his holiness the Pope of Rome. Her unity, in the first instance, was a unity of heart, among individual churches, connected with congregational order and internal self-government, that came to be lost sight of, and then a stiff, ironorganised uniformity, a Procrustes' bed was brought into the church, and the engines of the Inquisition were worked, in order to cut down men's souls to a certain length. In her earliest days the church was a spiritual institution, a kingdom not of this world; but she lost sight of that, and formed a marriage with the state; and a countless progeny of evils, the curse of both parents, has been the result of the unholy union. In the history of the past we have a lecture-a Divine lecture, if I may so speak-on ecclesiastical government, illustrated by experiments. Principles are seen in their application and results; the character of causes is made apparent by consequences. What the New Testament recommends is put to the test, and it yields unmingled benefit. What the New Testament forbids is subjected to the same ordeal, and it yields nothing but mischief;-the illustration in the one case resembling some beautiful experiment upon the qualities of light, and in the other case, reminding us of the effects produced by the inhalation of some noxious gas. And are we not taught, by the whole of this history, to resist innovation upon the grand principles of primitive church government, to oppose the notion of a Christian hierarchy, to desist from all attempts at accomplishing uniformity, and to repudiate the alliance of church and state? Are we not taught to adhere to the word of God and to primitive usage, and to preserve intact the simplicity of the Christian pastorate, the principle of a catholic spiritual union, and the Congregational constitution of our churches? "No man having drunk old wine straightway desireth new; for he saith the old is better." II. I would remark, that experience also teaches lessons of reform, or rather improvement. Time tries the true and the erroneous. Beneath her touch the gold of truth brightens, but the rotten wood of error crumbles away. It would be strange if the voice of the past only inculcated a one-sided lesson,-only told us what to keep, and did not also teach us what to question,-what to repudiate, and how to improve what we were bound to retain. The review of days and years gone by, may surely put us on some tracks of improvement. In treating this part of the subject, I feel that caution is necessary on my part, and candour on yours. I will try not to be wanting in the firstI have confidence that you will not be wanting in the second. As to our theology.-After what has been said respecting evangelical truths, you will be satisfied that I am inimical to all that would invalidate, oppose, or trench upon them. I believe that the principles just mentioned are taught in the New Testament, that they are interwoven with the texture of revelation, that it is impossible to tear them away without destroying the whole fabric of Christianity. They may be compared to the letters which Phidias wrought into the buckler of Minerva-the letters of his own name-in-wrought, that they could not be taken out without pulling the beautiful shield to pieces. The volume of revelation is complete-no addition can we expect to be made to it-no appendix to that book-no addenda to that record; nor do we anticipate that any great discoveries will be made in the contents of the volume; that any new primal truths will be found lodged and latent there besides those already recognised, and published in the church. But still I consider that, in a certain sense, theology is a progressive science. A distinction is to be made between theology as a science, and the Bible as a record of facts and principles, on which this Divine science is based-just as we distinguish between astronomy and the heavensgeology and the earth. Theology as a science has been advancing. It was not in the fifth century what it was in the first-nor in the twelfth what it was in the fifth-nor in the fifteenth what it was in the twelfth-nor in the nineteenth what it ever was before: it has bad its checks, its retrograde movements, its under-back currents, but yet, on the whole, its progress has been onward, and I cannot think that, as a science, it has reached its ultimate development. Past days and years show that it has advanced. Do they supply no materials for, no incentives to, an attempt at further improvement? I repeat it, I anticipate no grand theological discoveriesno finding out of brilliant planets or stars in the heaven of revelation, other than those which devout eyes have gazed on for ages past; neither do I fear that any of those bright and beautiful guides of the human soul over life's ocean will ever be proved to be unsubstantial meteors. But still the further devout study of our Bibles, together with the careful investigation of theological history, surely may lead to such results as these:-First, the detection of some current modes of theological expression, of some phases under which Christian truth has been exhibited, nay, perhaps of some minor dogma themselves, as by no means divine verities, but mere matters of human tradition, which have come floating down to us for ages, having originated with some doctor of the church, and which are, after all, errors and mistakes, though so long canonized, and held sacred. Secondly, the discovery of better and more unexceptionable modes of presenting and defining evangelical truth-of some new beautiful phases and relations of Christian doctrines-of, it may be, some overlooked principles, which may serve to harmonize certain opposite points. And thirdly, I think that theological study, aided by the light of past experience, may lead to the development of a more full, complete, comprehensive, and, in its numerous parts, accurately adjusted scheme of Christian divinity. One-sided views, narrow and partial oftentimes, have too much prevailed in past ages of the church; truth has been evolved by controversy, and it has therefore assumed, from time to time, the form which was just antagonistic to prevalent error. While this has at different periods brought out grand truths in vivid colouring and bold relief, it has also tended to limit the development of theology, to confine it too much now to one cardinal point, and then to another. Casting our eye back over the history of theology, we are struck with the prominence given to certain doctrines at certain times, by great theological master- minds, who digged deep into the mines of inspired wealth, and enriched the church by the treasures they brought up. The controversies about the Trinity in the fourth century, about predestination in the fifth, about justification in the sixteenth, and regeneration in the eighteenthare cases in point. Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, Wesley, who figure so conspicuously in these controversies-who were so valiant for the truth upon the earth in these several departments—have laid the church under a great debt of obligation; but then, it must be confessed, their views were confined too much to the particular aspects of the Christian system which controversy had brought before them. Surely, now, with the learning, and study, and experience of other days before us, the time has come for us to take more enlarged and comprehensive views of Christian truth-not unduly to exalt one principle above another, but to put and keep each in its divinelyassigned place. The time is come that we should go all round our Sion, and mark all her towers and bulwarks. The time is come for us to survey every side of the mount of revealed truth, to pierce into its beautiful clefts, and gather all its flowers, to scale its loftiest peak, and to look on the magnificent prospect it commands. The time is come for us to look out after a development of theology, full orbed like the sun, "its round of rays complete." Did time permit, it might be further shown that wisdom derived from experience should lead us to adapt our mode of exhibiting truth to the age in which we live. A thoughtful, intelligent, inquisitive generation must not be treated like an ignorant and slumbering one. That man must be blind indeed who does not see that a change has come over the spirit of the times within the last fifty years, in relation to the popular modes of exhibiting thought; and who does not further see, that this fact ought to be carefully attended to, and a conformity to the altered state of things diligently studied by every one who would now effectively teach Christianity to the men of his age? The style and method of theological disquisition in the seventeenth century will not do in the nineteenth. Some of us wish ardently enough that we had the learning, the profound understanding, the logical skill, and the inventive fancy of our great puritan fathers; but we also feel that we should need to employ all this differently from what they did, or it would be of no avail. And may we add, that the teaching of religion now requires, more than ever, earnestness and energy: earnest, energetic thought; earnest, energetic feeling; earnest, energetic language. All classes need this-the refined as well as the uncultivated, the uncultivated as well as the refined. Our theology requires to be brought out, not in frost but fire. "It is fire," says a German writer, "which our wet, cold theology requires." Yes! fire is what we want; fire burning in the furnace of the soul; fire illuminating and warming all the powers of the intellect; fire from heaven. Our theology should be a sea of glass-pure, transparent, crystal-like; but withal a sea of glass mingled with fire. (To be concluded in June.) OUR LORD'S TEMPTATION IN THE WILDERNESS. Examination of Dr. Payne's Theory, as exhibited in the January Number of the Evangelical Magazine. MY DEAR SIR,-When your number for January came to hand, I remember to have glanced at Dr. Payne's remarks on this subject, and was much pleased with some of the introductory remarks, and also with the majority of the important practical lessons with which he closes the paper; but his peculiar views of "the particular form or manner in which the devil made this attack upon our Lord" escaped my notice, until my attention was called to it by a friend, who was rather pleased with the Doctor's theory. The fact is, I had thought that the writer of the remarks adopted the generally-received opinion, which he names as the first of the only two opinions which can be formed of this event, viz.: —“That the devil presented himself personally and visibly to our Lord; and that the events spoken of in these verses literally happened just as they are described." For when the Doctor has described the second hypothesis he refers to, viz., the figurative, he adds, in the next paragraph, "A writer of some celebrity among us seems to regard the first of these hypotheses as scarcely worthy of notice. I have been constrained to adopt it," i.e., the first hypothesis. It is evident, however, that the Doctor adopts the second, and not the first, of these two opinions. This mistake of the writer, in calling the second hypothesis the first, gave me a wrong opinion of his theory, on the first reading of his remarks, as to that point, and was the reason why I passed over the subsequent observations under the fourth and fifth heads of the remarks without examination, thinking the Doctor had adopted the theory of literal interpretation, which was always my own. But when my attention was called again to the article, I soon discovered the cause of my former mistake, and immediately gave the whole paper a close examination. The result of the investigation was, a feeling of deep regret My own impression is, that the Doctor's theory of interpretation is of the most dangerous tendency, and that it is as unfounded as it is dangerous. that such a theory of our Lord's tempt- | harassing temptations of the devil. Both ation should have been adopted and pro- Mark and Luke clearly intimate, that, pounded by one to whom the church is during the whole forty days he spent in so much indebted for instruction, as to the wilderness, Jesus was tempted by Dr. Payne. Satan: the three instances of temptation recorded by the evangelists being only those with which the arch-adversary closed his fruitless assault on our blessed Lord. Thirdly, The evangelists plainly tell us that Jesus was led up of the Spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted of the devil. This was the one object of his going there, as stated by the evangelists. And the assertion, that he was led there to enjoy solitude, goes far to set aside the verity of the plain statements of the evangelists. One thing appears to be very evident-that if he enjoyed time for solitary reflection in the wilderness, our Lord could not have been tempted by Satan during the whole of the forty days, as the evangelists intimate. With these feelings respecting the Doctor's opinion of the form and manner of our Lord's temptation, allow me, with the most profound respect for the writer, to controvert his hypothesis. In his very first remark, the Doctor appears to me to wander from the facts of the evangelical narrative into the regions of conjecture. In answer to the question, "Why was he (Jesus) led up into the wilderness?" it is intimated that our Lord was led thither, that he might enjoy solitude for undisturbed reflection, which he could not enjoy whilst residing with his parents, and obtaining support by the labour of his own hands, &c. "He was, therefore," adds the writer, "led up into the wilderness." pp. 10. There are three grave objections to this view of the case: First, there is no proof that our Lord had no opportunity for due reflection during his residence at Nazareth; the contrary opinion is far more probable. Nazareth was a quiet town, situated on the edge of a valley abounding with shady fig-trees, and was shut in from the surrounding world by an amphitheatre of hills. The neighbourhood afforded the finest opportunities for solitude and meditation. Our Lord's occupation, too, as a carpenter, probably allowed him some hours of quiet daily. And then, being at home with his parents, who anticipated his future work and dignity, he could doubtless, though subject to them as a dutiful son, obtain, with their consent, any amount of leisure he might require for solitary reflection. Secondly, If our Lord required an opportunity for solitary and calm reflection previous to entering on his public work, he was not, we presume, very likely to obtain it in the wilderness, amid the The question, "Why was Jesus led up into the wilderness?" is briefly answered in few words, by the inspired narrative, "To be tempted of the devil." Any other reply is not fact, but fiction. The Doctor's answer to the question appears to be opposed to the highest probabilities of our Lord's position previous to his temptation, and to the obvious facts of his situation in the wilderness during those forty days of multiform satanic assault. We are often grieved by additions to, and subtractions from, the narratives of the word of God, by some of our popular writers, who lay the reins on the neck of their fancy, and allow it to carry them away at full speed, regardless of what boundaries they may break over in their course. Several instances of the kind might be mentioned. We think Dr. Payne's first, fourth, and fifth remarks on the subjects before us, are examples of this unbridled imagination, and want of due regard to the limits of simple historic facts. But the most objectionable part of the Doctor's observations are those made under his fourth remark, which relate to the particular form or manner in which the devil made this attack on our Lord. We agree fully with all that the Doctor has said in support of the proposition"that the passage in Matthew is the narrative of a real temptation," pp. 12; but we demur at his statement, that there can be only two opinions of the event recorded by the evangelists. We think there may be three opinions at least-if not more-held by those who believe alike, that the evangelists narrate a real temptation. For our own part, although we fully adopt the latter part of the first-named opinion" that the events spoken of in these verses literally happened just as they are described,"-we are not at all pledged to adopt the former part of it, viz., “that the devil presented himself personally and visibly to our Lord." The evangelists do not say that Satan presented himself personally and visibly to our Lord, and therefore those who adopt the literal mode of interpreting the narrative, are not necessarily pledged to that opinion. We are left free to adopt any opinion on that subject which may seem most probable. We may hold, with all consistency, either that Satan was invisibly present, or that he employed some creature, (either brute or man,) as his visible agent, (as he did in Paradise ;)—or that he appeared in his own angelic form to our Lord, either invested with his own sable hue, or transformed in appearance into an angel of light. But the advocates of the literal interpretation of the narrative are not pledged, by the letter of the record, to either of these opinions. All that we are bound to believe on the subject is precisely what the evangelists say, and neither more nor less. We are bound to believe that Satan came to Christ,-tempted him, spake to him, led him to a high mountain, and to the pinnacle, or wing of the temple, and, when he had finished all the temptation, that Satan left him for a season, &c. Whatever opinion may be held as to the visibility or invisibility of Satan on this occasion, must be a mere conjecture. To my own mind, it seems to be most probable that Satan appeared to our Lord as the angels appeared to Abraham and Lot, viz., in human form and aspect. That Satan appeared in some form visible to Christ, is rendered probable, from the invitation given him to worship his tempter. It is most natural to suppose that there was present on the mountain some visible form of a person, before whom Christ could fall down and worship. To what extent Satan had power to assume any form that might best serve his purpose in tempting Christ, we are left in ignorance. We think it to be very evident that he possesses much more power than he is permitted to use on ordinary occasions. The opinion of Dr. Payne, that the devil does not possess the power of working miracles, seems to be without foundation. What was it but a miracle, when he spake to Eve by the tongue of a serpent, in Paradise? and what less than miraculous were all the demoniacal possessions recorded in the gospels? It is not for us to say what the devil can or cannot do. Until the limits of his power are distinctly revealed by the God who has given, and limits the exercise of his abilities, it seems the wiser part to confess our ignorance. It is possible, and perhaps most probable, that Satan, if visible to our Lord, was not visible to any one else. To the people around the temple, and elsewhere, the tempter might be, as the angels were to Elisha's servant at Dothan, until his eyes were opened-invisible. But beyond this, for aught we can tell, the devil might assume, at different parts of the temptation, divers forms. The apostle intimates his Protean powers, 2 Cor. xi. 14. Thus, when on the temple, Satan might personate one of the Jewish Sanhedrim-and on the mountain, the emperor of Rome. If the opinion were well-founded that our Lord did not know by whom he was tempted, until the devil offered him all the kingdoms of the world, on condition of being worshipped, there would be the highest probability of this change of aspect, and |