mains to be proved: either that the Lord was under obligation to prevent Pharaoh, or that the Lord permitting, necessitated Pharaoh to do as he didboth which we deny. That the Lord is under no obligation to his creatures is self-evident; for, as sinners, we have forfeited all claim to his favour. He might, therefore, leave us to the bias of our own depraved nature, as we believe he left Pharaoh. Nor would he by so doing be chargeable with injustice. On On the contrary, he would only be dealing with us according to our deserts: consequently, there can be no obligation. And so far from the Lord's permission necessitating Pharaoh, that surely is against all reason. A parent permits his child to have his own way. Does the parent necessitate the child to take his own way? Necessity, it should be understood, does away with free agency; and, if you do away with free agency, you do away with responsibility. That no necessity was used appears clear from two things: 1. From the express language of an apostle: "Let no man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man; but every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed," James i. 13, 14. But he must have tempted Pharaoh, if he necessitated him. 2. From Pharaoh's own language: "Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord; neither will I let Israel go," Ex. v. 2. Does he speak like one necessitated or free? "Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron, and said, Entreat the Lord that he may take away the frogs from me, and from my people; and I will let Israel go, that they may do sacrifice to the Lord," Ex. viii. 8. Would he have said "I will," if he had been coerced? See

also Ex. viii. 28; x. 16, 17. From these premises, then, we are shut up to one conclusion, viz., that the Lord was under no obligation to prevent Pharaoh on the one hand, that Pharaoh was under no compulsion on the other-therefore, Pharaoh hardened his own heart. The second objection is, that the Lord "raised up" Pharaoh to do as he did. See Ex. ix. 16; Rom. ix. 17. But neither does this objection militate against the conclusion at which we have arrived. For God's a "raising up" Pharaoh refers not to his creation but preservation. Pharaoh fell down under Divine judgment, and the Lord "raised him up," i. e., permitted him to stand or continue the adversary of his people. And is there aught in this to exonerate Pharaoh, by shifting the cause of his rebellion from himself to God? God did not make Pharaoh rebellious he only forbore to make him obedient; giving him up to his own wicked heart, so that he became more and more hardened, until he was destroyed. And "is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?"-in a way of justice as well as mercy! He is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment," Job ix. 32. "Be still, and know that I am God." Recognise his uncontrollable, unimpeachable, most righteous sovereignty. Acknowledge your own position, as one not of innocence, but of guilt. Dread self-abandonment. Implore, through Jesus Christ, the interposition of mercy. Repent of sin, and live. Persist in sin, and you die. See Pharaoh sinking like lead in the mighty waters! And what awaits the finally impenitent, but "a fiery deluge, fed with ever-burning sulphur, unconsumed?" W. A. Bingley.

SIR, The desecration of the sabbathday, occasioned by Sunday trading, has,

I believe, been a subject of deep regret for very many years past. That it has in

creased of late years to a very fearful extent, no one can, I think, deny. I have paid great attention to the subject, not only with a view of discovering the true cause of the continuance of the evil, but of providing, if possible, a remedy.

I understand the case thus:-that all the attempts made to restrain the "practice," up to the year 1832, were attempts to enforce the old law, (29 Car. II., cap. 7,) and that every such attempt not only signally failed, but involved all those engaged in the attempt in great turmoil and unpleasantness. This can be matter of no surprise when it is remembered that the penalty is only 5s.; and the act gives no power to recover even that small sum. Hundreds of cases might be quoted, to show the inefficiency of this act. The act requires a summons to issue first, afterwards a warrant, and then the identical articles that were exposed for sale shall be the only articles liable to be seized. The act may be also evaded by payment of the 5s. In the year 1832, however, an attempt was made to legislate, and a series of bills were introduced to the House of Commons, up to 1838. In attempting to show the impracticable nature of those bills, I wish to guard against treating with levity the efforts of those who took the subject up, and who thought, at that time, it was possible to treat the subject as a religious question, and to legislate for the due observance of the Lord's-day. The discussions that took place on those bills, and their unceremonious expulsion from the House of Commons, may fairly, I think, be taken as a lesson for us to devise some other means of getting rid of the evil. Before, however, stating the nature of the present effort, I will just name the difficulties connected with the several bills that were introduced from 1832 to 1838. The chief difficulty was, that most of them attempted to deal with the whole question of sabbath desecration. It is true they did not (like the act of Car. II.) propose to inflict penalties for non-attendance on public and private devotion, but in other respects they were more

VOL. XXVI.

stringent than even Charles's act; they evidently aimed at four points, viz., works of labour, trade and business of ordinary calling; also travelling by land and water ; also fishing, shooting, hunting, coursing, &c.; and, lastly, buying, selling, receiving, and delivering goods. Now, Mr. Editor, if the full scope and meaning of these words be considered, their comprehensive and impracticable nature will be clearly seen. It was also proposed to enforce these provisions by penalties, from 20s. to 57., without any regard to the extent of the offence, or the ability of the offender to pay. When the last of these bills was under discussion, Lord John Russell said there was not one clause that could be acted upon, if passed into a law. In all of them the sale of refreshments was entirely forbidden, both in licensed and other houses, except to persons who bonâfide resided and victualled upon the premises.

Now, the character of the present movement is this: the tradesmen of the metropolis-finding themselves involved in incessant labour, by reason of Sunday trading, and finding that their families are neglected, their worldly comforts destroyed, and themselves degraded in the estimation of society, besides being obstructed in the discharge of their higher obligations,-are beginning to rouse themselves, and seek to be emancipated from such a state of things. With this view, they call on the parochial authorities, who have united together, and represented the matter to Government, asking their aid to abolish this system. The Government say, "Prepare a moderate Bill." To this proposition the authorities of course agree; but then comes the important question, what kind of enactment shall be prepared? Two things the authorities are bound to consider: first, what is the subjectmatter of complaint,-"Sunday-trading," or rather, selling and publicly exposing goods? To this point, therefore, the authorities are justified, nay, compelled, to confine themselves; they have no instructions to go beyond this point, nor is

G

it likely the Secretary of State would confide to them other matters, such as travelling, &c. &c. I claim, therefore, on behalf of this movement, (I mean Mr. Hindley's Bill,) the character of perfect consistency, as far as the parish officers are concerned.

But, secondly, the difficulty does not end here: there are twenty-two acts extant; seven previous to Charles II., and fourteen since. No one, therefore, may sit down and prepare a bill, as though no law existed; most of the fourteen acts were passed to mitigate the stringency of Charles's act. To propose a bill, therefore, entirely irrespective of those acts, would be asking Parliament to repeal all, and to forbid the sale of articles which our forefathers have deemed

necessary should be sold. Mr. Hindley's Bill, therefore, neither goes back to Charles II.'s act, nor does it interfere with existing statutes. It does this much, however,-it adapts itself entirely to prevent the selling of goods,-clearly defining what may and what may not be sold. It then provides a scale of moderate but efficient penalties, with a proper mode of recovery. I believe, also, it goes quite as far as any bill can go, with the slightest chance of success; and there can be no doubt, if passed into a law, it will confer a great boon on all classes of society, and will doubtless conduce to the honour of God.

Yours, respectfully,

J. HAYMAN, Secretary.

THE BOUNTIES OF HEAVEN.

THEY possess every quality that can enhance their value, and endear their Giver to a sensible heart. Infinitely valuable in themselves, they flow from love. The "good and perfect gifts which come down from the Father of lights," are given "liberally, and without upbraiding." Exactly what we need, they come precisely at the moment when we want them most, or when they are most beneficial to us. Worthy of God to bestow, they cannot be unworthy of us to receive. Were he to withhold his gracious aid, in vain should we look for relief from any other quarter. Productive of present satisfaction and joy, his benefits involve us in no future distress, shame, or remorse. Serviceable to the body, they are at the same time improving to the mind. Important and interesting for time, they have an influence upon eternity. -Dr. Hunter.

A HAPPY STATE.

MAN's happiest estate is to feel his daily, constant dependence upon his

Maker, and to see the regular promised supply, evincing the truth and faithfulness of its bountiful Author. With a monitor for God pressing in upon us, through every avenue of the soul, we are nevertheless apt to be inattentive and unthankful. It is, therefore, an instance of great goodness, when God is pleased to force himself upon our thoughts, and to invite us to communion with "the Father of our spirits," in the commerce of a constant habitual friendship.

Their homely

Here, then, the poor have infinitely the advantage over the rich. They see, -or they are blind indeed, they see their "dry morsel, and their dinner of herbs," coming, at the expected hour, from the bounty of indulgent Heaven. They are not suffered to be careless, impious, and ungrateful. fare is garnished and seasoned with what gold cannot purchase, nor power compel, -the gentle whispers of a Father's love -the kindly welcome of an affectionate friend. And the bulk of mankind is striving and straining to get out of this happy state. That proud word, independence, is continually in their mouths;

and the thing itself is in their hearts; not considering that the real happiness of man consists in mutual connection and dependence; and that the glory and felicity of every rational being is founded upon union with his Creator, and a sense of his constant and entire dependence upon Him.-Dr. Hunter.

ON THE POWER AND PRIVILEGE OF PRAYER.

God has not given you the assurance of success in all your undertakings, but he has bestowed upon you the privilege, and promised you the spirit, of prayer, by which you shall certainly obtain one of two things: either that blessing from above upon your honest endeavours, which maketh rich, which insures success, and makes it durable; or that resignation of spirit, and submission to the will of God, which subdue misfortune, and which turn calamity and disappointment into advantage. God has not given thee, my friend, the promise of riches; but he has given thee what is much better-the spirit of grace and supplication, to form thy soul to contentment. You have no security against pain and sorrow; but you have that which produces patience and fortitude. You cannot promise yourself long life; but habitual intercourse with God by prayer, overcomes the fear of death.

situ

Glorious privilege! Whatever my ation in life may be, here is something to improve it, if good; something to mend it, if evil. Here is the ornament and essence of prosperity; the cure and cordial of adversity. Here is the guide and

guardian of life; the sweetener and subduer of death. Prayer brings all the perfections of God into our possession. Is the thorn not removed, the messenger of Satan not rebuked, though the Lord be thrice besought, that they may depart? No matter it is said, "My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly, therefore, will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me."-Ib.

EXPERIMENTAL KNOWLEDGE.

I KNOW that the law is of God, for I have that within me which acknowledges and approves of its rectitude and excellency; and even when it condemns me, I am conI know that the gospel is of God, for I feel strained to call it "holy, just, and good." that within me which welcomes its approach, discerns its suitableness, rejoices in its fulness, and rests upon its truth. It is of God, for it descends to the level of my guilt and misery, it corresponds with my hopes, it suits with my necessities. The law and the gospel, the two tables of stone delivered to Moses, and the

grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ, coincide in this, that they both point out, with equal clearness and force, the necessity of a Saviour. The law, therefore, carried the gospel in its bosom, as the new-changed moon exhibits a small semicircle of light, but which is great body of obscurity, embraced by a to be irradiated by degrees, till the whole becomes one great globe of light and glory; and Moses performs the part of "a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ." -Ib.

EXPERIENCE.

GOOD THOUGHTS OF GOD.