the dead;""hath given him a name which is above every name; hath anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellows; and" the house, the "house of many mansions," "is filled with the odour of the ointment" with which his Father has anointed him.

66

He is so esteemed by believers. They have set to their seal," that "the record that God gave of his Son" is true. And they themselves have "beheld his glory; the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." They have also experienced his love. Whatever the differences that exist among Christians on other subjects, they are at one in their acknowledgment of his unrivalled glory, of his surpassing grace.

"Yes, thou art precious to my soul!
My transport and my trust!
Jewels, to thee, are gaudy toys,
And gold is sordid dust.

"All my capacious powers can wish,
In thee doth richly meet;
Nor to my eyes is light so dear,

Nor friendship half so sweet."

On what grounds is he thus esteemed? "The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he has magnified the law and made it honourable." By his obedience to the law, and the endurance of its penalty, he has not only borne testimony to its excellence, but he has opened up a way for the communication of the riches of God's grace to sinners of mankind, and secured the brightest display of the divine glory to the intelligent universe. If it be-and If it be-and it is the great design of God to show forth his glory; and if "his glory is made great in man's salvation," it is not difficult to see how "the Lamb that was slain" should be the object of the Father's delight.

"To them who believe he is precious," because they "are complete in him." "In him they have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of

sins." "Being justified by faith, they have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom also they have access by faith unto the grace whereon they stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." "In him also they have received an inheritance. With him their life is hid in God." "And when He shall appear, they also shall appear with him in glory.” If these things are so, then ought not he, who died to save them,

"To their souls be very dear?"

66

acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." We present them in his name, and confide in the fragrancy of that sweet incense which he presents with the prayers of all saints as he ministers at the golden altar before the throne. Perfumed with it, we hope that they shall ascend "for a memorial before God."

Believers prove their esteem, by delighting in those scenes where Jesus is revealed; where "the ointment is poured forth;" where the character and work of Christ are unfolded. Thus the Scriptures are delighted in; for we find him in the law of Moses, in the Prophets, in the Psalms, in the evangelical histories, and in the apostolical epistles. Their pages are illuminated by the glory of his name; or, to change the figure, as we traverse the sacred territory we are refreshed by the aroma of this "plant of renown."

In "the ministry of the word," it is the savour of his name" we most desire." We reckon that sermon faulty, no matter how cogent its argument and elegant its diction,

where we do not find the desire gratified. "We would see Jesus;" and the imperfections of that sermon we can forgive which diffuses "the savour of his name in every place."

The sacramental table is frequented with the same design. When the bread is broken, it is like the breaking of the seal of the "alabaster box of ointment, very precious;' and, when the wine is poured out, it is like the shedding forth the rich perfume. While some may not be able to look beyond the external sign, the Christian has his spiritual senses exercised" "to discern the Lord's body," to eat his flesh and drink his blood; and, in doing so, is disposed to say, with grateful and exulting feeling, "Thy love is better than

wine. Because of the savour of thy good ointment, thy name is as ointment poured forth."

"What think ye of Christ ?" How important the question as a test of character! If we regard him as devoid of "form and comeliness;" and if, "when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him"

how sad the evidence that we are yet in our sins! But if, on the other hand, we delight ourselves in the Lord; if we admire the beauties of his character, and esteem him " very highly in love for his works' sake," we have satisfactory evidence of having been spiritually enlightenedtaught of God; for "no man can call Jesus Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." J. B.

BEING obliged to reject Dr Wardlaw's theory as untenable, on the grounds above stated, we are shut up to the conclusion, that the reference made from the church at Antioch to the apostles and elders, was made to them as a deliberative assembly. The members of the assembly were required to give their opinions concerning the doctrine in dispute; and the obvious object of the reference was to ascertain whether the brethren at Antioch were to adopt the views promulgated by the Judaizing teachers, or those that were maintained by Paul and Barnabas. In giving a judgment on this question, the assembled apostles and elders exercised their reasoning faculties in the same way that any other persons would do, when placed in similar circumstances. It is expressly stated, that there was "much disputing" among them; which phraseology implies, that there were different opinions expressed, and is alto

gether irreconcilable with the idea that they were speaking under the influence of divine inspiration. Dr Wardlaw indeed affirms, that "the disputing was not among the apostles." This is another conjecture which he hazards. But, whether the disputing was among the apostles or not, it was assuredly in the assembly of which the apostles and elders were the constituent members. The writer of the sacred narrative declares that it was so. After there had been much disputing, Peter rose up and reminded the audience, that the point which they were met to consider had already been determined by divine authority. This had been done by means of the vision which he had formerly received when at Joppa, the design of which was to teach him that he was to call no man 66 common or un clean;" or, in other words, that the Gentile believers were to be admitted to a participation of gospel privileges on a footing of complete equality with

the Jewish converts. In consequence of receiving this vision, Peter went and preached to Cornelius, and to a company of Gentiles, who were assembled along with him in his house in Cesarea; and, on that occasion, God confirmed the doctrine which he had taught by means of the vision, by pouring out the Holy Ghost upon the Gentiles, so that they spake with tongues and magnified God. Referring to these remarkable events, Peter, in his address to the assembly at Jerusalem, said, "Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." These were historical facts to which Peter referred, and which were known to the greater portion, if not to the whole, of his audience as well as to himself; and he referred to them as clearly indicating what the mind of the Holy Ghost was, in reference to the subject that was under discussion. With such facts as these before them, he considered that they would be tempting God were they to require the Gentile converts to submit to the burdensome ceremonial of the Jewish law. "Now, therefore (said he), why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" This view which Peter took of the subject was confirmed by Paul and Barnabas, who rose up and declared "what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them." James next addressed the audience, and showed them that they had no reason to be surprised at the narrative to which they had been listening; because that the prophets had predicted the reception of the Gentiles into the chris

tian church-and the events that were now taking place among them were the fulfilment of these predictions. "Simeon (said he) hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,-After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up; that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things."

The result of all these statements was, that the assembly came to a resolution not to impose upon the Gentile converts any greater burden than these necessary things-" that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication, from which, if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well." The language which they employed in giving notice of this resolution to the churches in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia, shows that it was adopted by them as the result of deliberation, and not as the dictates of inspiration. They prefaced the resolution by saying, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us." This certainly is a very unusual style in which to introduce a communication coming direct from God by inspiration: but it is quite a natural style, if we regard the decision as the result of reasoning on the part of the assembly. When they listened to the statement of facts which had been laid before them by Peter and Paul and Barnabas-and when they took into consideration the predictions referring to the same subject, which had been quoted by James from the Old Testament-they did not entertain any doubt, that it was agreeable to the mind of the Holy Ghost, that the Gentile converts should not have the heavy yoke of the Jewish observances

imposed upon them; and "it seemed good" to them to adopt this decision, just because they regarded it as in accordance with the mind of the Holy Ghost. The grounds on which they came to this conclusion, were the intimation of the divine will which had formerly been given to Peter on the subject, in the vision with which he had been favoured at Joppa -the remarkable success that had attended the preaching of Paul and Barnabas among the Gentiles-and the declaration made by James, that these things were the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy. On such grounds as these did the assembly of apostles and elders at Jerusalem issue a decree on the point of doctrine concerning which a reference had been made to them: and the decree was to the effect, that the Gentile converts were not to be compelled to submit to circumcision, nor to observe the ritual enjoined by the law of Moses. All that was required of them was, that they should abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. The statements already made sufficiently show, that the assembly had good scriptural ground for affirming, that this decree was in accordance with the mind of the Holy Ghost. The speech of Peter was of itself sufficient to remove all doubt upon the subject; because he stated to the audience what had been the intimation of the divine will, given to him, in reference to this very matter, on a former occasion.

We are not to consider the apostles and elders, on the present occasion, as making a new law for the church of Christ. They merely declared after solemn deliberation what that law was, which had already been given by divine authority, concerning the point of doctrine which had been referred to them. In so far as the divine authority was concerned, the point of doctrine had been fixed a considerable time before this;

namely, at the time when God intimated to Peter, in a vision at Joppa, that the Gentiles were to be admitted to participate, along with the Jews, in the privileges of the christian church. The intimation, though given symbolically, was well understood by Peter: for he said, "God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” Dr Wardlaw himself admits this. He says "The fact of the mind of the Spirit having been communicated in that particular way, implied not the remotest uncertainty as to what that mind was. There was nothing of the kind. To that fact Peter again points as decisive. The addition of the words and to us,' expresses no more than the coincidence of their mind,—that is, of the mind of all who united in the letter,-with the mind of the Spirit symbolically intimated, miraculously attested by his own descent and agency, and both the symbol and the attestation infallibly interpreted.”---P. 277.

Sceing that my friend thus so distinctly admits, that the point of doctrine was settled at the time when the vision was given to Peter at Joppa, why does he contend that nothing but inspiration could settle the question that was appealed to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem? Had not the mind of the Holy Ghost been already expressed on the subject? Was not the meaning of the vision—in which this mind was expressed-well understood, not only by Peter, but by the other apostles? Had not Peter and Paul and Barnabas been preaching the very doctrine which it was the design of the vision to teach? And does not Dr W. himself tell us, that when the assembly at Jerusalem prefaced their decree by saying, "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost," &c., they refer to the mind of the Holy Ghost as expressed in the vision that was given to Peter, and that was confirmed by the descent of the Spirit on Cornelius and the other Gentiles who believed?