sparks of the fire of his own kindling.

When the Lord Jesus is about to enter on his public ministry,-to preach the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven which was now at hand, -he sits down on the Mount, and having gathered the subjects of that kingdom around him, he proclaims his holy, just, and good law to them, as the basis of his government. "Yea, he loved the people; all his saints are in thy hand; and they sit down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words." (Deut. xxxiii. 25.) When he finished these words, it is testified that "the people were astonished at his doctrine; for he taught as one having authority and not as the Scribes," (Matth. vii. 28, 29.) His word was that of a King and Lawgiver, against whom there is no rising up, who had power to enforce, extend, abrogate, or fulfil-The first grand object of this law, as we have hinted, was to declare the will or character of the Lawgiver. It behoved and became him, therefore, on entering on his ministry, to shew that God must be just; even while justifying the ungodly. And thus another object of the Law-giver becomes apparent, viz :—to convince of sin, seeing that "where no law is there is no transgression," and by the law is the knowledge of sin." Many will admit this, concerning the fiery law from Sinai, who will stumble at such words being applied to our Lord's sermon on the Mount. But does more condemnation reach the guilty conscience in hearing the commandment thundered from Sinai, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," than in listening to the searcher of hearts while expounding that law and saying, "But I say unto you that whosoever looketh on a woman

66

to lust after her hath committed adultery already with her in his heart?' Much has been done to stifle the conviction which it was one grand object of this law to produce, by speaking of "the benign spirit" of it, and lowering its demands to suit our own vain imaginations. How often do we hear language like this used: No doubt the Lord says, "Take no thought for the morrow,-Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth," and the like. But nothing more can be meant here than a caution against over anxiety in the one case, and setting our heart upon our treasures, in the other. Little do we reflect how much such vain reasoning is setting our mouths against the heavens to cast the Law-giver down from his excellency; nor into what a labyrinth it will lead us as to other demands of the same law. To what point of degradation must we bring that law, (not one jot or tittle of which the giver of it said was to pass till all should be fulfilled,) ere we can reach what man is pleased to call the spirit of that precept to which we have already referred, "Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek turn to him the other also!" Even with the law of God in our hands, would we not be in danger of esteeming him, who would practically attempt to illustrate this precept, as destitute of proper manly feeling? And may not this serve to shew us how determinedly opposed the best of our own thoughts and reasonings are to the law of God?

This leads us to another great object of the law we have been considering, and which indeed to those disciples who are taught to sit at the feet of the lawgiver and receive of his word, will ever appear

"continuing therein is blessed in his deed." There is a question which arises here to perplex some minds, and which runs in this vein :-" If the obedience called for from the disciples be the obedience of the faith, or the love of mercy manifested in the keeping of his commandments, our obedience behoves to be imperfect; and how can God be pleased with an imperfect obedience"? Such a question is best answered by reference to Scripture. Love is the fulfilling of the law. Yet the apostle says— "Owe no man any thing but love; "for he that loveth hath fulfilled the law" The work is finished that justifies; the obligation is now one of gratitude, which is well-pleasing in whatever degree.

a fellow-creature, for suing at law for payment of a just debt, I would just remind him of Paul's words to the church at Corinth, (1 Cor. vi. 1.) 'Dare any of you, having a matter against another, "go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints"? Another word I should think superfluous. When your correspondent has looked farther into the perfect law from which he quotes; if led to see something of its grand object, meaning, and accomplishment, such a question as he has put will lose much of its interest to him.

Believe me, dear Sir,
Yours very faithfully,
PHILALETHES.

sand talents are forgiven; and our sense of the forgiveness of "all that debt" is not despised, though only shewn to the extent of a hundred pieces. Nay, so well-pleasing in the Father's sight is the love of mercy manifested from the sense of much forgiveness, that even a cup of cold water given to a disciple, on this principle, shall in no wise lose its reward. "Ye shall be THE CHILDREN OF THE HIGHEST."

Your correspondent will no doubt think it full time that I should now come to closer quarters with his question; but I have really little to say upon it. I regard it much as I would have done had his question been-To what extent ought I to shew mercy to the poor? In which case I could only have reminded him of what was said to another enquiring" Junior,"-" Sell ALL THAT THOU HAST, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven! and come follow me." If he press me more closely, and ask whether he can be made a transgressor by his brother,

[When we wrote the remarks appended to the query of J. J., Junior, (see Ch. Ad,, for March, p. 60,) we felt a sort of secret wish that our friend Philalethes would take up the subject.

We were therefore not a little

delighted when we received his communicahis views of "The Law of God." Nevertheless we think he has left the main question untouched. Indeed he acknowledges in so many words,-"I have really little to say upon it." Moreover, we think he has mistaken the purport of the query; and the reference to 1 Cor. vi. 1, is altogether foreign to the subject. That passage certainly prohibits brethren going to law with each other, and that before the unjust, or unbelievers; but; so far as we see, does not at all apply to such a case as that stated in the query. With regard to Christian brethren, as the matter is viewed by Philalethes, their duty is clearly set forth in Luke vii. 41, 42. But the case is very different as stated in the query; it is those who can but won't pay just debts." Now, in our opinion, such ought to be made to pay: nor is there anything in Matt. v. 40, or any of its parallels, to prohibit the enforcement of just debts. In a word, the "one or two" alluded to by J. J., Junior, have adopted a mistaken view altogether of the duty of Christians in such a case; and no doubt this has arisen from the common blunder of applying our Lord's discourse to the kingdoms of this world, instead of to his own kingdom. No one

tion; and we cordially concur with him in

precept of Christ's doctrine ever militates against Justice, Righteousness and Truth. We would therefore respectfully put the question to the one or two," and those likeminded,-Would the course suggested by their scruples be conducive to morality, or

the good of society? If not that is quite sufficient to settle the point. For all views of Scripture texts which run counter to justice and equity, or truth and righteousness, must be false.-Ed. Ch. Ad.]

Advocate.

SIR,-I can see no just cause why the term Prison may not be taken in a figurative sense, neither has Sigma shewn any cause, and his bare assertion that the view is far fetched and unusual will not satisfy impartial thinkers. The view I gave of the term was derived from a Master in Israel, who has long laboured in the Old Scotch Baptist Connection. But I conceive that we have a greater witness than any uninspired man to confirm our views on this point, Peter speaking of the Spirits in Prison, in the next breath says, verse 21, the like figure whereunto baptism doth now save us, &c.," shewing evidently that he had been speaking by figure in the preceeding verses. But even allowing the term without figure, were they not in prison in as strict a sense as ever the martyrs were for the cause of truth; with this difference, that if the martyrs did renounce the truth they would be liberated, and if the antediluvians did embrace it, they would be liberated. It was only by believing the message of Noah, and renouncing their wickedness that they could

ment which God had determined upon the impenitent,-where could they flee? Were they not in prison? God was not man that he should lie, nor the son of man that he should repent if they repented not of their wickedness. But farther were they not as actually in prison as they now are, in the sight of him who seeth not as man seeth? Again Sigma would make us understand that the Spirits were only put in prison after their mortal life was ended, and are now reserved against the judgment of the great day. But does not this equally apply to all the ungodly who have died since the world began, and as universal as the prison in which sin has put the whole of Adam's posterity while in a state of nature, which he says, when finding fault with your other able Correspondent, cannot apply to the Antediluvian case. Verily Sigma has imprisoned himself, his pen has been going before his judgment, finally Peter says, "that the Spirits were in prison when preached to." Query? Are we to believe Peter or Sigma?

Dundee, 9th June, 1851.

G. R.