The constitution of the twelve tribes, into one vast, happy, and prosperous nation, is one main feature, in the development of this part of their history. Ezk. xxxvii. 22. "I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.”

I now direct attention to the vision and its interpretation.

1. The vision. Ezk. xxxvii. 1—11. The prophet sets forth in these verses, the fallen condition of his people, the details thereof are exhibited in the most striking imagery, but these tracings of the prophetic pen, are so far, only the descriptive symbols which constitute this remarkable vision; and we are not left to the ingenuity of man, to guess their meaning: hence follows,

2. The interpretation. This is given from the eleventh to the fifteenth verse; to be brief, Thus saith the Lord God; behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel." Now let it be borne in mind, this is an inspired interpretation of the vision, and thus all doubt is removed, as to the meaning of those symbols in which it is couched. The vision is doubtless symbolical, but to make the interpretation symbolical too, would instead of making the interpretation clear, render it as mysterious, and difficult to be understood as the symbols themselves! Is it not conclusive therefore, that J. L.'s exposition is erroneous, and that a literal and not a figurative resurrection, is the burden of this part of the divine testimony? Is not such a resurrection in perfect agreement with the Word of God, and a standing evidence, how the promise of the land to the pilgrim fathers can be fulfilled? an evidence which brightens at every step, and adds weight, and dignity, to the long cherished hope of Israel! Abraham sojourned in a strange land; yet God promised that he would give it to him for a possession; and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child; and yet it is well known that he had none inheritance in it, no not so much as to set his foot on. Acts vii. 1. The same may be said of Isaac, and Jacob, the heirs with him of the some promise. What then has become of the promise it may be asked? Has the faithfulness of Jehovah failed? Can any sort of a political gathering, of his living, and scattered descendants, be a fulfilment of that, which was made by oath and sacrifice to him? Let the living oracles answer. See Paul's defence before Agrippa, Acts xxvi. 6, &c. "I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with yoa, that God should raise the dead?"

In these forcible passages, the Apostle plainly associates a resurrection, not a political one, but the resurrection from among the dead, with the hope of the promise made of God unto the fathers," and Ezekiel's explanation of the vision of dry bones, seems a striking corroboration of the same. Paul speaks of God raising the dead; Ezekiel speaks of God opening the graves of Israel; and when it is remembered, that both refer to the one hope, have we not the strongest evidence for concluding, that the resurrections are identical, and possess the same literality?

ONE WHO READS AND LOVES HIS BIBLE.

Correspondence.

ON THE ELEMENTS OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [CONTINUED FROM PAGE 230.]

BELOVED BROTHER ALLAN.-It is no doubt your conviction, that you have proved from the language of the Holy Book, that the elements of the supper ought to be unfermented. We are persuaded, however, that your candour will cheerfully confess, that this conviction is not by necessity a truth.

You speak of having proved your views by one quotation. Which text it is amongst the many you presented, that so conclusively determines the matter, we cannot discover. Certainly it is not one from the New Testament. All we ask for, is evidence from that oracle of truth and destiny to prove your position.

And, brother Allan, it is because you cannot present this law-giving testimony, that you are obliged to hope "we do not mean to question the fact, that the Jews observed the passover-feast with unleavened bread." There would have been no necessity for thus asking assent to this fact, if Christ had ordained that the elements should be unfermented. His statute-book would have so definitely affirmed this to be their sacred state, that you would not have needed to appeal to the Jewish laws for any argument, much less for a foundation-one, to prove your position. Certainly we do not question the fact: but neither the admittal nor denial of it is of great moment in the case, because it is one learned from the Old Testament respecting a Mosaic institution, and no such fact can be received as first witness, to decide what are the elements, or the attributes of the elements, of a Christien ordinance. It is after these are discovered from the New Covenant Book, that such a fact can be admitted as subordinate evidence, not to prove, but to illustrate and confirm them. All the parts and principles of Christian rites, must first be understood from the oracles of Christ ere an appeal is made to those of Moses. It is an insult to the dignity, authority, and wisdom of Jesus, to inquire of any Intelligence what are the attributes of his institutions, ere we ask of Him.

But, brother Allan, although you certainly have asked counsel upon the subject at the mouth of the Saviour's historians, yet assuredly the seven pillars of

your fortress are hewn out of the old Jewish rock. Hence you make the fact that the Jews were forbidden to use any other than unleavened bread at the passover, the foundation of your position, that it ought to be also used at the supper. And to so great an extent do you depend upon Moses for instruction and argument on the subject, that you are obliged to confess that "if we dispute this fact you have no chance with us:" thus virtually acknowledging that you cannot prove your tenet from the New Testament alone. So that, according to your mode of reasoning, this Word of Light and Life does not give a full and complete description of the ordinances of Christianity. The iron enactments of the death-breathing lawgiver, must be studied ere those can be fully known. The skeleton narratives of the Saviour's canon-book must be fleshed and vivified from the stone depository of law, letter, and death. We say in all love, brother A., this savours too much of Judaism. It is making Christianity a mere continuation of the old dispensation. Precisely in this way do the infant sprinklers act. They wish the cancelled statute-book to be received as the interpreter of Christian institutions. The New Testament, again we repeat, does plainly and explicitly state every essential part and principle of an ordinance. The secondary properties it does not definitely narrate, these being left to the will of man and dictation of circumstances. Every attribute of a rite therefore which it does not describe, is of minor importance. Hence if we can learn from any other source than from the Christian canons that elements, with peculiar attributes, were used by Christ or his Apostles in an institution, we must not regard them of primary consequence if they are not also revealed in his law-book. They must be affirmed in this, in order to give them essentiality. It may be quite true that they were used; but if the New Testament does not appoint them, it proves they are but secondary properties.

Now we learn not from the New Testament, but from the Old, that Christ being a Jew, and under the law, was obliged to use unleavened bread at the institution of the supper, because leaven was strictly forbidden by the law at the passover. The question then presents itself, Did the Saviour use unleavened bread, because he ordained it an essential of the ordinance, or from the force of circumstances? The fact that the statute-book does not definitely affirm the bread to be unleavened, proves that he used it from the last cause.

But you object, that "the statute-book does notlay it down as a rule, that Christian churches are to observe the Lord's supper every first day of the week," but that "we are regulated in this matter by the example of one apostolic church." We reply, that if you can furnish us from the New Testament with an example of one apostolic church using unleavened bread, you lay down a rule sufficiently authoritative to command our obediente; though we have more scriptural reasons than those furnished by one example, to justify our breaking bread every first day.

You also argue, that "on our principle, females would be excluded from participating in that ordinance." We say the same respecting the admission of females to the Lord's table, as of unleavened bread. The lamp-book must either in precept or example state their right to partake of the spiritual food, ere their communion in the mystic elements can be sanctioned. You infer that

they partook of the supper; but if their privilege of showing forth the Lord's death rested ou no stronger basis than that inference, it could not be granted them. We will prove, not infer, their right. Paul, in Gal. iii. 28th verse, says,

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

There is, then, no distinction of sex, no more than of nation, in Christ. Both male and female have the same relation to him; and as a consequence to his institutions. Now as the same law which admits the Jew to the Lord's table, admits also the Greek and as that which calls the free calls also the bond-so that law which sanctions the man's presence at the table, sanctions also the woman's. She, therefore, is no more admitted, by inference to the institution, than is the man. Both enjoy the holy privilege as a consequence of being baptized into Christ.

You then argue "that there was no occasion for stating in so many words, that the bread was unleavened, for it was notorious to all Jews that there could be no other on the table." But from whence did they receive this knowledge? It was obtained from the Mosaic oracles. And again, we emphatically den y that knowledge derived from either the Old Testament or any other source, would enable the Jews, or any other people, to decide what were the element s of Christian institutions. The knowledge may be quite true, as in this case but it is not an interpretation of those ordinances, unless the New Testament receives and announces it as sucb. The truths and facts it contains are not applicable to Christ's institutions, if that code-book has not thus applied them. By its testimony our obedience must be defined, described, and limited. But we will show that this knowledge, if relied on, would like all others of the same species, only lead the Jews into labyrinths of doubt and error. It would certainly teach the sons of Abraham that Christ used unleavened bread at the supper. But it also taught them that he had no alternative, that the force of. circumstances compelled its use. Hence the question would arise, whether he had this bread from necessity alone, the state of the bread being non-important, or because he ordained this state to be an essential of the ordinance. The knowledge you mention would lead them into this doubt, and leave them in it. This question the Christian oracles alone could answer. These therefore they would be obliged after all to search, in order to discover whether unleavened bread was enjoined by either precept or expressed example. And on finding that it was not, it would be their duty to reject as a guide their Mosaic knowledge.

Again, the futility of your argument can be made still more apparent. The knowledge of there being only unleavened bread on the table, was certainly possessed by the Jews, but not by the Gentiles. And the sacred histories were written as much for the information of the latter as the former. For their sakes therefore, if unleavened bread had been essential, it would have been expressly stated that Christ used it at the institution of the supper, and ordained it to be used at every observance of this ordinance. The sacred historians were careful to explain all terms and phrases which the Gentiles did not understand, although they were perfectly understood by the Jews. Thus "talitha cumi,”

"Aceldama," "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani," were expressions whose meaning were known to the Jews, but unintelligible to Gentiles; and unless they understood them, they would not feel their force, nor discern the beauty of the sentences in which the phrases occurred. The inspired writers therefore translated them. Now if they thus interpreted those terms for the benefit of the Gentiles, the meaning of which were important, would they not, for sake of the same people, also describe every essential of the institutions, supposing they were all known to the Jews? Reason, justice, and scripture, in one accord, declare they would. Assuredly then they would have stated that unleavened bread was used and ordained to be used by Jesus, if it had been essential to the institution. The fact, then, that they have not, proves it to be non-important. We shall, (D.V.) conclude our reply next month.

Yours in Christ,

EDITOR.

AN EVANGELIST WANTED AT TEXAS-LETTER FROM BETHANY, UNITED STATES.

Manchester, August 17th, 1849.

DEAR BROTHER HUDSTON. I HAVE been requested by my brother N. Harrison, to send you a copy of a letter received from sister Whalley, who at present resides in the family of our highly esteemed Brother in the Lord, A. Campbell, at Bethany; conceiving it might be interesting to some of the brethren who read the Banner, you may, if you think proper, publish it. It probably would be as well to explain, that the enclosed is in reply to enquiries instituted in various parts of the States, as to the most eligible locality to be chosen by Christian brethren who desire to emigrate to that part of the world. We have, in addition to the enclosed, a long letter from a brother at St. Louis; also one from brother William Deefee of San Agustine, in Texas, who gives a very good account of the part round about where he lives; al-o that the good cause of the reformation is progressing and extending its salutary influences amongst them; and further, that they are very desirous to procure the assistance of an evangelist, and as an inducement, he says, if we know of any brother who is willing to labour in the gospel, almost any of the brethren in his part of the country would give such a one an hundred acres of land; which, I think, a very generous offer: and no doubt if so many are so generous as to give land, others would be as generous to give stock; so that a person volunteering his services to these brethren, would be placed in confortable circum

stances at once.

With this introduction I now transcribe sister Whalley's letter:

Bethany, July 12th, 1849.

DEAR BROTHER-I feel delighted to be able to serve you in any way; and I owe you many thanks for your kind inquiry about my health and safety, and especially for the warm reception and kindness which I received from yourself, together with the rest of the brethren at Ashton, during my short acquaintance with you and with them, which will ever be gratefully remembered by me.

I understand you still think of coming over to this land of promise." I have been expecting some persons here who have been to Texas, and thought I could inquire more fully about that place; however, I will not wait any longer, bat tell you what Mr. Campbell thinks, although he has not been there; he is tolerably well acquainted with most of the States of America, and be considers Wisconsin, and Illinois, much more likely to suit you in pursuit of land than Texas; but he says, he would not advise any person to purchase land immedi