second Manethonian story of the expulsion of the rebellious lepers shows us that the Egyptian national myth could contrive to metamorphose the fact of the liberation of Israel, so fatal to Egypt, as, also, how it went to work about it. It shows us, too, how it could still retain the feature of Israel's bondage, which was so flattering to it. T. B. C. (To be continued.) Remarks on Expository Preaching. PREACHING, or the public proclamation of religious truth, is peculiar to the worship of the true God. The ancient Romans and Greeks knew nothing of it; and, except the Jews, all the world were strangers to it. Even among the Jews, its observance seems not to have been regular until after the captivity of Babylon. In Neh, viii. 1—8, we have the first recorded description of public preaching. The practice afterwards prevailed in the synagogue worship; but John the Baptist gave it a prominence, and used it with a power, before unknown. In the gospel we find its resources still further developed, and under the Chrstian system we meet with it in every possible form from the commencement of our Lord's ministry to the present day. The earliest specimens we have of Christian preaching are either without a formal text, or are founded upon a passage of Scripture of any convenient length. When, however, the canon of Scripture was completed, a text was regularly chosen. Robert Robinson gives the following account of the ancient practice: In general, their sermons were paraphrastical, regular, and textual, going from psalm to psalm, from chapter to chapter, through whole books; but they made no scruple, when occasion offered, to defer the regular subject, and to choose a text on the spot, suited to any case that happened, even after they were in the assembly; yea, after they had ascended the pulpit, and even after they had read the text. . . . Most of the sermons of those days were divisible into three general parts. The first is a short introduction; the second an exposition of the text; and the last a moral exhortation, arising out of the discussion.' The present general practice of preaching from a short text was, until recent times, the exception, and not the rule. Even in our own country, the habit of preaching from consecutive portions of Scripture through entire books, prevailed at a period by no means remote. But the reign of Charles II. encouraged another order of things, and the mode of preaching which was borrowed from the schoolmen was firmly established, and it was found convenient to select Scripture texts as mottoes. The great expository preachers of England henceforth disappear. It is true that individuals could be found who kept up the practice in question, but they were not many. Preaching had become an art. In Scotland, however, the custom of expository preaching still continues, and is much more common than with us. The late David Russell, of Dundee, is said to have owed, under God, his eminent success to his adoption of this style of preaching. Here, in England, attention is again drawn more strongly to the subject, and many good men think it would be well if we could return more generally to the primitive style of preaching. Mr. James says:In the way of exposition, a minister should go through the greater part of the whole Bible, fairly and honestly explaining and enforcing it.' (Earnest Ministry,' p. 63.) His own practice has for some years been in accordance with this sentiment. The same may be said of other eminent and popular ministers of the present day. It may be urged, that preaching should assume a form in harmony with the spirit and manners of the age; and that, therefore, expository preaching is not now suitable or likely to be successful. There is a measure of truth in the position thus laid down, and perhaps also in the inference from it; but less in the conclusion than in the principle. As a matter of fact, preaching will be modified by the age, but how far ought it to be? It is itself intended to mould and modify the habits of both individuals and of society. It should, therefore, not be too yielding, while it adapts itself to all men. If the age is thorough and earnest, it will be more tolerant of that preaching by which God's whole counsel is declared. But if the age is superficial, and men not in earnest, they will regard rather the science than the staple of preaching. If the age is of a mixed character, so may our preaching be. At present I think ordinary congregations are like the age, of this mixed character, and a judicious interchange of exposition and of topical preaching, will, in the end, be found both beneficial and acceptable. It may be said that consecutive or expository preaching is not needed now, owing to the spread of religious knowledge, and the better understanding of Scripture, which prevails. But we must not take too much for granted. The majority of persons have not carefully examined many portions of God's word. Nor are the people at large wont to weigh well what they seem to know, and to make such a manifold application of Scripture as it is able to bear. : Again Expositions are not sufficiently interesting and exciting, and people soon grow weary of them.' I answer, first: preachers are to teach' as well as exhort; and are to expound the lively oracles as well as rhetorically declaim on sacred subjects. And, secondly, much depends upon the manner in which exposition is attempted. It may be made mere verbal criticism, and very dry; but a judicious admixture of the practical, experimental, and hortatory, is possible and needful. Moreover, for the sake of variety, sermons in the ordinary style will be useful and profitable. If it be said, exposition lacks that unity and concentration which give power and pungency to preaching, it may be fairly questioned if it be so. But many hearers are irregular in their attendance, and therefore consecutive exposition will not be appreciated.' It may be replied, that many are regular to whom this does not apply; that it may make others regular; and for the rest, no well-prepared, instructive, and spiritual explanation of any part of God's word can be without those elements which, under God, make all preaching beneficial. Lastly Expository preaching will lead to the frequent investigation of what is of less general interest, and the frequent expression of opinion on points of controversy.' The answer is twofold. First, such things will be useful to some at the time, and to all who reme ber them at some time. Secondly, there are many topics of less prominent, and yet of daily importance, to which attention can be called only by means of exposition. The teaching of the pulpit under this system will be more complete and thorough; and those things which it behoves men to understand and to do, will be all advanced in due course. On the whole, it appears that a regular system of expository preaching would be liked, if conducted on proper principles; and that it would secure to the Church an amount and variety of instruction such as cannot be now afforded. Surely that manner of preaching which was effectual in laying the foundations of the Church in the world, is the best for founding building up the temple of God in the heart. By adopting it, and not else, shall we fully search the Scriptures,' and declare, as we ought, 'the whole counsel of God.' For the manner, let it not be too verbal and critical, nor too logical; but earnest, intelligent, practical, and devout-for the spiritual element is all-important. The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." Tetters to the Scattered. BY THOMAS T. LYNCH. LETTER VI. FRIENDS,-The Government of God is a glorious and a fearful subject; and it is not given to man to choose the glory and refuse the fear. There are splendours which he who would see must climb to see, and the path to the heights skirts precipices. We cannot know the glory of the God of Love unless we know him as the Supreme Avenger. But this is my solemnly confident affirmation to you, that Redemption itself is a grand Divine vengeance, and that all the Revenge of God is either a part of his redemptive work, or is such as receives its measure and its interpretation from the Redeemer. And these things I trust will become apparent as we advance. But let me first express my belief that the Love of God is as intense as it is immense; and that, therefore, he must often hide it awhile from the souls that are dearest to him, in order that he may afterwards fully gratify it in them and by their means. Our spirit must be tempered by the fiery trial of earth, that it may become capable of sustaining and reflecting the brightness of heaven. On earth we are as fragile vessels, on which, indeed, the light of love must often shine that the Divine workmanship upon us may be discovered and admired; but as concentered sunbeams would consume that which temperate ones reveal, so the fullest love of God would, if manifested to us in our mortal state, be insupportable and injurious; and He must often seem to love us less than we wish because he does really love us more than we think. This, let me say, I have learned, in that particular college in the great University of Experience in which it pleased God to enter me. But now concerning revenge. To speak of a man as characteristically revengeful is to speak of him as bad. And both such a temper and such works of vengeance may be ascribed to God, that though we may name Him good, men must feel that this God of our dark imagination is not good. Yet the very feelings that rise in our hearts on hearing the God who is Love so spoken of, prove that an avenging resentment is not only consistent with, but may be caused by, goodness. God, whom we would extol, is defamed. These discrediting statements malign benevolent Truth. They are our adversaries, for they are the enemies of Truth. Would we not rid us of our adversaries? Do we not feel an indignation that would effectively express itself? Our energy is stirred to condemn, and, if possible, to destroy the injurious falsehood. We hurry to our Bible that select Library of Religion-to fetch weapons for Truth against the error which is slandering God. We hurry to our Heartthat cabinet stored with household and the tenderest proofs of His mercy, that we may display these to the enemy with protests, and with tears or rebukes. As then the bad acts of a revengeful man stir in a good man an indignation against him and his deeds, that will, if it only can, effectively express itself; and this rightly avenging temper justifies some vengeance by the very act of condemning such vengeance as has roused the indignation: so, too, the defamation of the glorious God may and should stir feelings in us which proclaim revenge to be good, and God to be an Avenger. He who protests against a God made to him hateful, and yet says that in God there is no vengeance, confutes himself by the very energy of his protest. Not that our protest, let me now observe, against what is said of God's wrath is always pure. Some men take offence at the truths told of a just God, because these represent Him, as he actually is, against themselves; and these are angry with the truth, with an anger of this world or of the world below. And others, from their defective sense of sin's evil, and their limited views of the Divine government, would moderate words about that fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God, whose flame assuredly He will not moderate till it has consumed from the cumbered earth what is noxious, leaving it clear for what is salutary, Some men then have little ardour against sin; and some other men's ardour is not against Truth perverted, but against Truth itself. Nevertheless, the awful moral ardour of God remains as pure as it is strong. He is supremely Good, and it is impossible to conceive of Him as otherwise than displeased with what is not good. And his displeasure is not alone a sentiment, but an energy. As He feels, he acts. He is the Being who ought to, and who will, victoriously oppose whatsoever is contrary to Himself. Our wrath may be, oftenest is, hurtful and deservedly hateful; but in us, too, there may be a wrath that smites that it may save, that if it destroys is but protective and ministrant to what is creative. Our abuse of natural passions must not make us deny that in God whence they have their original. Cannot vengeance in God be holy, because in us it is sinful? Cannot wrath serve Love in Him because it banishes love in us? God, supremely good, creates, as glorious in love, and must be most intensely against whatever thwarts the work of his Love. It is possible for a spirit to hate much without loving much, but it is not possible for it to love much without also hating. So little love have we-so undivine, therefore, is our hatred, that the very word hatred seems as if it did but name a sin. But for us, too, there is a sacred resentment, an anger tending to purity, if not yet pure; mixed with sin, but from which the sin is passing off. The better any man becomes, the more does he seek to impart good, and to remove and destroy only what hinders such impartation. The wickeder a man is, the more does he seek to subdue all to his own mere will, to destroy all for himself. He is not provoked for the Truth's sake, but for its own selfishness sake, Human wrath may be blind, illimited, and selfish. But of God, we say, His avenging wrath is not only consistent with his Love, but it is from that Love that it has both its intensity and its limits; and since in Him is no possible discomposure even in extremest energies, love can accomplish in Him what it oft seeks, but oft fails to accomplish in men, kindle an anger that never falls short in zeal, and never exceeds in act, I Let me speak now, before trying more fully to illustrate God's Revenge in Redeeming, of that subordinate vengeance which consists of the infliction by a just wrath of deserved strokes upon wrong-doers; and let me ask particularly to what ends such vengeance serves. say, subordinate vengeance, because, though God is everlastingly and inexorably opposed to evil, he is so that he may glorify his goodness, and his goodness is glorified by communication. God's chief vengeance is shown on Evil-his subordinate vengeance on the evil-doer, Evil, though it be infinite in tendencies, is repressed by God within finite bounds of his own determining. His stroke upon the finite mortal is a finite stroke. His gift of mercy is infinite, and through eternity renews and prolificates blessings. What ends, then, does the infliction of strokes serve? The stroke may deter the sinner from sins; I say, |