Satan should, through the Man of Sin, who "sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God," have so perverted the judgment of a large proportion of mankind, that the Creator must, according to his great original law, condemn a man for doing what he himself has sanctioned, because the man violates his own convictions? How long must we wait till God gives us a queen or a king, and a parliament who fear him, to deliver us from the bondage of being taxed for the support and cherishing of the accursed demonianism?

I return to the Apostle's casuistry. He instances a middle party who do not peremptorily condemn the participation of the sacrificed flesh, but who equally are not quite convinced of its being lawful. To all such he says for their warning (Rom. xiv, 23), "He that doubteth is damned if he eat"-damned, in the old English sense of being condemned, or convicted of sin in a greater or less degree. Who complains of the rigour of such ethics? Does it not betray an evil condition of heart, when a man argues with himself thus: I have some suspicions that this divine law prohibits me this pleasure, but, since I am not certain that it does, rather than lose the gratification, I will take my chance of violating it-that is, the chance of displeasing the Almighty. There is no chance in the matter. He that deliberately runs the risk, according to his own view, of offending God, by the act of risking his being guilty of such an enormity, perpetrates great sin; even though it should afterwards be made manifest that the gratification was of itself innocent.

Notwithstanding the multitude of the perversions of Popery, for which it is normal to pervert the divine law, so that a student of the mystery of iniquity ceases to wonder at the occurrence of any one that is new to him; yet on the present subject the perversion is peculiarly striking. It is rather a direct inversion of this law. Suppose that of ten doctors, nine, all eminent, had declared of a certain gratification on which a man had set his heart that it was not permissible; but that the remaining one, howsoever obscure, had declared it to be lawful, that would raise the act from the condition of being certainly sinful to the condition of its being possibly lawful, so that the man would only doubt if he were warranted to indulge himself. But according to the system of Jesuitism, carried to perfection by the canonized Liguori, and published with the imprimatur and recommendation of Cardinal Wiseman, if a man attain to such a state of doubt he is safe in acting, without being guilty of mortal sin, and at worst only of that which is venial. "He that doubteth is damned,” said the Apostle, "if he proceed to gratify his desire." "He that doubteth,

No. 16.

T

Vol. 4.

how happy is he," say Saint, Cardinal, and Pope, "for he may indulge himself to his heart's content. Only let him manage, with the help of some doctor, howsoever obscure (for his private judgment is, of course, excluded from the counsel), to work up his mind into a state of doubt, about the lawfulness of the meditated act of adultery, or assassination or robbery, he may proceed to gratify himself without fear or restraint. The doubtfulness insures impunity." Such is the dogma of Jesuit probability, by the exposure of which Pascal scotched the snake. But the Pope could not afford the loss of its deception and venom. So he took it again to his bosom and revived it, and sent it forth for the poisoning as aforetime of the morality of the world; and when it not only undermines our faith with its blasphemy, but the throne of our Sovereign with its disloyalty, British legislators, of all the factions-in nothing are they so harmonized-not only tolerate it, but cherish it with largesses in the vain attempt to bribe it into harmlessness.. It is the old stupidity of attempting to bribe the devil.

Consider now the counterpart of what has just been illustrated. You and I, friends, as emancipated Protestants, regard it as being characteristic of the Great Imposture, as signified in 1 Tim. iv., 3, that it should have disciplined its victims to believe that the eating of flesh on any Friday, and during the whole forty days of Lent is a mortal sin, unless a dispensation has. been obtained-for a consideration, you may be sure-from him who claims authority to suspend for a time what he at other times declares to be the law of God. Well, suppose that a hungry Papist should resist the temptation of the craving appetite, the savoury smell, and the example of his Protestant fellow traveller luxuriating in the luscious viands, and in absence of either egg or herring, or Pope's dispensation, should content himself with the brown loaf and observe Lent in its integrity; would he be an object of moral approbation? I wonder that any one should question it. Persuaded as he is that it is his duty to abstain, though his judgment is misdirected, yet the Apostle's decision in a similar case is express"He that eateth not [of flesh sacrificed to idols], to the Lord he eateth not; and giveth God thanks [for his herbs]"-Rom. xiv, 6. And the Protestant who in such a case might provoke the poor man to eat before he had convinced him of the folly of his superstition, had need examine his own principles. Virtuethat which is entitled to our moral approbation-consists not so much in doing what is essentially right (i. e. objectively), as in doing what each man's own judgment for the time being declares to be right (i. e. subjectively). I shall afterwards speak of his responsibility for forming a correct judgment; but mean

time I proclaim the great formula-that to act in accordance with our present convictions of what is right is the essence of morality.*

(To be concluded in our next.)

THE PRINCIPLE OF CONCEALMENT, AND THE DIVINE GLORY. "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."-Prov. xxv, 2.

It is immaterial whether we speak of God as the foundation, or the summit of the universe. All depends on the view which we take of him. To do him justice he must be represented as both. As there was no one before him, so there will be no one after him; and he is in this position, that he is "God alone." He has neither equal nor superior. He is not only above individual objects, but the vast whole of things. "The Highest" is one of the Scripture names of God, and the name is as suggestive as it is appropriate. There is no being higher than himself to give law to him, or to call him to account. So far as external authority and control are concerned, he is free in the most absolute sense to do as he pleases; and we are distinctly informed in "the Volume of the Book" that he does as he pleases. Referring to God, the author of the cxv. Psalm says, "He hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." That was written long centuries ago; but there has been no change since then. After Nebuchadnezzar's understanding had returned to him, he expressed himself concerning Daniel's God-the Jehovah of Israel-as follows, "He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth;" and we are the readier accepting the

* In the text I have used the Apostle's decisions, for illustration, in those two cases of the eating of flesh offered to idols, the principles of which are applicable to the subject under discussion. But then in other two cases which he decides, and which I shall notice here that the points may be exhausted, that special question of eating flesh which had been idolatrously sacrificed and which distracted the Primitive Church so bitterly is obsolete: but the principles of the decision are applicable to not a few cases which greatly concern our conduct at the present day. First, then, in 1 Cor. viii, 10, and again in Ro. mans xiv, 13, he forbids the stronger minded brethren to eat of such flesh in presence of, or in the knowledge of the weaker, lest the weaker should be scandalized,-i. e. tempted to follow the example, and indulge themselves in opposition to their own convictions. Secondly, in 1 Cor. x, 27-29, he forbids the eating of such flesh in circumstances in which the observing unconverted heathen might misconstrue the action as a holding of fellowship with the idol, so as to impair the Christian testimony against all idolatry. Are these principles of morality obsolete? They are as applicable as ever. "Let not your good [i.e. your well-instructed strong] faith be evil spoken of." "Hast thou faith (in things which would scandalize thy brethren]? have it to thyself before God."

royal dictum that the Apostle Paul gives utterance to the same idea in his Epistle to the Ephesians, inasmuch as he describes God as "working all things according to the counsel of his own will." His own will, and not the will of his intelligent creatures, or the will of another, is his guide. He is like the heathen alluded to in Romans, in this respect that he is "a law unto himself." He has no one to please but himself; and he always does so plan and act as to please himself. When, humanly speaking, he passes in review the countless millions of his own acts, the verdict is that which he pronounced when, at the close of the six days' work, he "saw everything which he had made very good." His eye never rests on an act which he would mend in any particular if he were to do it over again; and what pleases God should please the universe, for in power of judging who is to compare with him, either intellectually or morally? I am far enough, however, from asserting that God does please everybody. I once heard a distinguished minister in London, the Rev. S. Martin, remark that he did not; but the blame does not, of course, lie with him. It would be a pity if he were so to act as to win the approval of the wicked.

God is thus a sovereign-a true sovereign; and his sovereignty is not a barren reality. He exercises it; and if we were asked to mention one thing which, as the Sovereign of the Universe, he does, we could not do better than quote these words-"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing."

The glory of God is the sum of his excellencies. It consists of those qualities, natural and moral, which gives him weight and worth-or which entitle him to our adoration, confidence, love, and submission. His power is part of his glory, his wisdom is part of his glory, his justice is part of his glory, his goodness is part of his glory. There is nothing in or about him which does not add to his glory; and he is so glorious that we cannot conceive of his possessing greater glory. He cannot be more glorious than he is, for he is Infinite Perfection. Now it would seem, the wisest of men being witness-and his witness resolves itself into that of the Holy Spirit-that it concerns the glory of God to practice concealinent, and in this way -that doing so tends to the manifestation of his glory. The effect of concealment on his part-and of the extent of it we can form no adequate idea—is to raise him in the estimation of his moral creatures, and keep up in their hearts those feelings which they ought, and which it is for their good to cherish toward the majesty of heaven, If there were no secrets on his side, if we were sharers to the full in his knowledge, the glory of God would materially suffer. This at least was Solo

mon's profound conviction. Accordingly, he tells us that, while it is the glory of kings to search out a matter, it is the glory of God to conceal a thing.

We use Scriptural language when we state that in pardoning sin, God blots it out, or casts it behind him into the depths of the sea. By covering it with the atoning blood of Christ he does what is tantamount to entirely forgetting it. He, as it were, hides it from view; and in so dealing with it he does nothing inconsistent with his glory. Instead of sullying his glory, acts of forgiveness, on the condition of faith, and on the ground of Christ's great atoning sacrifice, shed lustre upon it. They give body and brightness to it in some of its aspects, and all owing to the propitiation offered by Jesus, the High Priest of Humanity for the world's sin. Still, we do not suppose that when he penned this clause, “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing," Solomon was thinking exclusively or specially of sin, and of God as a sin-pardoning God. The statement is general, and may well be regarded in this light, for a thousand things are purposely concealed by God besides the sins of those to whom he is pleased to extend mercy.

If

Many people are the opposite of communicative. They have the organ of secretiveness. They may be quick to hear, but they are slow to speak, and particularly about themselves and their affairs. They have no objection perhaps that we should tell them all we know, or almost all we know, and they could tell us in time much that would be interesting, and also useful; but they do not choose to increase our stock of information. They are fond of making secrets; but we are not to understand by this declaration, "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing," that he is uncommunicative. Nothing is easier than to prove that he is essentially communicative. he were not, he would be unlike us, for they are the exceptions among us who shun the society of their fellows, and show an aversion to exchanging thoughts with them. Man is by nature social and communicative; and clever, intelligent parents like to have clever, intelligent children. With a view to the development of their mental faculties, and the storing of their memories with knowledge, they are prepared to render their children all the help they can. There are few who have not secrets—but as regards knowledge and wisdom in general, we are, as a rule, willing to share them with those by whom we are surrounded, and we cannot err to argue from the communicativeness which characterizes us to the communicativeness of God in relation to angels and human beings. It would be no advantage to God himself, but a loss, were he to proceed on the principle of concealing everything, for, as Robert Watt