lies not in the want of natural power, but in the absence of moral disposition. Your plea of inability, then, my dear friend, will finally fail you in the day of judgment; and, in fact, you will never set it up in that day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, for you will then, if not before, discover its fallacy. Yea, even now, when stripped of its concealing clothing, you are ashamed to avow it, for what man was ever found so candid as to say, "I hate God because I love sin; I am a drunkard, and love wine, therefore I hate God's law which enjoins temperance; I am a covetous man, therefore I hate God's law which enjoins liberality; I am a malignaut and revengeful man, therefore I hate God's law which enjoins forgiveness of injuries." Any man, and every man, would be ashamed to set up such pleas, for they would at once perceive that such pleas of inability constituted the very core of their criminality.

I have only further to say, that all your arguments drawn from your inability, are founded on a mighty mistake in regard to its nature. It is not a natural, but a moral inability; a distinction which you seem to misunderstand, and therefore confound things which differ. Natural inability is something beyond our physical power to perform, however willing; moral inability is something we can do if we pleased. Moral inability may be either our highest virtue, or our lowest vice. God himself, with reverence be it spoken, is as much, yea much more, the subject of moral inability than man; but God's moral inability arises out of his peerless moral perfections; man's from his moral depravity. God's moral inability is his glory; man's is his shame. God is so essentially holy he cannot do anything evil; man is so essentially sinful he cannot do anything good. God cannot deny himself; it is impossible for God to lie. Man partakes of this divine inability in proportion as he approximates the divine image; and when he is perfectly like God, he will, like him, be powerless in doing evil. Are you aware, my friend, how far your plea of innocence, in your inability to do good, will carry you. On your principle, the more depraved any man is, the less guilty, for he is the more unable; and if so, Satan himself is the most innocent being in the universe, because he is, from his very nature, the most unable to love righteousness, or speak the truth. Under this inability, the rich are as unable to relieve distress as the poor; but are they equally innocent? The rich man had as much natural power to sell all that he had and give to the poor as had Barnabas. Pharaoh had as much natural ability to let Israel go at the first miracle, as he had at the last. An eye servant has as much natural ability to serve his master faithfully in his absence, as in his presence. A thief can refrain from stealing when he perceives he shall surely be detected. In a word, the inability you complain of, and on which you plead not guilty, is of the same kind and character as was that of Joseph's brethren, "They hated him, and could not speak peaceably to him;" or like that of Christ's brethren, "The world cannot hate you, but me it hateth, because I testify of it that their deeds are evil;" or like the inability of the unclean person, "having eyes full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin" or like "the carnal mind which is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." But do I need to stop here, and prove that in all these instances their inability was their crimiDality?

Abandon then, I beseech you, my friend, a plea so untenable-a plea in things religious before God, which you would be ashamed to avow in things

secular before men. It may blind your mind, and harden your heart in the day of your temporal prosperity, but it will utterly fail you on the bed of death, and at the day of judgment. Whatever theoretical difficulties you may find in the study of this subject, and it would be uncandid not to admit that the subject is not without its difficulties, but be assured you draw the most erroneous conclusions when you inculpate God, and exculpate yourself. At once then freely and fully acknowledge your own guilt, and humbly fall on sovereigu mercy. At once believe God when he tells you in his word of grace, that he has received full satisfaction for sin, in the obedience unto death of his beloved Son; and when he assures you, by oath and promise, that in your coming to him in the faith of this, he will not only forgive, but admit you to his favour and friendship. Never permit yourself to be entangled with the abstract and useless questions about your ability or inability, for this is a cunning wile of the devil to divert your mind to its own operation, and lead it away from the gospel itself. You never act thus in believing any human testimony, in relation to the most common affairs of life. Were a general invitation to a public entertainment given to all the inhabitants of your town, I appeal to your own feelings and experience, whether the question of your ability or inability to believe the public notification, or to make one of the party, would ever enter your mind. Would not the whole of your attention be directed to the entertainment itself, and the character of the company most likely to be present? True, indeed, if you disliked the master of the feast, the feast itself, and the whole party, you would not go, though you might be ashamed to avow the cause of your absence. Yea, in your polite note of excuse, you might feign yourself unwell, or to be from home, or to be very particularly engaged; yea, and might even signify how sorry you were in your inability to attend, and how happy you would otherwise have been in making one of the party; while all this time your own conscience would be telling you that, amid all these fair appearances, there was not one word of truth in any of these excuses, but that the true cause of your absence was your disinclination to come.

Now the scriptures represent the gospel as a public feast of fat things to all people, and to which you, among the rest, are freely invited. Do then meet the invitation in the same simple unfettered feelings with which you would meet the invitation of an honest man to a desirable entertainment, and believe the God of truth as sincere as you would your earthly friend. But if you feel any indisposition to the feast of mercy, provided by the God of love, let such a feeling operate on your mind, not in the way of self-vindication, but of self-condemnation, and be deeply humbled before God that such a feeling should be found in your heart.—I am, dear friend, yours faithfully, REDNAXELA.

Queries.

To the Editor of the Christian Advocate,

Sir, I shall feel obliged if you, or some of your correspondents, will give an illustration of 1 Cor. x. 1-2, in the pages of your Magazine.

JANE.

AN ARITHMETICAL QUERY.

How are the 50,000 pieces of silver (the value of the diviners' booksActs xix. 19) to be computed? And to what sum would that silver amount, if reduced to the standard of modern English coin? ISABELLA.

Keighley.

[The answer to our fair correspondent's query depends upon what silver coin is intended. It is not likely to have been the Jewish shekel, as such a coin would not be very likely to be current at Ephesus. And as Luke wrote his narrative so as to be understood by the Greeks, in all probability he referred to the Attic drachm, which was worth about sevenpence three farthings of our money; in which case the value of the books would be upwards of £1600. But it is now impossible to tell what coin is intended by the word apyvpiov, here translated silver.—ED.]

ON APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY.

To the Editor of the Christian Advocate,

Dear Sir,In these days of contentions, and high church pretensions on apostolical succession, and kindred subjects, it is of great importance for intelligent Christians to understand fully the extent of authority which the apostles themselves had, as well as the qualifications which they possessed to exercise that authority. With this view would you, or some of your readers, answer the following questions:

1st. When did the apostolic authority commence ?

2ud. Were they in any respect better qualified before the day of Pentecost, to exercise infallible authority over others, than those disciples of Jesus who were not of the apostolic body?

3rd. If so, in what did their superiority consist?

An early answer will much oblige, Yours very truly,

4th May, 1850.

J. M. B.

[ANSWER. To the first question we reply, that the apostolic authority commenced when Jesus appointed the twelve apostles, and gave them that authority. Mark iii. 14-15.

With regard to the second we would say, that the twelve certainly had some advantages over the other disciples, and were instructed in some things which were not communicated to all the disciples. See Matt. xx. 17-19. Peter, James, and John were particularly favoured in this respect. See Matt. xvii. 1-9.

The twelve only were present at the institution of the supper, and in Gethsemane; and consequently they only heard the discourses of Jesus, which are recorded in John xiii, xiv., xv., xvi., xvii. Surely the individuals thus distinguished, must be possessed of some qualifications for taking the lead in the affairs of Christ's kingdom, different from the rest of the disciples. Infallibility was not necessary for them during the presence of

the Master. But at his first visit to them after his resurrection, something like it was communicated to them. See John xx. 22. And during the forty days he remained with them, he instructed them in all pertaining to the kingdom of God. Acts i. 3. These considerations, in our opinion, quite settles their authority and qualifications, and sufficiently proves the divine authority for their subsequent proceedings until the day of Pentecost.

The third question is involved in the preceding, and requires no separate answer. If the twelve had more full and ample instructions imparted to them than the other disciples, and had the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven explained to them in private, which explanations were not made in public, not even to the other disciples; and if a special authority was given to them by the Saviour, all of which we have proved; this will at once show in what their superiority consisted.—ED.]

ON THE DECEITFULNESS OF THE HUMAN HEART.

BY A GLASITE ELDER.

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it."

Jer. xvii. 9.

THE time in which this prophet prophesied, the church of Israel was greatly sunk in idolatry, insomuch that he says the number of their gods was like the number of their cities; and this is what pained him sore, therefore he reproved them for it, consequently in his Lamentations (ch. ii. 1) he said, "How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, and remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger." This brings to our remembrance the "Man of Sorrows," when revealing the destruction of Jerusalem, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" Matt. xxiii. 37.

Many of this prophet's words are written with a sore, or with the lamentations of a broken heart. It is in the church of the only living and true God that the deceit of the heart of man can appear in its true colours; of this we have many striking instances in the word of God. But however men may turn out in their continuing to hold the good confession, that in no way alters the saving purpose of God, for "the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." 2 Tim. ii. 19. The human heart is that subject with which we are most familiar, yet of which we are most ignorant, although accustomed to its operations on almost every occasion. Yet God only knows it.

It was early testified that the heart of man, or the thoughts and imaginations of his heart were evil continually (Gen. vi. 5) and we have no reason to suppose that it is a whit better at this day, for "as in water face answereth to face, so the heart of man to man." Prov. xxvii. 19. The deceit that lodges in the heart of man is of a very complicated nature, and varies so much, that it is not possible to trace it in all its many windings. We may,

however, point out a few of the plainest evidences of the deceit of the heart of man that the scriptures afford.

The first is ignorance of our own character; we can judge with much difficulty in anything relating to ourselves, to what we do in others;-we have for ourselves cast a veil over our own judgment. We are often furnished with instances of this in common life or society, and we have some very remarkable examples of this in the word of God. In the case of David, such was his ignorance of his own character, that he did not perceive the application of the parable, until Nathan said "Thou art the man!" The deceit of our hearts keeps us strangers to our own character, and makes us ready to think we are in friendship with God while we are enemies in our own minds by wicked works.

Further, the deceitfulness of the heart appears in our disposition to justify our own conduct; this we inherit from our first parents, Gen. iii. 12. We are extremely partial to our own conduct, and view it in a different light from what we do in others; the improprieties of others strike us at once; but in our own case our actions are seen through a deceitful medium, (or veil.) Upon all occasions we are very ready to justify our own conduct, and by the favourable view we take of ourselves, the deceitfulness of the heart appears, which is inconsistent with the spirit of the gospel-which should humble man in his own eyes-hence says Paul of himself as a saint, "the least of all;" as a sinner, "the greatest." The deceitfulness of our hearts often appear in our unwillingness to acknowledge our faults when we trespass against our brethren; we cannot bear to be accountable to others, and we are very ready to throw the blame on others sooner than ourselves; we must first deceive ourselves before we can impose on others. The apostle James says, "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass." James i. 22-23. We have a remarkable instance of this in the life of Balaam. He spoke many grand things, but he loved the wages of unrighteousness; and however much regard he professed for these things, covetousness was his ruling passion.

The head of the church sets before us a striking proof how deceitful above all things and desperately wicked the heart of man is; and he alone knoweth it, and to what length men may go under the mask, who receive not the truth in the love thereof. In the case of Judas, we see the deceit of the heart of man strikingly set before us; yet, with all his prudence, he at times spake out what he usually concealed-in his wishing his covetousness to appear to short-sighted men a deed of mercy, but the Lord knew it. (John xii. 4-9. And how often has, and still are, the matters of religion made an engine to attain the objects of people's ambition. Therefore, says Peter, "And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you; whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." 2 Pet. ii. 2-3.

We have a most striking example of this in the conduct of Jehu, (2 Kings x. 12-18) in the shedding the blood of Jezreel, to serve the purpose of ambition, while he said to Jehonadab, "Come see my zeal for the Lord."

The great evil that corrupts the heart, and from which every defilement proceeds, is unbelief; and the only purifier of the heart taken notice of in