All Prophecy Fulfilled; as shown by our Lord, in his Discourse to his Disciples, recorded in Matt. xxiv., xxv.; Mark xiii.; Luke xxi. Paisley: Printed by John Neilson. 1850. pp. 16.

THIS pamphlet was sent to us some three months ago, we took a hasty glance at its contents at the time, and then threw it aside. Having our attention pretty well occupied with other matters, we took no further notice of it until we thought it was high time to give it a passing notice in the pages of our Journal.

The writer's views of the fulfilment of prophecy, though not absolutely original, are, nevertheless rather singular. That the pamphlet will convince many of the truth of the writer's views, we have not much expectation, for they almost carry with them their own refutation.

We must, however, give our readers some insight into the writer's views of prophecy. After pointing out the discrepancies existing among writers on prophecy, and the bad consequences resulting therefrom, he proceeds to give us his own views on prophetic interpretation; and these may be summed up in the following particulars.

1st. That in interpreting the prophecies of Scripture, we are to take those which are already confessedly fulfilled, as illustrations of others which may be supposed to be unfulfilled. To illustrate this position the writer selects Isai. xiii and xiv. In reference to these chapters, he says,-"The events predicted related to Babylon's destruction, and to no other people or nation."

2nd. The figurative expressions used in these chapters, such as the sun, moon, and stars, &c., he applies to the supreme head of the nation of Israel, viz. the king, who was no other than Jehovah. The moon representing the high-priesthood; and the stars, the lesser powers.

3rd. Having settled this, (to his own satisfaction at least,) he applies the principle to the interpretation of Matt. xxiv. and its parallels; from which he draws the conclusion, that all the predictions contained in those chapters have long since been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem and its concomitant events, which includes even the second coming of Christ.

In reference to this the writer says,"Men may look till their eyes fail, as fail them they will, in looking for the Second Advent of Christ the Lord, to punish the wicked, and deliver the righteous. The voice of the Faithful and True Witness' has declared nearly eighteen hundred years ago, It is done,' (Rev. xxí. 6) and that God had avenged' (in his last and awful judgment) his holy

apostles and prophets, ON HER-even upon that city, old Jerusalem, that reigned over the kings of the earth (land.) Rev. xviii. 20; xi. 8; xvii. 18."

The corollary which the writer draws from the views which he has educed from his system of prophetic interpretation, will prove not a little startling to many of our readers, and perhaps lead them to the same conclusion which we ourselves have come to, viz., that the writer's system of interpreting the prophecies is rotten from top to bottom; in a word, that it is mere moonshine. His inductions shall be given in his own words:

"Second, as the period thus fixed was that at which the church of God had attained to the measure of the fulness of the age of Christ, (see Eph. iv. 13, margin) no one after that time obtained, or possessed the slightest authority to minister to the church of God. Neither popes nor prelates, neither priests nor bishops, pastors, elders, nor deacons, nor any other presbyters, neither evangelists nor ministers, neither name, possessed the right, authority, or ability, to minister in holy things. Up to that time these servants of God had the most indisputable and infallible authority to teach, reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine' (2 Tim. iv. 2); for they watched for souls, as they that had to give an account of their stewardship unto God. (Heb. xiii. 17; Luke xii. 42; 1 Cor. iv. 1-2; 2 Cor. iv. 1-2.) But at this period, when the end had come, Christ had put down all rule, and all authority and power, -whether they were principalities or powers, mights or dominions, all were put under his feet, that God

might be all in all.' 1 Cor. xv. 24-28; Eph. i. 17-23. So that all, from the hierarchy of Rome, down through all names and denominations, to the meanest oracle of the most petty conventicle, that electrifies his followers with his wisdom, or enslaves their minds with the authority of his ism or his doxy,—all are alike without authority, and hence usurp the right of him who is THE ONLY potentate, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords." 1 Tim. vi. 15.

Although the writer has in this paragraph (to use a common expression) come out of his shell," yet he has not brought out all that honesty demands, and which certainly flow as naturally from his views as a stream flows from the fountain. The natural and inevitable result of the statements made in the above paragraph, is, that as the whole order of the house of God came to an end with the apostolic age; and the second coming of Christ, which, according to our author, took place at that time, put an end to all things which the apostles had established in the churches, there ought to be now no observance of the Lord's-day,-the Lord's supper, no one to minister in holy things,-that Christians are no longer to watch over one another, nor to reprove or rebuke, for no one has any authority to do

We expect that some of our more simpleminded readers will feel completely puzzled and astounded with the "divers and strange doctrines" contained in the preceding extracts; and while ready to exclaim,-"thou bringest certain strange things to our ears, we would know therefore what these things mean," will feel themselves incompetent to express an opinion as to the truth or falsehood of the system taught in this pamphlet. Happily, there is a very plain and simple rule laid down in the Scriptures for the trial of doctrines as well as of men. It is expressed in these words,-"Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit; neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.- Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them." Our readers have only to ask themselves, can a system which produces such results as those openly acknowledged in the last extract, leaving aside those which we have stated, be in accordance with truth; or, in other words, are they good or evil, and they can settle the question without any difficulty.

We thought once to shew the fallacy of the author's system, by giving in a rough outline what we conceive to be the true sense of Matt. xxiv. and xxv. &c. But, upon reflection, we thought it best to give our readers a view of the author's system and its results, and then let every one draw their own conclusions.

We know nothing of the writer; but the idea has crossed our mind more than once, that if this pamphlet, and the one on "The Sabbath Question," noticed in our last number, have not proceeded from the same pen, the writers have evidently been taught in the same school, for the same leading ideas run through both.

About seventy-five years ago, a pamphlet was published in Scotland, entitled, "Christ the true Rest; or, the Jewish Sabbath a type of Christ;" in which sentiments pretty much resembling those contained in the pamphlet before us, were taught. Some of the leading points in that production were,-that Christians were not now to observe the first day of the week as a Sabbath,—and in connexion with that, there ought to be no public teaching, &c.

This pamphlet drew forth a satirical and ironical reply, under the following curious title," A Letter from Beelzebub, addressed to a Christian Church in Edinburgh." The writer of this reply was one who was in every respect qualified to expose the wickedness of the dogmas referred to; and, in our opinion, a new impression of this small tract would

be found exceedingly useful to the present generation. For scarcely one of the vile blasphemies which are now so industriously circulated through the length and breadth of the land, by means of pamphlets and tracts, have any originality in them; they are only the old schemes and delusions of Satan in a new dress.

Lyric Rhymes, Sacred and Social. Adapted to Popular Airs. London: Arthur Hall & Co., 25, Paternoster Row. Edinburgh: A. Muirhead. Nottingham: H. Hudston. Beverley: J. Everson. 1850. pp. 44. WE cannot convey an idea of the character and object of this little work better than by transcribing the author's address to his readers.-"The writer of the following Rhymes, in consenting to their publication, does not deem any apology necessary, seeing that he has no private ends to obtain by their circulation, and believing that they are too insignificant for the pen of criticism.

"He also considers it useless to say, they are the leisure hour effusions of one of the uneducated class-as that will be apparent to every intelligent reader.

"Being offered, therefore, without pretensions to any merit, beyond that of adaptation to the Melodies, the names of which are affixed, and the absence of any sentiments of an injurious tendency-their recommendation (if any) will be simply that of saving the time of those who, desirous of such recreation, might otherwise have performed the service better for themselves."

We highly approve of the object and design of this small publication. While there remains a taste for music, the popular melodies of Scotland and England will retain their hold upon the public mind; the words also to which many of them are adapted are equally charming, but that is not the case with all. But here we have, in this little work, a number of poems well adapted for some of the very best of the Scottish and English Airs, containing sentiments which all must approve, and well suited to gladden the social circle around the fireside. Many an hour have we enjoyed in singing some of the "Christian Songs" in the Glasite collection, to those old but beautiful Scottish and English melodies to which they are adapted; and these "Lyric Rhymes " will well answer the same purpose.

Had we room, we would gladly have inserted one or two as specimens. We were much pleased with that entitled "Renunciation," adapted to the well-known beautiful air,-"Ye banks and braes o' bonny Doon;" and with another, entitled "Commemoration," adapted to the "Scottish Blue Bells."

REPLY TO PHILALETHES, ON THE

EXTRACTS FROM WALKER.

WE have, in the course of the month, received a letter from our correspondent Philalethes, by which we perceive he is far from being pleased with our remarks on his letter in the July number of the Christian Advocate. We are sorry for this, as we do not wish to offend any of our correspondents, and Philalethes is certainly among the last that we should like to displease, for he stands very high in our esteem. We would have printed the greater part of his letter, but could not do so for want of room. As it is, we must be content with a few passing observations upon two or three points in his letter which require a little explanation on our part.

In reference to our remark about the expression "mock on," our friend (for so we still designate him) says,-"Do you mean me to infer that bad the controversy between Job and his friends been carried on in your Magazine, you would have refused to insert the answers of those friends?" We reply, they are in no respect parallel cases, and therefore no inference can be drawn.

He continues, "But allow me to add,that had I made use of the expression in the more ordinary sense, I think your answer has in some degree justified it: for I am at a loss to think of any more suitable epithet for the terms in which you stigmatise the doctrine I was so warmly supporting, when you call it 'downright Antinomian slang,' and 'cant phrases of the Hyp r-Calvinist Antinomians!" On this we have only to say, that we used the expressions simply in reference to the sense in which we understood Mr. Walker; but which, it seems, was altogether a mistake. We hope Philalethes will do us the justice to call to mind,-that all along we suspected ourselves to be labouring under some misunderstanding of Mr. Walker's real meaning. And we are heartily glad that our friend has enlightened us as to Mr. Walker's real sentiments,-that he did not deny the doctrine of the "Sanctification of believers by the truth." With regard to the expression "mock on," we venture to affirm-that nine out of ten would understand it in its "more ordinary sense," in which case it would seem very uncourteous and uncalled for.

Philalethes intimates that we should have read Mr. Walker's writings before we wrote our remarks. We had no opportunity of doing so. We reside in a country town, and we are confident that we might have enquired within a circle of fifty miles, and not found a single copy of Mr. Walker's Works.

With regard to the "mending process,"

we have already explained ourselves. We have no more idea of mending old Adam than either Philalethes or Mr. Walker. On the subject of the sanctification of believers by the truth, we are glad that our remarks were founded upon a mistaken view of Mr. Walker's real sentiments, and it affords us much pleasure to find that "he wrote as strongly on that as on the other first principles of the oracles of God;" but assuredly we could not gather it from the extracts. He may rank us if he pleases in the army that the other will never mend; but this will not give us a moment's trouble. We know what we hold for truth.

Philalethes says,-" Sandemanians, generally speaking, read little of any book but their Bible; but often have I heard that expression which you designate as a 'most artful piece of sophistry,' refered to by individuals in the body as equally sound expression." Not in the sense in which we understood Mr. Walker to use it; but in its true and proper sense, we could use the expression as freely as either the Sandemanians or Mr. Walker.

Philalethes may be right in saying that "Sandemanians, generally speaking, read little of any book but the Bible;" but we think nevertheless, that it would materially improve their religious profession if they were to become more familiar with the writings of their fore-elders, (if we may be allowed the use of a Yorkshireism,) It would infuse new life into their churches, and destroy some of the excresences which have grown upon them. We have a strong suspicion that those who never read any book but the Bible, seldom overburden their minds even with that. Such a course, we are inclined to believe, arises more from carelessness and apathy, and to save the trouble of thinking, than from any peculiar regard to the Bible.

There is one more paragraph in our correspondent's letter which we cannot omit noticing, although we have extended our remarks already to a greater length than we contemplated. He says, "I observe, Mr. Editor, that you have prepared an article on Sandemanian Theology.-I hope you have been more cautious in the preparation of this article than in your attack upon Walker. I am aware of your independence; but depend upon it an exposition of Sandemanian doctrine by a Scotch Baptist, will be received with some jealousy, and not the less so from the warning you have given us of your attempt to extract the prevailing doctrine of progressive holiness from Sandeman's 6th Letter.

We assure Philalethes that our exposition of "Sandemanian doctrine" would not be received with more "jealousy" than we would

receive an exposition of it from any of its modern representatives.

Our firm opinion is,-that many among the Scotch Baptists, and others besides them, understand the real doctrine of Glas and Sandeman, much better, aye, and have a greater regard for it too, than many who profess to be their followers.

With regard to "progressive holiness," we never used the term, nor do we understand what it means. If Philalethes means that we hold the doctrine of mending old Adam, we repudiate it; but if he means that believers are to "grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," we certainly affirm it.

He continues,--" Walker has I think done Sandeman injustice in his reference to that letter; but I am very sure that after perusing some of the Editorial remarks in your last number, all true friends of the doctrine held by Robert Sandeman must be at least as jealous of you as his commentator as they could be of John Walker."

We do not see how this can be. Sandeman's sixth letter expresses our sentiments to a shade. But evidently Mr. Walker's views were at variance with it. We were not aware before that Walker had animadverted upon that letter; but now it is clear that we were not far wrong in stating there was a radical difference between Mr. Walker's doctrine and that taught in Sandeman's sixth letter.

Philalethes is mistaken as to the nature of the article we have prepared on "Sandemanian Theology." That article consists of animadversions on the Eclectic Review, and not an exposition of Sandeman's doctrine. To answer the purport of Gaius's letter, we intend to give a series of extracts upon the several parts of the Christian doctrine from those writers who are beyond all suspicion the true exponents of "Sandemanian Theology," and not any concoction of our own.

Had we been aware that our friend Philalethes wished his letter to appear without any comments of ours, he should have been gratified. Not only should his friends have enjoyed the Extracts "for a month," but for six if he wished it. Furthermore, we will promise him that any further communication he may think proper to send, shall not be incumbered with a single line from our pen, unless he wishes us to say something. If he thinks we have not dealt "fairly" with him, we are sorry, for certainly we had no such intention. If he thinks our remarks severe, he ought to remember that he does not handle others very gently; and what we mete to others, we sometimes share ourselves.

We never had any other object in view in our remarks on his letter and on the Extracts, than to place the subject in a true light; if we have been mistaken, we can conscientiously way it was unintentional.- ED.]

To the Editor of the Christian Advocate.

DEAR Sir,-- Your acute correspondent, Philalethes, seems to consider himself, like Paul, "set for the defence of the gospel." And he also appears to be specially jealous for the orthodoxy of the Christian Advocate. He watches without winking; and, with a microscopic eye, scans all your pages in search of the "impure lip." He professes to have found the object of his search, and that too, not only in two or three of your contributors, but in almost all of your correspondents. This, Sir, is a sad account of the characters of your various correspondents, and if the Christian Advocate be an advocate for an "impure lip," it is anything but Christian. As a proof that your periodical is an advocate for the "impure lip," he brings forward two witnesses; and I have the honour to be the first. The proof is taken from my letter to my Antinomian friend, on the criminality of unbelief. The second witness is W. B., of Dundee, taken from his pious paper on Death; a paper which would have been a credit even to Philalethes himself.

"One of the most marked features," says he, "of the impure lip,' is the 'stand by' tone in which it is almost uniformly uttered. 'Here am I, the speaker, possessing something of which you, the reader or hearer, are utterly destitute. I stand here-(by grace I admit)-you stand there. Do you say I exaggerate, Mr. Editor? Open your own Magazine, and will you not find this style pervading the greater part of the contributions of your correspondents? Take the last number, ad apertusam libri, and read-Article 1st. On the criminality of unbelief,— 'It is then your first duty and your highest privilege to believe-instantly to believe. Your inability to believe and obey the gospel is your criminality. Yea, further, it is your criminality to need divine influence. Mark my expression.' (How many stages short of profanity is such language?) Article 2nd. On Death,-Reader! are you a stranger to these truths? Have you never thought of death? Remember, you are among the number of whom it is said,- It is appointed unto men once to die.-Come then immediately to Jesus, just as you are,' &c. &c."

Now, Mr. Editor, when my heart is in its right place, I can truly say, "Let the righteous smite me," for he is my best friend who tells me of my worst fault; but the style of Philalethes is so very abrupt. that I often do not know what he would be at, and he not unfrequently seems disposed to find fault with everything. I am not certain whether his heavy charges against me, in my profanity and impurity of lip, are brought against the doctrine contained in my letter to my Antinomian friend, or against my

manner of stating that doctrine. But whether the one or the other, I cannot see my sin, and I really wish to see it; for the sin of an "impure lip," and that impure lip but a very few stages from profanity, must be so displeasing to God, and so offensive to man, that I really desire to repent of such sins, and to confess them before God, the church, and the world, if I am really guilty of them, and it is chiefly for these purposes I write this letter.

Now, Mr. Editor, I will thank Philalethes to convince me of sin here. When I say it

is our criminality to need divine influence, am I a profane person with an impure lip? Or am I chargeable with these sins in the manner of saying this? I might put the same question relative to the solemn and salutary paper of W. B., on Death; for we are equally panelled at the bar; and if the one can be acquitted, I see not how the other can be condemned; but W. B. is of age, and can answer for himself.-I am, Dear Sir, Yours truly, REDNAXELA.

July 15th, 1850.

THE BIBLE.

THE Italian correspondent of the Christian Times, writes-"The secret religious intelligence from Tuscany is very encouraging; religious tracts and Italian New Testaments are printed by a clandestine press, and put into circulation among the people, who are anxious to read the Word of God. Religious meetings also take place, in spite of the harassing police, in which the Scriptures are read, and passages are explained, with appropriate prayer and reading of psalms; but more that I know on this interesting subject, prudence forbids me for the present, to communicate.

"At Rome, since the election of Eugene Sue, the political barometer of Jesuitism has fallen. The clandestine press continues its work without abatement."

In the canton St. Gall, Switzerland, hawkers of evangelical works applied to the bishop for permission to sell religious books to the Roman Catholic inhabitants, the bishop returned the following answer-"The venerable episcopal ordinary declares, ex mandato, that he does not object to the sale of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, translated by Dr. G. H. Kistemaker."

In some parts of enlightened France, the the prefects were asked for the same liberty, but refused it.

THE CLERGY.

A STEADY and determined movement has been going on for some time in l'iedmont to restrain the power of the clergy. A few months ago a Bill was introduced for the abolition of Ecclesiastical Courts. Great was the excitement among all ranks of the priesthood at the idea of clerical culprits being brought before a common court, the same as all other transgressors. The presidential table of the Senate was loaded with petitions,

from all the Jesuits of the realm. The Archbishop of Chamberry crossed the Alps to prevail on the king, by entreaties and threatening forebodings, to refuse his sanction, or stifle in the bud the Siccardi law, as it is called, from the name of the minister who has projected it. The king, however, had his answer ready, "Render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's."

After the bill had passed through the lower house, it was feared that it would be thrown out in the Senate, as the Jesuits were supposed to have a good deal of influence there: but it very quickly passed there also, with a majority of fifty-one to twenty-nine.

Now the Archbishop of Turin was a resolute priest, possessing, it would appear, something of Thomas à Becket, or Philpotts of Exeter, in his nature, and he strictly prohibited his clergy from appearing before any court composed of laymen. When the mitre had bid defiance to the crown, it was time for the crown to be resolute also; so the Archbishop was summoned to appear before the judge on the 29th April. He replied, "in accordance with the implicit obedience I owe to the Council of Trent, my conscience will not permit me to appear before a lay tribunal, without the permission of the Supreme Pontiff, I therefore request delay till I can write to Rome." They contended that he ought immediately to appear. He still demurred. On the 5th of May he was arrested and lodged in the citadel of Turin; and a week or two ago he received his sentence,-a month's imprisonment, and a fine of five hundred francs. Three priests, who, being drawn by lot, declined to serve as jurymen, were each fined three hundred francs, according to law.

One of the Jesuitical party in the Senate interpellated the Minister Siccardi, concerning the case of the archbishop. The minister replied that the government had used a great deal of forbearance to the clergy in general, and that the archbishop had not