and from this decision, whatever it may be, he has no appeal. The die now is cast. The last stake is at issue. Eternity is closing fast upon us. A few more years, a few more steps in the journey of life, and the goal is reached, the plunge is taken, and it becomes to each a matter of personal experience whether God is righteous to punish, as well as mighty to save; and whether God's revealed will must be to all the one rule of a strict and undeviating judgment, or whether each is to be judged, and his final state determined, by the standard to which he chooses to be conformed, and which his own lusts have established, by the groundless fancies, and the imperfect obedience, of his own selfish and carnal heart.

But Christianity, such as the Gospel describes it, the unreserved dedication of a sanctified heart to God, through faith in a crucified Redeemer, is not only the last stake for the rescue of perishing souls, the last avenue unbarred into eternity, but it is also the amplest provision for man's present wants and enjoyments which is consistent with his probationary state, and with the sinful and troublous scene around him. It is his safest guide amid all the perplexities and trials of life, because it makes him a partner in the counsels of Omniscience. It is his firmest support amid all the difficulties and dangers of life, because it brings to his aid the arm of Omnipotence. It smooths the pillow of sickness, and brings comfort into the house of mourning. It gilds the young morning of life with the ever brightning beams of an immortal hope, and opens upon its setting sun another world. It retouches in the soul the faded tints and defaced lineaments of the Divine image in which it was originally created, of the Saviour's holiness, the Father's love, the Spirit's holy energy; and re-inscribes upon the tablet of the heart, as with the finger of Deity, the Divine will, and the Divine mind. It restores to fallen man the last principle of a spiritual and immortal life, which elevates him again to his forfeited rank in the eternal system. It selects him from the perishing crowd around him; raises him from the depths of self-abasement, into which a sense of sin had plunged him; restores him to spiritual health and vigour; and commits him, safe amid the ruins of a sinful and perishing world, to the faithful discharge of the duties, and to the sanctified enjoyments of all the real pleasures of life, by addressing to his inward soul the Saviour's gracious words, "Arise, go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole."

J. M. H.

ON THE NEGLECT OF ADMINISTERING THE LORD'S SUPPER. To the Editor the Christian Observer.

CAN you, or any of your correspondents, assign any reason why in so many country villages, and I fear not in villages only, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is administered only once in three months, with the addition of Easter Day and Christmas Day: six times in the year?

A SINCERE FRIEND.

We know of no reason, but that it being enjoined by one of the rubrics, that every parishioner shall communicate three times at the least in the year, of which Easter shall be one; and by the Canons, that every pastor shall make provision that his parishioners may be enabled thus to communicate, the minimum of

reception has come too often in practice to be the maximum; and the clergy in many parishes (perhaps in some cases not expecting to find three communicants to partake with them, as another rubric requires,) have made the minimum of reception nearly the maximum of administration. The evil is not of modern origin; on the contrary, there has been of late years an extensive improvement; the Lord's Supper being now celebrated at least every month besides the festivals, where it was formerly less frequently administered; but it were much to be wished that in parishes where the canonical minimum is still adhered to, the clergy would introduce a better practice. There is danger of persons coming to that holy sacrament, ignorantly, lightly, formally, or otherwise than as "discerning the Lord's body;" but this danger applies as well to infrequent as frequent administration; and perhaps most of all to the practice of administering only at the chief festivals, when many persons communicate as a sort of ceremonial duty, who would not think of coming forward oftener than scanty custom demands, as to a perpetual feast of joy and love.

ON 1 THESSALONIANS, v. 21, 22.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

In the Theologische Shidien una Krihken for 1836, (page 170) there is an essay entitled "On the true sense of 1 Thess. v. 21, 25, as determined by the relation in which it stands to a saying attributed to our Saviour, гiveσbe doкiμoi тражεŽiтαι: By F. M. A. Hänsel." I send you the following abridged translation of this essay, for the consideration of your readers.

The Apostle Paul says: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil (άño navτos εidovs πονηρου ἀπέχεσθε).” The English translation of the last clause agrees with that of Luther, "Meidet allen bösen Schein." So also in the French version of David Martin, we find "Abstenez-vous de toute apparence de mal." Erasmus, as appears from his paraphrase, understood the words in the same manner. Wolf says that the meaning may either be, Abstain from all appearance of evil,” or, "Abstain from every species of evil."

It seems to me that the Greek word eidos will not bear the sense which is given to it in the received version. The word may signify appearance," in the sense of form, mien, gesture; but not in the sense of shew, as opposed to reality. That is my first objection to the rendering," Abstain from all appearance of evil."

Another objection is, that this rendering does not suit the context. The passage included between ver. 16 and ver. 22 is not made up of unconnected sentences: the sentences are grouped together by twos and threes. Thus, in v. 16-18 the sentences" Rejoice evermore, pray without ceasing, in every thing give thanks," belong to one group: the perpetual rejoicing depends on the incessant praying; and the giving of thanks is a particular species of prayer. So again, in vers. 19, 20, there is a connection between " Quench not the spirit," and "Despise not prophesyings;" for I think that, by the word TrεUμa, St. Paul in this place refers to the gift of tongues, which he places side by side with the gift of prophesying. There is the same juxta-position in 1 Cor. xiv., and the Apostle's meaning is

in each case the same; namely, that one of the two gifts is not to be undervalued or neglected for the other's sake. If now we proceed to ver. 21, 22, it is plain that here also the sentences are meant to hang together: KаTEXELV and Tо Kaλov in the second sentence are correlative to ἀπέχεσθαι and παν πονηρον είδος in the third. But what connexion is there between "Hold fast that which is good," and "Abstain from all appearance of evil?" What has the word appearance to do in this place, when St. Paul has just spoken of that which is good in reality? To the really good, one can only oppose the really evil, not the mere appearance of evil.

It will follow, from the above remarks, that the other rendering which Wolf mentions, is preferable, "Abstain from every species of evil." He is wrong, however, in taking ovηpov as a substantive. The right version is, "Abstain from every evil species." But why does St. Paul introduce the word species? Why does he not say at once, "Abstain from all evil?" I have never yet met with an expositor who gives any explanation as to this point. When the Apostle speaks of evil species, he must have in his view some genus. What now is this genus, from every evil species of which we are required to abstain ?

To answer this question, we must go back to the sentence, "Prove all things." The Greek word dokμalETE, which is here rendered prove, has a technical meaning: it denotes the process by which money-dealers distinguish good coin from counterfeit. Hence, when St. Paul says, "Prove all things," his meaning is, Act like experienced money-dealers, who prove all the coins which are offered to them, to determine whether they are, or are not, genuine. And it is remarkable that many of the ecclesiastical Fathers, (as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, &c.), in quoting the sentence, 'Prove all things" refer at the same time to another sentence, "Be ye approved money-dealers (γινεσθε δοκιμοι TраTEŽITαι.)" Some of them attribute this sentence to our Saviour, and some of them (as Cyril of Alexandria) assert that St. Paul himself wrote, "Be ye approved money-dealers, proving all things -hold fast that which is good."

Now what are we to say respecting the sentence, "Be ye approved money-dealers?" Is this dictum itself good or counterfeit? Are we to "hold it fast," or to reject it? We must endeavour to act in this matter, like "approved money-dealers." From an examination of the different passages in which the sentence, "Be ye approved moneydealers," is quoted or referred to, it appears to me to be extremely probable, first, that the words were really spoken by our Saviour; and secondly, that St. Paul had this saying of our Saviour in his mind, when he wrote the verses which we are now considering. The sentence, therefore, is not to be introduced into St. Paul's text: it is only to be made use of for the determination of St. Paul's meaning. And the result to which it leads is, that St. Paul, in saying, "Abstain from every evil species," means, "Abstain from every evil species of coin." The Apostle, immediately before, had mentioned "prophesyings." Now there are false prophets as well as true ones. False prophets might come among the Thessalonians with false doctrines, as with false coins. For false doctrines are false coins. To speak with Origen, the image of our Lord is not stamped upon them. Hence St. Paul admonishes the Thessalo nians: Prove all things, whatever is offered to you as good coin:

The Sinner's Friend." [JAN. retain that which is good, the genuine coin, the doctrine which is really Divine, and which a true prophet offers to you: but be upon your guard against every bad sort of coin; abstain from every false species of doctrine, and have no dealings with the prophet who endeavours to circulate among you the counterfeit for the true.

M. J. M.

LETTER FROM THE AUTHOR OF "THE SINNER'S FRIEND." To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

My Dear Christian Friend,-I send you a Letter addressed to Pastor, to whom I am really indebted for having brought me to be acquainted with yourself, as well as for his having pointed out some danger in my little work-which I have endeavoured to rectify.

I leave it entirely to yourself, either to insert, reject, or make any alteration, addition, or omission in the letter to Pastor.

[The remainder of our correspondent's letter, to which his name is affixed, appearing to be intended merely as a private communication, we have inserted only so much as was necessary to introduce his reply to Pastor, which we of course do not add to, omit from, or alter. He writes in a truly affectionate and Christian spirit, and we pray for the continued and enlarged blessing of God upon his labours.]

TO PASTOR,

"THE SINNER'S FRIEND."

Maidstone. Nov. 19, 1841.

In the Christian Observer for May last, you passed a very severe censure upon a little work entitled "The Sinner's Friend," which you designated as a most incautious and mischievous book."

66

It would be unkind and unchristian-like in me to suppose that you were influenced, in making these remarks, by any other motive than that of a Pastor's watchful care over his flock, lest they might be "deluded" by an "incautious," or false, representation of the free, unmerited grace of God to fallen sinners.

Taking this view of your remarks, in addition to the very judicious observations of the Editor of the Christian Observer, in the Magazine for June last, I was led to examine such portions in "The Sinner's Friend" as might be "liable to be perverted," and, with earnest prayer, I sought divine aid to move these dangers, by an alteration in such parts as lie open to perversion ; and, in order to make the Scripture doctrine of free grace appear still more clear, I was also led to pray for wisdom to write two new portions, “Salvation by Faith," and, " Life and Death," which appear in a new edition (91st) just published, increasing the number extant to upwards of six hundred thousand, (in fifteen different languages) with a daily increasing demand, accompanied by daily increasing blessings. But the work is the LORD'S-not mineand to HIS Name be all the praise.

You will be gratified to learn that the Sinner's Friend is now adopted, and most extensively circulated, by the London, New York, and Lower Saxony, Tract Societies.

With sincere thanks for your jealous feeling for the honour of free grace, and praying the Lord to bless you in your own so , I remain, respectfully, your obliged, and, I trust, fellow Zion traveller,

THE AUTHOR AND COMPILER OF THE SINNER'S FRIEND.

ON THE PARABLE OF THE UNJUST STEWARD.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

A CORRESPONDENT, "Minister Anglicanus," writes "that he has not met with a thoroughly satisfactory explanation" of the parable of the Unjust Steward: and proposes this hypothesis, namely, that the steward" paid the balance of the debts out of his own means.” you do not approve this explanation, but have not suggested anything. I would submit to consideration the following:

The okovoμos, "the ruler of the household," did not usually, in eastern countries, act in the capacity which an English steward fills. He did not undertake, nor was he expected, to render an account to his lord of all that he received and paid. I shall not express myself very incorrectly if I say that he farmed the business, whatever it might be, that he undertook. In the East Indies, the native servant, the "Durbash," (who is the house steward,) acts precisely in the capacity I have described. It is his business to provide the table, but he does not bring to his master a debtor and creditor account: he makes one charge perhaps for one dinner, and is paid by the profit he makes on what he purchases. He will serve only on these terms, such being the custom of the country. It is very usual for the Durbash to say, "I must cheat Massah," meaning that he does not undertake to render an exact account of his expenditure. The steward in the parable had therefore the right of making the abatements by which he is represented to have propitiated his "lord's debtors." The ideas suggested to the minds of those who heard the parable were the same as would have been suggested to our minds, if the parable had run thus: "A certain rich man had a tenant on one of his farms, the same was accused unto him of, &c." If you object to this explanation, that the oukovoμos was, after all, not in the situation of a tenant; I must beg you to consider that in eastern countries there are no persons in the exact condition of a tenant; our blessed Saviour of course spoke of circumstances which his hearers would understand, and those circumstances presented no better parallel to the case he intended to describe, than "the steward of a rich man." I will only add, that our missionaries in Hindostan find the natives listen to this parable with particular interest; they readily make the application, seeing no difficulty in it. A. I. T.

ON UNSEEMLY RELIGIOUS ANECDOTES.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

I REMEMBER having read in former years some animadversions in your pages upon injudicious and unseemly anecdotes in tracts, sermons, and the speeches delivered at meetings of Societies. I hope the evil has abated. From sermons, the narratives to which I allude are banished; nor were they ever admitted, at least in the Anglican church in modern days, except by a very few ill-judging individuals; of whom the race has become extinct. In some religious books and tracts the anecdotes I believe have been revised, and more strict regard is now paid both to authenticity, propriety, and utility. The speeches delivered at the meetings of religious CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 49.

E