such pretenders, that their fancies are various and discordant: they maintain tenets contradictory to each other, and instead of "speaking the same thing," which they would do if they were informed by the same Spirit, they agree in no thing but in requiring their hearers to discard the use of their reason; a demand, which evinces their own sagacity, while it exhibits the weakness of their followers. There is another class of persons, who are not behind the Catholics in boldness of affirmation, but who refuse to have their dogmas examined by reason, because they pretend to urge the holy Scriptures, as a controlling authority for all they assert. These men, under the colour of biblical authority, claim a right of imposing their own interpretations: but your reason must not judge whether their commentary be right or wrong-for if you examine their exposition, you call in reason as an umpire in matters of faith. This assumption of authority over the sense and understanding of mankind is not to be endured: it resembles the conduct of a partial magistrate, who, interpreting the laws of his country according to his own fancy, identifies himself with the legislator, and becomes the maker of the law, rather than its expounder. The authority of the legislator is indeed binding in every law; and if the sovereign authority should command us, where the letter of the law is not clear and explicit, to acquiese in the interpretation of a judge, we are equally obliged to obedience. But where no such specific commission is given, a man is no more bound by the commentary of the judge in matters of law, than in matters of philosophy: his own reason, assisted by due information, must determine him to ac quiesce in the decision, or to reject it. According to the pretensions of these expositors, no man must presume to be wiser than them selves; nor will they allow any one to be a true Christian who does not renounce his own reason to follow theirs. If such persons would allow themselves to discriminate between these two propositions; these are the words of a Divine revelation; and this is the purport and meaning of the Holy Spirit in the terms employed to convey that revelation; they would cease to idolize the creatures of their own fancy they would learn that con fidence and self-complacency, ar rogance and intolerance, are no less at variance with the spirit of Chris tianity, than repugnant to the mo desty and diffidence of true wis dom. Nothing would, however, be more inconsiderate and inequitable, than to confound what is asserted of faith, as the assent. of the mind, with that Christian faith which is of the nature of a habit infused into the soul by the Spirit of God, and which is the grand principle and spring of gracious tempers and holy actions. In this sense, the term faith implies not merely an act, but a habit, or constitution of the mind, produced by a supernatural and Divine agency. To maintain that there subsists no ne cessary connexion between faith and holiness, is as wise and learned as to discourse of a thinking sub stance which may never exercise a single act of intelligence. If by the assumption, "that whatever is an object of faith cannot be an ob ject of reason," Stephen Pascal only meant to declare, that natural reason could not have discovered the mysteries of the Gospel; that it is incapable of explaining what the Divine Wisdom has not fully revealed; nor competent to pene. trate into the motives and grounds of the conduct of God in the go vernment of the world, and of his church, the sentiment is less to be complained of than the obscure brevity with which it is announced. It may be confidently asserted, that no man can give a satisfactory ac count, by his own unaided natural powers, of the origin and constitution of his own nature; of his state and condition in this world, and of the various phænomena connected with human existence. And if all the efforts of natural reason cannot surmount the difficulties which are involved in the mysteries of creation and providence, it can afford no objection against the mysteries of revelation, that they are proposed to our faith as things to be believed, and not to our capacity of investigation as matters to be comprehended. Why should it be supposed, that objections founded on the difficulties of comprehend, ing the state of man as a fallen creature, and the interposition of the Messiah between God and sin ners, are of great weight, sufficient indeed to justify a rejection of the doctrines; since our ignorance of the real nature and manner of these things does not at all diminish our knowledge of the truth and certain ty of them, any more than the incomprehensibility of the Divine nature lessens our certainty of its real existence? The proposing of mysteries to our faith is not with a design of gratifying our curiosity, or exercising our faculties of ratio cination, and enabling us fully to conceive all that is contained in the nature and the manner of the mystery; but rather to convey such a measure of knowledge as shall excite religious affections, and fur nish motives for purity, devotion, love and gratitude, to God and our Saviour. In human sciences, there are certain elementary principles offered to our assent, which we are required to receive without proof or examination; and if some of these are self-evident to a correct mind, yet many of great importance and utility are mere assumptions, Theology, therefore, is not the only science which demands a sub, mission of the understanding to what can neither be irrefragably demonstrated nor adequately con, ceived. Hence it is neither just nor reasonable to require, that the Gospel shall contain nothing, but what is commensurate with the operations of human understanding. Indeed, what can be more visionary and absurd than to conceive our dark and scanty reason to be the rule and measure whereby we are to judge of what God ought to reveal to us, and so to neglect, fritter away, and reject, that which does not accord with our notions of the nature of things; as if the nature of things, as cognizable by us, furnished us with competent notions of the manner in which God knows them: nay, to presume that it would be even arbitrary and unreasonable if he should require any thing of us which our reason cannot shew to be proper and necessary! The purpose and intent of the sacred volume, however, are of a much higher order, than to provide matter for curious inquiry and subtile disquisition. Its contents bear principally upon moral and practical uses; and far from alluring us into impertinent, presump tuous, or unprofitable speculations, it invites us to be partakers of a divine nature-to live in the exercise of loving-kindness and charity→ to the attainment of peace, serenity, and solid satisfaction, and to the final possession of heavenly glory and blessedness. It belongs not to true philosophy, nor is it a part of practical wisdom, to incite their disciples to investigations which are too arduous for the limited powers of man, or which from their nature are too high and inaccessible. No time is more unprofitably employ. ed, than that which is sacrificed to the study of such things as we have no real interest in considering, and which we are endowed with no faculties to comprehend. An un governed curiosity implies a state of mind as dissonant from the spirit of the Gospel, as unbridled appe tites and clamorous passions; and until we learn to retain ourselves within the bounds of modesty and respect; until we thankfully re ceive the light imparted to us, and Although M. Pascal strongly in sisted upon due submission to the revealed will of God, yet he did not consider polemical studies as being inconsistent with his principles. He surveyed the controversies that have agitated the Christian churches for many ages, and clearly saw, what every wise man must see, that most of them originated, either from indeterminate ideas, verbal inaccuracies, an excessive fondness for refinement and speculation, or from the secret agency of some immoral principle. acquiesce in the absence of that further information, which God has not thought it proper to give, we have made little proficiency in the science of self-knowledge, and perhaps still less in the Gospel of God our Saviour. Divine revelation presents to us truths to be believed, and duties to be practised. Many of the duties enforced by the Moral Law are very contrary to the corrupt inclinations of man; yet this opposition of a depraved heart cannot impair the obligations to obedience. The same sacred authority likewise requires a submission of the understanding, to propositions obscurely revealed, and only admitting of an imperfeet comprehension of them; and why should it be esteemed less compatible with Eternal Wisdom, to command human reason to believe in mysteries which surpass its powers either to discover or to explain, than to forbid the gratification of criminal desires and sinful propensities. A lofty unbending under standing may be as offensive in the eye of God, as an indulgence in sordid, gross, and infamous plea sures; and it may be as necessary for the enjoyment of heaven, that the former should be made humble and simple, as that the more gross sinner should be reclaimed and purified. The duty of believing a revealed truth is founded as clearly on moral obligation, as the duty of obeying any precept of what is called "natural religion," although the mode by which we prove these obligations may be different; and if it should be argued, that the latter admits of a scientific demonstration, yet we would contend, that faith has more intrinsic excellence than science; since, as an author of transcendent talents has expressed himself, "in knowing, the mind is acted upon by matter, but in believing by spirit; so that in the former, we credit the testis mony of the senses,-in the latter, we give honour to the word of God." About this period, there was a person at Rouen, who, in teaching the principles of philosophy, advanced many positions that were contrary to the decisions of the Romish Church. Among other things, he endeavoured to prove, that the body of Jesus was not formed of the blood of the Virgin Mary, but of a species of matter purposely created for that end. M. Pascal, in the warmth of youthful zeal, controverted this opinion, and admonished him to retract the senti ment, or he should think it his duty to lay an information against him. The philosopher was too haughty to concede to the young man, and treated his admonition with con tempt. An information was accordingly given to M. du Bellay, who at that time exercised the episcopal function at Rouen, by a commission from the Archbishop. M. du Bellay sent for the philosopher, and examined him; but by means of an equivocal confession, signed with his own hand, he eluded a retraction of his opinions. M. Pascal was too acute a reasoner to be easily imposed upon: he there fore waited upon the Archbishop of Rouen at Gaillon, to whom he explained the whole affair. The Primate, after strict inquiry, conceived the heresy to be so extremely pernicions, that he issued an express order to M. du Bellay, to oblige the philosopher to retract every particular heretical opinion of which he was accused; aud to receive no papers from him, but such as had passed through the hands of his accuser. He was consequently obliged to renounce all those erroneous sentiments: and his recantation bore strong marks of sincerity; since he never manifested any rancour against the author of his disgrace. Among the many injurious effects of Popery on the simple verities of Christianity, that of encouraging metaphysical speculations and fanciful disquisitions on almost every subject connected with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, has been equally inimical to truth and charity. The perplexing subtilties of their schoolinen and casuists have incumbered their theology with a multiplicity of futile discussions and frivolous distinctions, which tend rather to bewilder and confound the understanding, than to direct and satisfy the inquirer. Whether the philosopher was more to be blamed for his absurd speculations, or M. Pascal for rendering them important by opposition, is a question upon which mankind will decide variously. It may, however, be observed, that neither of them could derive much encouragement from the Scriptures. The sacred writings, with a dignity peculiar to themselves, remain silent upon all these subjects, where information would serve merely to foster vanity, or to gratify a restless and unprofitable curiosity. (To be continued.) To the Editor of the Christian Observer, As my opinion respecting the termination of the 1260 years, and the consequent near approach of the redemption of the Church, Luke xxi. 28, remains unchanged, I beg leave to submit to you the following remarks upon Mr. Faber's paper on this subject, in your Number for May. Mr. Faber thinks that his scheme possesses the advantage of making the 1260 years commence and ter minate at distinctly marked apocalyptic periods; and that my system has not the merit of similar definiteness and perspicuity of arrangement. He conceives that the 1260 years commence at the sounding of the fifth trumpet, and end at the effusion of the seventh vial; which he believes to be an apocalyptic period, distinct from the sounding of the seventh trumpet. I answer, first, that it is no where said in the Apocalypse itself, that the 1260 years commence at the sounding of the fifth trumpet. Mr. Faber's position, that they do then begin, is therefore gratuitous.-But, secondly, granting to Mr. Faber his premises, it does not follow that he is right in placing the sounding of the fifth trumpet in the year 606; I believe he is wrong in so fixing it. Mr. Faber, in the fifth edition of his work, on the 1260 years, has abandoned his former exposition of the fallen star who opens the bottomless pit on the sounding of the fifth trumpet, and has adopted my interpretation of that symbol, viz. that it denotes the Apostate Bishop of Rome. Now I believe the fall of the star from heaven to earth, or, in other words, the apostasy of the Bishop of Rome, and the opening of the bottomless pit, and consequently the sounding of the fifth trumpet, to have all taken place at a much earlier time than the year 606. I conceive also, that Mr. Faber is wrong, in supposing that the effusion of the seventh vial marks au that of the seventh trumpet. I apocalyptic period distinct from have endeavoured to prove that the whole seven vials are synchronical. Mr. Faber asserts, in a pamphlet which he has lately published, that by this hypothesis I "unfortunately mar the arrangement" of the vials. But he has not attempted to substantiate this charge, or to answer my arguments for the interpretation which he condemns. Before I close this paper, I shall offer some reasons in defence of my theory of the vials. In the mean while, I proceed to consider Mr. Faber's argument, to shew that six of the vials must necessarily be comprehended with in the 1260 years. Now, sir, upon the most attentive consideration of Mr. Faber's reasoning to prove this point, it ap⚫ pears to me to be founded on a petitio principii. It takes for granted that the plagues of the first six vials were among the identical plagues which the two witnesses were to inflict. Or it assumes what is equivalent to this, that the plagues inflicted by the witnesses were to be the only, or at least the last, similar plagues with which the Roman waters and earth were to be wisited. If these points be denied, as they are both denied, then Mr. Faber's argument falls to the ground. It is said, in Rev. xi. 6, that the witnesses "have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and 10 smite the earth with all plagues as often as they will." But it is not revealed that no similar plagues on the waters and the earth were to he inflicted after they had finished their testimony. As there is no such declaration, it is gratuitous to affirm, that six of the vials which, to distinguish them from all former plagues, are emphatically called the last plagues, were among those included in the commission of the witnesses, or within the period of their testimony. Anargument founded on Rev. xi. 6, to prove that the first trumpet which inflicted a plague on the earth, and the second trumpet which turned the waters of the sea into blood, were both within the period of the testimony of the witnesses, would be equally conclusive as Mr. Faber's reasoning to prove the first six vials to be within that period.-Again: the plagues on the mystical Babylon are unquestionably a part of those inflicted on the earth. The treading of the wine press at Armageddon is also among the plagues with which the earth was smitten; for it is the vine of the earth which is cast into the wine-press, Rev. xiv. 19. If, there fore, Mr. Faber's argument prove any thing, it will prove even the destruction of Babylon and the day of Armageddon to be, within the 1260 years, though Mr. Faber himself places the last event at the end of the 1290 years. By proving too much, this argument therefore in fact proves nothing. I might go on to shew, that the plagues of the vials, are not among those inflicted during the period of the testimony of the witnesses, and are certainly posterior to that period; but as I humbly conceive, that the arguments I formerly offered to the public on the subject of the 1260 years are conclusive, I deem it superfluous to add any thing more. I shall now make some remarks, in support of my synchronical arrangement of the vials. I am aware that this part of my system is so far from being generally acceptable, that I perhaps have not succeeded in convincing a single person of its truth. While, however, I profess myself to be ready to abandon my opinion as soon as my arguments in support of it are either answered or confuted by the event, I must until then continue to hold it, although I should stand alone and unsupported. And if any one should feel disposed to charge me with presumption or pertinacity, I request him to suspend his judgment, until he shall have perused the following statement of the steps whereby I arrived at this conclusion ;— -- Having, above fourteen years ago, become convinced that the vials were fulfilling in the events then passing on the great theatre of Europe, I turned my attention to the study of the 16th chapter of the Apocalypse, which relates to the effusion of the vials, and it occupied my mind, at intervals, during a period of at least seven years, before it seemed to myself that I understood its contents. In considering the subject, the |