he wanted any thing, his answer was, "No, nothing, but to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better." His hope of salvation was bed, where he remained a prisoner in the bonds of affliction, until the immortal spirit obtained a happy release. At the commencement of his ill-built upon Christ, breathing out the ness he evinced symptoms of im- sentiments of his heart in the lanpatience, but, soon after, became guage of Dr. Watts. more tranquil, and resigned to the "The gospel bears my spirits up, will of God. Speaking of himself, A faithful and unchanging God, he said, "Ah what an unprofitable Lays the foundation for my hope, servant have I been! what have I In oaths, and promises, and blood." done for God! how shall I appear Adding, "The precious blood of before him! only through the blood Christ is all my hope, it cleanses and righteousness of Christ. from all sin." After awaking out of 'Jesus thy blood and righteousness, sleep, he expressed himself in the My beauty are, my glorious dress,' following animated strain, “Make adding the following lines of Dr. haste my days to reach the goal, and Watts. bring my heart to rest. "A guilty, weak, and helpless worm, At another time he said, "There remaineth a rest for the people of God"" but is it for me?" ❝"Tis a point I long to know, Sure I am his. Well, if he is mine, and I am his, what can I want beside? Come let us join our cheerful songs, &c.' I have often been delighted when giving out that hymn in the house of God, and should like to do it once more. But all is well-well in life, well in affliction, well in death, all is well." On a Lord's-day morning, he repeated the first line of that delightful hymn, "Welcome sweet day of rest," and intreated a part of his family to leave him, and go up to the house of the Lord, expressing the longing desire he felt to go also, but as if correcting himself, said, In heaven there will be but one company, and but one song," immediately repeating the following verse. "Were I in heaven without my God, "Twould be no joy to me, And while this earth is my abode, I long for none but thee." His prevailing desire throughout his affliction, was to depart and to be with Christ, frequently exclaiming, Why are his chariot wheels so long in coming?" Being asked if For ever interceding there, 'He lives, he lives, and sits above, Who shall divide us from his love? Or what shall tempt us to despair?" Nothing-All is right-nay, in all these things, we are more than conquerors." On another occasion he said, "I long to depart, I think the time long, I can resign you all up," and turning his eyes towards his minister, said, "O my dear Sir, may and bless the church, and crown your the Lord bless you, and be with you, labours with much success, and Oh that I may finish my course with joy!" At another time he said, "You must do without me, the Lord will be with you, I must commit you and the church, and my dear children, with all concerns into the hands of God:" and with an air of quickness, asked, "Where can I commit them better than into his hands?" He was reminded that Christ was his only refuge and foundation, he subjoined, "Yes, and salvation too." The day before he died, he appeared very sensible of his approaching dissolution, longing for the happy moment to arrive. And, after taking an affectionate and last farewell of his surrounding family, the church and minister, he soon became unable to articulate, and gradually sinking into the arms of death, almost imperceptibly, fell asleep in Jesus. On the following Lord's-day morning, his mortal remains were interred at Kimbolton, and the solemn event was improved in the afternoon at Staughton, by his pastor, to a very crowded and overflowing | congregation, from 2 Tim. iv. 6, 7. "I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith, henceforth there is laid up for me, a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day, and not to me only, but unto them also that love his appearing." MRS. HANNAH EVELEIGH. DIED, on Saturday, the 24th of January, 1824, MRS. HANNAH EVELEIGH, wife of the late Rev. G. Eveleigh, six years pastor of the Baptist church at Waltham Abbey, Essex. By this dispensation of providence, three small children are deprived of both their parents, whoare left in very destitute circumstances, and demand the sympathy of the religious public. Review. Review of "The Review of the P t estant Dissenters' Catechism" a new Edition by Dr. Newman, in the British Review for November, 1823. The British Reviewer, who is a "true churchman," assumes that all the christians in the kingdom are bound to be united to the established church, (or "national communion" as he calls it,) unless they can show" the clearest proof of present duty, and even of irremediable necessity," to act otherwise. We say, he assumes this; for not a single argument is brought forward in its favour. And yet, unless he can prove it, the whole of his Review amounts to little or nothing. Whether this assumption be a just one or not, is, therefore, a matter of the first importance in this controversy. But how does the case really stand? As soon as any one becomes a christian is it not his duty to consider to what church he shall unite himself? In this consideration, accompanied by prayer for the divine direction, that is to be his guide? Surely the word of God. If ten or more churches present themselves to him, ought he not to choose that which in his estimation, approaches mostnearly to that word? But he cannot do his without dissenting (or, as the Reviewer very incorrectly calls it, withdrawing") from all the rest, and yet this dissent may not arise from "irremediable necessity," since the cause of it, however unlikely it may be at present, may at some time or other be removed. We wish to know what superior claim an established, or endowed, | VOL. XVI. | church has upon us. Point out this claim in the word of God, and we will attend to it.-But, though it has no direct scriptnral claim, it may be ask ed, Is there not an implied claim contained in the duty ofobedience to the civil magistrate? We answer, No; for that extends only to civil matters, to the things which are Cæsar's.-We will go still further. If it were included in this duty, it could only be so in case of requirement. But neither the king nor the parliament endowed sect.-From the whole commands any one to belong to the then it follows, that neither the Church of England nor the Church of Scotland has any right to demand of us to show our not walking with them to be a matter of necessity at all, much less of "irremediable ne cessity." 66 The Reviewer taxes Mr. Palmer and Dr. Newman with " palpable injustice, or palpable folly," for describing "Reformers from (Reformers from!!) the Church of Rome, as Dissenters from the church of England."* this is a gross misrepresentation. The Reviewer may be assured, What they say is," there were Dissenters in England long be * This Reviewer has such an antipathy to the word "dissent," that he will rather violate the laws of grammar than allow the Reformers to have been Dissenters from the Church of Rome. from the Church of Rome, but ReThey were not, it seems, Dissenters formers from the Church of Rome. We hope, then, he will not object to our calling the Puritans Reformers from the Church of England. N by whom they were insulted, imprisoned, and put to death.-The writer of the Life of Brown in the Biographia Britannica says, "The model of the Brownists was far from being a new one; for, if we compare their principles with those of the antient Donatists, we shall find them to be the same, as the learned Dr. Fulke has proved. The Donatists were the Puritans of their age; they beld that the Roman Catholic Church was prostituted, and [that the true church] was no where to be found but among those who were To this we reply, The mere form of habits, and the defects in the liturgy, were we acknowledge, comparatively trifling matters. But what the Puri-perfect [or real Christians]; wheretans principally looked at was the imposition, the popish spirit of domina- | tion exercised by Dr. Cox, and others who imposed them. They acted upon the principle prescribed by our Lord of not submitting to human authority in matters of reli- | gion. Whether, however, they acted right or wrong is nothing to us: the word of God ought to be our guide. fore they rebaptized all that came over to them, for no other baptism. was valid. They held the validity of the sacraments to depend upon the dignity [piety] of the minister. They disowned the power of the magistrates to punish heretics, &c.". The Mennonites, also, in Holland, long before the time of Brown, were Congregationalists, or Independents, and, we have no doubt, the Lollards in England were so too. They were all descended from the Waldenses, great numbers of whom had been driven by persecution into Holland and England, and other countries. It was from a Mennonite church at Norwich that Brown probably adopted his views of church government, about the year 1580, of which church he seems to have been a member, it being said that he raised himself a character amongst them for zeal and sanctity. See Biog. Brit. Article before quoted. Vol. II. p. 985. Ed. 1748.-The Independents, however, or rather the Congregational The Reviewer next charges the Independents with being ashamed of their real father or founder. 26 Every one," he says, "knows that Robert Brown was the father of the Independents, and the founder of their churches. Why then is this title given to another? Because Jacobs and Robinson were more respectable than Brown." We reply, If the Independents are ashamed of an alliance with a bad man, is it kind and friendly in the Reviewer to fasten upon them, against their consent, because he was a bad man, a person whom they disown? Does it not breathe the very spirit of those who call the Re-ists, which term includes the Bapformation the spawn of the lust of Henry the Eighth? But can it be proved that the Brownists and Independents were, in all respects, alike? Or can it be proved that Brown was the founder even of those churches which were called Brownists? It is certain that some eminent men, who were so called, disowned the name, and disclaimed it as a nickname. It is equally certain that many of them were most excellent men, and that an alliance with them ought to be esteemed an honour rather than a disgrace. We should esteem it a greater honour than an alliance with those bishops | tists also, do not claim either the Mennonites, or the Waldenses, or the Lollards, for their founders, but the apostles, believing the primitive churches to have been congregational, and diocesan episcopacy to have been a departure from the apostolical practice. The Reviewer says, that the characters given of Charles I. and Cromwell, in the Catechism, are unfair. But nothing is said of Charles I. but what is well known to be strictly true: nor is any thing said concerning Cromwell that can be proved to be false. That "he made laws at his pleasure, exacted taxes He at his will, and, with a bare and As to the sermons, mentioned by bloody sword in his hand, terribly the Reviewer, preached by some tyrannized over these kingdoms," is flaming zealots before the Parlianot suppressed, but omitted as irre- ment, we disown and detest them. levant. In the Introduction to the But have there not been equally deNonconformists' Memorial, where a testable sermons preached before History is given of the Times, Mr. Farliament by Sibthorps, and MainPalmer condemns the tyranny of warings, and Sacheverels? Are Cromwell, and, in this very Čate- there not, even now, in the Church chism, he condemns his intolerance. of England ministers that are unIt having been said, in the Cate-friendly to toleration? ministers that chism, that the death of Charles I. is are enemies to the Bible Society? very unjustly charged on any reli- ministers that lean very much togious party as such, the Reviewer wards popery? and ministers that triumphantly asks who they were possess a revolutionary spirit? that murdered him? To which we answer, Who were they that first excited and began the war against him? Were they not almost entirely Episcopalians, or rather were they not all who disapproved of his arbitrary proceedings without regard to religious sentiments? What was Selden; what was Hampden; what were many other of the famous patriots who resisted Charles and his favourites; what was the earl of Essex the general, and what were many other of the principal commanders of the parliamentary army? Were they not Episcopalians? And, if many of those who brought the king to the block were Independents, is it any more true that, in so doing, they acted as Independents, than that the Rebels in 1715 and 1745 acted as Episcopalians? Are there not persons, among all religious denominations, who are not acknowledged by them? Is the conduct of factious and turbulent persons approved of by Dissenters more than by Churchmen? Or can either the one or the other prevent such persons from attending at their places of worship? And yet the Reviewer holds up the persons in question to our view in order to mortify us, and in order to excite the public odium against us, not considering that it is in our power to retaliate a thousand fold. We can ask, Were they Dissenting ministers, or bishops and archbishops of the Church of England, who insulted, with all the rudeness and barbarity of a Bonner and a Gardiner, and delivered over to the civil power to be put to death, men of whom the world was not worthy? The Reviewer employs great tenderness when speaking of the treatment of the nonconformist divines by the prelates at the Savoy conference. But for our part we compare it to that of Latimer and Ridley and Cranmer by the popish prelates after the accession of Queen Mary, or of the apostles by the sanhedrim after our Lord's ascension. speaks too of the trifling objections of the nonconformist ministers at that conference, with the same sang froid with which Catholics speak of the obstinacy of Ridley and Hooper and Latimer. He talks, also, of "dissenting intolerance, during the Great Rebellion," just as the Catholics talk of protestant intolerance in the time of Edward VI. The Catholics speak of Mary's persecutions as "the reaction of that vindictive spirit which was mainly excited by protestant intolerance, during the great schism." But they forget the sufferings of thousands and tens of thousands of Dissenters from the Church of Rome before that time, just as the Reviewer forgets the fines, imprisonments, and martyrdoms of thousands and tens of thousands of Dissenters from the Church of England before the time of the Republic, and talks of the sufferings of the episcopal clergy during that time as if there were nothing of a spirit of reaction in them, but only as exciting a spirit of reaction after the accession of Charles II. But, as the trifling sufferings of the Romish clergy, during the reign of Edward VI. were nothing, if compared with the sufferings of the Dissenters from the Church of Rome before that period; so the trifling sufferings of the episcopal clergy, under Cromwell, were nothing if compared with the sufferings of the Dissenters before that period: and yet, both the Catholics and the Reviewer, forget the former sufferings, as if they had never existed. There is, also, a great difference in the two cases. The sufferings of the Romish clergy, under Edward VI. are to be ascribed, not to that mild prince, but to his clergy: whereas the sufferings of the episcopal clergy are to be ascribed, not to Dissenters, but to the personal fears of Crom- | well. It was not, therefore, out of " tenderness towards Cromwell" that his conduct is ascribed to political reasons, but out of regard to truth. Whatever Cromwell was in other respects, he was not an enemy to religious liberty: if he persecuted, it was for "political reasons.' The Reviewer also forgets that Wilkins, Lightfoot, Cudworth, Wallis, Tillotson, &c. were promoted during the Commonwealth. the Further, as if determined to find fault with every thing in this Catechism, he calls in question the number of two thousand ejected ministers, because number in Calamy and Palmer falls short of 2000. But, if he had read the Preface to the Nonconformists' Memorial, he would have found that the real number was 2257. He, also, objects to the appellation Ejected, on the ground of some of them being only half ordained, and others not ordained at all. And yet he himself says, that, "IF the conditions had been made as easy as possible, and offered in the spirit of conciliation, it might have been hoped that they would be generally accepted." If, then, this spirit of conciliation had been exercised, it seems that his objection would have fallen to the ground, since the parties thus objected to would have been regularly ordained, and have been made priests as well as deacons. He calls the writers in favour of nonconformity, at that period, by the name of "agitators," and charges them with preventing conformity. Just in like manner might the Catholics call Fox, and Jewel, and Grindal "agitators," and charge them with preventing the return of heretics into the bosom of the catholic church. He particularly mentions the sufferings of " Usher and Hall." But how do those cases stand? Abp. Usher's library was indeed seized by the parliament because he took part with Charles I. against them; but it was afterwards redeemed by his friends. Also, as he was travelling in Wales, his books and papers were stolen by the mountaineers, an anomalous kind of banditti, who pretended to be on the side of the king. As to bishop Hall, he lay in the tower from January 30 till June 1642. And in 1643 the greater part of his episcopal revenue was sequestrated; yet he had enough left to enable him to distribute a weekly charity to a certain number of poor widows till his death in 1756. We meet with no other sufferings of these excellent divines and what were those to what was endured by the nonconformist ministers, who were required to give up their livings instantly. When the Reviewer says, that episcopacy may be clearly discovered in the scriptures, we answer, Undoubtedly; congregational episcopacy,but not diocesan. Acts xx. 18, compared with verse 28, and Tit. i. 5, compared with verse 8, demonstrate that presbyters and bishops were the same. And as to antiquity, Lord Chancellor King has proved that diocesan episcopacy was unknown during the first three centuries. Numberless quotations proving this might be made from the Fathers. The embarrassment on this head attributed to the excellent Doddridge is merely in the Reviewer's imagination, or is created by him for the sake of helping out his miserable cause. When the Reviewer pleads for obedience in things indifferent from Heb. xiii. 17, Obey them that have the rule over you, &c. we answer, Who rules over the church of England? is not the king the head of that church? Are the bishops any thing more than his deputies, appointed by him, like the judges? The apostle, therefore, ought, if the Reviewer is right, to have said, "Obey the supreme magistrate in |