also. It is the creature's sin that gives rise to this deplorable necessity. For the carnal mind which is enmity against God, cannot be dealt with in a way of forbearance only and of compassion. It must from time to time be coerced and kept in check by rigorous treatment. Rain and fruitful seasons must occasionally be withdrawn from the unthankful and the evil, lest they presume too much upon that goodness of God which makes his sun to shine upon the unjust as well as on the just. The righteous too have need to be occasionally reminded that God has a controversy, if not with them, yet with the world lying in wickedness, in which they still live. "And fulness of bread, and abundance of ease, would but increase the malady of the fallen souls," (Deut. xxxii. 13-15. Ezek. xvi. 49, 50. Gen. xiii. 10. 13) which rather needs the discipline of hunger, the penalty of oppressive labour. There is then a needs-be for the creature's destitution of whatever kind it may be, and God is as much the God of Providence when he withholds as when he gives,-alike good when he sends a scarcity of bread upon the earth, as when he gives a different,-and to man's carnal reason more unquestionable witness of his goodness, by filling the hearts of his creatures with food and gladness. Acts xiv. 17.

"THE KINGS OF THE EAST."

MADAM,

THE writer has observed with regret, a passage in your review of "The Kings of the East,” in the Number of the Christian Lady's Magazine for March, which conveys a severe, and he believes an unjust, censure upon the work. The sentence complained of runs thus:-" He," (the author) "considers that by "The Kings of the East," the British East India Company is meant; and in following out this favourite theory he would JUSTIFY many acts committed in the East, under the authority, or with the connivance of that body, which we hold to be utterly indefensible before man, and highly criminal in the sight of God." By referring to the work, you will find at pages 128, 129, 136, 137, 151; that the past history of the East India Company's Empire is not justified, but positively condemned. The writer is not aware that a single quotation has been stated in terms different to those in which it was found. Therefore, it appears a harsh censure to have it implied that the " 'following out a favourite theory" has led the author to justify acts which are in themselves sinful. In the Scriptures it is stated that Jacob was blessed by his father Isaac, and the fraud and falsehoods he practised to obtain the blessing, are also detailed—still in stating

these truths, the sacred penman is not thereby chargeable with justifying sins. After referring to the passages upon the pages given above, it is believed that you will render to the work that justice to which it appears entitled.

I am,

With much esteem,

Yours truly,

The Author of "The Kings of the East."

[WE exceedingly regret having so expressed ourselves as to admit of an inference being drawn wholly foreign from our real meaning. No one who reads the truly interesting and important work in question can for a moment suspect the author to be capable of an unfair, an ungenerous, or an unchristian statement. What we rather meant to convey was this: that with our own present view of the subject, we should be unable to reconcile his interpretation of some texts with the past doings of this country in the East, and the present wicked connivance at, not to say encouragement of, those fearful idolatries which, as a Christian Nation, it is our bounden duty to pull down, as the strong-holds of Satan, with the spiritual weapons that God has placed in our hands.

What may yet be, we cannot tell; we rejoice to think that righteousness may prevail where wrong in every shape has hitherto triumphed; and in that case we should at once recognize the justness of the interpretation; but even setting this matter altogether aside, the volume is one that will still be found most valuable, from the clear light which it throws on many predictions and promises of scripture, peculiarly encouraging to us as a people. We are pondering

on the question as regards the "Kings of the East," and perfectly open to convictions which, if we arrive at them, we shall be equally ready to avow. In the mean time, we conscientiously recommend the book, as a work at once profitable and pleasing in no ordinary degree.-ED.]

THE PERSONAL REIGN.

OBJECTION.—It would be degrading for the Saviour to quit a heavenly throne to take possession of an earthly one. So says human reason; which, rather than give up its supremacy, would fain make the Almighty act according to human motives and human passions. Degrading! Shall He who thought it no degradation to descend from his Father's throne to become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, be degraded by returning in triumph? Shall He, who came to serve, be degraded by reigning where he had served? Will He be degraded by wearing that crown in reality, whose torturing emblem was placed on his head in cruel mockery and insult? Will He be degraded by being proclaimed king of kings and lord of lords, where, as if to complete the contrast and the triumph, he had been hailed as king in derision. Apology for Millenarianism, 1836.

WHO SHALL REIGN?

DEAR MADAM,

PERMIT a very unworthy (not to say humble) expectant, of that glorious kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, soon I trust to be established on the earth, to offer a few remarks on an article which appeared in your Magazine for February. Signed H. M. B. and entitled, Who shall reign?

Conscious as I am of my inability to express or arrange them as I could desire-yet as no notice has been taken of the article alluded to, I indulge a hope (believing them to be neither useless nor uncalled for) that they may in your hands, be the means of directing the attention of some better qualified individual to an enquiry, so interesting, and which appears to have given rise to opinions, which if rightly apprehended by your correspondent he justly deprecates. I will not presume to criticise the different renderings given of the greek word (OσTIS) translated "which" in our version of the passage contained in Rev. xx. 4; and am disposed to think the substitution of the word whosoever, is in this instance, an evident and by no means unimportant improvement, as it is confirmed by examples given, and tends to expose the fallacy of that too restrictive application of the text, which would confine the promise therein contained, to those who had suffered Martyrdom, in the cause of the gospel, thereby