To -_rns Euro: or llisusifs Gus-rrs.

I had just commenced to writs a reply to another oi‘ the queries proposed bv " lnquIrcI'." which in consideration of the demands on your space, from the business oi the country. had dehtyed doing, when your paper containpig it second comnnunieiitiuii over the same ungua- ture, in reply, ostensibly to my first-, wins put into my bands; which oliligcs me in the mean- tiino to desist from my original purpose and turn my attention to it.

His vanity appears to hive been wounded by my prefatory remarks; but l..eyoInd_wbut the truth and a sense of‘ self-in spec: requir --I _me to say. I ll:|(I no desire to give olf..-nice. I did not indeed conside- liinu a “ re-p:ct.-ihlo antago- nist," nor one by wlii s‘: ailroeacy tine intureslfl ofaiiy cause. be it go id or had, was likely to be promoted. It was easy to detect under the gin-b of an inquir.-i-. the ionfid:ugc-iintrovvrsi- alist, whose eagerness to enigign in the aflrztyi cannot I).) better 8X[ll',’!l:|0(I than in tint) words of one of he di.~:pnntzn.nts with July : “II {OW answer also my parl, I also will S/l"lD mine apmwn. For Iamfull 41/‘ III ill:-r; [Inn spirit in.-illiin in: min- slrainrl/n me Behold my l»-I/y in or wine which hath no 1'63]! ; it is r.a./y Io /nursl like min bottles, I mil: spnal; (In it I mzy lw: I'I_/II‘: slicil I win’! oprn my lip; um! :m_¢ip.,r_" "ifs, with tho \‘llgllellt.‘rT:l and inilcliiiitonci-s, of the questioih, |ll‘0[MF\‘1l for solutioni iinid the di.‘l'i~.:uln._v of pore-.-ivinng the object for which they were put. (and innlcctl I did not unilerst-in-l ill"Il‘. until alto.-r the second ooninniiuiiication) bespoke a coiiipouuil of igno- rance, conntideineo and i-om-cit, that -li-serves to be met with silent n~on‘ennpt, and but for the cireiiinstmees stated in iniy pip--,r would have

80ll_ The iinpr--ssion proilinci,-d by his first.

is c mfir:iieil and deepeiicnl by his second apear-

uncn.-.

It. will he observed that he accuses mo of a want oi manly .~traig-Int-/iirirarl/irss. and on two groniiids; lst. Ihuirn ri'pli1'd In one i/u-'ry only; 2:1. am to Ilial in a p"':ulnar way. Now, as to tlne first, I ask, liil l profess to have done more? “'nn.iI not nny answer in reply to the first. long; enough for .i. iiew.-ipiiper ceminunicationl blight he not. before preferring such an niceusa tion, on such it ground. have waited a little to see. whether! would meet the ohjcctiins that I connjecturnztl to be iiivolved in the reinniiudcr as inn t no first! And as to the sr.-imunl. the charge can apply in one way only, and it very pmiliar way iadceil—Ihu: the meaning, [attach to the terms of the .\brah.iiiiic covenant, is v:ry did’.-rent from his. a ni other way can it s ply. ldil not take for ;:r.tvnteil the meaning 0? the terms as given by nine; in endeavouring to prove it, I «lil not resort to any quibl-ling or artifice, neither did I seek to evade any cinn- clusiou should cnino to, by a strictly logical

roce.-iii. The intcrpretatioh given is not peca- iiir. I am not aware that l difl'sr from the opinions entertained on the subject by the varioiis dIVI..nIUl|3 of tlno l’rotestaint Church ; at least, ifso, let any Clcrgymau, Episcopalian, Baptist, Methodist or Prssbytm-ian,who has received an Aeitdouiical education, and there- fore is supposed to understand the views held by lnis own denomination signify his dissent from my interpretation ; if he does, that there may be no mistake, I repeat tlne pro osition em- bracing my view. Iendiavorerl to 1 cmonstrate "under the promise of the load of Canaan than was conveyed lo Abraham and to his seer! a two fold boon, one to be realized in the natural, and the other in the resurreclian slat-:—a nmnglcrl anil temporary good bi-fm-¢-, an a cam lele and rrmancul one after, the raililulion of all things hy the ItIcs.iiah." Amcn other reasons adduee in proof, Iremarkcd. that we had it divine warrant for asserting. that Abraham himself understood the roiuisc to relate principally to Heaven, whic.i understanding was sanctioned by God, since the Pnitrinrch‘s belief is recorded amon the triunnphs of faith, and that it was declsred very plainly by implication, both by the Apos- tle Paul, and the ord Jesus Christ, that the promise did involve the resurrection from the dead. Imi ht have referred to authorities ; so fnir as it is in my power to consult commenta- tors, their voice is in my favour ; but [have not chosen to rely on their opinions, much less cal- led on the public to rest their belief on my assertion. I have argued the matter on scrip- tursl grounds. This has been my we ;now look to my opponent's way. he denies t to cor- rectness of my interpretation, but makes no attempt to prove that it is incorrect, and what is more strsngs olsrs no evidence in favour of

the sense he sttsoliss to the words thst he is

ri ht sad I cut wrong, he calls on the world to icvcculiisc'pssda'au“uus oration" , than u no

he es s “sbsnu the earthly about it." What ideas he may attach

pguaa-u‘ ' d I or ‘ murd- :m I kIOWylIe0,h.wI‘£IC.I'do’:I):,'if t'b.s.‘wcrld will not concur with ms in thInhiII‘,.hiII.C he is the most peculiar y son in his way that Lg. g psarsd for some time. The s sad the Phsrbscs loved, we are told, to be greeted with the title of Rabbi, and aspired to the hi host honours and pisccs of diga t . but with air their mpccity. they never ventured. not- 'm,..,, “,3 31.9];-gdgogtion, the host their age could give, to “ hm

. ilASZAltD'S

believe. To this high and giddy eminence how- ever “linquii-er" Innis attainneil 7 'l'ho designation he has eliose:i for lniiin.~iell' is singular] incon- sistent with his positiznn; why shoul he not assume tlne hoiioiirs and take the title which b-.-longs to the uiani who is wiser in his own can- ceil I/nun scvcri mm he can 1'L'IllfI‘7’ a rivison. llispos.-d as l am under ull ortlinniry circum- gt-|,un'n-E, to follow tlnc rule oln-rrvi.-d l_ny.wise in inn such in-..-e.n, and to respn.-i-t the privileges which belongs to persons of liisordermfruylng what they pli.-use without (.'Untl'llill(.'lll)il9 V-ll" reasons aircinly ailvertcd to ll(‘t3€l'5.“lilliC8. in. de- parture from it, and to prevent the dispute rom becoming unprolitiible. I must recall his attention to the starting point; the lir_-=t question to lie determined is, ivhatis there in the Abrahamic covenant which makes it a nie.-essity that the Jews shrill as it nation reoc- cupy the Land of Canaan. This question I have answered brielly—too briefly indeed to‘do fulljustiee to inyself or to tlno urgunnncnt. 'llic fact stated in the proposition I did establish thougi “ Inquirer" says no, and il'it he at fact that the earl/n/y Canaan. was neither designed our understood to be the ullimolc and proprr i'riln"rilnince, but merely a ly of it, uind if the oci-iipatioii of the earthly Canaan by the natu- ral seed be it type and no more than in. type oi this occupation by a rcilecmenl church. then it may easily be seen by an intelligent public even if nothing had hucii said about it, that the t_vpic;tl relation of the natural seed to the Land inl'Uanii:in does not of ilsrlf require or properly admit even of a restoration to it. There may be rs-auonis connected with the future piirpows of God which re piirc this restoration of the Jews as apeoplo to their ancient territory. which reasons in so far as they ar cdiscloscd iii prophei:_v,wo shall by and by examine; at present we contend that there is notliiing in their origi- nal connection with the land tlnatdocs. Tine typicil relation lnas ceased like all the other types to exist for the last 1800 years. What reason can be alleged for the revival of this one type tlnat cannot be brought to rovc the resto- ration ol' all the rest. There is just as much ground to expect at it future (lay from their

2 G

.3. as this branch of the argument is concsi-nod,

l‘pl('ltl cliaracter the revival of sacrifice, the l'\.'i)llll1ll|I*.{ of the temple, the resurrection of the vitical Priesthood. and the services generally which were ordained by the law of Moses as there is for the restoration of the

cws on the ground of their cnco typical rela- tion to the l.ind, or original connection with it arising out of the Abrahamic covenant. I am aware iiideed that there are those who expect the rebuilding of the temple for its former pur- uses, and it is certain that “Innquirer" is of

the number. else he employs language without llIL“i|[|ll‘lg. at if any one will peruse the New

'l‘o.~t.niiient, the epistle to the Galatians in lvarnicular. or even the statement of our Lord, that the "hour romcrh when ntilhlr in Jrrusalcm nor in this inniuiilain shall mm worship the I"ul/ier," he will perceive that such ex ctation is vaini. A type runlaiuul wi!/iin ilulf, a pledge of its own dissolution, on standing promise of something infinitely better in its plan. That which Canaan as a typical inheritance prouiised was Heaven, the inheritance which is “ incorruplible, uiidrfile and “ that (not as the shadow had just done) "fadrth not away"

The law as we are told was it slnudow of good thiiigsto crime, and what is true of the whole lllhlsh be true of all its parts. While the law stood the good linings were to comc——_/‘azure. When tlnosc good things did coiue, the shadows rlisapiaral. \v iien the iuliiess of the time arrived old things poised away, and a new order of things come in sighl. the decisive moment of, change was that when the Lor bowed his head and gave up tlnc ghost. As he exclaiiiiod -~ It isjiniix/ted ” -‘ the cu.’ nflli-. lcmple was real." The sanctuary transferred to Ilcaven,Jerusalern ceased to be the city of the Great King. Canaan His land, and the Jews as such Ilis subjects, their typical character and their lypiuil relation or original connection with land was dissolve ; and against the recurrence to such a state of things, the words it isjinislned, oppose an unsur- mountablc barrier. When C ll’i:ii died all that was llesh in the Mosaic dispensation died too. In effect were uttered the words, which the fore- runner was destined to cry, as he announced

All that was csrnal, all the heggarly elements of this world-—thc world as it stood before Christ should finds away. but the eternal truths shrouded in those ccrnslities should continue, The remiss msdc to Abraham should be sure to the seed through the envelope in which it was contained shcul be liung to the winds or troddcn in the dust.

Such is the argument from the Abrshsmic covenant on the original connection with the

lid of Cancun, the typical relation of the people with the land contained within itsclfs a of in dissolution never to he muioed do not say, it required that the land should not be inhabited by the people after such dissolu- tion and events have ved it did not forbid their dlspossession. or ought I can see so in

the Jews might lisvs continued to sho-

' GAZl£' ‘TE, MAY 10.

France possess France, provided they lnnd con l'oriined to the new order of things, embraced Christianity nind turned their Temple into a Christian Chapel. lint when they refused to receive Christ or consent to the peaceful abro- gation of the Mosaic services, lnliinito Wisdom jnidged it proper. among other reasons, for this to remove in stumbling block from the Christian Church, to cause them to be abolished by force which involved the dispersion of the owe to the four winds of heaven; and now being as they are, nothing can be inferred from the Ahraliamic covenant as to the intentions of God with respect to tlnenn. \\'e cannot certainly infer from it, that they will or will not be restored in whole or in part. ltlcaves us to- tally in the dark except on one poinit. It for- bids the idea, that they shall he rn.-stoi-ed wholly or partially to the canine state they were lncfore tlic some typical relation to it. Whether God has given grounds to bcli've they will be restored in whole or in part to dwell in the land, as we inhabit I’. 1'} Island; we shall see when we come to the prophecies. But I have not forgotten that “ Inquirer" disputed the symbolic character of the word C.-iniaan in the coveinant on its reference to lleaveii. Let him show it has no such rol'crciice. Lot him slionv. that the ri-asuins I gave in my last have no force. Wlieii he has nlennnolislicd my re:isoniin;_: inn respect, to this lot lIlll|X1ll.'\'\\'L'l' t'ie followini;; obj -rtions to his view: let. How is the veracity of God then to he di.-feuilcd. . llow c:i'ii that ho inn cw-rlastinig posses- sion to individuals, who at best can line but a moment inn it and must exist tlnroiiglnnnnit eter- nal durati-nu apart {ruin it! 3d. llinw canine the seal of the covi:nn.int to be ilinaeontiiiueil after the Mcssialn and at the date ofdispcrsioii l What token or seal have the .lews (on his prin- ciples) exn.-lusivcly the seed to which tliey can refer as iin nssinrziiico of their liopi-ii? Why should God not he asliunnicd to be called their God, when he had provided nothing better for thonii than a place on eiirtl-, in which to dwell for a few days and tlnosofull of trill

Ile asks (Qnier 2) with great coinlid--nee, if the promise has been fullillcd anid he tells us in his 2d paper, it has ncver|liei-n; from which he infers It will be. No such iiii'ei'eun~n-, mu be drawn but if he is ri-_v_ht inn his llt.‘lllIlll'.'Il (a plain ilcclaralin.-i almil l/of rarllnly (‘ainaani) one of two things must lollow. ist. Uod lia\'in;: pro- miscd tlno land. the whole hind, and nothing less, and conliriuod the same by oath, to Abra- hannn and hie seed in the line of Isaac. has not rcdceiiii-d llis pronnii.-no (us he says lniiiniii-lflie did in tho easeinf Ahriilinm, Genesis 35, though “ Inquirer” says, he did not nor yet to his seed to this day.) then it is not true that the seed (lo all qfwhmn the promise is sure) are out of the land, and it is a libel on God to say they need in bercslnrcrl; ifncithcr, thon ‘-Inquii'cr"is utterly ignorant of the matter.

l_€:

PASTOR.

(From the Church ll'ilnc.vs.)

Sir,—Alter a careful perusal of a letter pub- lished in a local pa or in answer to my last, b

he Rector of St. i:aul's, l nun still in some oubt as to my interpretation ofit.

Alliiding to the Bishop and the Bible Soci- ety, he s:iya—'l‘hc Bishop never objected to any clergyman taking part in it; but tlno position in which is Rector, in his own parish, may be placed, is what seemed to the Bishop inadmis- sible; und further, that he (the llcctor) had heretof-.ro waived tlnc consideration due to his ollice as Rector of the Established Church ; but as the Bishop viewed his presence under such ‘circumstances in a different light, and as his his objections scciued to liiui to eiiibraco ii

oiut ofChiirch discipline, he yielnln.-d, .‘tc., and yet after this, he tells us that though it unis tho Bishop's prescribed conirsc of action which vir- tually kept him from the platform at the Bible meeting, it was " not at all clear to him that the Bishop intended it should do so."

Now from this iind other arts of lnie letter. I seem only to gather II can rmati-"in of what before believed, viz.: that the Bishop docs object to the attendance of liectors (and, i suppose I may say, the clergy generally) at any public meetings of the Bible and like societies, sided over by laymen, unless what Inc conceives their right to conduct the devotions of that meeting above and before all ministers of other denominations, be scknowl fid sud allowed.

it would be well, if the ishop or Rector would explain on whst ground a claim so novel and preposterous is founded; snd what can-

'1 O I

Church in his parish, which is not to every other minister of the pc then and there present. Ofwlist rcsl vs no is the Bish- op's declaration, thst he has never objected to any clergyman taking part in the Bible Society, or the Rest0r's assertion, that his lordship does not expect the clergy to so rate from it. when their attendance is s sckl with a condition so offensive to other ministers and their people, end which the Bishop must know can never nsubinittcd to b them? Does he not thus vir- tually nullify is declared non-objection!

Am I not, therefore, justilod in saying. that the Bishop docs, practically It lssst, hiudcr. if not dsnouncc, those who would nicks their

y due

nsidoratian is due to s Rector of the Established.

of unity and fellowship can there be? the very first element of such fellowship roqniii-in

iiiutual rceogiiitioii ofcoiumoni lirotlnerlnuod, as servants oftliut Muster who rnutioiis them cs- ecially against this assumption oI' superiority, and who only recognizes the grtatncss of those who are pro-cmini-nit iii liuuiiliiy; it grace as foreign to this iirsuiiiption, us ins enforceuncnt would, I feel sure, be repiignaiit to many both oftlie clergy and luity of tlne Clnurch of Eu-

0': _ 2

l was not aware, that, in pleading the right of a elcrgyiinani to use his owni judgment in tlniiigs iindillerent. I was setting aside the force ' -dination vows, or that they required, as set forth by the llcetor, tlno absolute surrender of all right of judgment to the will of the Bishop, tzcqzl in the extreme case of that being contrary to he conniiinnds of God. If this indeed be the case (and it is a subject for grave consideration,) the apostolic injunction quoted by the llector, " Let every man be tully per- suaded in his own mind,” seems it more murk- ery, for of what avail will it be. to form is con- viction which he may never be permitted to carry out.

it will he unniccessziry for me to comment at any leiigth on the reiiiarks us to what took plucl) at the late lliblo iiicetinig, as they are ir- releviinit to the siil-jeet ol' my letter. and as the only speech in which allusion was inado to "High Uliureln" will shortly hr published. I shall tliercl‘orc content iiiyn-ell‘ in asserting my belief that wlncn read, the senitiiiients expressed llln:l‘clil, so far from conliriining the grave charge of“ heiiig iinjurioins to the true interests of tho liihlc tirieieny, and lniglily iiinelnn-istiziii"—hold- ing them up to public Culllntllllll, and perhaps liatred. Iiccauso they nlo not give their live shil- liiigs or their pound where we giiin ours,”- will. on the i-.onitn-.nr_v, find ii hearty response in the bi-can-t ofyour readers. and be strictly con- sistent with the high and un.-ullied Christian t:llul‘aL‘iI‘|‘ so iiiiiversally accorded to tho speak- er by all classes in this community.

Vici. \N'l‘l-ZR .

E. E

BTIIMUDA, Ai-iiii. 3.—Y¢-llnis Fen-er on board H. Jll. S. ./1r_;:iis--Death qflnco of her U[/i'c:rs.—ll. M. steamer Argus, coiiinnun- di-r l’ui-vis, llI‘l‘iV('(i on Sunday last from Jlllrllllcll, llavanian. \\"c are pinined to li-zirii, that the Argus lliill Bt,*Vt'l‘ill cases of ycllow fever on board, iind that some seven or ciglit have tcrniiiiiutcil fatally. Among the deaths are Lieut. \\’nn. 1*‘ Guliock,

2: second lie-.itcnn:iiit oftlie Angus, and Assis-

tant Surgeon Daily, loaned Ii-onii the Basel- wcn to the Argus. The bodies of Dr. Daily and two ot the seamen were removed ii-oiii the Argus yesterday mid buried at Poi-ts Island.

We understand that the Argus was sent to Bcrnniiida by Admiral Fansliinnve us soon as the fever nnuilc its appearance on board that vessel, and Captain Seymour ofH. M. S. I’cinbroltc, the senior niiviil oliiccr hero ordered her to Port.-n island, to be thorough- ly cleaned and fuinignted. The Argus ur- i-ived at Halifax on Monday last.

Cin.viiiu.—'I‘ho Cnnndn Gazelle announ- ces llic appointment of lien. Etienne Pus- clncl 'l'asclic to lie Speaker of the Legisla- tive Council ofthc I’rovince,in room of Hon. John Ross, resigned ; and of Joseph Unir- ran Morrison, Esq., Q, C., to be a member oftlic Execiniivii Council.

A bill to incite the Legislative Council elm’-ti\'c by the people has passed the Can- udiiin House of Assembly by the over- wlnclniiing majority of8l to 12.

Fi.oui\ nan lNiinr.—A lute letter from

I Paris says :—“ The number of barrels of

American floor at this moment in store in I-iavrc is ‘250,000 ; of wheat 251.082 hecto- litre (a hcctolitrc is about ‘.25-6 Winchester Bushcls). ' ‘o these figures add the quan- tities known to be on sea destined for the port of Havre. viz :— , bsrrcls of flour and 02,000 hectolitres of wheat, and tlnc sum totsi will be 314, barrels of flour and 313,000 inectoiitres of wheat.”

Information has been received by the Jrabis, thst five regiments of the Line and two batteries of Artillery are to Us immedi- ately dcspstched from the Crimes to British North America. Two regiments, the 62nd and 63rd, will come to Hslifsx, sud with the 76th, which will remain here for the present, will be under the command oi'Msjor Geuersl Sir Gsspsrd Ls Msrchsnt.—.N'ovo Scaliatt.

The ./ilcs-anvlria Sentinel announces the death of Mr. George Wise of that city st sn sdvsnccd sgc. He was the lust survi- vor of tits psll-bcsrsrs who oliicictcd at the

‘prayers for uni s reality! If this intolerant

" never asserted the tiun 5;. 3 this people what they s uld

loud, in the suns sense as the inhabitants of.

condition be e the rule, whet msuifsststicu

funcrsl cl'Gsn. Wsshingtcn.