"How. Jesus Christ sums up all the divine law in these two requirements, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself' And are not these two requirements as much calculated to secure the happiness of man, as they are honorable to the great Lawgiver?

Con. They have surely one defect, they for whom they are intended, are utterly incapable of obeying them.

How. And whence that incapacity, Conway? Why is it, that while we profess to believe that God is supremely worthy of our love, we cannot love him supremely? And while we admire his beautifully simple and just rule, by which he instructs man to secure the happiness of his brother man, that we cannot obey

it?

Con. To answer that question, my friend, I must proceed step by step to account for that which has never yet been accounted for,-the origin of evil.

How. No, my dear Conway, that would only lead you from the point. If we would submit to the teaching of him, who we profess to believe is the only wise, -the only omniscient, and whose teaching is fully confirmed by our own experience, we would believe that the cause of this incapacity is the aversion of our hearts to the purity of his nature and laws. We do not see, with the clearness that he sees, this state of our feelings, because we never experienced that fulness of love for him, the all-perfect, all-lovely,—which he intended at our creation should constitute the full satisfaction and happiness of our natures, and with which, when he contrasts the present state of our feelings, he terms it plainly enmity;' and we, full of self-love as we are, will allow that, at times at least, we feel a distaste for thoughts of God, an impatience under his moral restraints, and a disposition to forget his existence, and to act as if we ourselves were the end of our own being,

Con. And how is all this to be prevented, Howard? How are we to change these hearts, and restore them to that state for which they were intended?

How. That is the only inquiry of any importance.amongst all the inquiries of the busy human mind; because, till it is answered, every other pursuit is mere vanity,-mere trifling on the brink of an eternity of separation from God. The answer of God to this question, throws light on all that is of any moment for us to know on this side the grave.

Con. And what is the answer of God to this question?

How. It is this, he has himself undertaken to renew us by his Spirit, after the image of Christ, if we will only bend our stubborn souls, and ask him to do so.

You look disappointed, Conway." pp. 38 -40.

The passage contains a pretty good view of the ground or reason of our incapacity to keep the commandments of God. We only wish our author had shown the nature of the incapacity. We believe it is simply a want of will, an unwillingness to give up things that cannot be enjoyed in consistence with that Law. So that in fact "the cause of this incapacity" is nothing different from the incapacity itself.

The use of the terms, incapable, and incapacity, and the like, is so liable to mislead, or at least, to afford an occasion for perversion and cavilling, that too much care can hardly be exercised, in giving prominence to the fact, that man alone stands in the way of his own obedience, and that if he is finally lost, it will be wholly his own fault. The passage likewise leads to another remark. We do not fully understand Howard's last answer. It seems to imply that, in his view, the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit, or regenerating grace, is a conditional gift

to unrenewed sinners which is promised, "if we will bend our stubborn souls, and ask him to do so." Our difficulty is in determining the state or character of a sinner, in this attitude of asking. Is he regenerate, or unregenerate, when he bends his stubborn soul ?" Is not the struggle between the world and God in fact over, when he comes to this point? If he has really humbled himself under the mighty hand of God, he has done what he was commanded to do; he has exercised Christian humility.

The next extract shows the folly of that miserable refuge of lies to which it is so fashionable to resort, by those who reject the atonement of Christ. The idea that God no longer requires obedience, but is satisfied with something short of it is the most wretched delusion that can be thought of.

Con. But, my dear Howard, do not even the strictest religionists allow that it will be by the sincerity, not by the perfec tion of our obedience, that we shall be judged at the last day?

How. No, Conway; that is one of those glosses in explaining scripture of which I spoke, and one which has completely established itself as an undeniable religious truth, while there is Lot a sha dow of ground for it in the Bible. Can you, Conway, recollect any passage in scripture, which implies that our omniscient Judge will accept of a sincere but unsuccessful attempt to obey, in the place of exact obedience?

Con. Does not Christ himself make an excuse for his disciples, when, instead of watching with him, as he had requested in his hour of agony, they fell asleep? He said, in pity of their weakness, and aware of their sincerity, The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.' I have always admired the gentleness and magnanimity of these words, at such a time.

How. And yet, Conway, if you will examine the passage which is constantly produced in favor of your opinion, you will find that you have been admiring an explanation of our Lord's words which they cannot bear. We shall read the pas sage as St. Mark has it; (reads) 'And Jesus cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? (Why so pointedly address Peter, and not James and John, unless in allusion to his having so confidently declared that he was ready to suffer and die with his Lord?) "Couldst thou not watch one hour? Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation; the spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak." Is this an excuse? Is it not rather a most serious and gracious warning, to which, had the sincere but self-confident Peter attended, he might have been saved from theweakness, will you call it? I must say crime of denying his Master an hour after. There is, besides, no other instance which can possibly be understood as you understand this. Christ never extenuates the faults of his disciples; on the contrary, he always reproves them; and had he done otherwise, he would not have been, as he was, the teacher and the example of the most perfect holiness." pp 43-45.

We now come to Arthur's narrative of his own conversion, which he drew up for his father. We give the following account of his first inter, view with Travers. It had been brought about by their friends, in hopes that Arthur's acute mind would be able to detect the fallacy of the arguments by which Travers was continually endeavouring to awaken their consciences, and persuade them to seek the salvation of their souls.

I believe we both felt a little embarrassed on finding ourselves téte-a-téte, as each was perfectly aware of the anxious wishes of Mrs. Travers and my aunt. Travers spoke first.

I believe, Mr. Howard,' said he smiling, and reddening as he spoke, our friends expect and hopethat you and I shall commence our acquaintance by making war on each others opinions on a certain subject. I know for whom conquest is ardently wished; therefore, as one against many, I think I shall take what advantage I can, and begin, by plainly asking you of what religion you are?'

Of what religion!' repeated I, smiling in return; of the Christian religion, presume.'

Then we are on plain ground. A Christian must mean a disciple of Jesus Christ, and that is all I aim to be; and if I misunderstand any of the doctrines taught by my divine Master, or disobey any of his precepts, I most earnestly desire to be better informed, and to be more faithful in future.'

I said that he had indeed gained an advantage over me,-that I had spoken without reflection,-and that I perceived I had an opponent with whom I must de-, fine terms.

"Then, may I beg of you to define your idea of a Christian?"

I hesitated. Why, a Christian is now a national appellation. It was, I believe, in that sense I used the term.'

"May I ask you to define its meaning in that sense?'

Why, it is opposed to the ignorance and grossness of Heathenism and Mahometan. ism A Christian in this sense, particu larly a Protestant, means a person whose mind is perfectly freed rom superstition, who regards himself as a free and intelligent being, and who worships that true God, whose character is, in his mind, freed from those dreadful attributes in which ignorance and superstition clothe it; and this Being he boldly ventures to worship, according to the dictates of his own conscience."

'And where is Christ, in this system of Christianity?" asked Travers, gently. "He was the Founder of the system.' 'How?'

"He visited this world to reveal more perfectly the character of the God of mercy and benevolence to mankind; and himself to show them an example of perfect

virtue.'

In what do they follow it?" On Travers asking this question, I recollected what my aunt had said of him,that he did not believe there were half-adozen people in England who would get to heaven. Do you expect,' asked I, 'that imperfect creatures can follow a perfect model? As it is, was the standard of morals ever so high in any country, as it How is in this? Are not the very purest morals of Christianity, those to which the voice of the whole nation appeals, when, in any controversy, its voice is heard?' Travers smiled.True; you have described the effect that the knowledge of true Christianity has upon a nation. Every conscience bends to its authority, as what the light of truth there says, would be right and just in all. You have traced this universal knowledge of morality, in this country, to its true source,-the knowledge of Christianity; but you have not answered my question.'

'I cannot answer it otherwise. If making the morality taught by Jesus Christ, the morality of a whole nation, does not constitute a Christian nation, I know not what would.'

Let us leave these generalities,' said Travers, in which we forget individual responsibility, and allow me to ask one question. Do you suppose all those men, who receive the sacrament to qualify themselves for civil offices, believe in the doctrine which that ordinance represents, and which they profess to believe by appearing there?

'I certainly do not.'

And is there any part of the New Testament, which would not condemn that appearance as hypocrisy, deceit, and fraud?'

I could not say there was. 'Can men who do this, really be disciples of Jesus Christ?'

I was silent.

'Can they, in sincerity, worship a pure and holy God? To what, or whom, can they internally direct the excuse they make, when they thus perjure themselves? If they really in heart adored a holy God, they would not dare thus to disregard his omniscient and omnipresent holiness. If they worship a Being who they think will not condemn such falsehood, they worship, -not the God of Christianity, but the Satan, whom Christianity warns us against us the god of this world.'

You state the matter too strongly,' said I, half displeased; I know men, who would spurn from them with indignation the very idea of hypocrisy and fraud, who yet thus qualify themselves for office with out any scruple.'

"And without believing in that atonement represented in the sacrament?' "Yes; without being able to believe any thing so incomprehensible.'

'Are they Christians, then, either in faith or morals?"

I felt that I was becoming warm, and remained silent; and Travers immediately changed the subject, and did not resume it again during that visit.” pp. 90—94.

Another extract is designed to illustrate the cautious and gradual man. ner, in which these philosophic minds receive light upon religious subjects. The living reality of Scott's "Force of Truth," still more strikingly exemplifies, that religion is not, in fact, an irrational thing, but is rejected by philosophic minds, on other grounds.

After the perusal of Arthur's narrative and some fragments of his writings, Howard and Conway resume their conversation. We give a short extract here, as an example of Christian faithfulness in pressing truth upon the conscience.

"How. I did not say that the objects of faith were simple, or easily understood. On the contrary, I have said that scripture itself declares their great mysteriousness; but I say, that believing them saves the soul.

Con. But, my dear Howard, belief is not a thing in our power. Belief is an effect, a consequence.

How. An effect, or consequence, of what?

Con. (Smiling.) Į know to what that question leads.

How. All I wish is, to induce you to do that which will produce this effect, this consequence. If you fairly and candidly do your part, if you examine your own mind, and discover what those objections are, which lead you to but half credit the Bible, and then listen with candor to the answers which learned, and wise, and good men, have given to these objections, I shall not fear the result: and if, at the same time, you examine scripture itself with the degree of faith you already pos

sess

Con. (Interrupting him.) The faith I already possess! Do you think I already possess any of that which you call faith?

How. My most dear Conway, you do not possess the faith which will save you, but you possess that which, if alone, will condemn you. You believe in God, yet you make scarcely any attempt to know his character or will. You believe that Jesus Christ came into the world to teach us that will, yet you take no pains to make yourself acquainted with the character or office of that Teacher sent from God.' You half believe the scriptures are inspit