct power of the mind? The will is a power or faculty of the mind, and love is a modification of the will.

With regard to the sense in which it has been intimated that I use the term habit, I am disposed to think it is not only the common, but in reality the only true and intelligible meaning of it, as applied to moral habits. I suspect that the word, when thus applied, is not used with strict propriety of speech, but, like other moral denominations, borrowed from physical phenomena, is employed only in the way of analogy. I will explain what I mean. Mr. Lock's definition of a habit, I conceive then to be a true definition of habits, properly so called. ex. gr. The power or ability of