all who knew him that his stay and his comfort were gone. He felt himself destitute of that which he most highly prized; his god of gold had departed, and with it the very source of all his joys.

Argentulus had been professedly a man of piety. He was constant in his attendance at the house of God, liberal in his contribution, and not unfriendly to those who were seriously disposed. When property and precedence were kept out of view, he passed for a kind, benevolent, and valuable member of society, and, to say the least, as no disgraceful professor of religion. But in all disputed points his opinion was law; his plan must be followed, or he would give no sanction, no contribution, but thwart and perplex the design to the very utmost extent of his power and influence. The general interest of the class of Christians with whom he acted, the prosperity of the cause of truth generally, were all as dust in the balance, before his overweening conceit, and his unblushing and reckless selfishness, every thing gave way, and he reigned in the little society in which he moved unrivalled and supreme. Well acquainted with the letter of divine truth, he appeared totally destitute of the spirit of the gospel, meekness, gentleness, forbearance, the duty of "esteeming others better than ourselves," and of making every sacrifice to please our brother for his good to edification, formed no part of his religious system. On all doctrinal points he was clear, dogmatical, almost fierce; but on the fine, mild, lovely, Christ-like graces of the genuine disciples of the Son of God, you could elicit from him no remark; he had no sympathy with the subject, no emotion, no thought that bore to it the most distant relation. Religion in its theory, as a system of doctrines, was on his lips, but the love of power, the love of influence, the love of money, and an all-absorbing selfishness were in his heart; and when that which sustained these failed, the sources of his happiness were dried up, and he was left to misery and despair. The hand of God pressed him sore, but he looked only to second causes. Afflictions hardened instead of softening him, and in that furnace the unmingled dross of his religious profession rose in all its native worthlessness to the surface.

He is gone to his account. Had he loved power, and influence, and self, less than he loved God, his end had been peace; but it was not so; and we draw a veil over the closing scenes of a life which tended neither to the divine glory, nor to the good of man, nor to the happiness of him who passed through its exciting and fluctuating scenes. Scripture has, however, received confirmation from such a life. "The way of trangressors is hard." "The way of the wicked the Lord turneth upside down." "Them that honour me I will honour, but they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed." SECULARIS is regarded by all who are acquainted with him as a man of great prudence and forethought: his history is briefly this:He was sent, at the age of eighteen, to a distant relation, a merchant in the city, in whose counting-house he remained as a dependant for ten years, rising gradually in the esteem of his employer, whose only daughter he at length married, and became a partner in the house. On the decease of his father-in-law, the whole of the funded

N. S. VOL. III.

D

and mercantile property devolved on him. If he had been careful before, he was more so now. In the fluctuations of trade Secularis has always acted with so much caution and prudence, that his losses have been few and inconsiderable, while his gains, though not great, have been almost uninterrupted. He is punctually at his counting-house at an early hour, always true to his appointments, his orders are fulfilled to the very letter, and not one of the vast number who have had dealings with him can say, that the goods transmitted were ever inferior to the sample produced when the purchase was made. It may be easily imagined that Secularis has a high respect for the mercantile character, and it must, in justice, be added, that he adorns it.

As to his domestic arrangements, they are economical without being parsimonious. There is no want, neither is there any waste; every thing in his household establishment is remarkable for neatness and regularity. His servants know their duties, and fulfil them; there is a place for every thing, and every thing is in its place. As to his children, (he has four,) they are respectably but not highly educated; they revere their father and love each other. Two of them are now settled in life, a son and a daughter.

The world holds Secularis in high esteem, he has the praise of almost all who know him. He does good to himself, and good to his family.

Secularis is a professor of religion; he has been so for nearly twenty years. He has a very great regard for a minister, whose place of worship he constantly attends; he professes, moreover, to place implicit confidence in the sacrifice of Christ for his acceptance with God, and does not hesitate to express his obligation to redeeming mercy. He will read no books of piety but those that place the doctrine of full and free justification by faith in the Saviour in a very prominent position; the Sermons of Seed, of Blair, of Tillotson, of Secker, are not to be found in his book-case. Elisha Coles, and Gill, and Bryne, and Mason, and Romaine, are his favourite authors: he is fixed in his opinions, but rarely contends in their behalf. He feels a decided antipathy to certain obvious duties, and charges with legality those who insist on them. In his family alms-giving is unknown. The rich have free admission to his house and to his table; the poor are never known to cross his threshold. He has never been known to devote voluntarily a portion of his property either to the cause of God, or the benefit of a poor man. He thinks religion is God's cause, and He will take care of that; and as to the poor, they are indolent, improvident, or impostors. Efforts have been made to induce him to subscribe to public institutions; these have succeeded in a few cases. The force of example, the fear of singularity, and, perhaps, the authority of great names, have had their weight, and in the lists of subscribers to one or two of our great metropolitan societies, his name for a single guinea, annually, may be seen; but he was never known voluntarily to send a subscription for any benevolent object. To all such, with the above exceptions, his heart and his hand are alike closed. He has now great wealth; he counts it by hundreds

of thousands his securities are of the best kind. An annual income, far exceeding his expenditure, is pouring in upon him, so that he goes on to accumulate. He portioned off his daughter with twenty thousand pounds, and can give each of his sons twice that amount, and still have an ample fortune for his declining years. He will of course die rich. But will he enter heaven after death? On this point he has himself no doubt. He builds, he affirms, on the right foundation. Jesus Christ is the rock of his confidence. But what are the fruits of that faith which he professes to have in the Saviour? They are not public, unless outward decorum and a natural love for his offspring are its results? They are not domestic, for there is no family prayer in his house-no instruction of children or servantsno conversation but what relates to the funds, the markets, foreign exchanges, and the general state of the mercantile world. If God and Christ and the value of his soul are in his thoughts, they are never on his lips. But it is "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." What then is the conclusion from this rule of the great and infallible instructor? It is this-that the world is in the heart of Secularis-that Mammon holds the chief seat there, and that the "love of the Father is not in him.”

"Of what avail Secularis, is your occasional profession of trust in the atoning sacrifice of Christ? Your attendance on a ministry where the great truths of the gospel are only partially adduced, the effect of which is to lead to unwarrantable hope, and to suppress every salutary fear? Is it there, Secularis, that you have been taught that a mere cold, theoretical accuracy of opinion on the doctrine of Justification by faith in Christ, is all that is essential to the christian character? Have you been there taught, that there is no danger in cherishing a supreme love to the world-in neglecting the glory of God-in living only for your domestic circle, and your own selfish ends? Is it there that you have been taught, that that "most excellent gift of charity,"-love to God, beneficence towards man-is of secondary, or no importance, in the character of a man who is hoping to appear at the right hand of Christ at the day of judgment? You find no difficulty in your religion! But do you not recollect-(you must have read it, or heard it read) that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven;" that "they that will be rich," (and this was long, very long, your determination, and as it was your wish to acquire, so now it is your desire to retain wealth) "they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition; for the love of money is the root of all evil?" And where this love of money prevails, if there be no actions or habits which the world condemns, and on which the church frowns, there will be the absence of righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness."

But Secularis will perhaps say, "Am I then not to take care of my property to improve it-to do all in my power for my own comfort in my old age, and for the advantage of my children? And is not diligence, economy, and persevering and unwearied effort to effect these objects, absolutely necessary? I rise early, I late take rest,

I eat the bread of carefulness; and is it not an apostolic caution, that the man "who provides not for his own house hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel?" Secularis is partly right on this point. It would be wrong for him to waste his property in riotous living, or to suffer it to dwindle away for want of a watchful superintendance, and thus leave himself and family to destitution and beggary. But Secularis should recollect, that there is a vast difference between the restless and anxious care that allows no time save to urge his own claims, and the reasonable and becoming caution which a wise and pious man will take to secure his own interests and the interests of those who are dependant on him. Secularis should recollect, that his care for wealth absorbs all other care; while that of his neighbour Pietas is always sufficient, though always subordinate to the care which he exercises for the honour of God, the welfare of his soul, the consistency of his profession, and the highest interests of those who are under his influence. Secularis is subdued by the love of this present evil world. He uses it; and, because it has his supreme affection, he abuses it too. But Pietas uses, but does not abuse it. His supreme affections are raised above its influence. It is not his master, but his servant. If it fail him, he has something infinitely better to trust to. He does not anticipate. He does not say, morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant." But alas, for Secularis, his spirit is widely different. It may be illustrated by the words of the prosperous man in the gospel. "Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years." "We know not, Secularis, the day of your death-this is known to God only-but we fear it will find you unwilling to listen to the summons of the fearful messengers, and unheedful of the awful period, counting on long years to come,' laying up treasures on the earth, but not rich towards God." "There must be a change somewhere, Secularis, or you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. It is prepared for them that love God, that love Jesus Christ; for those who live for eternity. But you love money better than God, gain better than the Saviour, and time better than eternity. Except you are converted, then, you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven."

6

"To

"Yours is a painful and difficult case, Secularis. It would be less so probably, if you were not a professor of religion. But the very fact that you believe yourself safe, is the cause of your being exposed to so much danger. You imagine, that the only danger to which a professor of religion can be exposed is ignorance of a certain point of scripture doctrine. It is well to have clear and extensive views of all scripture doctrines. But there is a greater danger than ignorance of these. The clearest views of these doctrines may not lead to those gracious dispositions which the doctrines when rightly received never fail to produce; but if the gracious dispositions exist in the heart there will, with these, be a knowledge of the great truths of the gospel amply sufficient for peace and safety. Do not, Secularis, as you value your immortal interests, mistake the leading design of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Do not for a moment imagine, that it is a charter of privileges for certain favoured individuals of our fallen race dependant altogether on their knowledge of a particular point of

doctrine. This would indeed be to limit the large and ample boon of heaven by a most restricted boundary. No. The design of the gospel is to give a new character-to root out evil principles-to destroy the selfish propensities of the human heart, and to induce dispositions which shall assimilate him who exercises them, to the holiest of men, the pure spirits of heaven, and to the immaculate exemplar of the Christian, Jesus Christ his Lord. And never, Secularis, forget that with these dispositions the love of money, the love of the world, the exercise of selfishness, are totally incompatible."

UNFAIRNESS OF THE EVANGELICAL CHURCH JOURNALS.

We have received several papers from the Rev. Dr. Pye Smith illustrative of this subject, which were accompanied by the following

note.

"To the Editor of the Congregational Magazine.

"Homerton, Dec. 10, 1838. "MY DEAR SIR,-With sincere reluctance and pain, I solicit your admission of the following correspondence; having in vain tried to obtain the hearing which I think integrity and justice require, in publications likely to be read by members of the Established Church.

"J. PYE SMITH."

The facts are simply these. In The Christian Observer for July, the Editor of that work indulged in some strictures upon The Eclectic Review, and virtually called upon Dr. Smith, by name, to admit or deny a coincidence, with certain sentiments cited from the speeches or writings of Mr. Howard Hinton.

A letter in reply was addressed to the Editor, which was inserted in the August Number of that periodical. Dr. Smith's article occupied a single page of longprimer. To this, however, the Editor of the Observer appended almost five pages of closely printed annotations, in bourgeois, which were far from satisfactory to the mind of Dr. Smith. He, therefore, addressed the following letter to that gentleman:

"To the Editor of the Christian Observer.”

"Homerton, Aug. 14, 1838. "It is a painful dilemma in which I feel myself. Either impressions must remain uncorrected, and therefore seeming to be admitted, but which I am persuaded are erroneous and injurious to many who seek to walk before God in simplicity and godly sincerity; or I must again solicit a hearing at your bar. From the first day of the month, I have striven to satisfy myself with a submission to the former side of this alternative. Fain would I avoid the position of being a controvertist with you. Infinitely more do I desire to meet you at the throne of grace, or to be joined with you in any works of christian charity. But the best attention in my power convinces me, that to be silent would be an act of unfaithfulness. Therefore, I submit myself to your indulgence for this one time more.

"1. I was not before aware of the distinction which you make between contributors and occasional correspondents: but I admit it to be very fair. Yet still I assure you that your pages have admitted little articles from dissenting