the spirit of heaviness for the garments of joy! But all this his God had already done for him; and all this he was sure the Lord would continue to do. Is there any man among us who will say he needs no defence; no shelter from the storms of life; no refuge from the guilt of sin, and the dominion of corruption? Let the individual thus exempted from the general lot and trials of his species pursue, if he sees fit, his course in proud independence of his God and Saviour. Let him go naked into the battle who needs no armour. But let us, who feel and acknowledge ourselves to be weak, and guilty, and miserable, and lost, cry aloud, "The Lord is my strength and shield: my heart trusteth in him, and I am helped:" "Thou hast been my help; there fore in the shadow of thy wings will I rejoice."

In conclusion, if there is but one thing," the presence or favour of God, which is worthy of eager and steady pursuit, how easily may the heart reconcile itself to the want or loss of those other things which we are sometimes disposed to covet even with feverish anxiety! Poverty or sickness, the desertion of friends, or their death, strike from under the man of the world all the props on which he has been accustomed to lean. But they cannot touch the "one thing" of the man of God; and therefore ought not deeply to affect his happiness. If you are heirs of the promises of God, it is your duty, as it is your privilege, to set the trials of life at defiance to move in an atmosphere which they cannot reach-to live on the top of the mountain, without regarding the storm which rages beneath. Let us see in you a temper of mind corresponding with your privileges. When disappointment or affliction comes, let us see that you have entered the "pavilion," or are seated on the "rock;" that you are calm where others are agitated, and cheerful where others are distressed. What ought to trouble

the man to whom the Lord has said, "No weapon formed against thee shall prosper:"" the Eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms?" Shall not our hearts reply, "Thou hast been a strength to the poor, a strength to the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shadow from the heat.... in the shadow of thy wings will I make my refuge, until the calamities be overpast?

In the next place, what an encouragement does the language of the text supply for the pursuit of that future world, which the mercy of God offers to the prayers and labours of his creatures !-When David spoke in the text of "dwelling in the house of God all the days of his life," it can scarcely be conceived that his view was confined to the imperfect approach of the soul to its Maker in this state of being. It is next to impossible, that, intimate as he was with the world of rest and glory, his soul should not look forward to the period when he should spread his wings, and flee away to the seats of tranquillity and joy. It is in that world alone, my Christian brethren, that we shall enjoy the presence of the Lord without interruption, and without end. There, as on a height from whence all the passages of the life upon earth may be surveyed at a single glance, the triumphant Christian will discover the numerous instances in which grace has prevented and followed him; in which God has guided him by his counsel, before he "received him up into glory.” There indeed, if a sincere servant of the Lord, you shall dwell in his house for ever;-dwell, not as here, in the porch of his temple, but in its deep and safe and bright recesses; not beside the throne of clouds, but the throne of glory; not in a world of probation, but of triumph, and of unmixed and unchanging joy. There our intercourse with God will no longer be fitful and transient. The spirit of devotion will never flag, or the light of

love grow dim, or the sun of the Divine Presence go down. What a prospect to contemplate, and what a world to live for! May the Lord of all power and might make us meet for this bright inheritance! -Come thou "Desire of all nations," Thou in whom all the desires of thy people begin and terminate; come and lift up our grovelling and reluctant souls to the world where Thou dwellest. Throw wide to us the doors of the house of many mansions; so that even here we may catch a glimpse of its happy chambers, and may finally take possession of them for ever. Plead for us at the Throne of Love, Thou who "alone art worthy." Clothe us in thy own merits, and "present us faultless before the presence of his glory." Help us, Thou "mighty to save," to "overcome, and to sit down with thee in thy throne, as thou hast overcome, and art set down on the throne of thy Father."

To the Editor of the Chistian Observer. In your Number for December, I perused with much pleasure the following passages:

"Now, assuredly there is the greatest possible difference, between connecting and blending two several operations; for, however the two operations of justification by the merits of Christ, and sanctification by His Spirit, must be always connected together, more or less, in the same individual, yet we should object to that statement which led in any degree to blend them, or to make them, even in appearance, one and the same act. Justification refers to the pardon of sin, and acceptance with God; sanctification is the implantation of holiness in the soul, &c. &c. But to blend them together, we apprehend, would be to compound things most essentially distinct; to lose sight, in effect, of the peculiar work of the Saviour, as a sacrifice for sin; and to depart from the clear language of holy Scripture, at least

according to that interpretation which has been received by all sound Protestant confessions. We should in this case be reforming backwards, and retracing our footsteps to one of the most dangerous tenets of the Papists. Justification, in their corrupted divinity, was made synonimous with imparted and inherent holiness."

I take the liberty to refresh your memory by the above extract so perfectly consonant to the Articles, Homilies, and Prayers of our excellent church; and, having done so, I would ask, whether you have ever seen a work used all over England in our National Schools, entitled, “Catechetical Instruction; being an Account of the chief Truths of the Christian Religion, explained to the meanest Capacity;" from the 13th page of which I extract the following question and answer.—

"Q. What are we to do on our part to entitle ourselves to the promises of eternal life?

"A. We must (g), by a lively faith in Christ, embrace the promises of eternal life (h), repent us of our sins, and use our best endeavours to pay a constant (i), unfeigned (k), and universal (1) obedience to all the commands of GOD our Heavenly Father."

The references are excellent, and without doubt we must do all those things mentioned in the answer. But the question makes chaos come again; and in this case, as you say, sir," are we not reforming backwards, and retracing our footsteps to one of the most dangerous tenets of the Church of Rome?" ENTITLE ourselves! Surely a Papist must have written these words! They could not have been penned by any person who entered into the spirit of that truly scriptural declaration. in one of our Homilies: "Let us know our own works, of what imperfection they be, and then we shall not stand foolishly and arrogantly

"(g) Acts xvi. 13. (h) Acts iii. 19. (i) 1 Tim. i. 5. (k) James ii. 10. (1) ii. 14 to the end of the chapter."

in our own conceits, nor challenge any part of justification by our own merits and works." How can any Church-of-England man think, that he on his part can entitle himself to the promises of eternal life, when he professes, and perhaps has signed his consent to, the plain and full meaning of the Article on justification, "in its literal and grammatical sense," which says, "We are accounted righteous before God only for the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works and deservings." Eph. ii. 8, 9; Rom. iii. 20; Gal. ii. 16. The Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, in "A View of the Articles of the Protestant and Popish Faith," justly says, "The Council of Trent teaches, &c. &c. But the holy Scripture teaches, that we are justified freely, by the grace of God, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. Rom. iii. 24." Surely, sir, this venerable society will not permit our national schools unawares to be taught doctrines opposed to its own declarations, and to the Articles, Homilies, and Prayers of the Church of England, and, above all, to the holy Scriptures; for instance, Rom. iii. 4., as quoted and explained by itself.

B. L. W. T.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. SUCH is the infirmity of our nature that it is not in our power to prevent distraction and interruptions of thought in our addresses to God. While the soul, even of the regenerate man himself, is immersed in matter, it will be sometimes too lanquid to raise its thoughts, or too volatile to fix them steadily upon Him who is the source of all beatitude. The Christian, therefore, should not disdain the smallest of those minor helps to devotion which good men in every age have found useful, or which the church has wisely prescribed. Of this kind is the liturgical exhortation, "Let us pray;" the frequent recurrence of

which, in our services, has been ofter objected to as vain, unmeaning, and tautologous. Similar exhortations have however been used and found serviceable, ever since the earliest times of the Christian Church. In the ancient Greek liturgies, the deacon was directed to cry aloud exteros den wμev, “Let us pray fervently;" and again, some time after, EKTEVESEPOV, "Let us pray more fervently." The Church of England has judiciously retained the substance of this admonition; and it would be well if every worshipper in our communion would keep in remembrance that it was inserted, as has been justly remarked, “with this design, among others, to rally our undisciplined thoughts, to recal our straggling ideas, and to put us in mind, that we ought to be praying with an affectionate application."

R.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

DR. STEINKOPFF writes, during his late continental tour; "Passing through Winterthur, I paid a visit to the principal supporters of an Auxiliary to the Zurich Bible Society, and found it in a flourishing condition. On Palm Sunday the solemn ceremony of Confirmation takes place. This interesting opportunity was improved by the zealous clergyman for a public distribution of a copy of a well-bound Bible to each of the young people. This was done for the first time in 1821; and it produced so good an effect, on both old and young, that they have since continued it."

Might not a similar practice be adopted with great advantage in our own country? The rite of Confirmation is exceedingly solemn; and if the impression which it is calculated to make were followed up by the gift of a copy of the sacred Scriptures, to which it would be desirable to add the Book of Common Prayer, the effect, we might hope, by the blessing of God, would

be more permanent than is too often the case. The books could be furnished on cheap terms, from the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, or from the Bible and Prayer-book and Homily Societies; and the expense might be paid in each parish out of the sacrament alms, which would be a much better appropriation of them than either devoting them, as is too often the case at present, in such a way as to minister to an abuse of the holy communion, by inviting improper communicants for the sake of the expected gratuity, or distributing them as customary alms to the increase of the baneful spirit of pauperism, and dependence upon charity. Should, however, this appropriation be objected to, other

means might easily be devised in most parishes for raising the small sum required for the purpose. All the candidates, except the poorest, might be reasonably expected to make a donation at least equal to the pecuniary value of the gift. The books might be distributed with due solemnity by the minister from the altar on the Sunday after the confirmation, with the name of the parties, the date, and the occasion inscribed in them, "for a perpetual memorial before the Lord" to themselves and their children. If the bishop himself would distribute them at the time of the confirmation, and the books were considered as his paternal gift, the impressiveness of the custom would be greatly increased. S.

For the Christian Observer. OBSERVATIONS ON THE CHARACTER, OPINIONS, AND WRITINGS OF THE LATE LORD BYRON

AMONG the maxims which pass current in society, without much exami

The short extracts inserted in these papers are taken either from the valuable memoir of Lord Byron, by the late Mr. Dallas, edited by his son, or from the "Conversations" of Captain Medwin. This last work has been convicted of a few minor inaccuracies; but nothing has occurred to shake the general credit due to its contents, which indeed appear confirmed by a weight of internal evidence. All allusion to anecdotes of domestic scandal, and dissolute intrigue, I have, of course, carefully avoided, as well as whatever might give needless pain to a single individual. Had Captain Medwin been governed by this caution, he might have rendered his work less generally entertaining, but he would have made it more acceptable to the Christian reader.

Since writing the above, I have seen the philippic which has been levelled by the Westminster Reviewers at the deceased Mr. Dallas, the living Mr. Dallas, and Captain Medwin. Without entering into

nation, few are more common than one which prescribes that nothing

particulars on the subject, I will content myself with asking two plain questions. 1. Are the alleged facts of an anonymous writer to be set above the statements of authors who give their names, and who (at least hitherto have done nothing to forfeit their characters with the public? 2. Supposing some of the alleged facts of the nameless reviewer to be real facts, still are they of such a nature as to impeach the veracity of the individuals attacked? and may they not fairly be classed among those minor inaccuracies which leave the general credit due to a work unimpaired? Have the Westminster Reviewers never heard of what Paley calls "substantial truth, under circumstantial variety?" Till these questions are answered, I think I have a right to consider the statements of the accused persons correct, at least on points in which they could not well have erred but through intention. It is singular that, while the Westminster Reviewers are accusing Captain Medwin of the utmost malice against Lord Byron's posthumous reputation, there are many, I believe, who have risen from his work with a more favourable impression of his lordship's character than they had entertained before, and that this slanderous reviler (Captain Medwin) should have written of the noble

but what is favourable should be spoken of the dead; " De mortuis nil nisi bonum." Dr. Johnson used to express his disapprobation of this maxim, and to propose the following emendation: "Let nothing but what is good be spoken of the living; and of the dead nothing but what is true." But perhaps it will admit of further improvement still; or rather another maxim may be substituted in its room-"Let nothing but what is at once consistent with truth, propriety, and public advantage, be written or reported of either the dead or the living."

The maxim in question evidently means, that, when we cannot speak well of the departed, we should hold our peace; for to maintain that bad characters should be justified or excused, because they are no longer able to do harm, would be an outrage upon truth, virtue, and common sense. The maxim itself doubtless springs from a humane and kindly feeling, and proceeds upon some one or other of the following suppositions; either that death has atoned for the evil done by the departed; or that, having gone to their last account, they are no longer proper subjects of human judgment; or that there is injustice, and even cruelty, in speaking to the disadvantage of those who are no longer in a condition to defend themselves; or, lastly, that such conduct may wound the feelings of surviving relatives and friends.

With regard to the first of these suppositions, it is surely among the number of those "vulgar errors which have a dangerous tendency. That death can furnish any such atonement (I mean, of course, atonement with respect only to so

author and his works in such terms as the following:-" No writings tend more to exalt and ennoble the dignity of man. That he was not perfect, who will deny? But how many men are better? How few have done more good and less evil in their day?"-If this were not written with an air of complete seriousness, we might conclude this ingenious author to be an adept in irony.

ciety)-as should enforce silence respecting a person's faults or vices, seems a position equally inconsistent with reason and with Scripture. An atonement is an expiatory equivalent; and it is difficult to conceive how the mere removal of one, who has widely injured society, can operate as a compensation for the injuries he has committed. In the case of enormous crimes indeed, death is the only compensation which can be given; and, so far as it tends to prevent the commission of such crimes in future, may be considered as making some, though by_no means equivalent, amends. For, not unfrequently, the vices and long impunity of the criminal while living, have done far more to corrupt or ruin others, than the recollection of his punishment, when dead, can effect towards repairing the injury.

Again; some appear to think that individuals, who have been summoned to their last account, are no longer proper subjects of human judgment; an objection which may be easily obviated. The word judgment is here manifestly equivocal. In noticing the errors of the departed, we form no judgment respecting their actual state in another world; but only with regard to the general tenor of their conduct in the present; and to affirm that this is not within the province of human judgment, or that it may not be sometimes fully justified, and even required, by the circumstances of the case, is to advance positions which surely cannot be maintained.

The next supposition, that the deceased is not in a capacity to defend himself, has evidently no force, except in those cases where the reflections on his conduct are founded on very doubtful evidence, or on vague reports to his disadvantage, which might have been cleared up by further explanation on his own part. It must be admitted, that no observations, which come strictly under this description, should be revived against the dead. But, in remarks on the obvious tendency of