limited sense. These manuscripts seem ratlier to point out to us, tliat most of the passages which appeared to have been redundantly brought into the Septuagint text and which, for this reason, Origen had noted with obeli-had been expunged by Lucian. Thus far concerning the edition of the LXX. published by Lucian. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. HAVING noticed in the family devotions of some truly excellent Christians, a deficiency of praise, and knowing by happy experience bow rich a source of peace and consolation is a spirit of thanksgiving; I am induced to suggest a few observations, with a view to correct what cannot but be called an evil, since it prevents so much good. The duty and excellency of praise are strongly depicted in the holy Scriptures. The Psalms of David especially contain frequent exhortations to the practice of this delightful obligation, and encouraging_promises on its performance. Thus, it is said, (Psalm -xxiii.) “Whoso offereth are thanks and praise, he honoureth me;" or, as it stands in the Bible translation, "Whoso offereth praise, glorifieth me." Aud again, (Psalm 1xvi. 8.) "O bless our God, ye people, and make the voice of his praise to be heard." In the prayer which our Blessed Lord taught us, twice do we praise our Heavenly Father, saying, "Hallowed be thy name," and acknowledging his to be "the kingdom, the power, and the glory." In the devout use of the first of these ejaculations, we not only pray that his name should be hallowed, but we also give praise" at the remembrance of his holiness," and of his wonderful redemption and adoption of us miserable sinners through the Son of his love. The pious Archbishop Leighton justly conceived" the godly in the use of these words, to follow, as they can, the glorified spirits who cry Holy, with ceaseless adoration, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts!’ and to give their acclamation, though in a lower key, yet as loud as they are able, Even so, Lord, hallowed be thy name.' Thus plainly is the duty of praise inculcated in the Scriptures. The sacred writings declare further the excellency of this duty. Thus in the fifty-fourth Psalm David says, "I it is good; " or, as the passage is will praise thy name, O Lord; for rendered in the Prayer-book translation," because it is so comforta ble." Nor can the excellency of praise be doubted when it is remembered that it will form one of the blissful employments of heaven. Praise, when offered aright that is, in a devout, reverential, and charitable frame of soul, and in the exercise of all the graces of the Holy Spirit-brings something of the joys of heaven into the heart. Prayer has a degree of sorrow in it, being accompanied by the pain and humiliation of confession of sin, of preparing against temptation, of pleading for those who are dead to God,-in a word, of " spreading our trouble before the Lord." But in praise, the fruit of prayer, there is nothing but joy; we enter thus into the blissful employments of a world in which there is no sin; and this world is for a moment forgotten; the soul, as it were, takes wing, and borne up by the blessed hope of everlasting life, through the death and merits of a crucified Redeemer, joins "angels and archangels and all the company of heaven in lauding and magnifying' God's holy name. S. T. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. A CORRESPONDENT, in page 548 of your miscellany for September last, has proposed a question which he wishes to see answered by one who can subscribe himself, "a Lover of Evangelical Preaching ;" and as I consider myself as pos sessing at least this qualification, I shall briefly state my reasons for answering his query in the affirmative. Being also a layman, I can not be suspected by any one who differs from me, of being influenced in my opinions by any portion of the "esprit du corps." The question is as follows: "Is it the duty of religious persons to attend the service of God in their parish church, in cases in which the minister is notoriously deficient in exhibiting the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel; and where, in truth, they go in expectation of nothing beyond merely moral discourses?" The question does not appear to me to be stated with sufficient perspicuity; as it leaves the reader in doubt whether the querist means, May a person, under the circumstances he mentions, with propriety leave his own parish church, to attend at a neighbouring one more favoured with sound preaching? or, whether he further means, May he attend the preaching of a Dissenting minister, if there be one of Evangelical principles in his neighbourhood? As, however, I think the affirmative of the latter is a very prevalent opinion, I shall assume that your querist wishes to be satisfied on that particular. Now, it appears to me, that the whole difficulty arises from laying an undue stress on the mere preaching; in not attaching sufficient im portance to the reading, as well as the public expounding, of God's holy word; and in not regarding the whole of the Liturgy as a system of sound instruction, as well as a form of pure and spiritual worship. It will not be denied by any religious person," that faithful preaching is most commonly employed by God for the conversion of sinners, and the comforting and establishing of believers: * The reader may consult on these points, inter alia, the forcible arguments of Hooker, in the fifth book of his Ecclesiastical Polity. CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 239. but were all churchmen more in the habit of duly appreciating the other means of grace afforded them in. the stated services of the church, and of using them conscientiously, with a view to their edification, they would know better how to bear with humility and patience the occasional defects of the preaching in their parish churches. As it is not possible for any human wisdom or foresight to secure a succession of faithful ministers in every parish church, the members of the Establishment have the greater reason for gratitude to the Giver of all good, who has provided them with a form of sound words and sound doctrine, whereby they may come to the knowledge of the truth, and worship him in an acceptable manner. Would they diligently study the holy Scriptures, and the Articles and Homilies and Liturgy of the church, with prayer for the Divine teaching, I am persuaded there would not be such a propensity in "religious persons as there too frequently is, to desert their parish churches. The New Testament undoubtedly speaks of schism as a great sin; and if our Reformers had not considered it in the same light, they would not have taught us to pray to be delivered from it. Now with what sincerity can a churchman pray to be delivered from schism, if he hesitates not to promote it so far as his own example extends? Those churchmen who are not much acquainted with facts, are very apt to think, that if the prominent doctrines of Christianity be preached by a Dissenting minister, all is "unity, peace, and concord," in his congregation. But whoever has been admitted into "the inte rior of a meeting-house," has soon, perhaps, been convinced, that upon the whole he might have reaped "the fruits of the Spirit" as abundantly by abiding in his own vineyard, as by going astray in search of richer pastures. A churchman should also consider, not only what 4 X vation good he may obtain by leaving his ninutest modifica- for "without holiness no man shall see the Lord." Whatever, therefore, be the ignorance or the personal character of the preacher, "religious persons" are undoubtedly bound to profit by his "moral discourses." This is clear from our Lord's own admonition to his disciples, to observe and do all things that were bidden them by the Scribes and Pharisees who sat in Moses' seat. There is also abundant proof in the Gospels and the Acts, that our Lord and his Apostles thought it "their duty to attend the service of God" in the synagogues of theJews, and consider. ed the reading of the Old-Testament Scriptures every Sabbath day as preaching the Law. (See Acts xv. 21.) How much more, then, are we favoured than they in having the preaching of the Gospel in our parish churches, even although the of ficiating minister may happen to he a " merely moral preacher!" It would be easy to shew how many are the evils of Dissent; but as this, I conclude, would be inconsistent with the liberality and forbearance of your miscellany on these points, I shall leave your readers to their own reflections respecting them. Your querist, however, may, perhaps, only wish to know how far he ought to leave his own pa rish church, to go to another, under the circumstances he has stated. If he resides in a large town, where the distance does not interfere with the duties which he owes to his own family during the intervals of divine worship, there seems to be comparatively little objection to his going from his own church. But if he has to go even the distance of two miles, he will, I am confident, find a regular attendance in another parish church a source of dissipation to his own mind, and of neg lect in the cultivation of the minds of his children and servants at kome. The truth is, that in our present imperfect state, we are often left, in religion, as in other things, to a choice of evils. In the case un-ed, that it is his "duty to attend the service of God in his parish church," and with humility of mind to confess his sins and implore the pardon of them through the merits of that Saviour, of whose name and character, and offices, and mercy, he will hear more in the daily service of the church than in any single sermon either in or out of the Establishment throughout the kingdom? der consideration, a conscientious churchman appears to me to choose the least by a regular and devout attendance in his own parish church; for supposing that a "religious person resides in a village, in which there is neither a pious Dissenting minister nor any other than merely moral preachers in the parish churches for many miles around him, can it for a moment be doubt PHILITURGUS. MISCELLANEOUS. To the Editor of the Christian Observer, A WORK has recently appeared, entitled, "Memoirs of James the Second, King of England," in two small volumes, which I have read with much interest. My only object, however, in referring to it, is to draw your attention, and that of your readers, to the closing hours of that misguided Monarch's life; in which we may witness the blessed influence even of those defective views of Christianity by which he was actuated, in promoting peace of mind, a superiority to the world and worldly objects, and a hope full of immortality. In the year 1592, James, who was then 59 years of age, retired to St. Germains. In this retirement, his biographer informs us, he experienced more real satisfaction than he had enjoyed at any former period of his chequered life. There he employed himself in deriving spiritual improvement from past events, and in preparing for the future and eternal world; his chief study being to acquire an entire conformity to the Divine will. With his pension of 25,000l. sterling per annum received from Louis XIV. he contrived, by great prudence and frugality, still to maintain a small court with the usual appointments, in which he laboured to promote the comfort and well-being of all around him. "So completely," we are told, "did the change of his fortune seem to have changed the disposition of the Monarch, that he was never heard to utter an expression which betrayed the least chagrin for the past, or any undue anxiety for the future. Nor did this arise from insensibility, but from a genuine principle of resignation, which daily gained vigour in his mind." To strengthen this principle, and every other Christian grace, he availed himself of all those expedients which a zealous Catholic thinks necessary for the advancement of the spiritual life. One of these was an occasional residence among the monks of La Trappe, whose spirit of piety he was anxious to imbibe. His first visit to them was paid with a view of satisfying his curiosity: but he believed that he derived so much improvement from his intercourse with them, that he repeated his visit at least once every year, generally remaining there for three or four days at a time, and conforming to their rules; and he maintained a constant correspondence with the Abbé, Armand John. But the King did not confine his devotional exercises to moments of occasional retire "I give thee, O my God, my most humble thanks, for that it hath pleased thee to take from me my three kingdoms. Thou hast hereby roused me from the lethargy of sin, and brought me out of a miserable estate, in which, Lord, had I continued, I should have been for ever undone. I also thank thee, O my God, for that it hath pleased thee, out of thine infinite goodness, to banish me into a strange land, where I have learnt the duties of Christianity, and done my utmost to perform them." His biographer proceeds to remark, that he shewed the best evidence of his sincerity by his perfect freedom from all ill-will and resentment towards his enemies. He never spoke of them but with extreme moderation, and nothing displeased him so much as to hear them arraigned by others. On the contrary, whenever any writings appeared censuring his conduct, past or present, he would always have them read to him, saying improvement might be derived from every thing.' With the same spirit of resignation, not as a passive feeling, but a principle derived from the conviction that out of evil the Almighty still educes good, he patiently endured the ill success of his designs; although as a husband, a father, and a man, he was not insensible to their disappointment. Being one day on a visit to a religious community, soon after the defeat at La Hogue, the Supérieure ventured to condole with him upon that event; and to express to him the extreme sorrow of herself and pious sisters, that the prayers they had unceasingly offered up for his success had not been answered. The King made no answer to her remarks; and the Supérieure, supposing he did not hear her, repeated her observations in a more elevated tone. The King then said, very calmly and gravely, My mother, I heard you very well the first time: I made you no answer because I was unwilling to contradict you; but now you oblige me to tell you that I am not of your mind. You seem to fancy, that what you asked of God was better than what he has doue: now whatever God does is well done; and I may add, there is nothing well done but what he does.' The same Supérieure observing the kindness and affability with which he addressed her pious community, ventured once more to converse freely with him, and inquired if it were true that he had written a letter to the King of France, wherein it was asserted that he had desired his most Christian Majesty not to interest himself any more in his affairs. To which the King replied, that there was no truth in his having written such a letter, or expressed such a desire.' I am infinitely obliged to the King of France,' he added, ' and I shall never be able sufficiently to acknowledge it: but I am both a father and a king; I cannot and I ought not to abandon the interests of my children, nor of my subjects, and I will never abandon them: I will do that which I ought and am bound to do, and then will submit myself tó what God Almighty is pleased to order.' Indifferent to every thing that regarded himself, the King was tenderly solicitous for others, and was often heard to say, that the sufferings of his faithful friends and subjects went nearer his heart than all his own trials combined.' He sought every means to relieve their necessities, and frequently made personal sacrifices to enable him to assist them." |