tabernacle were dissolved, I have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." But there are, I must mention, some on whom especially this blessed Sabbath morning dawns in vain. It is the first they have passed in eternity! Go and enter the still chambers of death. There, there, they lie! Many a cheerful Sabbath have they beheld. But to the brightness of another earthly one their eyes are for ever closed! The beams of this fair morning have played over their graves; but they know it not! The darkness of death has fallen upon them. O how unspeakably important how they spent their Sabbaths! Reader, "behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation." "Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy." J. R.

A CASE OF CONSCIENCE.

Question. But what if a man have done me wrong, and divers ways injured me by offensive carriages; whether am I bound to forgive him or no, he seeking no reconciliation with me? Am I bound to forgive where forgiveness is not sought? and must I stay from the Sacrament because I have not forgiven one that wrongs me and seeks not peace?

Answer. In forgiving an offender, there be three things:

1. The letting fall of all wrath, malice, and desire. of revenge.

2. The testification of forgiveness. A solemn profession of remission.

3. The re-acceptance, and re-admission of an of

fender into former society, communion, and familiar

converse.

For the First. A man is bound to forgive in that respect, whether the party offending ask forgiveness or ask it not. A man must so forgive, as that he must bear no malice, nor nourish any thoughts of revenge. For though mine adversary sin in his obstinacy, yet his sin will not warrant me to sin in malice and

thoughts of revenge. If mine enemy will not do that which belongs to him, yet I may not do that which belongs to God. Therefore for matter of revenge and malice we must always forgive. And unless a man do so forgive, as to let fall all malice and thoughts of revenge, he sins in coming to the sacrament.

For the Second. Our Saviour gives a rule, Luke xvii. 4, " If he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again unto thee, saying, It repents me, or I repent, thou shalt forgive him." He doth not say, If thy brother offend against thee seven times thou shalt forgive him seven times: but, if he say, I repent. Whether he say so or not I must forgive him in regard of malicious aud vindictive thoughts. But I am not bound to testify my forgiving him, and to say I forgive thee, unless he repent. To forgive is one thing; and to say, I forgive, aud make a solemn profession of remission, is another.

For the Third. A man is not bound in that particular to forgive, till just satisfaction be given. Satisfaction being duly given, I must forgive so far; but satisfaction being obstinately denyed, I may refuse society and fellowship with him. Religion binds not to receive an enemy into bosom-communion. Now so long as he stands out in his enmity he can be enter

preted to be none other, so long as he says not, It repents him: yea, and though a man do not forgive, in these two cases, yet may he with a good conscience come to the sacrament. And therefore mark how our Saviour speaks, Matth. v. 23, 24, "If there thou remembrest that thy brother hath ought against thee, go thy ways, and be first reconciled," &c. He doth not say, If there thou remembrest that thou hast ought against thy brother. Thereby shewing, that the bar is against the party delinquent; and that a person receiving injury and wrong, if he come without malice, and forgive in the first respect, is not debarred God's ordinance, though he remit not in both the last; just satisfaction not being tendered upon wrong done.

This extract from a valuable old work (Dyke's Worthy Communicant) seems to meet a Case of Conscience which is often perplexing to many. The Christian's pattern in this matter is God's own method of forgiveness. Now as to the first point the letting fall all thoughts of malice and revenge, as there are no such feelings as these in the Divine nature, this must be the Christian's duty under all circumstances. As to the second, God testifies or publishes forgiveness to his enemies in the character of enemies only. And for the third, he receives none into communion and fellowship with himself again but those who bring in their hands a just satisfaction to his injured honour and justice,-the righteousness of the beloved Son, in whom he is well pleased.

REHOBOAM, KING OF JUDAH.

THE engraving which stands at the head of this article, is not only very interesting as a relic of antiquity, but very important, as affording an indubitable

proof of the truth of a part of Scripture history. We read in the fourteenth chapter of the second book of Kings, "That in the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak, King of Egypt, came up against Jerusalem; and he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house: he even took away all: and he took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made." Of this event we have no mention in profane history, and consequently nothing to corroborate the testimony of the Sacred Historian: but a confirmation of this fact has recently been brought to light, after the long period of 2800 years.

Shishak, or Sheshonk, it appears, from the researches of M. Champollion, was the builder of one of the magnificent palaces of ancient Thebes, the ruins of which are still to be seen at Karnac. On one of the walls of this palace there is sculptured a grand triumphal ceremony, in which the Pharaoh is represented as dragging the chiefs of above thirty conquered nations to the feet of the idols of Thebes. Amongst these captives, is the one represented in the engraving, whose name is plainly written in hieroglyphical letters, Ioudaha Malek, the KING OF JUDAH. And as Rehoboam was the only King of Judah conquered by Shishak, the figure must be intended to represent that monarch; who, for his sins, lost the protection of Jehovah, and the splendid treasures of his father Solomon were suffered to fall into the hands of the Egyptian conqueror.

As the figures sculptured on the monuments of Egypt were generally portraits, it is not unreasonable to suppose that we have here the actual likeness

1