that impression to be correct. We think it important to notice such translations as those of Newcome and Henderson, for these writers evidently felt constrained, by the text itself, to give a solid interpretation, notwithstanding their prejudice in favor of a liquid.

Altogether we are much disappointed with Dr. Kitto's discussion of this topic. His view is fixed, so far as the present edition of the Pictorial Bible is concerned; yet we are not without hope that mature reconsideration of it will change his opinion, and lead him to avow the change in a new edition of his Physical History of Palestine. We have often had reason to admire his candor, and we hope his consideration of this subject will be characteristic. P.

SONG OF THE EARTH SPIRITS.

HE Night hath its stars,
The Day hath its gloom;
By the slimiest waters
Some blossoms will bloom.
There is ever a mingling
Of Evil and Good;
By the waste of the reaper,
The gleaner hath food.

But men cry 'It is naught!'
And unheeding pass by,
For the spirit is dormant,

And filmy the eye.
Who selecteth, rejecteth ?

God smileth on all,-
On the wide spreading banian,

The weed by the wall.

To the Open Soul

The winds in the grove,

The rain on the casement,
Are voices of love;

The sowing the flowering

The ripening-the death

But the changes of vesture,

While God is beneath.

K. B.

THE FUTURE APOSTACY.

UCH is the title of a remarkable pamphlet recently published at Norwich-remarkable for its utter and astute worthlessness. Solomon did not live in the modern days of Theological Fantasies, or he would never have said that there is 'Nothing new under the sun. We do not believe that the sun ever shone on any age so rich and original in theological novelties and nonsense as this of ours, when every-day is bringing forth some new theological thing-some wild and monstrous madness.

It is our boast, as Theosophist and Teetotaler, that we base our Religion upon the Common-sense and Reason of the Race, as revealed thro the old and Great Teachers of the World, and attested by our own consciousness, and our Practice upon the primeval institutes, alike of scripture and creation.

Not long ago, a Mr. Murray, a Scotch-church missionary in Canada, publisht a tractate attempting to prove that the prediction of Zechariah,-" Corn shall make the young men cheerful, and (tirosh) grapes the maids," -was an eight century anticipation of the discovery of the art of distilling!—' distilled spirits' being selected as one of the peculiar and choicest blessings of the gospel-age in countries where the vine is not indigenous! He very coolly 'adds to the words of the Book' of the prophet, perverting the text thus :—' spirit shall make the young men cheerful, and grape-wine the maids' !!

-Corn

The author before us is a person, and the pamphlet a production, of the same genus. Tho Mr. Govett is the pope of a little sect himself—having formerly been a minister of the Established-Church, which, we should suppose, has gained a 'loss' by his secessionand tho he is besides, as we are told, 'a good sort of a man,' if not a wise one,-we would fain hope that the tract cannot be influential. If, however, any brother is stumbled by it, his stumbling will be a most decisive and deplorable proof of his imbecility.

Let us be just, however, and award to the author all that is his due. On some of the topics he treats of, he does appear pretty well informed. This, however, renders his gross, strange, and criminal misrepresentation of facts all the less excusable. Whether this mischievous misrepresentation arises from malicious design, or from some unfortunate obliquity of vision, we do not pretend to know: nor, indeed, do we care, as far as the question itself is concerned.—The 'Future Apostacy,' according to this new hypothesis, was to take three steps towards its consummation, which, he says, it has now done! 1st., The initial Apostacy was forbidding to marry! 2nd., The medial Apostacy was drinking only water !! (Teetotalism.) And 3rd., the final Apostacy-(the very tail of the Beast, however paradoxical) was abstaining from the flesh of every Beast !!! (Vegetarianism.) This, in plain English, is the sum and substance of his 'faith' in this affair! and certainly our readers will agree with us in thinking, that if Mr. Govett had been gifted with the most ordinary share of common-sense, he could never have inflicted upon himself the cruel exposure of his own weakness which this pamphlet contains.

Our author's remarks are founded on that passage in the 1st. Epistle of Paul to Timothy, extending from the 14th verse of chap. ii, to the 8th verse of ch. iv; and he recognizes in the Temperance Movement of the present day the Great Apostacy predicted by the apostle! He contends that Romanism is not the apostacy described in the passage, and, in opposition to the great body of Protestant Divines, insists that the church of Rome actually holds the doctrines which the Apostate is here represented as rejecting.

Having shown who is not the Apostate, he next goes on to describe who is. But his model portrait is a sort of mongrel-a composite abstraction-in fact, a 'fancy portrait' of which there is no real, single, original. He picks out a feature here, and a limb there, just to suit the needs of his argument or his art, and thus makes a 'Man of Wax. And, if feature or form be wrong, well, like the Witches of old, our wizard applies the image to the fire of his theological laboratory, and straightway the part is melted down, or moulded up, until the desired shape is obtained! Thus, he is compelled to admit that Teetotalism is not a perfect image of the apostacy-that the practice of water-drinking, somehow, does not fit, i. e. fulfil, the prediction! Clearly enough, Teetotalers do get married-and if we may speak for the majority of our brethren, love their wives 'right well besides !-and clearly enough also, as any one who ever attended a teetotal marriage feast must know, it is not from meats at all that they abstain, but from intoxicating drink. Well! these may be difficulties to ordinary men, but not at all to Mr. Govett. He can finish his effigy very nicely, and make it fit—by stuffing out. And if that will not serve, he can resort to a still bolder expedient-(for he is a bold man; we will not say on the principle that 'Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread ')—and he can either put the finishing touches to an old prophecy, or vent a little original one of his own. At p. 38, he thus predicts:

"Teetotalism will join itself with the other Gnostic principles now afloat, and will then be consolidated into one fearful system, destructive of all faith in Christianity, ensuring the perdition of the soul."

Thus, we say, does he give vent to his vaticinations, for, of course, we do not believe that he is inspired by any thing at all but windy fantasies.

Let us now notice the chief of our author's statements somewhat more fully. Speaking of wine, he says:

"It was, it is evident, the common-drink of the country: and the Spirit of God requires of the elders, deacons, and deaconesses, only that they shall not take to excess; thus manifesting that it was a fermented liquor: 1 Tim. iii. 3, 8, 11; Titus, i. 7; ii. 3. To the Saints in general: Eph. v. 18.”—P. 20.

The carelessness of thought and expression in this passage betrays both a shallow and confused mind. Mr. Govett speaks of 'the common drink of the country.' What country? we ask. Does he mean the Island of Crete, and the province of Asia Minor in which the city of Ephesus was situated ?-for the texts which he quotes relate to all these places; or does he really mean to assert that these countries are only one country? Or does he mean Palestine, from an oversight? forgetting that it is not the only country referred to in the Bible. A writer who sets himself to run-a-muck against the Teetotalers, ought to be very accurate and precise in his criticism: the water-drinker, and true 'Gnostic,' cannot endure muddiness and confusion, for his beverage and his brain are equally lucid. A drinkingcritic, therefore, should never write except in his lucid intervals.

Let us suppose that our author means Palestine, by 'the country.' We affirm, then, most positively, that it is not true of that, or perhaps any other vine-growing country, that the terms for 'wine,' are applied exclusively to 'fermented liquor.' The wide oriental term for wine, sherap (syrup), clearly enough informs us of the nature of many of the wines of the East. In Palestine, indeed, the greatest part of the juice of the grape is used in an unfermented state-the natives boiling it down to one third, or one half, at the season of the vintage, for the express purpose of preserving its natural elements unchanged. That to this article terms for wine are frequently applied in the Old Testament scriptures, does not admit of doubt, with impartial and reasonable enquirers. The reader will find sufficient evidence of this fact, in Mr. Mearns' cheap and admirable volume, 'the Olive

Vine, and Palm,' publisht by Houlston and Stoneman, London, and which has an excellent ‘Introduction' by Dr. Kitto.

Let us suppose that our critic means, not Palestine, but either Crete or Asia Minor, by the country.' We still deny that a caution against 'excess' in wine, proves the wine 'fermented' Nor is our denial founded on the general principle that 'excess' is not confined to bad, or intoxicating agents alone, but extends both to solids and liquids, both to innocent and fermented liquors. As for instance, 'much honey is not good,' does not prove 'honey' to be intoxicating. Neither does 'be not given to much wine,' prove wine to be intoxicating. The wine referred to might be fermented certainly, but we say, that does not prove it to be so. But we deny the assumption of Mr. Govett on particular grounds.

A paragraph or two from a somewhat more impartial and intelligent source than that of the Norwich 'Plymouth-Brother,' will decide this matter in the judgment of our readers. We quote from Professor Ramsay, M. A., article vinum, in Dr. Smith's celebrated 'Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities.'

"The lora, or vinum operarium of the Romans, was, along with sapa, drefutum, and passum [three sorts of BOILED-WINE], the DRINK OF ELDERLY WOMEN. (See Athen. x. p. 440.)"

What a striking commentary this, on the advice of Paul-'The aged women, likewise, not given to MUCH wine' (Tit. ii. 3.) Yet, says Mr. Govett, the wine must have been fermented, because they are only warned against excess! We retort the argument a fortiori, and say—as Paul only speaks against the excessive use, the article itself must have been good in its limited use, and, therefore, not that intoxicating 'wine' which is essentially a mocker'! Again:

66

Passum, or Raisin-Wine, was made from grapes dried in the sun until they had lost half their weight.......... The stalks and stones were removed, the raisins were steept in must or good wine, and then trodden..........The passum of crete was most prized. (Mart. xiii. 106; Juv. S. xiv. 270.)"

The probabilities of the case, therefore, are quite against our author. He strives, however, to strengthen his argument from this passage, by an attempt to weaken one of ours founded on another passage of Paul's, where the word ragoivos, paroinos, occurs. In a note, p. 20, 21, Mr. Govett remarks that he has "seen a teetotal perversion of the word." Such are the courteous and convincing terms in which he writes of those who dare to differ from his Popeship; and which have disposed us to give him a more thoro castigation than any modest and tolerant antagonist would receive. Mr Govett, like all the class of Popelings, endeavors to make up for his weakness in argument, by bold and baseless assertions. The 'perversion' of the word he refers to, is "as tho it signified that the person of whom it was spoken, was not to be in the company of wine." He adds—“I beg to deny that such is ever the sense, either in classic authors, or as given in lexicons.” He moreover asserts, that it means 'acting improperly under the influence of wine"; and that "the sense of waga is that of 'beyond,' not 'beside of"."

Our author, of course, may deny whatever he pleases, but how does his denial affect the correctness of the teetotal interpretation ? He appeals to 'classic authors' with great confidence; but is he so ignorant as not to know, that such an appeal is by no means conclusive? Is he not aware of the fact (or shall we prove it to him ?), that a word may have, and often has, a meaning in the New Testament, different from what it has in classic

a Paul says nothing of the young women, for the very conclusive reason, that, in his day, wine in general was prohibited to the Greek women under thirty; after that agc, they were, as we have seen, allowed teetotal wines.

authors? Does he not know that the Greek of one is that of a peculiar province and period, and that the other extends over many provinces and many ages during which hundreds of words were undergoing changes? If he does know this, why conceal it, and make an appeal which is worthless?

Then, concerning Lexicons, he is at his old ambiguity. Does he mean classic Lexicons? If so, they are of little authority in this matter, except as to their facts, which may be useful for the purposes of illustration. Does he mean Lexicons of the New Testament? If so, then we beg to give a plump denial to his assertion, that the teetotal sense of paroinos is never given in Lexicons. It is a barefaced falsehood.

Take Dr. Robinson's Lexicon of the Greek New Testament-generally acknowleged to be the very best extant. What do we find the primary signification of the word here

asserted to be?

of

By wine, i. e. spoken of what takes place by or over wine, revelry "; and "in N. T. persons, i. q. given to wine, pp. sitting long by wine."

་

In the New Testament, then, according to Professor Robinson, this word signifies by wine,' which is identical in signification with the 'teetotal perversion'-' in company with wine.' The phrase 'sitting long' is a supplement, and marked accordingly; i. e. it is a notion of the Lexiconist himself, not a philological fact.

Concerning Taga, what does Professor Robinson affirm to be its sense in composition? “1, Nearness, proximity, near by. 2, motion or direction near to, to, by. 3, motion by or past any place, a going beyond."

Mr. Govett has not put the last sense first, which would be bad enough, but he has tried to palm upon the public the third sense of the word as the only one !—which is a still more aggravated attempt at imposition. What he calls the 'teetotal perversion,' is, Prof. Robinson being witness, the original and true meaning. Me paroinos, says the apostle, 'not near wine'-'not by it,'-'not in its company.

The other text cited by our author seems little more to his purpose. "Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit." (Eph. v. 18.)

The apostle, however, does not say, Drink a little wine but avoid excess, which our author apparently supposes him to mean. The word aσoria, asötia, signifies danger rather than 'excess'; and, as it seems to us, the apostle warns them against the use of that wine ‘wherein is danger' indeed, recommending them rather to be 'filled with the spirit' wherein was no danger, since it is good only. We cannot for a moment suppose, that the logical, philosophic Paul, would be inspired to utter such a puerility as this :-' Be not drunk with wine, for in drunkenness there is danger'! Every child knows that already; Paul would rather have said, 'Be not drunk at all—with anything, wine or not-for drunkenness is a damning sin.' Why, as people generally understand this text, the words 'with wine' should be at all introduced-why the softened term 'danger' should be used

↳ Macknight's Note is good:-" Here the apostle condemns the Bacchanalian rites, of which the Heathen were immoderately fond. In the worship of Bacchus, his votaries made themselves mad with wine, as Ovid informs us, Met. 1. iii. v. 536. Est mota insania vino: And in their madness they ran about the streets and fields, committing all sorts of extravagancies."-Is it not a plain fact, then, that in the use of such wine, there was danger ?-danger of madness, murder, or impurity?

Paul, in this passage does, in fact, only reiterate an accepted doctrine of the ancient world. Solomon had long before said, Wine is a mocker'; and the Homerii had spoken of

'Inflaming wine, pernicious to mankind.'

Was Paul less wise and observant than either? The Alexandrian Jews, in the Septuagint, had also rendered Solomon's saying in keeping with our view- Wine is an intemperate thing.'