God. And when we come to feel with him, that we are sinners, who by our sins have forfeited all claim to the favour of God, our objections to the doctrine of justification by the blood and righteousness of Christ will speedily vanish. It is pride which lies at the root of such objections:and how offensive such pride must be to God;-how offensive it must be to him who knows the secrets of all hearts, who knows the corruption, the baseness, the selfishness, which lodge there, to see us making light of his grace, and affecting to be our own viours, I need not point out. O let us humble ourselves in the very dust before him, lest he be provoked by our folly and presumption to shut us out from all hope of mercy. "Now may the God of peace, who brought again from the dead the Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make us perfect in every good work to do his will, working in us that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever." Ainen. sa But there may be some one here who knows his guilt, but thinks it beyond all remedy. But is it not . true that all have sinned, and that all stand in need of the righteousness of Christ for pardon and acceptance? There may be a difference in the degree of guilt; but "there is no difference" as to the way of salvation, and the means of salvation; as to the efficacy of faith, and the power and freeness of the grace of Christ. We have all sinned, it is true; but it is no less true that we may all be saved. If we are impenitent and unbelieving, we can regard ourselves, indeed, in no other light than as a company of condemned criminals. But, then, "God willeth not that any should perish." Here, in his Gospel, is given to us our great charter of liberty: here we have a bill of universal emancipation here are tidings of great joy to all people. "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters; and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea come, buy wine and milk, without money and without price." "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all ye ends of the earth." "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." To the Editor of the Christian Observer. YOUR publication being in the hands of many pious ministers of every denomination, I entreat your permission to lay before them the following thoughts, which have arisen from my own observation and reflection. When a minister addresses that part of his congregation whom he apprehends to be yet regardless of their eternal interests, and has so far engaged their attention as to excite doubts concerning the safety of their present course of life; it is probable that some such thoughts as these may arise in their minds. ---"If I mean to save my soul, I must adopt another method of living; I must, however painful, begin to exercise my mind in another manner than I now do. I well know this cannot be done effectually, but by breaking off connections which are dear to me, and foregoing gratifications and amusements which swallow up the leisure I have to spare from my ordinary occupations. Perhaps this is what the Scripture means, by cutting off a right hand and plucking out a right eye, and taking up my cross, as the first step towards becoming Christ's disciple." Such thoughts will, as I know by experience, occasion much mental disquiet, not unattended by a secret hope, that so much may, possibly, after all, not be absolutely necessary; in other words, that there may be an easier way to heaven. Now it seems to me to be obvious, that, when men's minds are in this state, it is the part of the faithful minister to rouse them to the most active exertion; to press most earnestly upon them the indispensable necessity of self-denial, of prayer, of watchfulness, if they would escape the impending ruin. It is a more common course, I fear, rather to warn such men that no works of their own will be of any avail to their rescue; that salvation is wholly of grace, through faith, and must be received as a free gift. Now these and such-like assertions, however true and scriptural, do not appear to me to be well timed, unless they be accompanied by the most pointed and impressive exhortations to labour for the meat that endureth for ever; to run, that they may obtain; to strive, if they would enter in at the strait gate. Otherwise their effect is likely to be, and I fear often is, to produce a suspension of the reluctant resolutions they were beginning to form, and a premature quiet which it will prove much more difficult again to disturb; the real piety of the minister having served to strengthen the bias of his hearer, to spiritual sloth and inaction. I believe it will be found, that many, if not most, of those persons who now attend what is called a Gospel Ministry, and who yet go on quietly and without disturbance in a worldly course of life, had at one period many anxious thoughts concerning their spiritual state, which might have issued in conversion, if the narrow gate which leadeth to life had been set before them, and the struggles they were inclined to make, to enter in at it, had not been spoken of as the workings of a legal spirit, inimical to the Gospel plan; and represented as the efforts of a mind desirous to establish its own righ To the Editor of the Christian Observer. THE answer returned by your correspondent M. to Inquisitor, in your number for April, appears to me by no means to afford a satisfactory vindication of the question put to candidates at Methodist ordinations; viz. "Have you constant power over all sin?" He seems to take it for granted, that to "have constant power over all sin," and to be free from sin in such a sense as every one is, and must be, who is "born of God," are cases precisely similar. But the distinction must, I think, appear obvious to every one who considers the subject with candour and attention. From a regard to the uniform and consistent tenor of Scripture doctrine; from a clear conviction of the present imperfection of human nature in its most improved state; and from the authority of the most judicious commentators, I have always been led to suppose, that the texts, in the third chapter of the First Epistle of St. John, to which your correspondent refers, cannot be understood to imply any thing more than that the real Christian, or "whosoever is born of God," neither doth nor can live in the allowed commission of sin; that he cannot sin with allowance, continuance, and satisfaction to himself: for, as Dr. Doddridge observes, unless the words be taken in a qualified sense, they would prove, not only the sinless perfection of every regenerate person, but the impossibility of his sinning any more. But what is implied by having constant power over all sin?" Would not any man of plain and unbiassed understanding apprehend that the words, according to their literal meaning, imply a state nothing short of sinless perfection, and that no qualified sense can here be intended or admitted? And is not such a state alike inconsistent with the declarations of Scripture, and the universal history of mankind? For there is not a just man upon earth, who doeth good and sinneth not," and "if we" (even the very best of us) "say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Where, then, is that perfect character to be found, who can unequivocally assert, with the veracity becoming a 66 Christian, and especially a Christian minister, that he has " constant power over all sin?" That (since nothing less can well be understood) he is capable of keeping himself at all times pure and undefiled from the contamination of sin, in thought, word, and deed? For if the form of expression be understood to convey any meaning short of this, it must be understood, I think, to mean what is inconsistent with its literal import and if taken in its plain and obvious meaning, it does appear to me that it will not admit of any sound, rational, and scriptum ral vindication; nor do I believe that any fallen son or daughter of Adam can, with truth and consistency, assert the privilege of "having constant power over all sin." I cannot conclude this paper more properly than with the following passage, quoted by Dr. Magee from Dr. Hales. "The perfect Christian, according to the representation of Holy Writ, is he who, as far as the infirmity of his nature will allow, aspires to universal holiness of life;. uniformly and habitually endeavouring to stand perfect and complete in all the will of God, and to fulfi all righteousness, in humble imitation of his Redeemer:-who daily and fervently prays for increase of faith, like the Apostles themselves; and strenuously labours to add to his faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness and to brotherly kindness charity.' Such is the assemblage of virtues necessary to constitute the character of the perfect Christian; ever aiming at, though never attaining to, absolute or sinless perfection in this present state of trial, probation, and preparation for a better; and meekly resting all his hopes of favour and acceptance with God, not on his own defective or imperfect righteousness, but on the free grace of God through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; for by grace we are saved, through faith; and this not of ourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any one should boast.'" July, 1810. . I am, &c. HAUD INSONS, MISCELLANEOUS. but are merely additions or omissions of a jod or a vau letter, expressing such words full or deficient, according to the known usage of the Hebrew tongue, and familiar with every scholar. But even this small number of various readings is considerably reduced when compared with the text of Athias, printed at Amsterdam, 1661; so that the integrity of the Hebrew text is confirmed by this valuable MS. so far as it goes; and its testimony is unquestionably important. Four readings are peculiar to this copy, not to be found in Dr. Kennicott's Bible; and many mi + H nute Masoretical distinctions (where of the greater part concerns the formation of the letters in certain words), shew that the Masorah of the Eastern Jews hath its peculiarities not common with those of the West. It ought, however, to be noted, that by this it is certainly determined, that the present Roll is not a copy from any examplar of the Jews in Europe; for no other synagogue Rolls known in Europe are observed to have the same characteristics; at least, as far as appears from any description of Hebrew MSS. extant. I have already remarked, that some of the skins appear more aged and decayed than others, and that the text is not all written by the same hand: this remark is confirmed by a more close examination of the writing, and a more careful comparison of the skins with each other. It appears evident that the Roll itself comprises the fragments of at least three different Rolls of one common material, namely, goat skin, and exhibits three different specimens of writing. This circumstance naturally leads to a supposition, that the practice of writing the law on dyed leather was not uncommon with the Indian Jews; and that their scribes were accustomed to write their synagogue Rolls with as much exactness, in dimension and proportion, as we see books of the same edition printed with us the precise number of lines in each column, and the exact quantity and adjustment of words in each line; the preservation of the spaces; and other particulars to be observed in copying the text, being fixed, they were compelled to adhere to such rules in order to produce authorized copies. Dr. Bu chanan, on the discovery of the Roll, was solicitous to know its origin; and the Malayala Jews being interrogated respecting it, could only give the following imperfect ac"That, according to some, it came originally from Senna in Arabia, Other Jews had heard that count. it was brought from Cashmir;" but the Cabul Jews, who travel annually into the interior of China, reported, "that, in some synagogues, the law is still found written on a roll of leather, made of goat-skins, and dyed red," which perfectly agrees with this found in Malayala. It is hoped that our countrymen in the East Indies, in pursuance of an order already issued by the Honourable Company to preserve and transmit whatever is found valuable relating to the Languages, History, and Antiquities of India, will secure to us more MSS. of the sacred writings; more especially as what specimens have already been obtained are found to harmonize so justly with the most pure and esteemed copies among us. My next communication will be concerning the Travancore Version of the New Testament, now transcribing from the original into the Hebrew character.---I have proceeded with it so far as St. John's Gospel. Cambridge, I am, &c. T. Y. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. I TAKE the liberty of offering some further observations, as supplementary to the little paper on "Not at Home," which appeared in your publication of May last. There is one imposing argument, by which the advocates for this practice endeavour to secure its permanency. They contend that this is but one of a large class of forms, all precisely of the same kind; and that if we reject it, we must, to be consistent, go a great deal farther; we must, in fact, renounce with it the use of terms, without which the common civilities of life could not be preserved. For instance, it is argued, that if we give up "Not at Home," we cannot answer cards of invitation in the usual I will suppose myself invited to dine abroad, and my inclination to do so counteracted by a prior engagement. No one can, I presume, charge me with the slightest breach of truth, if I decline in the usual way, though there is surely no absolute or physical impossibility in the case. Why then, if I have sufficient reasons of another nature for refusing an invitation, am I not at liberty to use the same courtesy? If I feel that my time may be more profitably spent at home, or if I have grounds for fearing that, in the company expect to meet, such conversation or amusements may be introduced as are unsuitable to my sentiments, surely I may consider these obstacles at least as important as a prior engagement to another place. In such cases, then, I use the term "cannot," in its received import, as implying, not a strict impossibility, but an impediment sufficiently real to influence my conduct. But is there no insincerity in professing that "I am sorry?" By no means. I may feel a decided disinclination to accept an invitation, and at the same time regret that I cannot oblige my acquaintance by compliance. I may experience, and should experience, real sorrow, if the impediment arises from any thing irregular in his mode of life. And with such sentiments I may, in perfect candour, accompany my refusal with an expression of sorrow; reserving to myself, as every wise man will, those secret reasons and motives, which it would be, perhaps, only mischievous to divulge. But what if there be no serious motive, no moral consideration, nothing that can be called a reason in the case-can I, in these circumstances, refuse an invitation in the usual form? Can I, in short, profess myself, with truth, "sorry" at not being able to accept it, when my own whim or fancy is the only obstacle? In soberness 1 do not think Ican-I see no possible argument by which such expressions can in this case be reconciled with truth, unless we admit the ridiculous supposition that the writer is heartily sorry he is whimsical and capricious. But, in fact, when we look for a high and delicate sense of truth, we naturally look for a great deal more. We expect to find a symmetry of character, an assemblage of those virtues, without which a mere insulated love of truth would be absolutely monstrous. And perhaps the advocates for truth have unintentionally betrayed its cause in nothing more than in even supposing it in association with depravity or folly, and in giving rules for cases where the sole intricacy arises from the impossibility of consistently preserving truth, where good sense and good nature are deliberately violated. In such an instance, then, were I asked how a man shall reconcile sincerity with caprice; how, where a courteous invitation is rejected from mere whim, that rejection shall be worded so as to accord with truth, my answer should be this: "Cease to be whimsical and capricious, and there will be no difficulty in the case." Leaving then such persons to the correction of. their follies, we may safely pronounce, that no sober and coasistently moral man is obliged to depart from established custom, in the particular we are now considering. Let persons object as they please to thus gravely moralizing on the wording of a card; for my part, I conceive that no instance can be trivial in which the sincerely conscientious are disburdened of one needless scruple, or in which truth is vindicated from the charge of involving in its strictest exercise either coarseness or indecorum. If, |