himself above and beyond all law, all rule, required them to be perfect, even as he is perfect? Will he punish with awful severity every deviation from the rule he has laid down, because his creatures are not as immutable as himself? Nay, with reverence would I ask, why were they permitted to become incapable of keeping that law? Why are they now commanded to do an impossibility? The heavens seemed to gather blackness over my head. The mountains were wreathed in clouds, the blue sea became an unquiet and troubled gulf, the breeze came in fitful gusts, the sun seemed to hide his face, and my ears almost heard a voice, as of one that cried, "Aha! I will ease me of mine adversaries!" The God of vengeance was arising to smite the earth, and my spirit quailed before him. I desired to flee, but his hand was upon me-I sighed to the ground to open its mouth, but his eye was upon me! The law worketh wrath! Oh, let me escape from the prison of his universe, let me get beyond the bounds of his jurisdiction, for I have broken his law times innumerable—yea, I cannot keep it. He comes!-and the voice seemed to utter celestial mu sic! "Fury is not in me: who would go forth against the thorns and briars to battle?-the law is holy, and just, and good.'

Nature again smiled in loveliness, and lifting up my eyes, I beheld, as it were, a scroll unrolled, and inscribed, "God is good, and his tender mercies are over all his works." Yes, blessed Being, supremely and everlastingly happy, thou willest that all thy creatures should be happy. The law thou hast given them, was destined, in thy wisdom, to secure and to perpetuate their happiness. Thou never didst create a single being to be miserable, for misery hath neither part nor lot with thee-it is the invention of the creature! Sin is hateful to God, because it ruins the creatures he has made. The law says, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart." And what is the result if the Creator is not loved with all the creature's heart? Is God a man, that he should be moved by petty jealousy, and vexed by mimic wrath? Can he not forgive the transfer of affection, and overlook ingratitude? Does our goodness extend to him, or will he suffer injury by the moral tribute of his subjects being withheld? The Bible does indeed speak of jealousy, of wrath, of vengeance; but it is God speaking to men in the language of men, because they are men, and manifesting his aversion to their misery. For the creature to love any thing supremely short of Infinite Perfection, is nothing else than to fall below the standard of happiness. If God is God, then he must be loved as God, or be dethroned in the mind of the creature. To be robbed of his glory can inflict no injury upon him, but it inflicts a dreadful injury upon the robber. It is against this that the jealousy of God is ever up and awake, which he cannot behold, which he cannot look upon. And as sinful beings must be rational beings, and as rational beings are immortal beings, the injury thus inflicted partakes of immortality. Moreover, I must not merely love God as God, but my neighbour as myself. Why? Because to be chaste, and temperate, and peaceful, is just the rule of happiness applied by man to man, as the rule of happiness between man and God is to love the Deity with all the heart, and strength, and mind. Do thyself no harm, is the rule given us by our Creator. Blessed God! my spirit accords with thy law! it is holy, and just, and good.

But why did it ever enter into the mind of a creature to violate God's rule of happiness? In what shape did the first sinful idea enter the heart of the first sinful creature? Fearful speculation! If I could be carried back to the time when the principle of happiness was unbroken, when sin did not exist, when misery was unknown! If I could stand upon that

moment (so to speak) when a new era commenced in God's universe, and looking back, could see nothing but peace, purity, love, happiness, and looking forward, see rebellion, hatred, misery. If I could open the eternal records, and read the history of-Eternity. Presumptuous wish! The hidden things are God's-poor man finds even the things that are revealed too much for his puny intellect. It is enough for us that EVIL exists, and that we are its subjects. God has not merely given us a plan of happiness, but a plan for restoring us to lost happiness. Oh, my God, let me embrace thy plan-let me return to thee! "For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil."

Methinks now I hear God walking in this solitude, and shall I hide myself? No-I will run to meet him! Abba, Father-I love thee, because thou art the God and Father of my Lord Jesus Christ-because thou didst so love the world as to send him to save it. May I follow on to know thee-may I walk by the faith of thy Son-may I press on towards perfection. Then, what I know not now, I shall know hereafter, and in "the world to come" I shall enjoy life everlasting. Amen.

R.

REPLIES TO SUNDRY QUERIES.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-In your number for July are several queries from a correspondent relative to the Church Rubrics and Liturgy, to which I beg your insertion of the following answers.

1. Reading the Psalms in alternate verses by the minister and people is thus noticed by Shepherd. "The alternate recitation of the Psalms is not, as far as I at present recollect, enjoined by any Rubric, nor by any other injunction of our Church. But we uniformly adopt it; and in defence of our practices we have to allege, that it is perfectly congenial to the usage of antiquity, is sanctioned by the recommendation of the wisest and best amongst the Fathers, has been ratified by respectable Councils, and the most approved ecclesiastical laws, and is obviously calculated to keep up the attention, and assist the devotion of the people." He then refers in a note to Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, 6th Book, for further notice on the subject. Vide Shepherd on the Common Prayer, Vol. I. p. 126. London, 8vo. 1817.

2. Although from the words of the Rubric, and the analogy of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, a similar mode of repeating the Athanasian Creed might be justified, yet as this Creed is not divided into paragraphs, nor subdivided into smaller sentences, as the general Confession and Lord's Prayer, but is pointed like the Psalms, I conceive that the present practice is preferable. Besides, this confession of our faith does not begin like the other creeds with the individual acknowledgment, "I believe," and may therefore be looked upon as a declaration of the opinion of the Church upon the doctrines contained therein.

3. The practice of the Clerk giving out the singing psalms is, I believe, to be attributed to the fact, that in many country churches he is the only person who sings, and that his invitation assumes all the importance of the royal or editorial plural, for in many churches if he spoke strictly grammatical his address should run thus: "Let ME sing to the praise and glory of God." As to the minister's delivering this address, it would not always be quite appropriate, as I know some clergymen who, so far from being able

to join in singing a psalm, could not tell "God save the king," from "Rule Britannia."

4. Singing the morning hymn, or any psalm, before morning prayer is, I conceive, contrary to the spirit and intention of the Church, for the reasons stated in 4th query.

5. What has been stated in the Christian Observer relative to the insertion of the parenthesis regarding sick persons in the Litany, I have no means of ascertaining its correctness for the present. But I know that it is one of the differences between the Cambridge and all other editions of the Common Prayer. In a Cambridge stereotype edition, which I have now before me, 12mo. dated July 3, 1805, the parenthesis, with the note accompanying it, is inserted in the Litany, verbatim, as it is to be found in the prayer for all conditions of men, as also in every Cambridge edition of the present century which I have seen, but not in all the editions previous to that period, as in a 12mo. Cambridge edition dated 1771, and now in my possession, the parenthesis is omitted in the Litany. In all the Prayer Books published in Oxford, London, Edinburgh, and Dublin, of whatever date, that I have examined, the parenthesis is invariably omitted in the Litany, and invariably inserted in the prayer for all conditions of men. In the American Protestant Episcopal Church there is a most appropriate and excellent prayer introduced, to be used for such sick persons as desire the prayers of the Congregation.

6. Previous to the revision of the Prayer Book in 1662, the finding proper psalms for each day was regulated by an intricate Rubric and table, and it was absolutely necessary then to inform the people what psalms were to be read. This I believe to be the origin of the present practice of giving out the day of the month and psalm. I think it may be laid aside.

7. Until your correspondent can establish that the words after and with bear a similar meaning, the different modes of repeating the general Confession and Lord's Prayer are fully justified by the words of the Rubric.

8. The marriage act, (which requires the publication of banns after the second lesson at morning service, and in certain cases at evening service,) does not extend to Ireland: consequently, a minister officiating in Ireland is obliged to publish the banns of marriage after the Nicene Creed, and he would be acting illegally to publish them after the second lesson at either morning or evening prayer. But a minister officiating in England is bound by law to publish them after the second lesson. To meet the objections raised by the Rubrics, in the recent Oxford editions of the Prayer Books, that part of the Rubric after the Nicene Creed, relating to the banns of matrimony, has been omitted, and the Rubric before the marriage service altered, and instead of the words, "immediately before the sentences for the offertory," have been inserted the following. "immediately after the second lesson." It may form a query, By what authority did the printer make this alteration, or was he justified without ecclesiastical authority? In the Irish editions of the Prayer Book these Rubrics have very properly undergone no alteration.

I do not know upon what authority laymen read the lessons in Trinity College Chapel. I have heard from a respectable English lady, that in a church in England, the name of which I do not now recollect, the parish clerk used to read the first lesson every Sunday morning. It is a practice clearly contrary to the Rubric, which directs that "before every lesson the minister shall say, Here beginneth such a chapter."

I am, Sir, &c.

RESPONDENT.

ON THE MILLENNIUM.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

[Continued from page 501.]

SIR-In addition to what I have urged in my former communication, I would now, as a further ground of presumption in favour of the personal advent, call your attention to the difficulties which attend the supposition of a millennium without it. To meet these difficulties by saying, that all things are possible with God, is an argument which leaves us at liberty to frame a millennium out of whatever monstrous materials we please. If we resort at once to this sweeping principle, then, no one system can bear the semblance of truth more than another. We might suppose infants or idiots to be the rulers of the millennial kingdoms; and if God is pleased to put forth his omnipotence, who can deny, that in their time, peace may flourish in the earth, and righteousness look down from heaven. But still, considering that the Almighty has hitherto thought fit to act by means, and, ordinarily, by means accountable to his creatures; it appears to me, in balancing the claims of two systems, both of which propose the same end, that if one of these systems assigns adequate means for the furtherance of that end, and the other does not, much weight is thereby thrown into the scale of the former. Now, on the supposition that the millennum is to be a real and universal reign of righteousness upon earth, how, according to the spiritual notion of it, is that happy consummation to be effected? Without adverting to the civil or secular interests of the world; how, I would ask, is the Church of Christ to be governed? how are the people to be guided into the wholesome pastures, without some infallible chief shepherd? how are the bishops, and other subordinate rulers, to be appointed? Is it by the princes and cabinets of the several states, on the one hand, or by the popular election, on the other? And how is the unity of faith to be preserved, between distant and independent nations? To what tribunal are they, by common agreement, to submit? If it be the Scriptures-who is to fix the sense of Scripture, beyond the possibility of doubt, or of appeal? I know it will be said, that the increased influences of the Spirit will order all these things rightly. But, I confess I cannot see this, unless indeed we resort to the sweeping principle before adverted to. I cannot conceive that princes who govern extended empires, can select true pastors for the people, unless these princes are gifted with omniscience. Nor can I conceive people, unless brought to a much higher state than I believe the millennium will bring them, choosing pastors for themselves according to the mind of God. Neither does it seem to me possible, that all nations, such as the millennial kingdoms will be, can walk in the same way, or by the same rule, unless there is some universal authority, to which they all submit, and some accessible tribunal to which they can all appeal.

It will then, perhaps, be said, that on my principle, the millennium will be only the establishment and universal spread of popery. This would be deplorable indeed. Nevertheless, I can conceive no condition of the Church. so fitted for the maintainance of universal order, and for the diffusion of universal righteousness, as that which would exhibit in reality and truth, what the Church of Rome dishonestly pretends to. It was a thought of this kind, which first led me to reflect upon the subject on which I am now addressing you. Seeing that almost all the modern interpreters of prophecy agree in fixing the fall of popery at no distant period; and observing

how many appearances seem to justify that expectation; I was led to ask myself the following questions. What is to succeed this vast and widely extended system? what is to come in place of this mighty colossus, when it falls, or to fill the void which its removal must occasion? If Protestantism, in any existing shape, is to rise upon its ruins, and to ascend its vacant throne, is it not unreasonable to expect that preparations would be making, and that Providence would be hastening forward to its maturity, a system, which in a few years is to fill so high a destiny? But are there any appearances to justify such a hope? Multitudes of individuals in Protestant communions, are, I trust, at this moment, worshipping God in spirit and in truth. But where is the society or church amongst them, which God appears collectively to own? In which of these vineyards do we see the fruits of God's own husbandry? Where is the celestial crop? where do we see rising the vigorous plants, which will cover with their branches the trackless wastes of papal darkness; and convert that wilderness into the garden of the Lord? I confess, I know not where this promise appears. Look at the reports of the Continental Society. Look at France, at Germany, at Switzerland, and at Geneva. And what is the state of the united churches of England and Ireland? There is, I grant, much piety in many of her members, more genuine piety than is perhaps elsewhere to be found. But contemplate her as a body, and as what she is termed, "the Established Church." Is God, at this moment, deepening her foundations? Is he enlarging the place of her tent, stretching forth the curtains of her habitations, lengthening her cords, and strengthening her stakes? Alas! these cheering expressions do not suit her now. She is far more suitably described in the mournful language of the Psalmist. "Why hast thou broken down her hedges, that all they that go by pluck off her grapes? The wild boar out of the wood doth root it up, and the wild beasts of the field devour it." Suffice it to say, without dwelling further on this painful subject, that not the slightest indication can be found in the whole, or in any branch of the great Protestant commonwealth, that God is organizing or maturing any materials there, which could fill the vacant space of popery with ought but unsettlement and confusion. Nay, considering the strange heresies and the unblushing infidelity, which in many places assume the Protestant name; would it not be doubtful, whether in case of such a revolution in the Church, her last state would not be worse than the first? If then it be asked, what is to succeed Popery? I answer, that if the man of sin spoken of in the second Epistle to Timothy, be, as is generally admitted, the papal power; the Apostle has already answered the question. For he declares, that the "man of sin" is to receive his final overthrow, by the brightness of the Lord's coming. The whole passage in which this declaration occurs, compared with the assurance in the former epistle, that the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, &c.—the argument, I say, which arises from this comparison, in favour of Christ's personal advent before the millennium, has been so frequently urged that I shall not here repeat it. I would, however, just observe, that this argument will receive additional weight, if we consider the character of that spiritual domination, to which, it is contended, our Saviour's reign on earth will immediately succeed.

The high claims of the Romish Church have always appeared to me, not so much absurd in theory, as false in point of fact. That the Church which the Son of God came down to establish upon earth, should possess such powers and prerogatives as the papacy assumes, is what, I think, any man reasoning a priori would suppose. Why it does not possess them,