assured on the most competent authority, that a very large majority of the most thoughtful and best-informed men are unbelievers in Christianity. Yet still they hold to the principle, that the idea of a revelation implies that of an infallible interpreter accessible to all. Indeed, it is this very principle that has made them infidels. Having satisfied themselves by examination and reflection that there is no such interpreter, (a conclusion which a man of intelligence will hardly fail to arrive at when he allows himself to examine and reflect), they conclude at once that there can be no revelation. They seldom think it worth while to inquire into the claims of any other form of Christianity which does not pretend to furnish an infallible interpreter. According to their view it is quite idle to talk of a revelation without such an interpreter. The notion of the necessity of this, to any revelation, in which notion they have been brought up, still clings to them. And while they outwardly profess adherence to their church, in order to keep up among the vulgar what they consider as a salutary awe, the very principle on which that church mainly rests-the alleged "necessity" of an infallible interpreter-makes them, themselves, confirmed infidels; indeed, they often, fairly enough, follow up the same principle into atheism; for, when once we have taken upon us to argue from supposed "necessity," we shall be apt to perceive a necessity for such divine interference as does not take place. We may think it necessary that God should interfere to rescue the victims of cruel oppression; to save men from temptations which there is no apparent possibility of their resisting; to remove ruinous ignorance from those who have no natural means of enlightenment, &c.; and seeing that this is not done, we shall infer that there cannot be any God. I have said that in proportion as an intelligent man examines and reflects, he will see that in point of fact there does not exist such an infallible guide, accessible to all men, as is alleged to be a necessary accompaniment of a divine revelation. In the first place, he is told that it is on account of his unfitness to exercise his private judgment that this guide is provided for him; and yet, in deciding whether the claims of his church to be that guide are well founded, he must in the first instance, exercise his judgment. He must judge, first, whether the passages of Scripture, which are alleged to favour that claim, really do so, and whether the traditions which confirm it be authentic. And in doing this, it would be absurd, and a palpable begging of the question, to go by the guidance of his church; because her claim is the very point to be decided. In the next place he sees that to the great mass of the people the church is an interpreter not practically accessible. How can an Irishman in his cabin, or an Indian on the pampas, put himself in communication with the pope? The priest must be, to him, the church. For the priest's conformity to the church he must take the priest's word. If the priest be not infallible, if he be either ignorant, or erroneous, or dishonest, the poor man may be as widely misled as by his own ignorant perusal of the bible. And the infallibility of every individual priest is too much for any but the unenlightened to swallow. And yet there is manifestly the same "necessity" for it that is alleged on behalf of the infallibility of the church. Thus the whole scheme falls to the ground; and, by virtue of that fundamental principle I have been speaking of, drags Christianity along with it. My friend dwells much on a distinction between the dogmas taught by the church, and the practical directions no infallibility; but the distinction is given by it; for which last he claims | We find Paul telling the Milesian elders that he had for a long time warned them night and day with tears. "He knows," he says, "that after his departure men will arise even among themselves teaching depraved doctrines;" and he bids them, therefore, not consult the church of Rome, but to “take heed to themselves." He refers them to no man on earth but to himself—to the gospel which he had preached. He did claim to be an inspired and infallible guide; having confirmed his pretensions by the "signs of an apostle ;" by miracles wrought, not like those which some churches lay claim to, before believers only, but openly, and before unbelievers. And, "after his departure," when he could no longer be consulted, he bids them "take heed to themselves," on account of the many false teachers who would seek "to draw away disciples after them." He no where gives them such a consolatory assurance as that none of these false teachers should be regularly ordained ministers and governors of the church of Rome, or of any other church. He leaves them, as our Lord did, in warning his disciples against false prophets, to judge of the tree by its fruits. This is the very opposite of the plan of judging of the fruits by the tree; that is, receiving such and such doctrines implicitly, because they are taught by such and such a church. It is a very great difficulty, no doubt, to understand why the Almighty has not supplied us with an infallible guide always accessible to every man, but has left us to act on our own judgment and on our own responsibility, as we best can, exposed to innumerable dangers of going wrong. In fact, it is a difficulty to understand why earth is not heaven; why evil of any kind exists. But that we are thus left is a fact, which no intelligent man can conceal from himself except by determining not to examine and reflect. But if we would make the best of things as they are, we must begin by laying aside that spurious humility above alluded to, and putting on true humility. We must inquire, not what, according to our notions, God ought to have done, but what he has done. And we shall find, on examining his written word, the most plain expositions of the purpose for which his revelations were designed, and of the way in which they should be used. We find, for instance, Paul and the other apostles, speaking of the errors which had already crept into the church, and which, they warned their hearers, would creep in, even in their own times. Now if men will resolve to harden themselves against all the warnings given by our Lord and his apostles, of the errors that would creep into the church, who can wonder that they should be misled? or whom can they blame but themselves? make out, I have no doubt, that in very early periods of Christianity, there was worship addressed to the virgin. Why may not this have been one of the very errors which the apostles foresaw and forewarned men of, as likely soon to They may arise, or even as already arisen? How, then, are men to know whether this is allowable or not? If we look to scripture, we find, in all parts, God alone represented as omnipresent, and as able to hear at once the prayers addressed to him, by all persons, in all parts of the world. As for the notion, that the disembodied spirits of saints should be able to hear all the prayers of their thousands of votaries, in various places, if anything so much at variance with the general character of scripture had been designed to be taught, we may be quite sure that the apostles would have distinctly declared it. And the same with numerous other dogmas and practices that have crept into various churches. God's word, as revealed in scripture, with a spirit of true, and not of spurious, humility—that is, with devout reverence for God, and not for man, he will, I trust, learn to distinguish the genuine doctrines of the gospel from the various errors and superstitions with which presumptuous men have overlaid them. But if he shall continue to cling to the notion that wherever there is a revelation there must of "necessity" be an infallible interpreter of it always at hand, I think, that with his intelligent and inquiring mind, he will hardly escape being landed at last in that infidelity which is the legitimate result of such a principle; and in which he will find but too many companions, outwardly, staunch members of the If my friend will earnestly study church. THE PROVINCE OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT. "For he beareth not the sword in vain."-ROMANS Xiii. 4. calls up. First, command. The appropriate utterance of physical force is "You shall." Hence, the laws of the state should be such only as may fitly be cast into the imperative mood. The magistrate is not appointed to teach or to persuade the sword is useless with a view to any such object-but to declare and to enforce. Legislation, then, should be, in all cases, the voice of authority, speaking beforehand what it will, if driven to it, employ the sword to compass. And if this be so, the realms of thought and motive are beyond its jurisdiction-for neither can be reached by the only instrument at its command. Acts alone -or purposes so far as they are clearly made known by acts-come under the rightful cognizance of the sword-bearer. His laws should have exclusive reference to these, because with these only is he competent to deal. There are not a few individuals, we are aware, claiming, too, an intimate acquaintance with philosophy, who devolve upon government the task of doing for a people whatever may be best done by concert and organization. They leave out of sight, however, the primary element of all magistracy-command, enforced by the sword. Almost all public objects require concerted action-few, however, can be fitly accomplished by the agency of physical force. The proclaimed intentions of the ruling power may wear a most benevolent aspect-but he who would judge of them aright must submit them to the test of this question"Are they such as may be backed in the last resort by the sword?" If not, kindly and generous as they may seem, they lie beyond the legitimate scope of government. 66 government mounts guard for the nation Whilst all are busy within the enclosure of an empire's limits, the "powers that be" keep watch and ward upon its walls proclaim the advent of danger from without-decide upon the kind and amount of resistance to be opposed to it. In short, to command wherein command is necessary, to judge, wherein judgment is required, to defend, wherein defence is called for-these are the objects which civil government undertakes to effect for its subjects—which it is qualified, by its very nature, to attempt-which no other instrumentality can secureand which, consequently, define with the utmost precision, the boundaries of the sphere within which it is to act. Secondly, judgment, and the execution of it. These belong, of course, to the nation's sword-bearer. This man, in the pursuit of his fancied interests, commits a trespass upon my rights, whether of liberty, property, or person. What is my remedy? How shall my weakness prevail against his strength? Law has beforehand denounced the wrong, and affixed to it the penalty. Who is to ascertain the extent of the one, and to exact the other? Where is With a view to work out these its lemy appeal? To Cæsar-to him who is gitimate results, civil government has a "the minister of God to execute wrath | right to command, to the whole extent upon him that doeth evil"-the depo- required, the resources of the empiresitory of my country's physical force to claim homage, to exact tribute, to the sword bearer. He is "the strong enforce service. Its authority, so far arm of law"-clothed with authority to at least as it enjoys the sanction of shield each from the aggressions of others, Christianity, extends no further. Whatand to vindicate for each his individual ever else it attempts, is beyond the terms rights. To administer justice, then, is and tenor of its commission. Its duties his especial business-the main end for are not parental, but rectorial. It is which he is elevated to office. This summoned into existence, not to do done, even those who arrogate for him good, in a positive sense, but to prevent a sphere little short of that filled by mischief. It is neither chief baker, nor Divine Providence, will be compelled to butler, nor purveyor, nor almoner, nor confess, "He beareth not the sword presiding pedagogue, nor high priest— in vain." but it is SWORD-BEARER, and all that such an office properly implies—nothing more, and nothing less.-The Nonconformist. Lastly, defence of the community. This also is fitly shadowed forth by the scriptural emblem of magisterial power. The ON THE REGULATION OF THE VOICE IN PREACHING. THE biographer of John Elias, whose impressive discourses electrified his countrymen, the natives of Wales, says that the most numerous congregation could always hear the first word he uttered, and yet that his voice was pleasant and agreeable to the nearest auditor. He adds, "I remember meeting Mr. Christmas Evans, after hearing Elias at Carnarvon Association in 1836, and joining with him in praising Elias as a preacher, delivering his great ideas so well, though so old and nearly tooth-that you are to be heard. You will BIBLICAL GEOGRAPHY. III.—LEBANON. PALESTINE is a mountainous country, -the level tracts which it contains bearing but a small proportion to the cntire extent of its surface. The main features in its formation are dependent upon two ranges of mountains, which extend from north to south, along the coast of Syria, lying parallel to one another. The westernmost of these approaches for the most part close to the sea shore, and bore among the ancients the name of Libanus, which is still preserved in the appellation of Jebel Libnán, given to that portion of it which lies immediately to the north of the 34th parallel. The eastern range, which lies about twenty miles further inland, was anciently distinguished as Anti-Libanus, and is now called Jebelesh-Shurky: these mountains form together the "Mount Lebanon" of the Scriptures. The height of Libanus exceeds in general that of the eastern chain, and may, perhaps, in some places, be as much as 9000 feet above the level of the sea; but one summit in the range of Anti-Libanus attains a greater elevation than any other part of the entire system, and is probably the loftiest mountain in Syria: this is the scriptural Mount Hermon, now called Jebel-eshSheikh. This is usually covered with snow throughout the year, and is probably not less than 10,000 feet in height. The two ranges of Libanus and AntiLibanus are conspicuously marked features of the country immediately to the north of Palestine, but begin to lose their distinctive character about the latitude of Mount Hermon, to the south of which they diminish considerably in elevation, and spread out from east to west, forming an upland and hilly region, which is divided longitudinally by the valley of the Jordan and its lakes.-Chronological Scripture Atlas. |