turally examined." If the pre-millennial advent of the Saviour, be a proposition universally believed, then it is not a question, and consequently has not two sides; but if it be a subject of doubt or dispute, then it is a question, and therefore presents two sides for examination. Every question has this two-fold aspect, having an affirmative and negative side.

(6) The ideas which B. B. has upon this passage are very popular, but we are persuaded that they are replete with error. It occurs in the very midst of Christ's description of the circumstances which should attend the destruction of Jerusalem, and certainly refer to that awful event. These are the words of Christ, "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations, and then the end shall come." Matt. xxiv. 14. These words assuredly signify, that the gospel was to be proclaimed through all the world, in order to bear witness unto the nations that Jerusalem should be destroyed, and when the information had been borne through the whole circle of the Roman Empire that this city of renown was doomed to destruction, then should come its desolation.

We shall endeavour to show, briefly, the manner in which this knowledge was communicated to the people, and the design for which it was given. The primitive preachers, in their proclamations of the gospel, not only attempted to prove that Jesus was the Christ, and that he died for the sins of men, and rose again for their justification, but also narrated the circumstances of his life and death, and repeated the prophecies which he uttered. Hence Christ, intending to preserve alive the deed of love which the woman performed, who anointed his head, declared, that "wheresoever this gospel shall be preached through the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her." Mark xiv. 3. This, then, the heralds mentioned when proclaiming the glad tidings, and also rehearsed the prophecy which the Saviour had uttered respecting the destruction of Jerusalem. Stephen had recited it in his addresses to the people, and it was brought forward as an accusation against him, but accompanied with the most malicious and false additions.

The design for which this information was given to the people, was to prove the same grand truth as did the miracles and other prophecies of Jesus, viz.: To convince mankind that he was the Christ. Thousands would believe upon him when this prophecy was fulfilled; for the event it announced was so improbable that human reason would pronounce the prediction to be the fevered assertion of a fanatic. Jerusalem was at that time a city of renown, beloved by thousands in every part of the world, who were proselytes to its religion. They could see no sign either in the heavens or in the earth which portended the destruction of this, the city of God.

When, then, the prophecy was proclaimed, it would be regarded as but the threatening of the rejected Nazarene, yet it would be considered as a test of his pretensions to the Messiahship. And in proportion to their incredulity would be their astonishment and conviction that its author was indeed divine. Hence Peter referring to this event, exhorted the Christians to have their conversation honest among the Gentiles, that "whereas they speak against you as evil doers, they may, by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." 1 Pet. i. 12. Or, in other words, that when Christ fulfilled the prophecy by visiting Jerusalem in wrath because of its sins, the conviction produced amongst the nations that he was indeed the Son of God, by beholding the fulfilment of his predictions, might be strengthened and confirmed when they saw the holy conduct of his followers. They would glorify God by believing and obeying him. Phil. ii. 11.

(7) A dispensation of grace is the method or arrangement which God has made, by which mankind obtain his blessings. Now, a dispensation holds out its gifts to all those members of the human family, to whose nature and circumstances the method or arrangement is adapted, and who need the blessings promised by it. God never did adapt a system of mercy to his creatures, and then forbad a number of them to participate in its mercies. The gospel dispensation is adapted to the nature and circumstances of every rational and intelligent descendant of Adam. In this respect, therefore, it is universal.

We beg the attention of B. B. to these observations, and subscribe ourselves his faithful friend, EDITOR.

CHRONOLOGY.-No. I.

A CORRESPONDENT over the signature of Joseph Wilson, in the 9th Number of the Banner, in commenting upon my Chronological Table objects to my placing the birth of Abram in the 70th year of Terah's life. This, he says, " is an error, which he hopes he shall be able clearly to show." This he undertakes to do by citing Gen. xii. 4, "Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed out of Charrau;" he then quotes Acts vii. 4, where Stephen is made to say by the translators of the king's version, "And from thence, when his father was dead, he removed into this land in which ye (Israelites) dwell;" whence, he argues, that, as Terah was 205 years old when he died, Terah must have been 130 years old, instead of 70, when Abram was born.

If I could admit the correctness of Mr. Wilson's premises, I should adopt his conclusion, and correct my table accordingly; but there is a flaw in the foundation of his edifice of so momentous a

character, that I shall be under the necessity of turning his work back upon his hands.

66

In the first place, it is expressly said, that “Terah lived 70 years, and begat Abram," &c.; that "Terah died in Charran;" that, when he died he was 205 years old ;" and that Abram was 75 years old when he departed out of Charran:" from all which it is clear that Terah was 145 years old when Abram left him; and that he lived 60 years in Charran after Abraham's departure for Canaan.

The only difficulty in the case arises from the rendering of one word in Acts vii. 4. This word is Kakeithen, and should have been rendered of time, and not of place, as is strikingly clear from the expletive" when he was dead." Hence Kkeithen should have been translated " afterwards when Terah was dead, Abraham removed into Canaan.'

But here, it might be objected, you have shown that Abraham came into Canaan 60 years before Terah died. So he did; but Abraham did not remain continuously in Canaan all that time. He dwelt sometimes in Egypt, and sometimes in the Philistines' land; and it was in this latter country he was residing in at the time of his father Terah's death. So that when Terah died, he left, not Charran, but the Philistines' land, and removed into that part of Canaan in which the Sanhedrim then was.

But why did Stephen allude to Abraham's leaving the Philistines' land rather than to Charran? Because he wished to fix the attention of the High Priest and Council upon a very interesting incident in the life of Abraham. which was a most striking allegory representing the sacrifice of the only begotten Son of God. Thus, when Terah died, Abraham had been sojourning in the Philistines' land many daysGen. xxi. 34. While there the Lord God appeared to him and told him to "get into the land of Moriah, and offer Isaac there upon one of the mountains which he would tell him of." Abraham obeyed; and on the third day he lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off." And he took the wood and laid it upon Isaac," that he might carry the instrument of his own sacrifice; and when he had led him on to the mount," he laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood." And Abraham then prepared to pierce him; but his hand was arrested by the angel's voice forbidding him to harm the lad. In this way "he offered up Isaac, his only begotten son, and received him from the dead in a figure" on the third day after leaving the Philistines' land; for Isaac was saved, and a ram slain "in his stead."

This remarkable incident in the biography of Abraham and his son, was well known to every Israelite; and the simple allusion to it by Stephen could not fail of striking the High Priest and Council before whom he stood, as singularly illustrative of the recent events

in the history of Jesus, who obtained "none inheritance in the land" at his resurrection any more than did Abraham and Isaac, when the latter rose from the dead in a figure. This was one great point in Stephen's speech; and another, the recognition of Joseph at his second appearing to his brethren. The coming of Abram out of Charran constitutes no point in his discourse; as that event had no special bearing on the case in hand. Therefore, Stephen passed over it, and directed their attention to his coming out of the Philistines' land after the death of Terah.

Having proved his obedience, Abraham departed from "the Mount of the Lord" to Beersheba-the Well of the Oath-where he took up his abode in the Philistines' land. After this he removed to Kirjath-arba, or Hebron, in the land of Canaan. While there, Sarah died aged 127 years. When Isaac was born, Sarah was 90 years old and Abram 100. Hence when Sarah was 90, Terah was 170, and therefore when Sarah died, Terah must have been dead two years; for 37, the remainder of the life of Sarah, added to 170, Terah's age at that time, will make 207 years, which is two more than Terah lived. As then the events of "the Mount of the Lord" occurred between Abraham's sojourning in the Philistines' land and Sarah's death at Hebron, they must have taken place sometime in the two years subsequent to the death of Terah.

I have very "valid" reasons for fixing the commencement of the Seveuty Weeks in the 7th of Artaxerxes, but have neither time nor space to adduce them now. JOHN THOMAS.

3, BRUDENELL PLACE, NEW NORTH KOAD, London, December 13, 1848.

DIALOGUE BETWEEN MARTIN LUTHER AND
THE MONK ERASTIAN.

[Never before published.]

Erastian. FRIEND LUTHER, What think you has become of your pious father?

Luther. He has gone to heaven, sir, I doubt not,

Erastian. And your mother too?

Luther. Yes, and my mother too; and my grandfather and grandmother also for Saxony can boast of no Catholics more devout than they.

Erastian. And in the name of both Saint Peter and Saint Paul, why have you raised all this fuss in Germany and throughout the world? Do you expect anything better than to go to heaven when you die? Luther. Nothing better than to enjoy heaven.

Erastian. If, then, your pious ancestors, who lived and died in the bosom of the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, have gone

to heaven as you believe, how dare you separate from that church? Are you sure that, separated from that church, you cau arrive at heaven? Besides, you say you can promise yourself no more than heaven where you now stand; why not, then, have kept the good company of your virtuous ancestors, and walked with them in the good old way, rather than be enrolled with heretics and hazard so much for nothing gained!

Luther. "For nothing gained!!" Why, sir, I have gained everything in renouncing the Pope-peace of mind and the joyful hope of heaven.

Erastian. Remember you have conceded that you ancestors gained heaven in the Church of Rome: and why could not you? Luther. Because they were pious members of that church, which I could not possibly be.

Erastian. Why not?

Luther. Because I have been favoured with more knowledge than they.

Erastian. This is the first time in my life that I have heard "more knowledge " assigned as a cause of impiety.

Luther. You astonish me! Why, sir, there is not a casuist in the Greek or Roman Church that does not agree with me. Erastian. Agree with you in what?

Luther. That "more knowledge" always condemns.

Erastian. "More knowledge" than what?

Luther. More knowledge than conformity. To speak plainly, more knowledge of the will of God than conformity to it, is rather impious than pious. Let me ask you, sir, what is piety?

Erastian. Piety is the worship of God.

Luther. The worship of God according to the knowledge of his will, or without the knowledge of his will?

Erastian. According to the knowledge of his will; for the worship of God must be regulated by the will of God.

Luther. True, most true: the worship of God must be regulated by the will of God. This is all that I ask. This kept in mind, and you may easily perceive why I could not be a pious member of the Church of Rome, though my parents were. They lived in conformity to all they knew, and died in the church; I live in conformity to what I know, and have left the church. Now, as it would have been impossible for them to have been pious without this conformity to known duty, so would it be impossible for me to be a pious member of the Roman Church. And do you think I could have been saved in the Church of Rome without piety?

Erastian. Not without piety; for I believe there are Popes and Cardinals, and Bishops and Monks in hell, who died in the church as they lived in it-without piety and without virtue.