room is small, it is better, we think, that both leader and members should remain seated, and converse as they would in the family circle, relieving the posture occasionally by rising and singing a verse of a hymn. Even in a larger room, where the leader might not hear the conversational tone of a speaker, it is best that the members should remain seated, the leader drawing near to each member in rotation. Everything that savors of stiffness or formality should be banished from the class-room, which is the place where a Christian family ought to meet in unreserved confidence and fellowship.

It has already been said that class-meetings are only prudential regulations. Neither in form nor name are they divinely commanded. The obligation resting upon Methodists to attend them we have elsewhere spoken of. Those passages of Scripture which have been sometimes quoted to show them to be divinely commanded do not seem to us to warrant such a conclusion. These texts are not commands in any proper sense of the word. They are but records of facts, statements of the custom of pious men in every age, which show that they often conferred together on spiritual subjects, because they found such intimate fellowship promotive of their personal piety and happiness. Thus we are told that they "spake often one to another," doubtless of God and the things of God; that they "confessed their sins one to another, and prayed for one another that they might be healed," etc. And everywhere in the Scriptures there is an implied commendation of this custom as being both the evidence and the safeguard of their piety. The rule that requires attendance upon class-meetings only requires that we follow the good example of those who feared God in the days of the prophets and the apostles. They thus "assembled themselves together," not because God had specifically commanded it, but because they found great spiritual profit therein. They had learned that by the use of such means they more rapidly grew in grace and "in the knowledge and love of God continually," if indeed they had not also learned that without such aids they were in constant danger of falling from grace. And what are we better than they, that we should neglect such helps to the maintenance of spiritual life? Have we not the same fallen and perverse nature, the same trials and temptations, the same hopes and joys, and fears and

sorrows, the same needs and the same experiences? And can we devise a better means of keeping ourselves unspotted from the world than that which the fathers in Israel, and the first Christians, employed so successfully that it is commendingly recorded in the sacred volume? How can we better overcome the evil that is ours by nature, and foster the good that is ours by grace? The great and gifted Richard Watson says:

It is by these blessed institutions (class-meetings) which so constantly respect the end of all preaching and of all religious profession-the work of God in the heart-that the blind are led in the right way; the penitent encouraged to the exercise of that faith in Christ whereby cometh salvation; the tempted comforted; and all urged forward by the counsels of experience and the prayers of those who are united in this interesting fellowship, to the mark of the prize of our high calling.

Equally pertinent is the language of Bishop Morris in his introduction to Dr. Miley's Treatise :

As to the peculiar institution of class-meeting, whether we view it in its spiritual, pastoral, disciplinary, business, or social aspect, it is of vast importance to us. Nothing, indeed, could supply its place. . . . It is a fact that cannot be concealed, or successfully controverted, that the most faithful, useful, and influential Methodists are most devoted to our peculiar meetings, especially the weekly class, and most punctual to attend; while the lukewarm, worldly-minded, and disaffected are least disposed to enjoy the privilege.

Attendance upon class-meetings is then a privilege as well as a duty, and on this ground we entreat both clergy and laity (in the choice of two alternatives that consistency seems to require them to make) to maintain the standard of the Discipline and enforce the published rule of the Church. Let them choose this as incomparably the safer and better alternative of the two. The institution has been an invaluable blessing to Methodists. The pangs of a first sorrow for sin, and the joy of a first love begotten of the knowledge of sins forgiven, alike prompt to an attendance upon this means of grace. Whenever a genuine revival of religion is vouchsafed to one of our own Churches, the class-room is sought with increased desire, and the class-meeting is attended with increased regularity. Even in other Churches, wherein the class-meeting is not a recognized institution, when there is a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit, almost certainly and naturally, employing the word in

a religious sense, the membership becomes "divided into smaller companies," not "called classes," possibly, but similar in design and spirit, and almost the same in form. One of the bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church, we believe of the diocese of Rhode Island, introduced in the Churches under his care a kindred institution during a revival of religion. It is well known that a pious clergyman of that Church in the city of New York has done the same thing. The Rev. Dr. Way land, in a series of published articles a few years ago, openly advocated the use of class-meetings in the Baptist Church. The fathers of Methodism, both British and American, uniformly held that the class-meeting is the glory of the Church, the crowning privilege of its people, and that attendance upon this means was the best evidence of the spiritual health of its members. Shall their sons hold the "blessed institution" in less esteem? Would not that be a confession that experimental religion and the love of Christian fellowship have declined in the Church? And why should class-meetings be abandoned? Was ever a man or a woman made a worse Christian by attendance upon them, or a better disciple of Christ by non-attendance? Have not class-meetings saved Methodism from the dead formality which has overtaken other Churches? Have they not largely helped to make Methodism what Dr. Chalmers, with equal truth and catholicity, declared it to be, "Christianity in earnest?" Why, then, is the institution falling into disrepute, and why are some advocating its abolition as a test of membership? Rather let pastors and people listen to the warning voice of a venerable bishop:

Let no one under a mistaken notion of improving Methodism seek to have this test of membership done away, unless he prefers careless and worldly-minded professors of religion to living stones of the temple of God.

ART. V. THE SIXTEENTH PSALM.

INTRODUCTION.

§ 1. Is this Psalm Messianic?

THIS question is clearly answered by the apostle Peter in his discourse on the day of Pentecost, recorded in Acts ii, 22, et seq.: "Men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man from God, made manifest unto us [as Messiah] by powers, wonders, and signs which God did by him in the midst of us, as also ye know. This man, delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, having taken, through wicked hands having crucified, ye have slain: whom God raised up, having broken the bonds of death, as he could not be held by it. For David speaks concerning him, [in the sixteenth Psalm saying,] I have set the Lord always before my face; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved: on this account my heart rejoiced and my tongue was glad; even also my flesh shall rest in hope: because thou wilt not leave my soul in the condition of death, nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made me to know the ways of life; thou fillest me with gladness with thy countenance."

The apostle then proceeds to reason on the above quotation as follows: "Men, brethren, it is proper to speak with boldness to you concerning the patriarch David, that he also died and was buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn to him with an oath, that [one] of the fruit of his loins should sit upon his throne; looking forward he spake concerning the resurrection of Christ, [in the sixteenth Psalm,] and that he should not be left in the condition of the dead, neither should his flesh see corruption."

In the same manner Paul also reasons in his discourse at Antioch of Pisidia, recorded in Acts xiii, 35. He declares that David, in the sixteenth Psalm, prophesied of the resurrection of Christ, and not of his own resurrection. "For God raised him [Jesus] from the dead, no longer to return unto corruption... Wherefore also in another place he says, 'Thou wilt not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption.' For David indeed having

served his generation by the will of God, fell asleep and was gathered to his fathers, and saw corruption; but he whom God raised up did not see corruption."

Jesus, therefore, is the sole subject of this psalm, Peter and Paul concurring in their testimony to this fact. So we infer and believe; though many wise and good men have maintained the view that the psalm refers both to David and to Christ.

Dr. Adam Clarke says: "The contents of this psalm are usually given in the following manner: David sojourning among idolaters, and being obliged to leave his own country through Saul's persecution, cries to God for help, expresses his abhorrence of idolatry, and his desire to be again united to God's people, 1-4; and declares his strong confidence in God, who had dealt bountifully with him, 5-7; then follows a remarkable prophecy of the resurrection of Christ, 8-11."

Dr. Clarke further says in his "Analysis," at the close of his comments, "Michtam David, David's precious jewel or Psalm of Gold: literally to be understood of David, but primarily and principally of Christ." Hence, according to Dr. Clarke, there is first a literal meaning, and, secondly, a spiritual meaning; that is, this psalm has a double meaning!

But in justice to Dr. Clarke, it should be said that in his introductory remarks he declares with noble emphasis: "From the most serious and attentive consideration of the whole psalm, I am convinced that every verse belongs to Jesus Christ, and none other."

Dr. Clarke's inconsistency very forcibly illustrates the influence of traditionary interpretation upon his mind, and at the same time the force of his honest exegetical sense. Even Hengstenberg, though one of our latest and best commentators on the psalms, fails to rid himself of the traditionary interpretation and of a double sense, and ventures to say that "David in Christ could speak as he does here, with full right. Christ has conquered death, not merely for himself, but also for his members. His resurrection is the ground of our resurrection; for can the head fail to draw its members along with it?" That is, in plain English, David spoke of his own resurrection, thus contradicting the apostle, who says, "David looking forward spake of the resurrection of Christ." Nor does Hengstenberg at all