William. Their language was indeed unintelligible, but I thought I could interpret it—it was the panegyric of feeling—it

was the eulogy of affection.

But I had to witness a still more painful scene.

The wife of William lived in a village about a mile distant from the house of the farmer, in whose service, at this season of the year, her husband had been employed. The mournful tidings soon reached her ears, and in all the distraction of grief she rushed into the room. This sight was too distressing, I could not bear it; and, as I could afford them no aid, nor even address them in the language of consolation, I took the farmer by the hand, and bidding him farewell, again mounted my horse. I now gave full scope to my feelings. "Gracious God!" exclaimed I, "thy way is indeed in the sea, and thy path in the mighty waters. Clouds and darkness are round about thee; but the sacred volume assures me that righteousness and judgment are the basis of thy throne! I believe thy truth, and thence I derive my consolation. The conduct of thy providence is inexplicable, but I wait the full disclosure of thy plan; when I shall see not through a glass darkly, but with open face! That lightning might have numbered me with the dead. I adore thy sovereignty, and while I tremble, I am grateful. Yet, O! thou best of beings, support the widow's mind, and be the God of the fatherless!"

THE RIGHT USE OF OUR FACULTIES.

"The intellectual powers of man," says Sir Egerton Brydges, "are not given merely for self; they are not intended to aid his own cunning and craft, and intrigues, and conspiracies, and enrichment. They will do nothing for these base purposes. The instinct of a tiger, a vulture, or a fox will do better. Genius and abilities are given as lamps to the world, not to self."

The true use of knowledge cannot probably be better described to us than it has been long since by Bacon, the father of English as well as of European literature, the Aristotle of modern times. "Knowledge," says he, "is not a couch whereon to rest a searching and restless spirit; nor a terrace for a wandering and versatile

mind to walk up and down in; nor a tower of state for a proud man to raise himself upon; nor a commanding fort for strife and contention; nor yet a shop for profit and sale; but a rich storehouse for the glory of the Creator, and the relief of man's estate.”

Men possessed of superior natural or acquired powers, should be intellectual as well as spiritual almoners-as eager to impart knowledge as to acquire it—ever enlightening the minds, elevating the characters, and meliorating the condition of their fellow men-giving to others as God has freely given to themresembling those material servants of God, the heavenly bodies, who, not content with shining themselves, reflect their light to surrounding planets in their sphere; or rather, to speak more forcibly and justly, the fond and faithful parent, who receives but to bestow, and labours but to bless and to be blessed by his offspring.-Edwards on Piety and Intellect.

THE CHILD OF FAITH.

NO. I.

How very often does the word faith occur in the sacred scriptures, and how frequently it is repeated in almost every sermon we hear! Consequences of infinite importance evidently belong to it. As the word of God is true, says the serious mind, to know what faith is is important as the life of my soul. Let me then hasten to learn the meaning of that one word-faith.

Take the New Testament, my young friend, and judge for yourself. I have done so, and have discovered that it has several meanings. I recollect the following.

It is used in reference to the gift of miraculous power which the apostles possessed. Our Lord employed it in that sense when he said, "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you,"

In another place the word faith is put for the entire gospel. This is the meaning of it where it is said of Saul that "he preached the faith which he once destroyed."

Another application of this term describes the power of true religion in the mind. Our Lord employs it thus in saying to Peter: "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not."

But I do not here intend to use the word in any of these senses. There is yet another meaning of it, which, as I love the happiness of your soul, I am anxious that you should receive; for if you do not receive it, you cannot enjoy the privileges of a “child of faith." I now refer to that simple and easy exercise of the mind called believing. Do ponder this in your heart as that one thing which God will have you do in order to be saved, And recollect that the neglect of it closes the door of heaven and of mercy against your soul.

"I see now," says the anxious mind-"I see now that my soul is in peril, and were I to die without faith, to the world of bliss I cannot go. You have told me the meaning of the word. Tell me next the meaning of the thing. What is the nature of that faith which you call believing?" I will endeavour to comply with your request, but allow me first to digress for a little while, and call to your remembrance that very touching conversation which our Lord held with Peter. He said unto Peter the third time: "Simon, Son of Jonas, lovest thou me ?" Peter was grieved when he said unto him the third time. He was not offended that his divine Master had put the question so often, but sorry that he should be so inattentive to those words, "lovest thou me," as to make it needful for his Lord to repeat them again and again. He grieved that those gentle words had not power sooner to arouse his sluggish soul. They are words which claimed to touch a deeper chord in his heart than he had allowed to vibrate. He was grieved at his own listlessness. I shall not regret if I cause such grief in telling you again to recollect that faith is believing. There lingers much in that simple word that cannot be explained, but to which the soul should listen with its inmost ear. For the essence itself of faith admits not of explanation. It is a simple emotion of the soul connecting itself with our knowledge and opinion of certain objects. So is it also with love. We can show wherein is love -what nourishes love. We can tell of the power of love, and describe the fruits of love. But the essence of love itself—it cannot be explained; it is only FELT by the heart it warms. If you could have asked the prodigal son in the midst of his prosperous crimes, whether there dwelt not in his father's house purer and richer pleasures than any he now enjoyed, and in his father's heart a truer love than that which his false friends pro

fessed, he might probably have answered, conscience-stricken, yes. Perhaps he might have misapplied this very word and said, "he believed it to be so." But "when he came to himself" —when he beheld the reality of things-how differently were those sentiments impressed on him! The abundance of his father's house contrasted with his own wretchedness-the fulness of his father's love with his own ingratitude :-such thoughts came home to him with a realizing force. He knew it all before, but there was no faith in his knowledge. Now he truly believed. How different! But we cannot explain that difference. He felt the difference. It stirred the depths of his soul. It moved him to return. How great the difference! May God grant you, dear reader, true faith.

But now let me endeavour to answer your question. We may have faith in objects or opinions that are merely connected with this world. The nature of faith depends therefore on what we believe. The faith concerning which you wish me to write is belief in "the testimony of God concerning his Son." Ponder these words and in another letter they shall be further explained. Your affectionate and earnest F. V.

A BEAUTIFUL SPOT.

A Roman ambassador was sent to Ctesiphon with some rich presents. On his arrival at the king's court, he was conducted by the monarch to see the noble prospect that was visible from the window of the royal palace. Whilst gazing on this delightful prospect, he observed an uneven piece of ground, which led him to inquire the reason why it was not rendered uniform with the rest. "It is the property of an old woman," said a Persian nobleman, "who has objections to sell it, though often solicited by our king to do so, and he is more willing to have his prospect spoiled than to commit injustice and violence." "That irregular spot," replied the Roman, "consecrated as it is by justice, appears more beautiful than all the surrounding beautiful scenery."

Thus in our estimation, one act of true virtue, one aspiration of pure prayer, one heroic instance of self-denial, one simple specimen of kind condescension and child-like humility, one

single display of mercy and goodness towards a prostrate foe, or one instance of disinterested benevolence-casts a more luminous and brilliant halo of glory around the genius than the valuable folios of which he may be the author, the inventions he may have introduced, and all the prodigious intellectual conquests and flights by which at any time he may have been distinguished.-Edwards on Piety and Intellect.

THE UNPARDONABLE SIN.

Much difference of opinion has existed respecting the nature of the sin referred to in Matt. xii. 31, 32; Mark iii. 28, 29, &c. A very common opinion is that "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" is the attributing the works of the Spirit to the devil; and that the Pharisees committed this sin when they said, "this fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils." Barnes's Notes, a book in extensive use amongst Sunday school teachers, explains the passage in this way. We think the interpretation wrong, and for the following reasons. 1. The dispensation of the Spirit did not commence till after Christ's ascension. As the influence of the Spirit was not the theme of Christ's preaching, it is not likely that the Pharisees knew anything about it, and therefore could not directly blaspheme the Spirit. 2. The Pharisees are not charged in so many words with having committed this sin. They said nothing at all about the Spirit, and therefore cannot be said to have spoken against the Spirit. They said that Christ had “an unclean spirit;" but that is another matter, namely, a blasphemy against the Son of man. 3. Our Lord "called them unto him," and reasoned with them against their false explanation of the power by which he cast out devils. Would he have done this if they had believed that it was by the Spirit that he cast them out? Their hatred of Christ blinded them to the proofs that he wrought by the Spirit of God, and hence they attributed his miracles to the devil. There would have been no need to reason with them if they had conviction already. 4. The language used by Christ in speaking of the unpardonable sin, is hardly what might be expected if the Pharisees were guilty of it. Would he not have said: "You have now committed a sin