gross violations of this rule of common honesty. The fragments which she has introduced are nearly all so garbled and misrepresented, as to produce an effect very different from that which they have when read in their connexion. Not only are they most injuriously separated from their connexion, but even the clauses of the very sentences professedly quoted are omitted, evidently for the purpose of making the disseverent fragments wear a more revolting aspect. I now charge upon Alethia the indispensable obligation of answering, in your next Number, the following questions:-Has she ever seen Dr. Haffner's Introduction? Does she understand the German language? If not, from whom has she derived these pretended translations? On whose authority has she characterized the work? And why does she write in a manner which is manifestly intended to make the reader think that she possesses and has read the whole of the censured pamphlet ?

I feel it perfectly impracticable to comprehend, in a few words, a sufficient account of the principles and character of this Introduction. Indeed I cannot conceive of any mode in which that could be accomplished so concisely and fairly as by translating the whole, and annexing notes to explain at length what is only hinted at, to obviate the probable misapprehensions of some readers, to establish by evidence many things which are given in the way of abrupt mention, and to correct and refute what is erroneous or of hurtful tendency, not by the ignorant clamour or irritating abuse which spring out of uninformed and confused minds, but by candid and just reasoning, by the words of truth and soberness. Dr. Haffner certainly is to be ranked among the theologians of Germany called Rationalists. To the proper meaning of this term, surely no Christian can object, or wish to be excluded from a share in its character. But in its present conventional use, it includes a great variety, and many shades of sentiments and persons holding them. It is often applied to the antisupernaturalists, who are only disguised deists but it includes also others, whom it would be highly absurd to regard as deists. Of those who constitute the best of the class, I cannot but entertain a favourable opinion. The Latin writings of Morus, Doderlein, Dathe, Knapp, and Vater, may supply to students in this country a very just and full view of this school of theology. Whatever may be the doctrines held or denied by individuals, I am convinced that the fundamental principles of Bible-interpretation, which characterize these divines, are true and solid; and that all the great doctrines of vital Christianity-a Saviour properly divine, Redemption, Sovereign Grace, and Sanctification by the Holy Spirit-are, by the fair application of those principles, irrefragably

deduced from the Sacred Word. If I may venture to express my humble opinion, it will not be till those principles are made use of, in a clear and judicious manner, for the deduction and elucidation of Scripture truth, that the Protestant nations of the Continent will be raised from the death-like stupor of infidelity and formalism, and the pure Gospel flourish again among them. The celebrated M. Sismondi, of Geneva, in one of his recent works, adverts to the exertions now making by evangelical Protestants, for the revival of primitive faith and holiness, in France and other countries. He is evidently misinformed and prejudiced against them; but his principal objection (far, I am persuaded, from being generally true) is, that they do not ground their doctrines and exhortations upon a critical and solid interpretation of the Scriptures. This accusation should be listened to, solemnly remembered, and refuted by the broad evidence of facts. The cause of the Gospel is now placed upon a pinnacle among them. O what wisdom, purity, and simplicity (the gifts of heavenly grace) are requisite, for its advancement and honour! Positive assertion without rational proof, arbitrary interpretation of Scripture, passages detached from their connexion, ignorance or disregard of important facts in Biblical criticism, the feelings of religion disunited from consistent doctrinal principles, and violent censures of those who approve not our views, will do infinite harm. Well-informed and reflecting persons are, by such methods, repelled and disgusted, when they might be attracted to the truth, if exhibited in its own characters, and in its mighty evidence.

Alethia brings against Dr. Haffner the charge that "he is notoriously a scoffer at vital Christianity, and does not even pay respect to the externals of Christianity. If she has not solid proofs of the correctness of these assertions, she has incurred no trifling responsibility. She refers for evidence to the Edinburgh Pamphlet; but I can find no evidence at all there; I find only bold affirmations and heavy charges, resting upon anonymous authority. Of Dr. Haffner's private character I certainly know nothing. One fact, however, I have derived from a source which I know to be pure and faithful. In the days of revolutionary fury and terror, under Robespierre, he suffered nearly a year's imprisonment, with the hourly expectation of being publicly beheaded, because he would not renounce the Christian religion; that is, because, with the strongest temptation to induce him, he would not declare himself to be, what Alethia assures us he is-an infidel.

I sincerely regret the length of this letter; but I venture to trespass so far as to add a translation of the last sentence in Dr. Haffner's calumniated Introduc

abode in its interior mansions. In plain language, their views of the contents of that revelation which they vindicated, have differed widely from what our convictions represent to us as the essential truths on which the hope and holiness of man depend. But are we, on that account, to call them infidels? Are we to cry them down as guilty of the most horrid duplicity? Are we to class them, as Alethia does Dr. Haffner, with such men as Chesterfield and Rousseau ? Are we to renounce every hope that, with all their deficiencies, they might derive important moral good from their faith, scanty as it unhappily was? Are we to make no allowance for the influence of education, exclusive courses of reading, anti-evangelical connexions, and the endless variety of unfavourable circumstances incidental to individuals, which contribute so much to the formation of character, and among which I wish that we had not to reckon the ignorant clamour and false vituperation of some wellmeaning men? Are we to pay no regard to the value of their services, the outward respectability, at least, of their characters, and the evidences of their sincerity, so far as their views went? Are we to call for fire from heaven upon them and their writings, because, in points of very serious magnitude, we lament that they see not as we see? Who hath made us to differ? If Dr. Haffner is to be treated with scorn and insult, and his name stamped with the crimes of ridiculing the Scriptures while he is recommending their universal distribution, and of being a downright Deist, under the garb of a Christian minister-if this be consonant with truth, wisdom, and justice, then it is our duty to apply similar language to the persons and writings of Clarke and Locke, of Watson and Paley, of Lardner and Priestley.

Under the strong impression of Dr. Haffner's speeches, I wrote a respectful letter to the author of the pamphlet before alluded to, expressing my doubts of the correctness of his imputations, and earnestly begging the loan of the Preface to the Bible, upon which they are ostensibly founded. More than two months have elapsed, and my old friend has not yet favoured me with any reply.

In the mean time, I did not think it wrong to introduce among the Extracts which I have occasionally made from the foreign Reports (and which you have inserted in the Evangelical Magazine, to the pleasure and benefit, I trust, of your readers), two passages of the Strasburgh Society's publications: and I also thought it equally proper to make a reference to the accusations which have been circulated among us. I remark, in passing, that Alethia is mistaken in supposing that the Extracts which I have sent you are "in order to prove that the state of religion abroad is better than is generally

supposed." My object in translating what appeared to me interesting passages, was not to prove either the positive or the negative of that position; but it was to furnish a few authentic materials, on which your readers might exercise their own judgment. Apprehensive, I own, that I might not obtain the favour solicited from Edinburgh, I wrote to a friend in the South of Germany, requesting him to procure for me the desired Preface. But before this application could take effect, and in a manner the most unexpected, and I must say providential, three days ago I was gratified with a copy of the work which I had so much longed to see.

Neither my own leisure, nor your limits will permit me to give any other than a very short account of this, which I must call a valuable and interesting production. It is entitled, An Introduction to the Knowledge and the Profitable Reading of the Bible. It occupies thirty-s -seven pages in large octavo, having been printed to bind up with an edition of the Bible: but the intention of so uniting it with the Bible was abandoned by the Strasburgh Committee as soon as they saw that it went beyond the idea of a brief Preface; and it was resolved to be sold separately, as a Treatise which they thought likely to be useful in counteracting ignorant or sceptical prejudices, and in promoting the study of the Sacred Scriptures. Whether this was a wise and good resolution is not the question; I state it merely as the fact: and it is INPORTANT to observe, that this resolution was taken and acted upon before the Strasburgh Committee could possibly have had any communication from the British and Foreign Bible Society. The assertion of Alethia on this point, I trust, she will be glad to be assured is the very contrary to her name, the downright reverse of truth!

The first four pages of Dr. Haffner's Introduction are occupied with arguing the necessity and reality of a Revelation from God, and shewing that such a Revelation is contained in the Bible. Then follow brief sketches of the contents and general character of each book of the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament; and the work is concluded with reflections on the benefit of reading the Divine Word, the duty of universally disseminating it, and glad anticipations of its triumph through the whole earth. The limits which I must observe, prohibit me from extracting passages: and it would be impossible for your readers to judge correctly of the work by a few sontences, short and torn from their connexion. If, however, you can open your pages a communication, I will make passages, such as will give, in fair and just specimen of the the writer. I am sorry has been made the instrumi not consciously so bell

Chichester; Rev. W. Bannister, of Arundel, commenced the services of the day; Rev. Dr. Harris delivered the introductory discourse, and asked the usual questions; Rev. J. Griffin, of Portsea, presented the ordination prayer; Rev, S. Hillyard, of Bedford, gave the charge; Rev. J. Hunt, of Chelmsford, preached to the people, and Rev. J. Cooper, of Emsworth, concluded with prayer; in the evening a sermon was preached by the Rev. Dr. Harris.

Tuesday, Sept. 5, 1826, the Rev. Theophilus Davies was set apart to the Pastoral office over the Independent Church, Stoorbridge. In the morning the Rev. G. Red ford, of Worcester, read a portion of Scripture and prayed; Rev. J. Dawson, of Dudley, delivered the introductory discourse, and asked the questions; Rev. S. Barber offered up the ordination prayer; Rev. J. A. James gave the charge, from 1 Tim. iv. 6; and Rev. J. Hudson, of Westbromwich, concluded with prayer. In the evening the Rev. J. J. Freeman, of Kidderminster, read and prayed; Rev. T. East addressed the people from 2. Phil. ii, 29; and Rev. Mr. Evans, of Halesowen, concluded with prayer. The church and congregation assembling in Well-street Chapel, Hackney (which has for many years been under the kind superintendance of the Rev. George Collison, of Hackney Academy) having, after much consideration and prayer for Divine direction, unanimously made choice of the Rev. Thomas Hughes, late of Hoxton College, to be their pastor, Thursday, Sept. 14th, was ap propriated to the ordination service.

Long before the service commenced the place was crowded to excess by the influx of members from all the surrounding churches, who seemed to take a lively interest in the intended union between Mr. Hughes and the church in Well-street.

The order of the services was the follow ing. The Rev. W. Orme, of Camberwell, commenced with reading and prayer; Rev. Joseph Fletcher, Stepney, delivered the introductory discourse; Rev. Dr. Pye Smith, Homerton, proposed the usual questions, and received the confession of faith; Rev. G. Collison, Hackney, offered the ordination prayer; Rev. T. Lewis, Islington, gave the charge from Col. iv. 17.; Rev. H. F. Burder, Hackney, offered the general prayer; Rev. Dr. W. B. Collyer, preached to the congregation from Acts xx. 32.; and Rev. Dr. F. A. Cox, Hackney, closed the service with prayer.

Every part was conducted in a solemn and interesting manner, and although the service continued four hours and a half, none complained of fatigue at the dismissal, but all seemed pleased they had had the happiness of being present on so interesting an occasion, which will not soon be forgotten in the parish of Hackney.

On Tuesday, August 20, 1826, the Rev. T. James, late of the North Wales Academy, was set apart to the pastoral office, over the Independent Church at Minsterly, Shropshire; Rev. J. Peregrine, Domgay, introduced the service by reading and prayer; Rev. S. Bowen, Classical Tutor of the above Academy, delivered the introductory discourse; Rev. J. J. Beynon, of Dorington, asked the questions; Rev. G. Ryan, of Welshpool, offered the ordination prayer; Rev. E. Davies, the Theological Tutor, delivered the charge; Rev. T. Weaver of Shrewsbury, preached to the people, and Rev. Mr. Lakelin (Baptist), concluded by prayer; Rev. D. Lewis, of Newport, preached in the evening; Rev. Messrs. Bebb and Rees engaged in the devotional parts of the services,

CHAPEL OPENED.

A CHAPEL was opened at Bognor, Sussex, on the 31st of August, 1828. The Rev. J. Griffin, of Portsea, preached in the morning, and Rev. J. Turnbull, A. B., of Brighton, in the evening. Rev. Messrs. Bannister, Goulty, Edwards, Davies, Stamper, and Drury, conducted the devotional parts of the service.

This chapel has been erected under the patronage of the members of the Sussex Congregational Society. It was formerly in connexion with the Hampshire Association, and was then situated at Birstead, a village about a mile distant. This spot being unfavourable for the attendance of the inhabitants of Bognor, it was proposed to remove the chapel into the town. The Rev. Matthew Wilks, of London, having an eligible piece of land in the place, conveyed it over to trustees, and on this spot the chapel now stands. It will contain about two hundred persons, and since the opening, has been always well attended and often filled. At present it is supplied by neighbouring and other ministers, under the direction of the Committee of the Congregational Society. The expense of the rebuilding, together with a school-room attached, will be about 3001.

It is hoped that the friends of religion who may visit the Sussex coast, will now feel a stronger inducement to make an occasional residence in this pleasant and rural watering-place, with a view to countenance this effort to extend the cause of Christ. Their contributions towards the rebuilding of this chapel, will be thankfully received by the Rev. J. Edwards, Hanover Chapel, Brighton, or the Rey, Matthew Wilks, Tabernacle, London.