in liberating. And know also, that in such service as God has not required of you, he has no wages to give you ;-all he owes you is the reward of disloyalty. See this, and do no religious act henceforth which you cannot yourself find required by that Gospel according to which Christ shall judge you.

No. 9.

DEAR FRIENDS, It is a trite saying and true, that all men are searching for happiness. "Who will shew us any good ?" is the universal language of the heart. Yet it must be confessed that the experience of the vast majority is percisely that of Solomon when, satiated with luxury, he cried, "Vanity of vanities; all is vanity." Most certain is it that the short-lived pleasures of the world cannot satisfy the desires of the human spirit; and not less certain is it, that if the religion of the Bible is unable to meet the wants of the soul, met they cannot be. That man, with all the means of enjoyment at his command with which the all bountiful Creator has supplied him, is not happy-that the most successful of careers in the race for riches, fame, or pleasure, leaves him still with the cry upon his lips-Give, give, give!-is not to be denied. Has he then been created with powers of enjoyment, for the gratifying of which there is no true or ample supply? Has he been created for happiness, and is there no adequate fount of gladness at which he may drink? Have the most exquisite sensibilities been given only that they may be disappointed? Is there light for the eye, and music for the ear, and yet no sufficiently satisfying joy for the heart? It cannot be. We are not left to suppose it so. For the truth is, man's dissatisfaction arises simply from the fact, that he seeks from the creature that which is to be found only in the Creator. Fellowship with the supremely happy God is the supremest blessedness of the creature. This alone is fully satisfying: this is always truly and amply satisfying. It must be so. But by sin man has lost this fellowship; his sins have separated between him and God. Of ancient Israel God complained, saying, My people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water." It is, therefore, the first object of the Gospel to bring man back to God-to convert, to turn him, and thereby to introduce him into that divine fellowship which is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. This is religion. True religion is the reunion of man with God in Christ by the Gospel. The glad tidings come shewing that sinner though man be, still God loves him-so loves him as to have given his only begotten Son to death, that through him the sinner might live and be introduced to the Father as a happy, forgiven, accepted child. Such is the position of every one who has obeyed the Gospel, and hence the words of the Psalmist, "Blessed the people who know the joyful sound; they shall walk O Lord, in the light of thy countenance; in thy name shall they rejoice all the day." But says one-Sir, the religious people I meet with are not thus happy; indeed, so much the reverse are they that it has become almost proverbial that to be religious is to be unhappy. Stay, friend-do you really suppose that to know that God loves you, that he is your Father, that he has forgiven and accepted you, that he promises you all present needful

66

good and all future possible glory—Think you this knowledge can make you unhappy? Of course not-the very reverse. But the reason why the religionists of these days are as unhappy, as dissatisfied as non-religionists, and perhaps more so, is simply this-Men nowa-days, instead of being converted to God by the Gospel of his Grace, are converted to sects by the approved rules of current sectarianism. Hence the ever-prevailing dissatisfaction of those who have just as much religion as makes them miserable. Reader, see that you are converted to God, not to a sect

Edinburgh.

T. H. M.

APOSTOLIC EXHORTATIONS.

"Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good." Rom. xii. 9. There are those who call good evil and evil good, and there are others who act as if this mis-naming of opposites were perfectly legitimate. They are so indifferent to the true and right that they pass on content to go with the stream so long as they can do so without any interference with their own easy comfortable notions. One thing with them is as good as another. As to their weighing any matter in the balances of truth, it is quite too troublesome an operation. There are men who are paid for thinking, and why should it not be left to them to think. Those whose souls are stirred to the depths at prevailing error and iniquity, who accordingly lift up their voice like a trumpet, who cry aloud and spare not, are esteemed enthusiasts, fanatics, disturbers of the peace, troublers of Israel.

Now with this injunction "abhor that which is evil; and cleave to that which is good" before us, which of these two is the proper character? It is the indifferentist for whom truth may sink to the bottom of the sea, or the man who perceiving the distinction which God holds between right or wrong, heartily hates the evil and tenaciously clings to the good? Of course, you say the latter, Well, then, brethren, if you say so, act so.

There is a broad distinction, there is a great gulf fixed by God between good and evil; be not then ashamed of an earnest, practical, enthusiastie recognition of the difference. Hate evil, hate it heartily, hate it determinedly, hate it with all your power of abhorrence. Give it no countenance, no quarter. Be its enemy, its perpetual, its deadly foe. Wage against it a war of extermination. Enter into no alliance with it. Recognize in it no other than the foe of God and man. Pursue it to the death. Encompass its extinc

tion root and branch.

But while doing so cleave to the good; fasten upon it, guard it, surrender anything but it. The good is the god-like, and if you are to be the latter, you must hold fast to the former. As the evil deserves your heartiest hatred, so the good must have your heartiest love. As you find in the one your foe so you find in the other your friend. As there must be no alliance between you and evil, so in Christ Jesus you stand affianced in the bonds of eternal affection to all that is pure, and holy, and excellent. Therefore hold fast the good, maintain it, defend it, disseminate it, cultivate it, cherish it, give all your powers to this holiest of causes. Do this, fearing no

issues. Depend upon it, God will see to them. See that you abhor that which is evil, and cleave to that which is good, and doubtless God will bring forth your fame-like brightness, speak out your name in glory, and crown your warfare in the splendours of an eternal triumph.--ED.

REMARKS ON A FEW PASSAGES IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.-No. 1. INTRODUCTORY.

THE term Hebrew was applied to Abraham and his descendants; but when Paul wrote this epistle it is questionable whether it was not applied, at least particularly so, to those Jews who resided in Palestine and the term Grecian, (Acts vi. 1,) or Hellenist, to those who resided elsewhere. But it is not now important to settle this and other questions which have been raised; as, whether the letter was addressed to those composing a single congregation: (at Cesarea, as some say) whether it was written in the Hebrew or Greek, &c., Certain it is, that it is worthy of our best attention. We assent to the admonition to "search the scriptures;" in doing which we must compare one part with another, and we shall find that one passage will interpret another, e. g. Ps. ii. 7, with Heb. i. 5, and Acts xiii. 30 to 34; Ps. cii. 25 to 27, with Heb. i. 10 to 12, &c.

&c.

Those to whom Paul addressed this letter were exposed to severe persecution from their "kinsmen according to the flesh;" who— failing to persuade-endeavoured to intimidate, or terrify. Paul, therefore, opposes argument to argument, and terror to terror. They contended that God had spoken to them by Moses, whom they were bound to obey, unless God should release them from the law, or institution, of Moses, (their lawgiver,) by sending to them one equal or superior in dignity. Paul, therefore, shews that God has done so. See i. 1, 2, 13, ii. 2, 3, 5, iii. 3, 5, 6, &c. They argued that Aaron, having been called by God to the office of High Priest, only his descendants could officiate in that character; that their religious rites and worship were unalterable. Paul, therefore, shews the superiority of Melchizedek to Aaron, and that Jesus is a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek, (vii. 16, &c.) That, as to the temple, which was the house of God, we, as the disciples of the Christ, form a more perfect temple, not made with hands, the foundation of which is laid by God himself. We have a more spiritual service; a "better sacrifice; and blood which speaks better things than that of Abel" or any one else.

"He

No man then living was so well qualified as Paul to confuto the argument of his unbelieving countrymen, and to shew them the truth, the divinity, and super-excellence of "the new institution." confounded the Jews, proving that Jesus is indeed the Christ. He mightily convinced them, publicly so; shewing from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." Acts ix. 22, xviii. 28, &c. Those who were "convinced" and acted upon their convictions exposed themselves to most bitter and violent opposition from unbelievers. (John xvi. 1, to 4.) Paul shews them that if they did not regard the claims of Jesus, as the Messiah and Redeemer, or if, when convinced, they failed to act accordingly, they would "fall into the hands of the liv

ing God." (x. 31.) A "fearful thing" indeed, especially for such as had been enlightened (vi. 4, and x. 32), or discipled. On the one hand was the terror of their infidel brethren ; but this, as Paul shews was utterly insignificant when compared with the terror of the Lord -the Omnipotent! or when contrasted with the favour of the Infinite! "Our God is a consuming fire!" Yet "God is love!" True, Paul wrote to the Jews as he did not write to Gentiles; and we are Gentiles; yet all this is worthy of our study. True we have "the heavenly things;" but it is instructive to look at the types of these (ix. 22-24.) True we are not required to shed the blood of bulls and goats; yet as then, so now, without the shedding of blood there is no remission. The lamb slain on leaving "the house of bondage," was a type of Jesus, our Passover lamb," in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins ;" and so of their Temple, their Priests, their Altar, their Tables, &c., ii. 1 to 3.

66

Let us then give heed to that which has been spoken by the Lord himself, and also to that which was spoken by Messengers to the Fathers. Not to give heed, yea, "the most earnest heed," is to "neglect the great salvation!" Are we wont to address this exhortation to those who are without; saying-How shall you escape? &c. Let us not forget that this warning is addressed to us; and to all the household of the faith. True such are denominated "the saved," and correctly so; but we have yet to "work out our own salvation." Under the old institution, not only every act of disobedience, but every transgression also, (ii. 2.) literally, every passing by; every neglect, or omission, "received a just recompense of reward.' if so, how much sorer punishment shall he merit who contemns the Son of God, and does despite to the Spirit of Grace? Let us exhort one another daily, while it is called to-day; and hold fast our confession, rejoicing that we have such a High Priest, who is touched with our infirmities, and who ever lives to make intercession for us!

And

Correspondence.

DISCIPLINE.-QUERIES AND REPLIES.

DEAR BROTHER MILNER,-Will you favour me with the teaching of the word upon the following questions, or refer me to the principle of teaching thereon?

1. Whose duty is it to visit brethren who forsake the assembling of themselves together as the manner of some is, when there are Elder Brethren in the church, but who do not take to themselves the oversight of the flock?

2. Is there any law to punish those who absent themselves from the Lord's table without any proper reason for so doing?

3. Is it right that the church should encourage the world to sing the praises of God? and if not, would a brother be justified in not joining contrary to the accustomed order of the church?

4. Is the breaking of a pledge to the church a lie against the Holy Spirit ?

Wrexham.

P. JONES.

1. While the seniors are particularly required to oversee, all the brethren are enjoined to employ a fraternal watchfulness, as is evident from such exhortations as the following:-Phil. ii. 4, "Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others." Heb. iii. 12, 13, "Take heed brethren lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called To-day, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin :" x. 24, "And let us consider one another, to provoke unto love and to good works; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together," &c.: xii. 15, "Looking diligently (or, literally, overseeing) lest any man fall from the grace of God." Thus it is primarily the duty of the elders to oversee, but also the duty of the whole church to look after the membership. No one may say, as did Cain, "Am I my brother's keeper?" 2. If exhortation to a careless brother fail in leading him to fill his place, the warning following in sequence from Heb. x. 25, should be tendered, and if such warning fail, then recourse must be had to such authorisations as 2 Thess. iii. 6, &c.

3. It is not right for the church to encourage the unconverted to participancy in Christian praise or service of any kind. Heb. xiii. 10, is itself sufficiently determinate. No brother can lawfully be called upon to take part in a service profaned from its New Testament use.

4. When Peter charged Ananias with lying to the Holy Spirit, he appears to say that an attempt had been made to deceive God. He charges the guilty pair with conspiring to deceive the Spirit. But however wrong it is to break a pledge given to a church, this much could not be said against it, even though bad faith were proved.-Ed.

BREAKING THE LOAF.-SECOND QUERY AND REPLY.

MY DEAR BROTHER,-Not quite as you say, I think, on Acts xx. 7, in Christian Advocate, p. 18.

If the time when the disciples met correspond with our Saturday evening, and if Paul departed on the morning of our Sunday, and if the first day lasted from our Saturday evening to our Sunday evening, how then did Paul depart "on the morrow" ?

66

On the first day of the week Brother Milner preached at Birmingham, and departed on the morrow." Query: When did Brother Milner depart? On the second day of the week, or on some later portion of the first day? Reply, dear brother, and oblige yours very affectionately, SANDERS J. CHEW.

The case being altered, alters the case. To put it with reference to us, who do not count time as did the Jews, will not determine the question. The Jews, Phoenicians, Numidians, and other nations, reckoned the day from evening to evening. The Israelites had express command so to do in Lev. xxiii. 32. "From even unto even shall ye celebrate your Sabbath." Their Sabbath or seventh day began (as it still does) on our Friday at sun-set, and lasted till our Saturday at sun-set. At its close began the first of the week. When then the brethren came together on that day, and Paul discoursed with them until midnight, it must have been, as we said, on our