considered culpable, and subject to just condemnation? Or, (vice versa,) if the agent be really criminal, how can such a case be considered a dispensation of Divine Providence?

In answer to these queries, and as something towards a solution of the difficulty, I offer the following remarks:

1. That in any such case, the agent acts freely, of his own volition, without any constraint or impulse from God -being left to the exercise of his own wicked disposition and design: Jas. i: 13: and thus is he responsible and justly subject to condemnation. And

2. God, the sovereign Ruler, removing those restraints which might prove a hinderance, and so laying or ordering the train of circumstances as to permit the perpetration of the deed-the case thus becomes a dispensation of Divine Providence. And thus we exhibit the twofold aspect of such a case, as before mentioned.

The limits, however, of this permission on the part of Divine Providence, are marked out by unerring wisdom, and guarded by almighty power. "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further," is spoken by the voice of Omnipotence, to the turbulent passions of wicked agents, as well as to the tumultuous ocean. See this truth exemplified in the case of satan's power to afflict God's servant Job: and see too that expression of the Psalmist verified: "Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain."

It is in this view of Divine Providence, (as I humbly conceive,) that God is said to do that which he has seen proper to permit having so ordered the train of circumstances, that it will certainly take place. Thus it is said that “He hardened Pharaoh's heart:" Ex. vii: 13; while Pharaoh, more strictly speaking, "hardened his [own] heart: "ch. viii: 15. So, also, Davi says of Shimei, while cursing the king, "Let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord hath bidden him:" 2 Sam. xvi: 11. Examples to this effect abound in the scriptures: I add one more the case of the death of our Redeemer, Acts iv: 27, 28: "For, of a truth, against thy holy child Jesus," &c. they "were gathered together, to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done."

'That there rests still an adorable darkness on that link which connects the purpose and providence of God with

human freedom and accountability, is readily admitted:-a darkness which checks our presumption, and renders reverence more suitable than speculation. "O the depth!"

Nor is this the only mysterious feature in the afflicting dispensations of Divine Providence. Cases occur in which we may enquire in vain, why should this be?-Why such a visitation, so signally distressing, from the Divine hand? The reason rests with the great Sovereign; and it is the proper office of faith, in such a case, to refer the matter to Him, whose wisdom never errs, whose goodness never fails.

AN EXTRACT

FROM THE LONDON PULPIT, BY JAMES GRANT.

There is another thing which the preachers of the gospel ought most sedulously to guard against, if they would consult their ministerial usefulness: I mean a spirit of levity. Let me not be understood as here proscribing a cheerful disposition, or even innocent conversation of a playful kind. The levity which I condemn is a very different thing: it is that excess of merriment or jocularity which leads the party to forget, for a time, the ministerial character altogether, and to degenerate into a sort of temporary buffoon. To make the proper distinction on paper between undue levity and innocent playfulness, is no easy task; but every one possessing a discriminative judgment will be able to make it in his own mind. One rule for distinguishing between the two things is this that whenever a minister perceives that he is carrying his jocularity so far as that those around him are beginning to give unrestrained utterance to their fancied witticisms and real or supposed humorous remarks, he must have exceeded the bounds of propriety. There must be something wrong in a minister's conversation or conduct when his presence does not operate as a restraint on any undue levity on the part of even the men of the world.

Of the importance to the preacher of the gospel, if he would be a useful christian minister, of abstaining from anything approaching to laxity either of conversation or conduct, I need not speak. It must be sufficiently evident to all who have ever expended a moment's thought upon the

subject. Where is the man who cannot point to cases which have fallen under his own observation, of some of the most able and eloquent ministers he has ever heard, neutralizing, in a great measure, the cffects of their pulpit discourses, by looseness of conversation or laxity of conduct? Are there not evangelical ministers who can take as liberal, and seemingly as unrestrained a part in the conversation which is going on in a mixed company, as any of the other persons present? And is there not, on the very face of the thing, something wrong in this? My impression of the sanctity which ought to attach to the character of the christian minister is such, that I conceive he ought not to be any length of time in a mixed assemblage of individuals without something transpiring in his deportment or conversation, if not in both, which will clearly indicate to the rest of the company the profession to which he belongs.

A man, I repeat, may be a first-rate preacher; there may be a peculiar unction in all the services of the sanctuary in which he engages; and yet, if there be anything loose in his words or conduct; anything like levity in his manner, or any appearance of his having caught the spirit of the world, -the efficiency of that man's ministerial labors is sure to be impaired to an awful extent.

I was expressing a short time ago to a Dissenting minister, my admiration of the able and evangelical preaching of the pastor of a Dissenting church; and added, that 1 was surprised his congregation was not larger. "The reason," said the other, "is, that though an excellent preacher, there is a levity in his conduct which is most unbecoming. For ex ample," he added, "Mr. has been known repeatedly to purchase and eat apples in the streets on the Sunday; and though never charged with any flagrant immorality himself, some of his most intimate acquaintances are very immoral in their conduct." I speak on this point from personal observation. I have known ministers remarkable for their talents as preachers, and whose doctrines were evengelical in the highest degree, but whose conduct, without being positively immoral, was not becoming the gospel,-labor for a long succession of years with but very limited success. have heard it remarked times without number, of the ministers to whom I allude, "Oh what a pity it is that Mr. Soand-so ever comes out of the pulpit at all; how different he

I

is in private from what he is there!" To guard against misconception, it may be proper to state, that in making these remarks I have no London minister in my eye. I make the observations in the hope that they may have the effect of causing some preacher of the gospel who may feel that they apply in a greater or less measure to his case, to be more vigilant in his life and conversation. And for the encouragement and consolation of such ministers as may be conscious that Providence has not gifted them with those talents which acquire for men what is called popularity, let me here observe, that if they only walk holily and justly and unblameably before their fellow-men, they may be made the instruments of much greater spiritual good than those of far superior talents whose conduct is unbecoming the spirit of the gospel. I am much afraid that there are many christians, both in the ministry and out of it, who have never yet had proper views of the vast importance of a blameless example, to their usefulness in the world. Example, either for good or evil, exerts a mighty influence on the minds of those with whom we associate. I believe and am sure, that many a sinner has been converted through the still small voice of example, if there be not an inaccuracy in the expression, who have heard for years the preaching of faithful ministers without effect. It is a silent but most powerful and persuasive language. You hear not its voice, and yet. the results show that it speaks with the tongue of a trumpet.

A sermon, by Rev. Thomas W. Sydnor, preached before the Appomattox Association, at the Rocks, Prince Edward Co., Va., August 10th, 1844, and published at the request of that body.

"Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ."-PHIL. 1: 6.

In compliance with a resolution passed at the last session of this body, I have selected as the theme of my discourse, THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. This doctrine, I think, is clearly taught in the passage before us. In the context the Apostle expresses his thankfulness to God, and the joy which he felt in praying for his Philippian brethren: "I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all, making request with joy, for your fellowship in the gospel, from the first day until now." He then assigns the cause of these emotions-the confident assurance which he felt that God would perfect the work of grace which he had begun in their hearts. "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." This good work consists in the gradual conformation of life to the principles and requirements of the gospel. The phrase will perform it until, is very significant; the full sense being, "will carry it on unto, and finish it at "*—that is, will carry it forward, gradually perfecting it, until a certain period, and then perform upon it the last, the finishing process. The day of Jesus Christ, may refer to the period of death or that of judgment-and so far as

7-Vol. IV.

* Bloomfield.