and instruction, and perceive the words of understanding. For the Lord giveth wisdom, out of His mouth cometh knowledge and understanding." "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding.”.

LYDIA.

THE GREAT TRIBULATION.

THESE things manifestly increase, and lead us to think that this awfully important event is at hand. What then is the right state of mind in which God's purposes, as revealed in His Word, of events yet to take place, should be avowed? Let us not view them in unbelief, because Christians differ in the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy: or because it is perfectly clear that "the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth as the waters cover the sea: "let us not lose sight of the prediction, that He shall previously "smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked;" Isa. xi. 49. The two are inseparably connected, "Behold! your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; He will come and save you." Isa. xxxv. 4.Bickersteth on the Prophecies, p. 252.

THE JEWISH PRESS.

By an oversight, we missed receiving the "Voice of Jacob " for August 19th, until our last Number had been some days published. We were surprised to find as much as a whole page occupied with some additional strictures on the article headed as above in our August Number: strictures, of which the matter is so important, and the manner as regards ourselves so kind and courteous, that we could wish to lay the whole article before our readers. Certain remarks on Protestant intolerance on which we formerly animadverted, were applied, it seems, not to us, but to the "Jewish Intelligence." We misunderstood their object; and being conscious of as deep a hostility to Popery as ever existed in mortal bosom, we appropriated the rebuke. This led to the article before us. The Editor begins by disclaiming interference between contending creeds, yet demanding for Judaism the highest right to decide on the merits of other religions, as a mother among daughters. He then proceeds,

"We repeat that we have no concern with the reasons that may be drawn from the Gospel in favour of the clamors against the Romanists, but as regards those said to be deduced from Scripture, the primitive and peculiar inheritance of Israelites, who are certainly its best expounders, we feel ourselves compelled, with all due deference to the amiable

Editress, to show how little these reasons are founded on the contents of the Bible. From the circumstance that after the Israelites had worshipped the golden calf in the wilderness, three thousand of them fell by the command of God, we do not perceive how it follows that those who, out of respect for a person, reverence his image, deserve the name of idolaters. True, the Almighty prohibits the making of any image, but then He also declares to what images He alludes, viz. such as are destined to be worshipped : (if this restriction of the original prohibition were not admitted, how sinful would be the taste of many pious Protestants who lavish immense sums on statues and paintings.) That the Israelites regarded the golden calf, not as a symbol or mere image, but as a real God, and that they were therefore idolaters, is clear from their address to Aaron, "Up, make us gods, which shall go before us:" but we never remember to have read or heard that Catholics regard the images of their saints as gods, and worship them as such; besides which, we have their own especial disclaimer to the contrary. Let the Conversion Society decry its Catholic neighbours as much as it pleases, we cannot interfere; but, after what we have just stated, unprejudiced Protestants will deem it very natural that we plain Jews, who admit nothing but Scripture, and who receive no interpretation of it but that handed down to us by our ancestors, consider the appellations of idolaters, &c., bestowed so unsparingly on the Papists, as somewhat uncharitable and harsh, nay more, as highly intolerant. Indeed we cannot help inferring from the abuse heaped upon the majority of the now existing Christians, that men who, notwithstanding

the admonition, "Judge not, lest ye be judged," consider themselves justified in the use of such invective, and who are so prompt in condemning millions of their fellow-creatures with whom they have in common the same fundamental principles of belief; are not very deeply imbued with the mild spirit of those who taught, "Have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every one against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our Father?" Malachi xi. 10; and are not very fit instruments for the propagation of the truth, of which they style themselves the sole monopolizers.

66

Again we must protest against any concurrence, on the part of the Jews, in the execrations against Rome. Ancient Rome, it is true, was the den from which burst that ferocious beast (seen by Daniel) which devoured Judah, "brake it in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it," and our ancestors might therefore as justly hate the Romans as the Greeks do the Turks, -it was the noble hatred of the right for the wrong, of the oppressed for the oppressor. But the ancient Romans are no more, and our detestation did not survive their destruction. Modern Rome is no more to us than any other city: we detest it as little as we do Seville or Toledo, where, centuries since, our forefathers suffered a cruel martyrdom. The friends of the Conversion Society may give vent to their violence in contemptible invectives, and thus show how unfit they are to disseminate a religion which boasts to consist only of indulgence and love; for our part, believing simply in the word of God, as contained in scripture, we are of opinion that it is unlawful for any one who

admits the divinity of Holy Writ, to revenge himself, or to hate.

"Again, we do not know, nor have we any desire to determine, how far Catholicism perverts the doctrine of sacrificial atonement; but we do know that such a doctrine, that is, an atonement effected by the mere bringing of an offering, was never promulgated by the law of Moses, and that, therefore, all accusations against it said to be deduced from the Bible, are groundless. True, the offering of sacrifices was prescribed for several transgressions, but we ought not therefore to decide so hastily whether it was the mere sacrifice, and not the confession of the sin committed, an expression of penance,* and the resolution in future to avoid the like misdeed, which were to accompany it, that constituted the atonement, (Lev. v. 5 ;) or whether, in such a case, sacrifices were not ordained in order to render the confession and penance + more impressive. Indeed, that offerings were nothing more than public exhibitions, to make acts of divine service, of repentance and confession, more august and solemn, is clearly shown by the declarations of almost all the prophets. Besides, if offerings alone had the power of atonement, how could King David, after the commission of the sin alluded to in the 51st Psalm, have said, "For thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it; thou delightest not in burnt-offerings:" whilst, as the article before us says, the Almighty instituted “offering of sacrifices for every, even the most minute of transgressions," how could Isaiah, (i. 11.) how could Jeremiah, (vii. 21-24.) have so bitterly inveighed

Does not the writer mean repentance ?

† Ibid.