Shepherd to supply his necessities. He is fed by him with knowledge and understanding: My flesh, said the Saviour, is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Nourished by his word and ordinances, he grows in grace, and in the knowledge of his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Out of his fulness he derives all his supplies. He is rich and abounds; he has pardon, and peace, and sanctification, and acceptance with God. He who gave his Son to die on his behalf will, with him, also freely give him all things. The barren pastures of this world's gratifications can never satisfy or support an immortal soul, created originally in the likeness of God, and still needing his presence and favour, as its true and highest enjoyment. The " paths of righteousness," in which the Divine Shepherd leads his flock, are the only paths of safety or of happiness. The way of transgressors is hard: it is dangerous also and fatal to the soul. The prodigal, voluntarily exiled from his paternal home, wished to feed on the husks that the swine did eat;" but how different the supply provided for his wants, when, returning to the bosom of his parent, the ring was put on his hand, and shoes on his feet, and the best robe was brought out to cover him, and the fatted calf killed to support his faint and exhausted nature! Such is the spiritual provision made by our merciful Father to his returning children. They are not permitted to want any thing that is good; they were guilty, and he forgives them they were weak, and he strengthens them; they were unholy, and he sanctifies them; they were wretched, and he comforts them; they were dead, and he raises them to a new and spiritual life, the earnest of that eternal life which he has provided for them in the heavenly world, where " they shall hunger no more, and thirst no moré, neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat, for the Lamb which is in the midst of the Throne

shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters, and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes."

Such then being the blessedness, for time and for eternity, of those who have the Lord for their Shepherd, it is infinitely important, in the third place, that we should ascertain, each for ourselves, whether we are a part of his flock. "The Lord," says the Psalmist, "is my Shepherd." He was not content with a general knowledge of the character of God, but was anxious for a personal interest in his paternal care. In a general sense, all mankind are under the government and providence of God; all enjoy his mercies; all owe to him obedience. He hath made us, and not we ourselves; and having made us, he preserves us, and fills our cup with innumerable blessings, causing his sun to shine upon the evil and the good. But there is a much higher view in which the true Christian is the sheep of God's pasture. The great majority of mankind think nothing of God as a Shepherd: they obey not his voice; they acknowledge not his protection; they even find their delight in erring and straying from his ways. Now it is the very beginning and turning point of true religion, to acknowledge and deeply to lament these our sinful wanderings, and to turn with full purpose of heart to the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls. The Christian considers himself as the property of God; and that not only in right of his creation, and in return. for the temporal mercies which he so richly enjoys, but, above all, in virtue of his redemption by Christ Jesus, and his voluntary choice to take the Lord for his God. He is not his own; he is bought with the price of the blood of Christ; and he has also entered into a willing covenant with his Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier; outwardly in baptism, and inwardly by a cheerful self-dedication to the service and glory of God. It is thus

terer are more easily convinced and humbled: but the man of virtue is seldom reached, because the man of virtue disdains to descend. Remember me,' saved a dying malefactor: God, I thank thee,' condemned a proud Pharisee." (Cecil's Works, vol. iv. edition 1811, p. 52.) Now, sir, no observation can be more just or scriptural than the introductory remark of the passage which I have quoted. The whole of Christianity is directly levelled at the pride of the human heart. But how far is the remark borne out by the sentence by which it is followed? Is it more humiliating to human pride, that a murderer or an adulterer should confess that he is a miserable and a grievous sinner, than that a similar heartfelt acknowledgment should proceed from the lips of one whose life has been stained by no notorious crime?* But whatever may be the answer to this inquiry, do Scripture and experience justify the assertion that the former mentioned characters are in a more favourable state for the reception of the Divine grace than the latter? Have we any reason to believe, or to suppose, that the majority of the Twelve Apostles, or of the Seventy Disciples had been individuals of profligate character? The occupation of Matthew has indeed excited suspicion; but even as it regards him we have no Scripture

The reader will perhaps be reminded of a late awful instance of obduracy, and will be ready to ask whether it costs less to a Thurtell to humble himself to the penitent acknowledgment of his crimes than to draw the same confession from many persons who, in the main, must be considered men of virtuous character. I admit, indeed, that it is God only who can humble the proud heart of man, and to him all obstacles are equal; but, humanly speaking, there are various degrees of impressibility, and it is far from being scriptural or correct to suppose that all the impressibility is on the side of the profligate vices. The truth is, that pride is the great obstacle to be subdued; and pride may co-exist either with the more decorous or the more flagitious traits of character.

CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 267.

proof of immorality. Judas was indeed a thief; and we know how far his end was from being in favour of the hypothesis against which I am pleading. We must, I think, put Joseph and Mary, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and Nathaniel, amongst the number of virtuous persons: nor am I aware of any moral stains supposed to have been attached to the characters of Timothy, Titus, Gaius, Lydia, and many other persons mentioned in the NewTestament records*. If we are not expressly told that they were, before their conversion, persons of moral character, yet, if they had not been so, it is more than probable, from the impartiality of the Divine records, and the circumstances in which many of them were placed, that some intimation of their former abandoned conduct would have been conveyed. The particulars noticed in regard of Zaccheus, one of the Maries, Onesimus, and others, encourage this opinion.

Should it be said of the virtuous characters mentioned in Scripture that they were, throughout their whole history, even before their

* I have not appealed to Old-Testament history, though I conceive it would equally bear out my argument: witness the characters of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Lot, Moses, David, Samuel, Josiah, Hezekiah, &c. How would the doctrine

under consideration, I would ask, affect

the hearts of pious parents? God is a Sovereign in the distribution of his grace; but his tender mercies are over all his works, and special promises are made to the children and descendants of them that fear him. But in what way are they to look for the fulfilment of these promises? Let the history of Eli determine. "The sons of Eli made themselves vile, and he restrained them not." (1 Sam. iii. 13.) He could. not infuse a principle of piety into their souls; but from visible immorality he ought to have restrained them. What should we have thought if he had said, "I did not bring up my children to exercise a gentle, modest, and becoming temper and conduct, because I know that adulterers sometimes become subjects of Divine grace," but "men of virtue are seldom reached?"

X

conversion, under the influence of Divine grace, it is sufficient to reply, that we have no proof of this; that St. Paul speaks of believers themselves as having been" children of wrath, even as others;" and that, if the assertion were true, we ought to extend the same charitable supposition to virtuous characters amongst ourselves.

But before I proceed, I must just notice the concluding sentence of the above remark. It is couched, to say the least, in very exceptionable terms. I will not, however, cavil at the words, but confine myself to what appears to have been intended to be conveyed by them. The humble application, then, of the thief upon the cross, and the selfrighteous justification of the Pharisee, ended in the salvation of the one and the ruin of the other. Most justly ought we to glorify Christ, in the freeness and fulness of his mercy, extended to the dying malefactor! But a worse instance, to prove the comparative frequency of the salvation of murderers and adulterers, could scarcely have been brought forward. And as to the virtuous Pharisee, take even Mr. Cecil's own words, and his virtue, whatever it might be, seems to have been thrown into the back ground by his pride. Indeed, the whole of the error which I am combating appears to rest on the strange mistake of allowing pride, hypocrisy, and immorality to pass for virtues. On this point, however, I shall not enlarge, but refer the reader to the important remarks of your reviewer, in the Christian Observer for November 1823, p. 717, particularly the note appended to the second column of that page.

I have only, sir, in conclusion, to protest against the ill use which may be made of these remarks, as if it were intended that mere mora

lity would call down upon men the Divine blessing. On this subject I entirely accord with Article XIII. of our Church. The grace of God, I believe to be, in the fullest sense,

free*; but on what grounds of Scripture, or reason, or experience the opinion that virtue as such puts men at a further distance from the prospect of the Divine favour, than vice, can be supported, I am at a loss to conceive. I am, indeed, well aware that some of the worst vices may bear soft and virtuous names. Murder, for instance, may be called honour; hypocrisy may appear in the form of devotion; and persecution assume the garb of religious zeal: but if this be what is intended to be meant by virtue, only let terms be explained, and the difficulty will cease. It will readily be admitted that such virtuous persons come within the scope of Mr. Cecil's argument; but then I deny their claim to be called virtuous: a virtuous" proud" Pharisee is a solecism; the Pharisees did not either wish or pray "to do the will of God;" and it was on this account, as our Lord himself teaches, that " they did not know of the doctrine" which he taught.

INDIGNISSIMUS.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. SOME of the remarks of your correspondent H. G., respecting the posture of the minister during Divine Service appear to me liable to objection; and, as they go to impugn the general practice of the clergy upon this point, I beg leave to offer a few words in their vindication. I admit, that these are not "the weightier matters of the law;" but as points of decency, and order, and uniformity in the public worship of God, they are not undeserving an occasional page or two of discussion.

* I use this expression, in conformity to the custom of many religious persons, and because I cannot perhaps so well convey my meaning to many by any other term.

At the same time I agree with an able writer of our own day, that" free grace is a tautology: it is not grace at all but in proportion as it is free." See Dr. Wardlaw (of Glasgow)'s Sermon on 1 Cor. i.

26--29.

His mode of supporting this observation is by no means satisfactory. He grounds the remark upon a rubric in the Commination Service. "Then shall they all kneel upon their knees, and the priest and clerks kneeling (in the place where they are accustomed to say the liturgy) shall say this Psalm." Now, asks H. G., if the words "all kneel" included the officiating minister, why should a special direction be given to him and the clerks ?

To this I answer, that the special direction is superfluous; but there is no proof that the word "all" did not include the minister. Instances of rubrical direction ex abundanti, are by no means uncommon in our liturgy. To mention one in the Morning Prayer, after the Absolution, not only is the minister (who had been standing on that occasion) desired to kneel, but the rubric goes on; "the people also kneeling," &c. Now, the people needed no direction here to kneel, for this part of the service finds them actually in that posture. They had been directed to assume it at the Confession, and nothing had since occurred to cause them to rise. Other instances might easily be cited. The

truth is, that our rubrics are not worded with such strict accuracy as might be wished; and therefore, to ground arguments upon their phraseology of so severe and hypercritical a nature as that upon which H. G. relies, would frequently involve us in absurdities.

But, in order to judge how far the general rule laid down by H. G. is just, let us submit it to the test of examination.

First, I will quote his rule: "In referring to the rubrics, it must be observed that the words all kneeling' do not, in general, include the officiating minister. There appear

to be but two exceptions to this remark; and those are in two instances where the minister is directed immediately afterwards to stand up, and, consequently, where no mistake can be made."

Now, if this general rule be entitled to credit, we shall of course find numerous instances of its application. With this view, let us examine the Morning Prayer.

1. After the Exhortation we have the General Confession" to be said of the whole congregation, after the minister, all kneeling." In this (the first use of the expression, which naturally serves as a guide to the general interpretation of it), H. G. admits (for it is one of his exceptions) that it applies to the minister and people jointly. Next comes the Absolution, where the minister alone is directed to stand. Then he is to kneel again at the Lord's Prayer, &c.

2. The next direction in which the word "all" occurs is a direction to stand up. If "all," however, mean only the people, then the minister must continue in that kneeling posture which he had been just before directed to assume. I do not think this observation unfair; for though H. G. supposes only the expression "all kneeling" to refer to the people alone, and says nothing of "all standing," yet it is but reasonable to suppose that the compilers of the liturgy used the latter expression with a sort of parity to the former. But it is unquestionable that the direction "all standing' includes the minister.

3. The next occurrence of the word "all" is after the Creed, when certain prayers are to be said “all devoutly kneeling." This is the second of H. G.'s exceptions (or, as it appears to me, a third instance of the general rule being quite contrary to what he supposes), and where, con. sequently, he admits that it includes the minister.

4. The minister having been directed to stand up in repeating the versicles after the Lord's Prayer,