ship, the man enters upon another scene, as into another world; and for a whole week neither thinks, nor desires to think upon them! What, shall we be Christians only on a Sunday? Shall not every day be a "Lord's day ?" On the other hand, how lovely it is to contemplate daily worship in the small circle of a family! Here the pious father or mother becomes a priest to God. The same apartment in which we enjoy the bounty of the Eternal Father-the walls which have witnessed both our sorrows and our joys-the room in which we have experienced the changes of sickness and health, and which, perchance, may one day contain our death-bed, becomes a temple of the Most High.

Family worship will have its influence on the youngest child that witnesses it. The "baby," knowing no higher power than its parents, beholds them bending the knee in humility to an invisible God, and the example innoculates its breast with the feeling of religion, before its mind is capable of grasping the idea. For this reason the babes should be accustomed to the outward form of reverence during prayer. The child may not yet comprehend the prayer, but he will, the bending of the knee, the childish heart being scarcely reached, but by the outward forin that appeals to the senses. * * * * If family prayer is to affect the heart, it must not consist of the same prayer repeated day after day. It must not be a mere feat of the memory, but come from the heart, for what the memory has once attained, the mouth can most easily give utterance to without the presence of the Spirit, and

"Mock him with a solemn sound
Upon a thoughtless tongue."

If the father or mother of a family be not capable of expressing the prayers of their heart, there is no lack of good family prayer-books, written by pious, spiritually-minded men for this very purpose. These are calculated to give, by their grace and power, facility and fervour to our devotions. The emotions expressed in these prayers will be ours, echoed from each listener; and many a silent prayer, suggested by the words uttered will arise from affected hearts, as they may feel their individual wants.-Translated from the German.

QUENCHING THE SPIRIT. Most sins leave behind them a sting, a source of discomfort and disquietude. This leaves none. The storm takes place before the sin is accomplished, and then it is followed by a calm, but a calm which is strewed with the wreck of better thoughts, and better hopes, and better resolutions; strewed too often with the shipwreck of faith and a good conscience, and fearfully prophetic of that final and fatal shipwreck on the shores of eternity, where God shall rain down snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest. A Pastor's Legacy.

a

INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE.Grant that I may never rack Scripture simile beyond the true intent thereof, lest, instead of sucking milk, I squeeze blood out of it. -Thomas Fuller.

LOVE AND ANGER.-I saw two children fighting together in the street. The father of the one passing by fetched his son away and corrected him; the other lad was left without any check, though both were equally faulty in the fray. I was half offended that, being guilty alike, they were not punished alike: but the parent would only meddle with him over whom he had an undoubted dominion, to whom he bore

an unfeigned affection. The wicked sin, the godly smart most in this world. God singleth out his own sons, and beateth them by themselves whom he loveth he chasteneth; whilst the ungodly, preserved from affliction, are reserved for destruction. It being needless that their hair should be shaved with a hired razor whose heads are intended for the axe of Divine justice. Thomas Fuller.

EXCEEDING GREAT AND PRECIOUS PROMISES.-Greatness and goodness are then most refulgent when they meet in the same subject, and are joined by natural couples and connections: like the curtains of the Tabernacle that were looped one to another: but such a conjunction as it is glorious, so it is rare, and seldom found either in persons or in things; in persons they are so dissociated, as if they were of lineages altogether distinct, and had small and no affinity. Rarely are great men good, or good men great. And as in persons so in

things, they are not often linked and chained together. Pebbles are great, but not precious: pearls are precious, but not great; water in the sea is abundant, but not pure; in the brook pure, but not abundant. But in the promises there is a full and happy concurrence of both, they are made up of things wherein greatness and worth do vie with each other: everlasting life is as sweet as long; heaven is as glorious in its beauty, as vast in its dimensions; the crown of righteousness that is laid up is as rich as weighty. There is no one promise of the gospel; but is of that extent for its latitude, and of that value for its preciousness, that he deserves to be eternally poor, who having that for his subsistence, looks upon any man who hath an interest in none, greater or richer than himself, though the gravel of the river were turned into pearls, and every shower of rain from the clouds into a shower of gold to supply his wants.-W. Spurstowe.

(To the Editors of the BAPTIST MAGAZINE.) DEAR SIRS,-May I, on behalf of those persons who, like myself, are too much occupied to work out problems requiring learning, logic, and leisure, ask the attention of our intellectual leaders to the present stage of the Colenso controversy The Bishop has not been prostrated by any of the "answers," and he knows it. Pending an exhaustive discussion of his premises, may we not, for our comfort and possible aid, consider another question, namely, whether his conclusions

will follow if we grant any, or all of his premises? Allow me to indicate the direction of such an enquiry in relation to the first eight chapters of Genesis. The Bishop argues on grounds derived from other writers-1st. That verse one is inseparable from the relation of the six days, par 128. 2nd. That the six days mentioned are ordinary days, par 131. 3rd. That the order of creation so given is erroneous in fact, par 135. 4th. That there was no intervening chaos, par 136. 5th. That the words an

1

nouncing the creation of light speak of creation, and not appearance, par 144. 6th. That there has been more than one centre of creation of animals, par 190. 7th. That there has been more than one centre of creation for man, par 191. (This is wholly defective in statement and reasoning.) 8th.

That the serpent was always the same, par 200. 9th. That there was a universal deluge, par 302. 10th. That there was no partial deluge, par 306, (very weak).

Whatever we may do with these premises as regards this particular narrative, we shall not thereby lose the following facts which may well be based on other evidence, and particularly on the teaching of our blessed Lord. 1st. Creation of the universe by God.-2nd. Relation of some kind between this and six days, and the seventh.— 3rd. Creation of man (Adam and

Eve) by God.-4th. The fall.-5th. A judgment by a flood of waters. -I do not follow the course further. The recent republication by Dr. Candlish, of his lectures on "Reason and Revelation," professedly avoids the difficulty, see pp. 44, 71, &c.; but this is no reason why we should accept the monstrous conclusions stated by the Bishop, and the still more monstrous conclusions not darkly intimated by him.

The whole matter, (granting the premises), is clearly soluble. There are admitted sources of error and obscurity which at once remove much of the difficulty. A solution of the remainder, which shall be safe for man and glorifying to God, is now sought with perfect confidence in its being near at hand. Yours faithfully,

Feb. 19th, 1864.

S. R. PATTISON.

first part, which was reviewed by us in September last. In the Introduction there is much valuable information respecting the authors, and critical history of the two books upon which he comments; and, in the commentary itself, there is considerable assistance given to the student of Scripture. But the Dean has continued to print the Authorized version as the text, instead of giving, as he might well have done, an amended version which should fairly place his English readers by the side of adepts in the Greek lan

guage; and he has also referred to his Greek Testament for further information upon several topics discussed in this commentary. Perhaps it may be as well to inform our readers that all such references demand a considerable acquaintance with Greek, or great familiarity with the critical schools of Germany, to make them of any use; and "English readers" of such attainments are not likely to purchase this work.

The ecclesiastical bearings of the Dean are freely displayed in his commentary, sometimes in a manner which is creditable, at others disgraceful, to his scholarship. Thus he justly argues against confounding modern prelates with apostolic ministers. Referring to the appointment of Barnabas and Saul he contends that there is not "the least ground for the inference that this was a formal extension of the apostolic office, the pledge of its continuance through the episcopacy to the end of time. The apostolic office terminated with the apostolic times, and by its very nature admitted not of continuance; the episcopal office, in its ordinary sense, sprung up after the apostolic times, and the two are entirely distinct. The confusion of the two belongs to that unsafe and slippery ground in Church matters, the only logical reference from which is in the traditional system of Rome." " And in his note on Acts xx. 17, having pointed to the fact that those who are there called "the elders" are in verse 28 called "bishops," he thus proceeds :

"This circumstance began very early to contradict the growing views of the apostolic institution and necessity of prelatical episcopacy. Thus Irenæus (Cent. 2) He called together at Miletus the bishops and presbyters (elders), who came from Ephesus and the rest of the churches near.' Here we see (1) the two, bishops and presbyters, distinguished, as if both were sent for, in order that the titles might not seem to belong to the same persons, and (2) other neighbouring churches brought in, in order that there might not seem to be bishops in one church only. That neither of these was the

VOL. LVI.

case, is clearly shown by the plain words of this verse- He sent to Ephesus and summoned the elders of the Church.' So early did interested and disingenuous interpretations begin to cloud the light which Scripture might have thrown on ecclesiastical questions. The A.V. has hardly dealt fairly in this case with the sacred text, in rendering the designation episcopous, ver. 28, overseers :' whereas it ought then, as in all other places, to have been BISHOPS, that the fact of elders and bishops having been originally and apostolically synonymous might be apparent to the English reader which now it is not."

In like manner he translates Acts xiv.-23, "and when they had elected the elders," &c., adding this note :

"The verb means appointed by suf frage: and probably by the analogy of ch. vi. 2-6 (see 2 Cor. viii. 19), the strict meaning is here to be retained. The word will not bear Jerome's and Chrysostom's sense of laying on of hands,' adopted by Roman Catholic expositors. Nor is there any reason here for departing from the usual meaning of electing by show of hands. The Apostles may have admitted by ordination those presbyters whom the churches elected."

But when we turn to the notes which relate to Baptism, we are struck by their inaccuracy and unfairness. It is not too much to say that they are disgraceful to the Dean as a scholar, and as a Biblical expositor. Thus on Acts x. 38, he says "the fact of the anointing with the Holy Spirit in His baptism by John, was the historical opening of the ministry of Jesus;" which is nothing less than a distortion of the gospel narrative, but which is perfectly in accordance with his theory of the connection of the Spirit with Baptism. In his note on John iii. 5, he says our Lord "here unites together the two elements of a complete Baptism which were sundered in the words of the Baptist, ch. i. 33, in which united form He afterwards (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20, Mark xvi. 16) ordained it as a Sacrament of His

13

Church. Here He speaks of spiritual Baptism, as in ch. vi. of spiritual Communion, and in both places in connection with the outward conditions and media of these sacraments. It is observable that here as ordinarily (with a special exception, Acts x. 44 ff.), the outward sign comes first, and then the spiritual grace, vouchsafed in and by means of it where "duly received.' It is simply untrue to say that in the commission given by Christ to His disciples He "united together the two elements of a complete Baptism by giving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost "in, and by means of,' Baptism in water. Neither Matthew nor Mark give any hint of such a connection between the two. And as to the reference to "Spiritual Communion," we have only to turn to the Dean's note on John vi. 51, to read the following declaration as to " any reference to the ORDINANCE OF THE LORD'S Supper,” “to the Ordinance itself, there is here no reference; nor could there well have been any."

Such contradictory statements do not make the Dean a trustworthy commentator on these subjects, or render his opinion of any great weight.

In a note on Acts xvi. 15, we read "the preposterous views of the modern Baptists would have been received with astonishment and reprobation in the Apostolic Church. See note on 1 Cor. vii. 14." On turning to his Greek Testament we find that "it is not personal holiness which is here predicated of the children, any more than of the unbelieving husband or wife, but holiness of dedication, by strict dependence on one dedicated. Notwithstanding this ayorns the Christian child is individually born in sin, and a child of wrath; and individually needs the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, just as much as the Jewish child needed the typical purifying of circumcision, and the sacrificial atonements of the law. So that in this ȧyorns of the Christian child, there is nothing inconsistent with the idea, nor with the practice of Infant-baptism.' Mark the words "nothing inconsistent with," and then

:

let us read on from the same note. "With regard to the bearing of this verse on the subject of Infant-baptism -it seems to me to have none, further than this that it establishes the analogy, so far, between Christian and Jewish children, as to show that if the initiatory rite of the old Covenant was administered to the one, that of the new Covenant, in so far as it was regarded as corresponding to circumcision, would probably, as a matter of course, be administered to the other." Probably, Mr. Dean? Is that ALL that you can say? Let us see.

In Acts xvi. 15 we read "[Lydia] was baptized and her household." The comment is as follows:- "It may be that no inference for Infant-baptism is hence deducible. The practice, however, does not rest on inference, but on the continuity and identity of the Covenant of grace to Jew and Christian, the sign only of admission being altered. The Apostles, as Jews, would have proposed to administer Baptism to the children, and Jewish or Proselyte converts would, as matter of course, -have acceded to the proposal: and that the practice thus, by universal consent, tacitly (because at first unquestioned) pervaded the universal church, can hardly with_reason doubted." What was only spoken of as "probable" in 1 Cor. vii. 14, is here referred to "as matter of course.' A curious variation at any rate; but let us pass on.

be

In Acts xvi. 31, we have this note— "and thy house does not mean that his faith would save his householdbut that the same way was open to them as to him: Believe, and thou shalt be saved: and the same of thy household." Then what has become of "holiness of dedication," and "the analogy between Christian and Jewish children? Or does the Dean wish to draw a distinction between being "saved," and being made partakers of "the Covenant of grace?" "Without faith the Jailor's household would not have been "saved," says the comment; and if "his faith" was the condition of the Jailor's admission into "the Cove