you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood-And God said, This is the token of the covenant, which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth." The parallel between the sacrifice of Noah and that of Christ, is drawn in Isai. chap. liv. where the Lord says, "For this is as the waters of Noah unto me; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah shall no more cover the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee." The sacrifice of Noah, like that of Christ, was offered up for the whole world, and the beneficial effects of it, reach to the end of time. 4. Was Noah, like the Son of God, without descent? As it respects the new world, into which he was miraculously brought, and of whose inhabitants he was the sole progenitor, he was truly with out descent. As his children only were preserved with him in the ark; so he had no ancestor in the new world, none, whom he could call father or mother. 5. Was Noak a King? He was, unquestionably, Lord and King of the whole earth. His family comprised all the inhabitants of the world, over whom he had a patriarchal right to rule. As to his titles; these were derived from his sacerdotal office, in which he offered a sacrifice of perpetual efficacy, and procured a covenant of perennial peace. He is, in a natural way, to all the world, what Christ is, in a spiritual way. viz. the person, in whom the Divine Justice and Mercy united, to give life to men: and hence his titles of King of Righteousness, and King of Peace. Thus far we have a regular series of years, which cannot be mistaken: but we cannot, in this manner, proceed any farther. We are next told, that Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. But, from this we cannot infer the age of Terah, when Abram was born. It is natural to suppose, that Abram was the oldest of the three: and as Terah was 70 years old, when Haran was born, it is reasonable to suppose, that he was several years younger when Abram was born. The proper method of reckoning, therefore, is this: to ascertain the age of Abram, when he met Melchisedec; add this to the 222 years already calculated to the birth of Terab; deduct the sum from $50, the number of years that Noah lived after the flood; and whether this allows Terah to have had a reasonable time to come to man's estate, and be the father of children? see Abram, then, was 75 years old, when he left his own country. After journeying into various places, he overthrew the kings, and was met by Melchisedec; but we are not told what his age was, when this happened. After meeting with Milchisedec, he had several visions of God, married Hagar, and had a son by her; and when this son was born, Abram was 86 years of age. All this must have taken up some time. But, we will suppose (which is the most unfavourable supposition) that Abram was 85 years old, when he met Melchisedec. Add 85 to 222, the number of years which elapsed from the flood to the birth of Terah, and the sum is 307. Deduct this from 350, the number of years that Noah lived after the flood; and we have 43 years for the age of Terah, when Abram was born. It is, therefore, perfectly consistent with the chronology, to suppose, that Noah was living, when Abram defeated the kings. And if we suppose (as we reasonably may) that Terah was only 30 years old when Abram was born, and Abram only 80 years old, when he met Melchisedec; Noah might have lived 18 years after that meeting. To this result, however, there is one objection; which is this: Stephen, in the viith of the Acts, tells us, that Terah was dead, before Abram left Haran: and it is said, Gen. xi. that Terah lived 205 years. Add this to 222, the years from the flood to Terah's birth, and the sum is 427. But Noah lived only 350 years after the flood, and must, therefore, have been dead, long before Abram met Melchisedec. The answer to this objection, is, that the chronology is inconsistent with itself, and must, therefore, in one part or the other, be incorrect. Even supposing Terah to have been 70 years old when Abram was born; he must have lived 135 years longer, to have been 205 when he died; and consequently Abram must have been 155 instead of 75 years old when he left Haran. An errour there must be, some where: and it is not inconsistent with a belief of the Divine authority of the Scriptures, to suppose, that an errour in stating a number, might arise, either from a wrong translation (numbers being represented, in the Original, by letters, instead of figures) or from the carelessness of a transcriber. I am inclined to think, that Terah's age should be 105 instead of 205; in which case, Terah must have been 30 years old when Abram was born; and it is not unnatural to suppose, that Abram left Haran the same year his father died, i. e. the 75th of his age: but, for this I have no authority. Every one may suppose what he pleases: but still the character remains the same; and there is not, nay, we are sure there would not be another of the human race, to whom the things spoken of Melchisedec could, with any propriety be applied, besides Noah himself. shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least èsteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one who shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now there fore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. In this part of the epistle, the apostle reproves the church at Corinth for two faults: that contro versies existed among them, and that they went to law with one another before heathen magistrates. When a controversy exists, one if not both of the parties were generally in the wrong. It is, how ever, possible, that men may differ about their secular affairs, and yet have no disposition to "do wrong," or "defraud." Both parties may be willing to refer their cause to a tribunal, where it will be decided on principles of justice and equity. But it is more than intimated by the apostle, that some of the Corinthian brethren were of a litigious spirit; that they loved contention, and entered into law-suits, not to secure important rights, or to obtain redress for great injuries, but to contend about the "smallest matters." For such a spirit and practice, they deserved reproof. But the apostle evidently puts the greater stress on the other fault. He expresses astonishment at their going to law before the " unjust," or the "unbelievers." It should be observed, that the apostle's meaning much depends on the above terms. If the unjust and unbelievers mean all persons, who are not members of the visible church; it follows, that it is wrong for professors of religion to go to law before any courts, except those, which are purely ecclesiastical; and that though a man has been defrauded of all his substance, and deprived, by calumny and slander, of a "good name," which is better than "great rich. es," if it happens to be a brother in the church, from whom he receives the injury, he must be content with such redress, as he can obtain by means of church discipline-such as a pertinacious offender, perhaps, may please to give. Is it a duty to wait, till he is excommunicated? On the supposition, that this would be safe, it is at best a sorry pretence, that as, when excommunicated, he is no longer a " brother," it is right to arraign him before a tribunal, where, to have arraigned him before, would have been wrong. The excommunicated person we are not to count as an " enemy, but to admonish as a "brother." " It is, then, an important point to decide, what characters the apostle designed to specify, by the terms "unjust" and "unbelievers." And since Corinth was under the Roman government; it must have been the Roman magistrates, who were Pagans, to whom he had reference. GUYSE, in his Paraphrase, has the following: "Is it not a rash, unnecessary, and unwarrantable venture, beyond the rules of prudence, love and duty, for any of you, who have a matter of controversy with a Christian brother, about civil affairs, to enter immediately into a law-suit against him, and try it in a litigious way before heathen magistrates?" DR. GILL, in his commentary on this passage, says; "The apostle here dissuades from the practice of going to law before heathen magistrates." The same interpretation is given by Scott, Whitby, &c. Even the Jews regarded it as profane and wicked for any of their own people to go to a heathen tribunal to settle a controversy. WHITBY says, and Macknight states the same fact, "The saying of the Jews is this, that he who goes to law before the tribunal of the Gentiles, profanes the name of God, and gives honour to an idol." From which it appears, that such was the manner of the Pagan courts, that those, who brought causes before them, must acknowledge their religions or pay homage to their idols; which was a sufficient reason, surely, why the apostle should reprove those members of the church at Corinth, who went to law before such courts." that Christians must not hold civil offices? For how can a Christian obligate himself by an oath, to be faithful to the laws of his country, when the case may happen, that a brother in the church may expose himself to the penal sanctions of the law, if, at the same time he is bound by the vows of his covenant not to go to law with a brother? But if it is consistent, that members of a Christian church should hold civil offices, or rule as magistrates in a Christian land; then must it be conceded, that the words of the apostle do not imply, that it is absolutely wrong for brother to go to law with brother-it must be conceded, not only that it may be right, but a duty. Had the Jews at that time, then, no civil courts, by which the rights of individuals could be secured? Or were the Jews and primitive Christians obliged, by their religion, to see their individual rights suffer from injustice and fraud, without any legal redress? MACKNIGHT says, "The Jews in the provinces, were allowed by the Romans, to hold courts of judica- ❘ who positively condemn all contro ture for determining, according to their own jurisprudence, such controversies about secular affairs, as were among themselves. The same privilege (he says) I doubt not, was enjoyed by the Christians. For, as there were many Jews among them, and as they agreed with the Jews in abstaining from the worship of heathen gods, they were, in the first age, considered as Jews, and enjoyed their immunities." Hence, though it was inconsistent, that Jews or Christians should go to law before heathen courts, they considered it a right to have civil courts, by which they could have their rights secured, or their controversies decided, without paying homage to false gods. If, indeed, it be admitted, that these words of the apostle prove, that it is wrong, in any case, for professors of religion to go to law with one another, even under a Christian government, where no other than the God of the Bible is acknowledged, will it not follow, I conclude with the following quotation from CALVIN'S INSTITUTES, Book ix. chap. xx. "Those, versies at law, ought to understand, that they thereby reject a holy ordinance of God, and a gift of the number of those, which may be "pure to the pure:" unless they mean to charge Paul with a crime, who repelled the calumny of his accusers, exposing their subtilty and malice; who before his judges asserted his right to the privileges of a Roman citizen; and who, when he found it necessary, appealed from an unjust Governor to the tribunal of Cæsar. "The objection, which is frequently alleged, that law-suits are universally condemned by Paul, has no foundation in truth. It may be easily understood, from his words, that in the church of the Corinthians, there was an immoderate rage for litigation; so that they exposed the gospel of Christ, and all the religion which they professed, to the cavils and reproaches of the impious. But, when one sees that, without any breach of charity, he may defend his property, the loss of which would be a serious injury to him; | whatever litigations are undertakif he do it, he does no offence against that doctrine of Paul. In a word, as we have observed at the beginning, charity will give every one the best counsel: fored." ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION. en without charity, or are carried to a degree inconsistent with it, we conclude them, beyond all controversy, to be unjust and wickPACIFICUS. a very different nature, are set up in its place. One man urges upon others his own favourite views of truth and duty, not so much because they are right, as because they are his, and thinks that all In the last number some topics of reflection were suggested, to show the importance of a revival of religion in every church to its members as individuals. I would | dissent from them is highly crimi now observe, II. Let the members of the church consider the great importance of a revival to the church to which they belong. nal. Another thinks those views are wrong, and that opposition to them is a duty. And each censures the other for his conduct. One man thinks it belongs to him to be a leader in the church, and that others do not pay him the honour that is due. Another thinks he takes too much upon himself, and ought to be kept down. One thinks that his brother has treated him with slight, and that a proper self-respect calls upon him to resent the affront. The other thinks that his brother's conduct merited such treatment, and feels justified in extending it a little further. 1. Let them consider how much its present peace depends upon it. When there is a revival in a church, and all its members are in the lively exercise of the Christian graces, all is harmony and peace. They are of one heart and one soul. Little differences of opinion that may exist, occasion no discordant feelings. They can bear with each other's infirmities, and yield to each other's wishes. The glow of Christian feeling, which | One thinks that his brother has then animates their bosoms, binds wronged him in his property, and them to each other with indissolu- that a little retaliation would teach ble ties. No root of bitterness him better. The other thinks the can spring up to trouble them. wrong is wholly on the opposite No assaults from without can dis- side, and retaliates again. One turb their harmony. For the thinks his brother has done him spirit that was in Christ animates wrong, and tells him his fault. the whole mass. But, let religion | But he does it in a manner and decay, let a state of coldness suc- with a spirit which is calculated ceed, let the lively exercise of the ❘ to provoke rather than to concilChristian graces give place to the | iate; and the offender is made spirit of the world, and the church worse. Another thinks his brobecomes a divided and distracted ther has done him wrong; but body. And it is very natural that thinks a reproof would do no good, it should be so. As the spirit of and broods over the injury in sulGod withdraws, another spirit len silence. Another who has retakes possession. When the glory ceived an injury, says nothing to of God ceases to be the prominent | his offending brother, but tells the object of regard, other objects, of fault to others, and they again to |