But he adds another equally simple and striking figure as illustrative of this hope," which hope," says he, "we have as the anchor of the soul, sure and steadfast." The prevailing doctrine of the present day makes hope to be seen, which is thus "no hope;" it brings the ship into port as it were, where there is no longer need for the anchor. Paul saw a very different use of the anchor, on his voyage to Rome, when in the midst of the storm, and the cloudy and dark night, "they cast four anchors out of the stern, and wished for the day." The anchor itself is indeed "sure and steadfast," but the ship remains subject to the tossing of the winds and waves, and is only kept from drifting to destruction so long as that anchor keeps its hold. Paul knew this to be his own position, but he saw enough in the faithful word of the forerunner, who had gone before and securely fastened the anchor within the vail, beyond the reach of danger, to make him and his fellow-passengers of good cheer, even in the midst of the tossing billows with which they had to combat ;--those "fightings without and fears within," from which he knew well he would not be delivered till that "morning should arise, without clouds, as clear shining of the sun after rain"-when, if preserved by the mighty power of God, he and they should reach the desired haven in safety; and then, but not sooner, they would be delivered from the working of the evil heart of unbelief, and the fear of coming short of that promised rest.

But I fear I am forgetting the limited extent of your pages, and am drawing too largely on your obliging offer of an occasional seat in your "primitive" conveyance. I shall not anticipate objections; but having been suffered to speak at some length in the presence and company of many who will have little patience for my unfashionable patois, I can now afford to say to such, "mock on." The old objection to the doctrine of the Scriptures being a doctrine of daily repentance and daily forgiveness—namely, that it gives encouragement to the continuance in sin that grace may abound, will no doubt be brought up against me,-it may be in some new shape.— I have no answer to give to this objection, but that which our Lord gave to his disciples, when amazed beyond measure at the extent of his doctrine against covetousness, they said, "Who then can be saved ?" Jesus answered, "With man it is impossible." Nothing can prevent man from turning the gospel of the true grace of God into lasciviousness, but the mighty power of him who "sets bars and doors to the stormy sea, and says, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further; and here shall thy proud waves be stayed." "With God all things are possible."

I shall conclude this long letter by venturing this assertion,-that if any one of your readers has not merely followed me, but fully agreed with me in the great fundamental doctrine I have endeavoured to maintain, I shall allow him to pass, whether he says "Shibboleth," or "Sibboleth." I am satisfied he will have nothing to say on those great matters which concern Our everlasting peace, which will be harsh to the ear of Dear Sir, Your faithful and obliged, PHILALETHES.

Suburbs of London, 31st May, 1850.

[REMARKS.-Much as we like the general principle of our correspondent's letter, yet with some of the positions we do not agree. We do not think that Mr. Walker can be viewed "as the Robert Sandeman of the present century." That he strove to imitate Mr. Sandeman in some things is obvious enough: but it is doubtful if Mr. W. was not far more successful in copying that writer's defects than his excellences. Be that as it may, the difference in

doctrine between them, and that too upon some highly important parts of divine truth, must neccessarily destroy whatever resemblance might otherwise have existed.

We do not profess to be acquainted with the whole of Mr. Walker's system, for we have never read any of his writings except his "Address to the Methodists, and Letters to Knox," -Notes on Scripture Texts,-and a few Tracts. The "Extracts" now furnished us by Philalethes, have, however, given us a further insight into Mr. Walker's system of Theology than ever we had before. And we must honestly confess that our estimate of his doctrine, when viewed in the light of Scripture, has been exceedingly lowered in consequence. So far from considering him as "the Robert Sandeman of the present century," we are confident that if Robert Sandeman were alive and were to read these extracts, he would scout the Author as a heathen man and a publican; and as one of the worst enemies to "the true grace of God;" supposing of course that the phraseology means what it appears to mean. We make these qualifying remarks, because we have a strong aversion to form our opinion of a man's sentiments from mere extracts; for dislocated extracts may be made to speak very different things to what the writer intended, and which would be obvious when read in their proper connexion.

Some of the expressions in these extracts are downright Antinomian slang: they are the favourite cant phrases of the Hyper-Calvinist Antinomians, with whom, however, Mr. Walker would hold no communion.

We do not know whether Philalethes has furnished us with these "Extracts" as models of "purity of speech," and of the "one lip," of which he speaks so much; if this was his intention, we must say that he has been exceedingly unfortunate in his choice; for never were there expressions more liable to abuse, and phraseology more likely to be misunderstood and perverted to a bad purpose, than these "Extracts from Walker" furnish.

According to these extracts, the writer evidently denied the doctrine of the sanctification of believers by the word and Spirit of God. We again repeat,—that we do not pretend to form a correct view of Mr. Walker's system from these extracts; but, taking up some of the expressions in them, especially some of those which our correspondent has italicised, as particularly worthy of notice, we have no hesitation in saying that they not only flatly contradict some of the plainest passages of Scripture, but contravene the grand scope and design of Divine Revelation.

We quite agree with Mr. Walker,-that man is wholly corrupted, and that in him, that is in his flesh, there dwelleth no good thing. Further, we believe that from the first moment a sinner believes the gospel, to the last of his life, he needs the continual exercise of pardoning mercy,-and during the whole of his life, the flesh lusteth against the spirit, these being contrary one to the other. Moreover, as he grows in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the more he feels this to be the case, and the more conscious he will become of his utter unworthiness. But to maintain that the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, are in no respect subdued, and that a believer is as much under the dominion of these as he ever was, appears to us most strange doctrine. We not only affirm that it is a doctrine utterly repugnant to Christianity, but in direct opposition to the genuine effects of the truth believed, as described by the apostle in Rom. vi., vii., viii., as well as throughout every other part of the New Testament. If Mr. W. does not mean this, what does he mean?

Was there ever a more artful piece of sophistry than is couched in the following expres sion,-" According to Scripture, I am not warranted to consider it a part of the work of grace to mend our fallen nature," &c. Certainly, it is no part of the work of grace to mend our fallen nature, as men mend a piece of broken machinery; but as the fallen nature of man consists in the darkness of his understanding,-the perversion of his will,-the sinfulness of his affections, and the obduracy of his heart;-to which we may add, his natural dislike to the divine sovereignty.-Yet we conceive there must be a considerable mending in all these matters before any one can see the kingdom of God. The understanding must be enlightened, the will must be influenced and directed by the Word of God, -the affections must be drawn to things above, the stony heart must be taken away, and a heart of flesh -given, the opposition to the divine sovereignty must be removed; in a word, all the imaginations, and high things which exalt themselves against the knowledge of God, must be cast down; and every thought be brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.

Philalethes may reply,-that Mr. Walker would not deny what we have stated, and we have altogether misunderstood his meaning in these "Extracts." Very likely, we hope we have; for after all, we have a better opinion of Mr. Walker than to believe that he would deny the effects of the gospel in renewing men in the spirit of their minds, and creating them anew in righteousnes and in holiness of the truth. But his language may be so understood, and Philalethes certainly must not set up these extracts as a standard of phraseology," nor as specimens of "purity of speech," and of the "one lip."

་

We have endeavoured to shew the inconsistency of Mr. Walker's phraseology with the

doctrine of Scripture, and we should like to have gone into it at greater length, but we have already occupied too much space. Instead, therefore, of extending our remarks, we will direct the attention of our readers to Sandeman's Letters on Theron and Aspasio, particularly Let. vi.

From the warm attachment which our friend Philalethes has always displayed to the writings of Glas and Sandeman, we concluded he was a Glasite; but it seems we have been mistaken; for no genuine Sandemanian would approve of Mr. Walker's language in these Extracts. Philalethes says he is not a follower of Mr. Walker. It may be so; but he evidently follows him in one, at least, of the worst features of his system.

Our readers will readily see that it is on one point, and on one only, that we express our dislike to the language of Mr. Walker in these Extracts. We consider him as denying an important branch of the Gospel doctrine, viz., the sanctification of believers by the Truth;and in doing this, he uses language calculated to mislead, and to throw dust in the eyes of his readers. The very degrading terms in which he speaks of himself, and of the workings of his wicked heart,-even while he is writing in vindication of his (God's) truth, may be very true; for every Christian will feel deeply the deceitfulness of his heart; but here, the language of Mr. Walker appears to us to be used more to support a favourite point, and has more the appearance of what the apostle calls a "voluntary humility," than of a mind deeply humbled before God. As chemists extract poison from substances which are harmless, so it is possible for men to extract food for their pride from their assumed humility. We do not like the scheme of defending one part of the truth of God at the expence of another. This is what Mr. Walker appears to us to have done; he has defended the doctrine of divine Sovereignty, the depravity of human nature, and the deceitfulness of the human heart; but he has done this in such a way as to overturn another doctrine equally important, and equally true; viz.,-sanctification by the truth,-Whether the individual who does this can be the real friend of either, may be worthy of consideration.

If our friend Philalethes has introduced these extracts as a touchstone to try the orthodoxy of Rednaxela,-W. B., and Isabella; we are sorry he has been so unhappy in his selection, for it has only led us to suspect whether his own views are not in some very important points exceedingly defective.

Let any one examine closely the leaven which runs through these Extracts, and then look at the "Letters on Theron and Aspasio;" and he will soon discover that the former are something like a rickety child, the head disproportionately large and ill-shaped; while the latter production has all the symmetry and harmony displayed in a well-formed human body; -in it all the parts of divine truth are made to harmonize with each other.

Before we close, we must say one word to our esteemed friend. We submit to his serious reflection, whether such language as the following is quite in place, "I can now afford to say to such, 'mock on."" We respectfully ask him, Did he ever perceive any indication in any of our correspondents, (to say nothing of ourselves) to "mock" at anything he has said? They are "fools who make a mock at sin," but they are greater fools still who mock at righteousness. We assure our friend that we shall never permit any of our correspondents to "mock" at each other, much less at anything sacred; and the subject which has called forth these remarks is by far too grave and serious a matter for mockery.

In closing these observations we again repeat, that with the general tenor of our correspondent's letter, we are much pleased; but with regard to the point to which we have ad, verted, we must be allowed to say, that as "dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour; so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour.-ED.]

HAS "THE CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE" BEEN SUCCESSFUL?

THE main purpose of our writing this article is to answer the above question; but we shall not confine our attention to that alone. We intend to wander from our text, so we may as well state so. Our remarks will be upon Christian effort in general, and the success of the Advocate in particular.

Its character and purpose demand our first attention. On the title page it is expressed to be the design of the work to "plead the cause of primitive Christianity." This however might appear to be too vague, were there not some other expressions used of a more explicit nature. It therefore bears

for a sub-title, Scotch Baptist Repository. The necessity of the case requires this, for there are so many different opinions prevailing as to wherein primitive Christianity consists, that those who wish to make themselves understood, must use some phrase to let people know what their views are.

Now the question occurs, Has the Magazine stood true to its professed purpose? Has it pleaded the cause of primitive Christianity? Has it fairly represented Scotch Baptist principles? As there are so many contradictory ideas prevailing about primitive Christianity, a difference of opinion will naturally arise as to whether the Christian Advocate has pleaded its cause or not. Some will say No, others as readily will say Yes. On the other question there will not be so great a diversity of opinion; for there are few who lay claim to the name of Scotch Baptists, compared to those who lay claim to the name of Primitive Christians. Those few who bear the name of Scotch Baptists, we might naturally imagine, would be ready to protest against anything going forth in their name, which did not fairly represent their views. More especially might we expect that those who walk in fel lowship with the Editor, would be prompt to censure him if they saw him swerving from the cause of truth, or setting forth any doctrine in opposition to "those things which are most surely believed amongst us." If he were really blameable, no doubt his brethren would protest against his errors, unless it be that love for the truth has departed from among them, and brotherly love dwindled down to a name.

It is of comparatively little importance whether the Christian Advocate abide by Scotch Baptist principles or not, for the New Testament is the rule, not any name of human device; but so long as it professes to represent the views held by the churches of that name, so long ought it to do so in deed and in truth. And every one whom it concerns ought to see to it that this is really the case. Common honesty requires this at our hands.

We may therefore take it for granted that it is considered to be what its name imports, as no one has charged it with swerving from its professed purpose. So at least we may judge from the fact that no charge of this kind has appeared in its pages, and we cannot think that the editor would suppress any charge of this kind if it were made. No doubt many things have appeared in it pages which have caused dissatisfaction to some one or other. This could not be otherwise. But upon the whole it may be taken as giving a very fair view of those from whom it emanates, and whom it professes to represent.

It will naturally be deduced from this circumstance, that the brethren ought to support it. And so they do. But some may perhaps think that they ought to support it more warmly-that they ought as churches to bear the burden of it. In some respects perhaps this may be desirable, but a little consideration will shew the unlikelyhood of it. In the first place, many people have little time for reading, and when they do read, they are content with the books already made. They are very apt to say the books already made are better than any likely to be made. This, to be sure, is a shortsighted mode of speaking, for the Bible is a better book than any which has been made since, and it may be said how foolish it is for people to write or to read inferior books on religious subjects when we have a perfect and complete book to refer to. Yet we suppose there are few who will go this length.

Another drawback with many is, that the Advocate has faults,-"some

things in it are doubtful, and the manner of expression is at times unbecoming." The Magazine is human, and consequently imperfect. Some phrases which have appeared in it might be made to appear very erroneous if you twist them out of their connection, in the same way as most people interpret the Scriptures. There have been also, in the judgement of most readers, blemishes in point of taste. These things the most of its friends can look over, but some are so constituted by nature, that a fault fills up a larger space than twenty excellencies. Now the friends of the Advocate must not be disheartened because they may see such circumstances as these make many to look upon it coldly. These things we must lay our account with so long as the world lasts.

But perhaps even the warmest friends of the Advocate take a false view of the subject, and it is for them that we more particularly write at this time. Let us then calmly consider the question we have proposed,-Has the Christian Adrocate been successful, or has it not? This immediately calls up another question. What is the success you expect or wish for a Christian Magazine? There are two kinds of success. There is worldly success, and Christian success. The worldly success is that an enterprize should pay, or in a somewhat more genial kind of way, that it should clear its own expences, in other words, support itself. What is Christian success? Does that mean support itself too? When the Bible Society was proposed, was it merely to give it a start, and then leave it to support itself by the sale of the Scriptures. Did Wickliffe or Tindal, when translating the Bible, consider whether the affair would support itself? Or would any church in sending out a missionary consider whether the mission, after it got started, could support itself? Or did-but I forbear to quote higher examples, lest it should appear like profanity. In truth this pounds, shillings, and pence, mode of reckoning every thing must have a very dangerous influence upon the Christian character. When once we begin to apply this principle to one branch of Christian exertion, there is a great danger that it will soon pervade every other. "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." Christian efforts that will cost nothing! Surely this is something new, or perhaps it is only an old enemy, in a friend's disguise," Christianity without the Cross."

Ought not Christians, in what they do in the name of Christ, look to the example of their master? Ought they not, for his sake, to give looking for nothing again, trusting that they will be recompensed at the resurrection of the just? Supposing that we could make our efforts self-supporting, what thanks have we? It surely does not require much Christianity for such efforts as these.

In applying these remarks to the Magazine, and the spirit in which it should be supported, let us be clearly understood as addressing ourselves only to those individuals who consider it to be what its name imports, THE CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE. We do not mean that because people are members of churches, that for that reason they should support it, when perhaps they do not approve of it. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. In everything belonging to Christian conduct, these two points must be constantly attended to,-an approving mind, and a readiness to make sacrifices.

Another point also must not be lost sight of, and that is wisdom. Wisdom we say, yet not the wisdom of this world. The matter before us must be considered in regard to this also. Is it wise to make sacrifices for the sake