II. The name that was given to Jesus. Observe 1. The time when this was

mise respecting his seed, especially his work on earth, though it was observed spiritual seed of true believers. What by some for a short time afterwards. was the design of circumcision? Was it Timothy was circumcised, because his not an external sign of internal holiness? mother was a Jewess, and the apostle -(Lev. xxvi. 41, 42. Deut. x. 16. thought it proper for a time to meet the Deut xxx. 6. Jerem. iv. 4. Jerem. ix. prejudices of the Jewish converts25, 26. Rom. ii. 25-29. Col. ii. 11. (Acts xvi. 1-3). Titus was not, beActs vii. 51.) The sinner's heart is cir- cause he was a Greek—(Gal. ii. 3). cumcised when he is made a new crea- Baptism has now taken the place of cirture in Christ Jesus. The apostle in his cumcision-(Col. ii. 11, 12). This leads epistle to the Colossians, shows the su-me to notice, 7. The abuse of this rite. periority of the Christian's circumcision That it was much abused is plain, from to that of Moses. There are three res- many parts of the New Testamentpects in which it is superior. (1). In (Matt. iii. 9, 10). The Jews trusted in its Author. The Jews were circumcised the form of godliness, but, alas! they by men, the Christian by Christ. (2). denied its power. Would you see the In its manner. The Jews were circum-errors into which men have fallen on this cised by the hand, the Christian by the subject? Then read the epistle to the Holy Spirit. (3). In its effects. The Galatians. The cause of these errors circumcision of the Jews was outward, was ignorance. Then, how important ours is inward. 5. The necessity of are clear views of all God's institutions! Christ's circumcision. "Our blessed The ordinance of baptism in like manSaviour," says Scott, was not born in ner has been much misunderstood. sin, and did not need that mortification Well, may we say, "Understandest thou of a corrupt nature, or that renewal unto what thou readest?" holiness, which were signified by circumcision. But He was made under the law;' and both as our Surety, and ex-given. ample, He was subjected to all its institutions. This painful ordinance was, in His case, a pledge given of His future perfect obedience to the whole law, in the midst of sufferings and temptations, even unto death, for us; and it was an entrance on that vicarious work which He finished on the cross." The Saviour's circumcision was necessary, because He was of the seed of Abraham-because as our Surety, it was necessary to 4. 2 Kings xxiv. 17. John i. 42). fulfil all righteousness, and that He The same practice obtains in the East might put honour upon all God's institu- until this day. 2. The reason this name tions. All the members of the Jewish was given. It was the will of God. church were circumcised, and none but Our obedience to His will should be these were allowed to celebrate the great universal-(Psalm cxix. 6). 3. The festivals, especially the Passover. Hence, import of this name. The name Jesus Joshua commanded all to undergo this signifies a Saviour. The word Jesus rite, who had neglected it, before they is the same as Joshua, or Jehoshua, only entered the land of Canaan-Joshua v. framed to the Greek pronunciation and 4-9. The apostle shows the misery of termination. "Joshua was originally the Gentiles in being excluded from all these privileges-(Eph. ii. 11—13). The Jews reckoned it dishonourable to associate with any who had not been circumcised-(Acts xi. 3). Was circumcision necessary, under the Old Testament dispensation? So baptism is necessary under the New-(Matt. xxviii. 19, 20). 6. The cessation of this rite. This was no longer in force after Christ had finished His

When He was circumcised, This was usual-(Luke i. 59). The Jews often had several names. Hence, if they travelled among Greeks they would assume a Greek name-(Acts i. 23. Acts xii. 12. 2 Peter i. 1. Col. iv. 11). Sometimes the name of the country in which they lived, was given to them(Matt. x. 4). When any particular event took place, they often had another name given to them-(2 Chron. xxxvi.

called Oshea, but it was afterwards
changed into Jehoshua, by an addition of
the first syllable of the Divine name,
Jehovah: perhaps, intimating that, not
Joshua of himself, but Jehovah by him,
would complete the deliverance"-
(Num. xiii. 16). This is Scott's opinion.
Consider, (1). The necessity of this Sa-
viour. (2). His character. (3). The
work He has accomplished.

III. The presentation of Christ to the Lord. 1. The persons who presented Him. The law required that the firstborn should be presented to God, but it might be redeemed-(Num. xviii. 15, 16). The price of redemption was five shekels (Lev. xxvii. 6). The parents who did this were pious. Parents, have you given your children to the Lord? Have you given yourselves? 2. The time; on the fortieth day-(Lev. xii. 7,8). The Saviour's parents were too poor to present a lamb, so Mary brought two young pigeons, or a pair of turtle doves. How poor they were! but they were rich in faith. Christ was presented on the fortieth day after His birth. This ought to be done now as early as conve

nient. Parents ought to show to the world that they desire their children to be devoted to God. This is an interesting moment to a pious parent. 3. The place. The temple. Christians should not be ashamed of their religion. 4. The manner. The parents of Christ were sincere-exercised faith-were under the influence of love to God. 5. Our obligations to present our children to the Lord. This is His will. Learn, (1). The overruling providence of God. (2). The goodness of God. He will accept our offerings. (3). The Word of God is replete with instruction. Parents meditate on this passage. Take your children to God in prayer. Amen.

Topics of the Day.

THE MAY MEETINGS.

We do not know that we can do better, than cull from the mass of speeches delivered at the May Meetings such things as seem especially interesting and striking. They are at present preserved only in the newspapers; and in whatever form they might be collected, their length repels many readers, who will be glad to have the pith of them extracted from so great a bulk. We shall go over the Meetings in the order in which they met this year.

1. BAPTIST HOME MISSIONARY SOCIETY.

Rev. J. H. HINTON.-"There was another point in which the Society's operations were modified. It had engaged men, who for years past had been successful pastors, to leave that close relationship, in order to visit the churches, to spend a few weeks among them, and endeavour to kindle a new spirit, and by determined, vigorous, rousing appeals to saint and sinner, to originate an altogether new state of things. It had been accompanied by success worthy of the principle. The effort was wisely commenced, and God had smiled upon its execution. Those labourers had been called Evangelists; not thereby intending to denote that the work confided to them was actually that done by the evangelists in the New Testament sense of the term. He did not pretend to know what was the actual work done by Evangelists in primitive days; nor did he apprehend, that the name was now assumed with the intention of intimating that there was anything obligatory upon the Churches of Christ to appoint evangelists now. Were that the proper time and place, it might not be altogether without interest to inquire, whether the term evangelist, as used in the New Testament, denoted an officer intended to be essential to, and permanent in, the organisation of the church of Christ. Some had held the affirmative, but he did not. It appeared to him, that all that was permament or essential had been marked out in the two offices of bishops and deacons. Churches were addressed with their bishops and deacons and the apostles in stating the qualifications of persons appointed to offices in the church, confined themselves to qualifications fitting them for bishops and deacons. In referring to vernments, helps, evangelists,' &c., no doubt they spoke of things which then existed. If an apostle were now to write of labourers engaged in the church, he

'go

would speak of pastors, deacons, Sunday school teachers, Christian Instruction Visitors, tract distributors, &c. Some had imagined, that the 'helps' were the Sunday school teachers of the primitive church. These things appeared to him to denote the various modes in which the free, unfettered, holy, zealous action of the early churches were put forth. They were not restricted from the employment of other modes of action by the appointment of bishops and deacons. They were not chains upon pastors, but helpers of their faith and joy. None would be more delighted than pastors to see godly men, women and children, operating in any scriptural form with zealous activity for the conversion of souls and the glory of God."

Rev. W. BROCK, (Norwich).—" Mr. Stovel had alluded to the aspect of the times. It was impossible to aggravate the mischiefs likely to result from the Tracts for the Times.' He was glad that the subject had been referred to-it was best to speak out on such occasions, where men of high reputation, and in one sense men of eminent piety, preached another gospel, which was not another. There was in every parish in this kingdom, taught and inculcated, by men whom the people were led to regard with reverence, the soul-destroying doctrine of baptismal regeneration. He could grapple with infidelity-there was something about it by which they could secure its condemnation by the greater part of their fellow-citizens; there was something connected with Puseyism, which could be exhibited to general view,— when men told him that they hated the Reformers, he had only to state that fact to an English audience in order to secure the condemnation of such a sentiment; but when quietly and insidiously in every parish in the kingdom baptismal regeneration was taught in so many words, and was then assumed in all the relations of life, and in all the subsequent services of the church, he beheld an evil worse than either infidelity or Puseyism. How good men could reconcile it with their consciences to proclaim such a doctrine, it was not for him to decide; it was, however, the duty of his friends to set their face like a flint against it. Here came the great and master reason for the countenance and extension of this Society. Without being sectarian-a word which needed explanation-he held the means employed by this denomination to be the means upon which God's blessing might be asked, and on which that blessing might be expected to descend. He had the greatest aversion even to the remotest approach to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, by whomsoever it was taught, and however it might be modified or softened down. It was his firm and growing conviction, that wherever infant baptism was practised, they had the germ of the mischief-enough of the mischief for the depravity of the human heart to work upon. And farther, without being sectarian in the efforts of this Society, which had nothing to do with the practice but to frown upon it but to preach against it-he saw, without casting a reflection upon any other Christian body, just that kind of action, which he believed God would bless. If such sentiments were regarded as sectarian, he could not help it. It was the truth, and there was no use in concealing it. That union that was based on concealment was based on a volcano. He wished that they could by some act of the Home Missionary Society banish such phraseology as this- A Christian country, a Christian government, a Christian people.' A vast amount of practical mischief arose from the employment of such language. A man born in this country, and who had not experienced a change of heart, was in the sight of God as bad as a Pagan. There was no such thing as an intermediate space between the church and the world; there was no outward pale into which by baptism they were introduced; there was no such thing as neutral ground; and that was the truth which this Society intended everywhere to proclaim."

2. COLONIAL CHURCH SOCIETY.

Hon. and Rev. BAPTIST W. NOEL-" But here he might be asked, why they should not leave this duty to be discharged by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts? He answered, that they had seen this want with pain, that year by year it had gone on increasing, and that they were compelled to

do their utmost to remedy it. The colonists were not provided with instructors; they saw no prospect of their being provided; and they had done, therefore, what they could to provide them. Several gentlemen had said that the Society was animated with no spirit of rivalry to the more ancient Institution. He believed that nothing could be more true. But as it was sometimes said, that whatever might be their intention, the effect was to produce schism in the colonies, he wished to go farther and to show one or two points of difference between the two Societies, which rendered the separate existence of their Society necessary. As to the apprehended schism, he would only say that the missionaries sent out by this Society would faithfully preach Christ to the people, and if any schism were caused by their labours, it would only be of that sort predicted by our Lord, when He said, 'I came not to send peace, but a sword;' and that sort of schism in society which arose from the full preaching of the Gospel, they were not at liberty to avoid. Passing, therefore, from that imaginary ground of objection to the Society, he wished to direct their attention to one difference in the principle of the two Societies. He believed that it was the principle of the ancient Society, to give a larger discretionary power over their missionaries to the colonial bishops than this Society would give them. Both Societies would place their missionaries under Episcopal jurisdiction, both would wish the bishops to have power to restrain immorality or heresy. But while one Society would, unless he was mistaken, place all their missionaries in a condition resembling that of curates in this country, the other would place them in the condition of incumbents. The Colonial Church Society would give them all the power possessed by the bishops of Great Britain. If he understood their practice rightly, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel would give them a great deal more. According to the practice of this latter Society, he believed that the colonial bishop nominated the missionary, placed him in his sphere of labour, and could remove him. If the bishop should complain of any missionary, that complaint would be decisive; if a missionary shonld complain of any bishop, that complaint must come through the bishop himself. All the missionary correspondence, he believed, passed through the hands of the bishop. The Colonial Church Society, on the other hand, would correspond directly with their missionaries, and this he conceived to be an advantage: because otherwise he did not see how missionaries could feel that independence, which was necessary to enable them faithfully and energetically to discharge their ministry. He would illustrate this point. Let it be imagined, that the bishop of any colony should exceedingly dislike that moderate Calvinism which seemed to him (Mr. Noel) the doctrine of the Thirty-nine Articles, and the doctrine of the Bible, and should say to missionaries placed under him, that if they should preach such Calvinism he would recommend the Society to withdraw their salaries, would they not be under great temptation to be unfaithful? Or suppose they should think the efforts of such a Society as this to be exceedingly necessary to the colony, and should feel it their duty to support it, but the bishop should intimate that their salaries should be withdrawn if they did, would not this impose a yoke upon their consciences which they should not be compelled to bear? No man, he thought, however excellent, should wield so large a discretionary power. There was a second point, to which he must call their attention. They too well knew that there were certain doctrines which had lately grown up in their Church, of which Tract 90 was a specimen. There were many clergymen who preached these doctrines. He thought the prevalence of them one of the greatest disasters which had recently befallen the Church of England. And should we send out such ministers to our colonies, to preach the atonement with reserve, but to preach forms and ceremonies with force; to exalt the sacraments, and to depreciate the preaching of Christ crucified; to inveigh against the duty of judging of Scripture for ourselves, and to place traditionary exposition in the room of our unfettered examination of the Word of God; then, when the colonies asked for bread, we should be giving them a stone. But the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel being composed of all parties, all might look to be represented by its missionaries; and he feared that such men might be found among those sent out to teach our colonists. The Colonial Church Society, on the other hand, would send out none but Evangelical labourers, none but those who believed the Thirty-nine