WHEN Christian friends together meet
The joys of fellowship to prove,
Or wander in communion sweet
With those they love;

Oh! in that calmly soothing hour
Which far from earth the spirit lifts,
When heaven in mercy seems to shower
Its choicest gifts;

Turn they not then to those, whose lot
Forbids such blissful cup to share?
And can their sorrows be forgot
In social prayer?

No, ye loved servants of your GOD,
Our thoughts are with you far away,
Where over many a toilsome road

Your footsteps stray

When over Afric's scorching plain
Ye bear the Gospel message high,
While restless care, or throbbing pain
Bedims your eye-

When in the howling wilderness

Ye may be called to do your part, While many an hour of loneliness Sickens your heart.

Or when beneath the palm-tree's shade Ye number o'er your secret woes, The while your weary form is laid Courting repose

It may be that in such an hour

Some kindred spirit wanders near, Whose sympathizing words have power Your soul to cheer:

And as in holy communing

Sweet interchange of heart is given, And every hour fresh joys would bring Fresh thoughts of heaven;

Ye may be tempted there to stay,
At least together on to rove;
'Tis hard to tear ourselves away
From those we love!

It is but this is not our rest-*
Nor may we from our duty start-
Far as the east is from the west,

Your steps must part!

Ye have your Master's work to do, Through distant lands to bear his name; Deem it not hard-your Saviour too Once felt the same!

† Micah ii. 10.

Few were the hearts whom He had taught, Had taught to know Him, and to love, When of those few a band he sought Their zeal to prove

Think ye no pangs his bosom rent?
Was there no void within his heart,
When those beloved ones forth He sent
To act their part?

If not, why had the live-long night,
The dreary Mount, beheld his prayer?
Why had the earliest streak of light
Still found Him there?†

We know it not-that lonely prayer,
Yet on it Fancy loves to dwell;
We strive in thought those griefs to share
Which o'er Him fell-

He prayed intently, not alone,

That some to serve Him might rejoice, That wisdom from th' eternal throne Might guide his choice;

No-He had feelings like our own,

He loved, and he was dearly lovedOh! how then could He now look on With heart unmoved!

Think of Him, then, thou lonely one,

With few to love thee, none to bless ; He who now sits on heaven's high throne Knows thy distress

We cannot be all desolate,

While we may own a Saviour's love,
He will be with us, near us wait,
Where'er we rove→→

And when our Master's work is done;
When this fast fleeting life is o'er,
O, there's a bright, eternal one,
A happier shore;

When, free from all the griefs of earth
Each shall at GOD's own footstool wait,
And none shall be again sent forth"
Through heaven's bright gate!

66

* Luke vi. 12, 13.

L. N.

"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named." - EPHESIANS iii. 14, 15.

There

THE immediate antecedent of "family" being our Lord Jesus Christ, he is usually considered as giving the name to his people, and this was literally verified, when they were called "Christians" at Antioch. (Acts xi.) It has, however, been thought, that "the Father" should be considered as the head of the "family," and that they bear His name. are many such instances in God's word, but that which in human writings would be laxity, is there camprehensiveness, and proves how inexhaustible is the treasury of God's book; and, as a security against error, the Holy Spirit has so indited it, that no sound criticism makes any essential difference. The love of the Father is equal to that of Jesus, but it can only be "manifested" through the Mediator between God and man. The proofs of love which God bestows upon his Church, are spoken of as paternal, those of Christ as fraternal, although their magnitude and number fully prove that he is THE "friend who sticketh closer than a brother."

In addition to these considerations, there are various others which suggest themselves to our minds, such as the connection of God's children, their property, their influence, and their likeness.

By their adoption they are the children of God. This involves all that is great and glorious.

This connection brings with it an entail which can never be cut off. They "inherit the earth," (that is all which can make them really happy here,) and they are the heirs of eternal glory hereafter.

Their influence is aptly described by the "light" and the "salt." (Matthew v. 13, 14.) And this is the result of that progressive holiness which they are commanded to strive after, when it is said "Be ye therefore holy as your Father which is in heaven is holy." There are two other points of great importance, which are not included in these, though closely connected with them, which are the security of God's people, and their responsibility. The one a source of comfort, the other a stimulus to exertion; and throughout the Scriptures of truth, we find one, as it were, set over against the other, and both seem to be condensed in that striking text, "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you to will and to do of his good pleasure."

"And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them."-ACTS xi. 2-4.

WHAT a mine of wisdom does the enlightened Christian find in the word of God! When, like Solomon, he seeks for heavenly blessings, (1 Kings iii. 9.) God often includes with them maxims for earthly guidance. When Peter was about to vindicate his conduct before his accusers, he teaches us, that the best method of instructing ignorance, and disarming prejudice, is by giving the origin and circumstantial proceedings of his conduct. How often do false accusations arise from misunderstanding and misrepresentation!

In the plain course of duty, as watchmen against the progress of the Antiprotestant faction within our church, we are not likely to lack occupation. That restless spirit, which has ever been associated with Romish principles and tendencies, is constantly at work in some way or other. And to those who are desirous to resist its more open or more secret agitations, there is little prospect of rest. The many-headed monster shews itself in such various ways and places, that the difficulty is to make the proper selection for due reprobation and reproof. Whether it be the Bishop of Exeter and his chaplain, or his worthy presbyter, Mr. Ingle, of St. Sidwell, or Dr. Hook and his worthy curate, Mr. Jephson; there is so much scope for the exercise of our office, so much call for bonest and indignant protestation, that it "gives us pause" to determine where first the lash should fall. After all, however, of those who leave us for Rome, or of those who remain with us a little longer, the pre-eminence may fairly be given to Mr. Maskell; and we address ourselves to the painful but necessary duty of examining his two brochures.

These are very ordinary performances indeed; not worthy, when independently considered, of a moment's criticism. There are substances, however, which become magnetic by vicinage to some powerful agent, that become influential by sympathy; and it is because of Mr. Maskell's associations, and not because of his individual ability, that we notice his writings in these pages. Our remarks have reference to him not as the vicar of St. Mary's Church, but as the domestic chaplain to the Bishop of Exeter; selected of course for his particular opinions; put forward at a particular crisis for the expression of those opinions-the pilot balloon, to test the course of the wind. Come, how

ever, from where it will, and whether or not episcopally endorsed, we do not hesitate to condemn it as rank, barefaced Romanism, unsustained by any of that astuteness which generally qualifies those advocates of the system who sojourn temporarily amongst

us.

We would, however, just notice in passing, the miserable attempt at criticism with which the sermon opens. The writer chooses a text from a Psalm; "the matter" of which, he affirms, "has no bearing upon the particular subject to which he proposes to direct consideration." Why then did he take it? He then notices, quite unnecessarily as it would seem, the variation between the version in the Prayer-Book and that in the Bible; not to obtain any fresh light on the text, but solely to have the opportunity of saying that the Prayer-Book version is "the older, the more noble, and more accurate;" which, if he had been a scholar, he would have known not to be true. Then in support of the opinion so advanced, he remarks that in both the points of difference which he notices in his text, it is the Bible version that is correct, and not the " more accurate" Prayer-Book! And then finally, he justifies the accuracy of the Bible version of the passage on the ground, not that it is in accordance with the Hebrew, but because it follows the Septuagint, the ancient versions of Jerome, and the Italic." Has the bishop's chaplain to learn, that the Hebrew text is the absolute authority, and that these "versions," however respectable, have no authority at all? or is it that not being able to refer to the Hebrew text, he makes an unmeaning parade about the Greek and Latin? If, however, the prayerbook version be the "most accurate," then let him shew us the proof of it, and tell us where it found the render

66

ings in question, seeing that they are neither in the Hebrew text, nor the Septuagint, nor in the "ancient version of St. Jerome."

66

This is followed by a silly attempt to establish a distinction of superiority between the Psalms of David, which he calls "the holy Psalter," and the rest of Scripture; as if there was a "fulness" in the Psalms which exists not elsewhere; and which particularly justifies, in his estimation, the "sevenfold use of them in the hours" of the Romish Church, to which he makes a sly allusion. He admits that "all Scripture is given by inspiration,” but "in another sense!" from that of the Psalms. It would have been well if "the chaplain" had consulted the bishop, who is at all events a learned man, and given the listening clergy the "other sense," ex cathedra, to which he alludes. He says "The doctrines of the faith are to be used according to the various nature of its class;" but what that means we are at a loss to determine. He says also, that the Psalms are ever varying in the character of what they offer to the mind;" and he endeavours to prove this "by the constant practice of our church in reading them daily." How the established habit of reading the Psalms may be a proof that they vary continually as to what they teach, does not come out very satisfactorily; and we are still further at a loss for the meaning of " its class!"

66

66

The writer's mode of proof is, however, generally peculiar. He attaches a certain meaning to his text, and he says, "This view, of course, rests," (not on the real meaning of the passage, but) upon the truth that we are strangers here." And then, in order to prove that we are strangers here, he does not refer to the practical fact, or the plain teaching of inspired Scripture; but to his assertion that "the old fathers insisted on this fact," and that "the schoolmen, whose theological labours were built," (not upon inspired Scripture,) but upon the strong foundations laid during the first ten centuries, (i.e., the Romish writers and controversialists), "did at last adopt the word into their peculiar terminology," and "applied the classical word viator to represent any

baptized man." How strange that any man should hesitate to believe himself a pilgrim and a foreigner upon earth, till he finds that "the schoolmen❞ have stamped the notion with their sanction and patronage! This savours very much of " only believing what the church believes.'

We have not, however, yet done with the incipient flounderings of the bishop's chaplain. In page 12 he shews that the correct application of the text is to " unregenerate" men ; though he had previously applied it on the authority of the schoolmen to "the baptized." " He then steps back, and says, "Even if the whole of this description is not always applicable to every man, yet in several parts of it, it must be." Perhaps "the schoolmen" can help him out of his difficulty, and tell him which. He decides, however, after all, that on the condition of the heathen it is better not to say anything; and then finishes with applying the text not to the unregenerate heathen, of which it is so

66

accurate a representation," bating his subsequent modifications, but to ourselves! "We are the pilgrims!" and then to finish up this strange critical disquisition, in spite of all the authority of "the schoolmen," with their "strong foundations laid in the ten first centuries," he states that of the four verses, chosen as his text, only the "last few words do now practically concern us." All the rest might have been left out on the present occasion; and, consequently, onethird of the chaplain's sermon might have been left out as irrelevant. The conclusion of the whole matter with him is, that "all we-who are baptized-are in the right way, and are journeying towards the city of habitations." It would be well if the bishop would apply a little of his extraordinary critical acumen for catechizing to these introductory pages; and frame some 150 questions for the edification both of "the domestic chaplain" and the western clergy. Here he might indeed come forth victorious!

It would not have been worth while to meddle with this trash, but for the serious mischief which follows; but the doctrine of the sermon is such

66

that it is wonderful that any bishop on the bench has allowed it to pass without correction. There is certainly at the outset a sort of admission that the clergy only requested it to be printed that they might give it a fuller examination ;" and also an assurance that it had not undergone revision by the bishop-in fact, that it is altogether an independent concern-and no wonder; for surely it would not be easy to find a father for it but the author.

The doctrine is the most unqualified Romanism. The invariable efficacy of baptism-avowed disregard to the great means of grace-prayer, and reading the word of God-and the Romish doctrine of the seven sacraments. There is not a word through the whole sermon that a Papist might not have writtenthough in open communion with that apostate body. It is rather strange, also, that after all the author's vacillations about the true meaning of his text, he at last says, that the "exact meaning of the inspired Psalmist, when he speaks of the right way,' is that of the constant help of the (seven) sacraments." We insert the word, seven, because, by the context, he means the seven-and thinks to deceive unpractised controversialists by such flimsy stuff as this, in the way of a blind : "In saying 'sacrament' I employ the term in its wide acceptation, as distinguished from the stricter sense in which our Church defines baptism and the Holy Eucharist. They are sacraments generally necessary to salvation. They are sacraments ordained for that special purpose by Christ himself; not so others, still sacraments." Such view cannot be held by any sound Anglican churchman. We have affirmed deliberately in the Articles that there are two sacraments-and that "the other five which be called sacraments (in those days,) are not to be accounted for sacraments." The bishop's chaplain does "account them for sacraments;" and in doing so he is virtually and essentially a Romanist.

Then, with respect to baptism, Mr. Maskell asserts that in baptism, by the infinite grace of the Holy Trinity,

we are all "placed once for all in the right way. "It is the supernatural act by which we were all taken out of the miseries of the world-the state of sin the state of wrath-and introduced into the company of the elect," "a gift that can never again be conferred." "In baptism we were given the inestimable grace of justification," "in the instant of its reception we were made just and holy in the sight of God," gifted with "the primeval innocence and righteousness of Adam." It were vain to ask for any Scriptural proof of this. We should probably be referred by the advocate of this theology to the "old fathers," and the "schoolmen of after ages," or to that recondite commentary, unknown certainly to us, out of which the writer learned that the "exact meaning" of "right way"in the text, is "the seven sacraments," which doctrine the Church of England in her articles repudiates. But really to advance such a doctrine as having the slightest shadow of a claim to support from Scripture, or as a Christian doctrine at all, is either his unpardonable ignorance, or impudence; and not worthy of a moment's discussion.

The writer, however, seems most eager to get past all this as speedily as possible, and to come to his specific point. He first dismisses his text, then he dismisses the meaning of it. Then he gets rid of the means of grace, prayer, and Scripture reading. Then he puts aside even his grand panacea of baptism as a thing gone by and done with. Then he escapes from justification as a matter once and for ever accomplished: and so he clears his way to the grand Popish creed, which is his real object, how a regenerated, sanctified, justified soul, who has been restored to the primeval state of innocenceseeing that he and every one of his fellows has become a lost, hopeless sinner again in spite of his pardon and renewal, who never can be baptized, regenerated, or justified again -how is he to be restored and saved? Let any one at all acquainted with Romish controversy say whether this is not precisely the line of teaching adopted by that apostate community,