ligious professors would be guilty of blasphemy, and in this I was justified; for "charity thinketh no evil."

CRITIC-But you should have seen, at once, that it was unscriptural.

AUTHOR-I had not, then, been long a Christian; and, uninstructed in doctrines hard to be understood, I was desirous to get information from such as appeared to be learned in Scripture. Of this, I shall never be ashamed; although I suffered some painful exercise of mind by contact with unsatisfactory views of various sorts, which I observed in other sects, as well as in the Irvingites. CRITIC-Are you not always changing?

AUTHOR-My first and only change was from Deism to Christianity. But, if, on being permitted to enter a beautiful garden, it be said that I am "always changing," because I scarcely advance a few paces after admiring the first flower I see, before I am delighted with a second, and shortly again, with a third, then indeed I admit the charge for thus have I, when introduced into the vineyard, admired one and another denomination of Christians Nevertheless, I confess that I feel an utter detestation for all sectarianism, and my whole desire is to call all men brethren, who acknowledge Jesus to be the Lord-the Redeemer-the Husbandman.

CRITIC-On reading the other parts of your first volume, one would suppose that you consider yourself to be a peculiar favourite of heaven.

AUTHOR-I believe that all who acknowledge Jesus to be the Lord, are such in every sense of the word, but

I have never declared, as your language would imply, that I exclusively enjoy' this inestimable privilege.

CRITIC-According to the language of your Bible, I admit that you are so far right; but, when you seem to expect a special miracle to provide you and your family with subsistence, I think I am warranted in drawing such an inference.

AUTHOR-Where did you find that I entertained such an expectation?

66

CRITIC-In giving up your agency, from which you derived a sufficiency for the support of yourself and family, when you were fully aware that you had not a prospect of help, except from your heavenly Father" as stated in Doctrine of Particular Providence, page 144; thus departing from the use of means appointed in Scripture.

AUTHOR-I acknowledge that in Holy writ the use of means is required; but we also read, that the conduct of the poor widow who of her want did cast in ll that she had, even all her living, was approved, whilst that of the young man who, having great possessions, went away sorrowing, because the Lord told him "go sell that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven, and come and follow me,” was disapproved. Hence, we conclude, that money is not the means to be depended on in obeying the call of duty. Our Lord himself tells us of the only essential means in the words "my bread is to do the will of him that sent me."

CRITIC-But if every disciple followed your example, how could they meet the various difficulties that would inevitably stand in their way?

AUTHOR-You will find the answer to this question in the preface of the volume which you have less read than criticised, viz.-"It has been my privilege, under the Divine guidance, to have gone forth without purse or scrip, in full confidence that the Lord who is my shepherd would not suffer me to want, even though I had a large family to support; and, notwithstanding, I have thought fit, not only to publish this, but also to give many details of self-denial, and Christian experience, I by no means wish to set myself up as a rule for others; for there are diversities of gifts, differences of administrations, and diversities of operations of them; and should there be anything of a peculiar character in my gift, all I incline to hope, is, that it may be attributed to the same God who worketh all in all."

CRITIC-But you have adopted such strange peculiarities.-I have read in that book, that you consider it a duty, not to take off your hat to any human being.

AUTHOR-I acknowledge that this was a requisition of conscience as therein set forth, but I did not say that in this, or in any other instance, my practice was to be a rule for others to walk by. My only object was to give a full and true statement of the exercise of mind, so that instruction might be drawn therefrom as a whole, although such minor points necessary to the detail, should, in themselves, be valueless.

CRITIC-But, in this volume, you have changed the

name of the months and days of the week, do you not think that the exhibition of such singularities will retard your usefulness?

AUTHOR-I cannot think that following this, or any other Scripture rule, will retard my usefulness: We find no such names in the Bible as Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, &c.-January, February, March, &c.

CRITIC-But many Christians who declare that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice, do not adopt but despise that ancient usage.

AUTHOR This is not my condemnation, but their omission.

CRITIC-But custom has so long established the use of heathen names, that we do not attach any honour to their deities when using them, and, if we depart from this usage now, our practice, without producing any beneficial effect, may be offensive.

:

AUTHOR. This excuse is very plausible but not justifiable the sanction of custom does not render the substitution of heathen names harmless, for we cannot plead with the Jews that we worship the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, in this respect, since we do not regard the wise arrangements of that God, by making use of the names which He gave to the various divisions of time, nor can we declare that we are born in his image, as in that case, our language, precept, and example, would be conformable to His.

CRITIC.-Why not, then, use the Hebrew, as well as the numerical name?

AUTHOR. To this I have no objection, but we are at

liberty to use either as circumstances require. It is not, however, because more than one name is given to some points of time, that we are not only to use neither of them, but, on the contrary, supersede such divine appellatives for days and months, by the idolatrous nomenclature of heathens. Surely, a moment's consideration should convince us that we cannot offend an earthly parent more, than by changing the name which he is accustomed to use for any thing, and substituting that which is given to it by his bitterest enemies. And the Lord of Hosts saith, "A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if I then be a Father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear?" Again, he saith, "I am the Lord, that is my name, and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."

CRITIC.-Would you, then, object to call the stars by such names as Jupiter, Mars, Juno, Venus, &c.

AUTHOR. Since my heavenly Father has not thought fit to call these by any name whatsoever, I do not object to submit to custom, which gives distinctive names to stars. But I do consider that the substitution of any other appellatives whatsoever, for those used by the Omniscient, is to dishonour his wisdom, and, if such be selected from heathen Mythology, to despise his paternal authority. "He that honoureth me, him will I honour, and he that despiseth me, shall be lightly esteemed.”

CRITIC.-Do you think that those who act in opposition to your opinion, are lightly esteemed?

AUTHOR.-I judge no man. Let every man be fully