irresistible; the hall was absolutely crammed in every part with well-dressed, elegant people and one half, at least,' said he, 'were Jews.'

Then again, in the walks of science, and in the paths of deep learning, at every turn you meet the accomplished Jew. Not less than forty-five noble charities are exclusively established and supported by them in London alone, for the poor and afflicted of their own nation; and, drawn out as their fine minds and sensitive feelings are under such influences as beam upon free, happy England, is it to be very much marvelled at if the attempt to treat, or to represent them as a company of old clothes-men, should rouse a spirit not exactly in accordance with their presumed position?

We are not defending, we are only accounting for certain rough sayings that appear from time to time in an out-spoken Jewish periodical. The Jews do not hear of any attempt to call out their learned men into an arena of equal disputation. A Popish priest indeed is a "reverend gentleman," who must by all courteous means be induced to hold a discussion and to defend his abominable idolatries in the ears of a respectful, impartial, Protestant auditory, mingled with an equal number of his own followers; but the gospel is carried like a bale of smuggled goods into the dark lanes and alleys inhabited by the poorest Hebrews, or pressed upon wanderers from foreign climes; BUT NOT held forth, as a legitimate, a most important subject for public discussion with the learned and accomplished Jews, many of whom would stand forth at the call. This may be all right for aught we know; but placing ourselves in the position of a thinking Jew, deeply attached to his own faith, we cannot but feel that very great occasion is given for the harshest conclusions; and when we

add to this the notorious fact that among many real converts there are also some consummate knaves and hypocrites, who carry the bounty of Christians, and exhibit it to their Jewish brethren as the regular market-price of their hollow profession, it would be strange indeed if the consequence were other than it is.

Again, we solemnly ask, is there no warrant for the offensive term " apostacy so often used by the Jewish editor in reference to the converted Jews among us? there is very high authority for it, we think. Any one who turns to the Greek Testament will find the word where our translators have softened it into a different expression. In the twenty-first chapter of the Acts, verse 21, the language is, "And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to APOSTATIZE from Moses, saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children, nor to walk after the customs." This false charge against Paul he was encouraged by the Apostles in Jerusalem, not only to deny, but instantly to disprove. It is true that our commentators, writing at the distance of many centuries, and satisfied that they were wiser than the inspired church in Jerusalem, Apostles included, have denounced this as a very wrong proceeding; but without the help of such commentaries, it would scarcely enter the head of any plain reader of God's word to dream of its being otherwise than perfectly right. Can we then marvel at the Jew, who finds that even an inquirer into the truth of Christianity, is obliged if dependent, and if not is required, as a proof of his sincerity, to "apostatize from Moses", to forswear circumcision, and to break from every custom of his people; labouring on the Jewish Sabbath, eating forbidden meats, and rejecting every separating mark that

united him with the nation of Israel? Whatever Christians may think on these points, we demand that they enter for a moment into the feelings of a strict Jew, before they condemn their elder brother: for ourselves, we made up our minds on the subject in days of health and strength; we have pondered on it through weeks of pain and debility, with eternity in view; and every day deepens our conviction that if the gospel now presented to the Jews is the same, still the manner of presenting it is deplorably unlike what we meet with in the inspired record of the Acts of the Apostles.

Let our readers look at the thirty-fourth chapter of Ezekiel. Who are the shepherds, and who are the fat cattle, we do not presume to suggest but we know who are the scattered flock, and who THE Shepherd that shall seek them out. That glorious chapter! it is a feast to our soul. The next following bespeaks the desolation of the mystical Edom, Rome, "when the whole earth rejoiceth," and the two succeeding chapters sum up the blessed history of what is soon to be. Oh, that we would permit the Lord God to speak to our souls, through the medium of His own dear word without thrusting the mystifying notions of other men, between us and our Teacher! Until this is done, we shall but stumble in dark places, and the Jew will reject our testimony, because it militates against that with which God has made it to harmonize. Till then, we shall never, except in a few solitary instances, scripturally convince the Jews that Jesus is the Christ.

CHARLOTTE ELIZABETH.

SCHISM.

MARK IX. 38-40.

THE following remarks on the passage, (Mark ix. 38— 40.) may perhaps not be inappropriate at the present time, when the Tractarians and many others, would refer those who do not belong to their particular sect, to the uncovenanted mercies of God for their hope of salvation, as if there were any mercy which has not been covenanted for.

This passage is a strong reproof of the sin of schism which those commit who thus act. Schism is divisible into two main branches, one, the act of separating oneself unnecessarily from any true members of the spiritual Church of Christ; the other, the separating others unnecessarily from such members. It is the latter branch of this sin which the passage in question rebukes, a branch which is but little adverted to, but which perhaps is far more often committed than the other.

In explaining the 40th verse, "He that is not against us is on our part," the passage Matt. xii. 30, "He that is not with me is against me," must not be forgotten. The two passages may at first sight appear contradictory, but the Spirit of God, by whom both were indited, cannot contradict himself, and therefore they cannot be contradictory, but must each be perfectly true. It is however the passage in Mark alone we have now to deal with. John, it appears, said to his Master, "we

saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us; and we forbad him because he followeth not us." Verse 38. Is not this the conduct of the persons to whom allusion has been made? They forbid a man, or would do so if the laws allowed them, preaching and teaching and exerting himself to win souls to Christ, because forsooth he does not exactly follow them, does not belong to their form of outward Church, does not exactly agree in their particular creed. They do not look to his acts, still less to the spirit by which he is influenced; they do not consider that no man can do a miracle in Christ's name that can lightly speak evil of him. Verse 39. It is sufficient for them that he follow them not; it is immaterial whether or not he follows Christ,-he must be forbidden. But what says Christ? "Forbid him not, (ver. 39.) for he that is not against us is on our part," that is, he that is not opposing us, though he may not be exactly following in the path which you, my imperfectly judging disciples, think the best; he that on the contrary is doing a miracle in my name, he that is exerting himself in opposing the power of Satan, and has rich evidence of the Spirit by which his exertions are blessed, is undoubtedly one of my disciples.

That this is the right construction of the passage, the context, when it is examined, abundantly testifies. Reference should also be made to the parallel passages in Luke ix. 46, &c., and Matt. xviii. 1, &c., which however is not so full. The disciples it seems had been disputing who should be the greatest. Verse 33. Christ then enforced the duty of humility, and of not setting themselves up one above the other; (Phil. ii. 3.) John then (ver. 28.) tells what they had been doing, in " answer to the observation of Christ, "whoso