Jan. 1, 1868.

REPLY TO MR. YOUNG. DEAR SIR,-Having been away from England part of Sept. and Oct., it was but yesterday I read the charge brought against me by Mr. Young that I have not fairly stated what he has written. I thank him for adding, that he does not suppose I have acted thus intentionally. He is quite right. I would not gain a victory by deceit. Christ's battles are not to be won by Satan's guns.

I think if he had seen the extent to which he is able to substantiate his charge, he would never have penned it.

1. His first misapprehension respects the mode in which I have presented his views. He complains that I give with quotation-marks, as if they were his words, words which really are mine. Now, in common with others, I distinguish, and beg him to distinguish (what I should have thought a glance or two would show) between single inverted commas, and double inverted commas. Single inverted commas are used when the sense is taken from the author, but the words are not his. Double inverted commas are used, when the very words are the author's.

The sentence of which he complains -If the anticipation with regard to 1866 prove true, may we regard the millennium as near?'-is one given under single inverts,' as the printers say. It does not profess to be his words.

But he complains-That it does not express even the sense of any thing that he has written. "I protest against being classed with those prophets who assert that certain prophetical dates will find their termination shortly." Now, I do not in these words, or elsewhere, so class Mr. Y. I do not say his anticipations,' but "the anticipations.' And his first chapter is greatly engaged with them, as his opening words show, Many prying eyes are looking to 1866 and 1867 as a time of great interest to the Christian Church. Expectants of the personal descent of the Lord from

66

heaven, and those who think that Antichrist may shortly be overthrown, and a better time for the church be ushered in, both watch for this time as likely to disclose events of an exciting nature." Again (p. 23) "If then the time should be at hand when the sceptre shall be wrested from the grasp of him who has made war with the saints; if he should lose his temporal dominion, and the aid of those powers which in times of yore have helped him to persecute, might the millennium ere long commence?" (m.i.)

And again (p. 5),“ May 1866 and 1867 (some interpreters include 1868) be one of the prominent dates indicated in prophecy for the destruction of the Antichristian dominion? And should the taking away of that dominion be accomplished, could that period be the dawn of the millennial day?" I ask, reader, Do not these quotations justify me in putting the question I did, as giving Mr. Y.'s sense? The passage which he himself cites-" And here we may ask our second question-If such changes should take place shortly, might not the millennium commence before long?"-I suppose justifies me. But it does not cite 1866 strictly.' No; but shortly' will include 1866, as well as some years onward. And beside, 1866 is specified in the quotation I have just before adduced. He adds-"Mr. Young supposes a case, and asks, 'If certain events should occur shortly, might we before long look for another event?' Just so! Just what I ask! My question implies no more.

2. He complains that I am mistaken in supposing that he regards the Two Witnesses as the Church. But he admits, that he believes them to represent "certain depressed conditions of the Church." Then they do represent the Church, in one of its conditions, on Mr. Y.'s own showing. And when exalted to heaven they represent it exalted. Then my arguments against such an assumption apply to the full.

But he has overlooked another passage which fully justifies me. Through long ages of suffering and

66

Jan. 1, 1868.

wrong, the Church of God has had to prophesy in sackcloth." (p. 2). Here he supposes the Two Witnesses clothed in sackcloth (Rev. xi. 3) to be the Church.

He complains that I misrepresent him in supposing that he regards the "1260 days" of prophecy to be so many years. I suppose that to most his own words which he cited would be proof enough. On page 6 he speaks of this period as "the 1260 years, or time represented by 1260 days." I gathered as much also from pages 10, 11, 12, 14, 15. But he declares that he is not quite certain that the year-day theory is correct. Time must show.' I thought he was quite certain; and that is the amount of the error complained of.

4. He complains, that I misrepresent him in supposing that he expects only secret interpositions of Providence. Have I examined what he has written on pages 2 and 20? And what do I say now, after these passages are presented to my eyes?

Just what I said before! The questions between us are, Will miracles return before the day of the judgment of the dead? Will Jesus return in person and visibly? or will God work invisibly by his power, as now? Now, words like those he has cited do not necessarily affirm miracle, when interpreted by our opponents. Jesus, says he, was to appear coming in the clouds of heaven. 'Fulfilled long ago, at the destruction of Jerusalem!' Jesus is described as descending with his hosts, to bring in the destruction of his foes, the binding of Satan, the first resurrection, the empire of the Christ. All

that will be fulfilled while Christ is in heaven' (p. 2). Then there remains nothing but interposition of God's providence, which I call secret,' in opposition to the Saviour's visible advent. If Mr. Y. believes in miracle, as about to visit earth before the final judgment of the dead, I am glad. But I could not gather it from such expressions as "external changes," and "mightier impulses," or his other phrases.

5. I come to the fifth charge-in which I must be rather more lengthy. I quote correctly, he allows, to a certain point. But "Mr. G. proceeds with

his quotation: They [the Scriptures] do indeed tell of a nation being born in a day, but the words are not found in the list of divine promises,' strange to say, and therefore cannot guide our conclusions.' (p. 22). I am here represented as saying, that the Scripture tells of a nation being born in`a day, and yet the words are not found in the list of Divine promises. Mr. G. may well interpose his " strange to say," for either I must be understood to contradict myself, or avow that while found in the Scriptures the words do not rank with the Divine promises. What is the solution? Simply this, that they are not my words, but his." Now I here re-affirm my charge against Mr. Y.

What then, I ask, are my words? "They [the Scriptures] do indeed tell of a nation being born in a day."

This I give as an equivalent to the following words of Mr. Y. in his book. "One solitary sentence has been frequently adduced in favour of this expectation. A nation shall be born in a day.'

Are not these words equivalent to those I have given? And now for their force. Whence is the solitary sentence "adduced?" From our authority, the Scripture; and Mr. Y. proceeds to admit its weight, though he does not allow that it goes far enough to prove our point. For what is the next sentence of Mr. Y?" The words do seem to promise something like a sudden change in the position of the Church, though it would not be necessary that this should be applied to the early days of the millennium.”

But Mr. Y. in his letter says,

་

"The words 'A nation shall be born in a day' are not found in the Bible at all, though they are frequently adduced to show that the millennium will come in suddenly."

Here the inconsistency which I exposed shows itself. If the sentiment*

I admit that the words are not in Scripture, but the sentiment is. It is found in Is. lxvi. 7-10. "Shall a nation be born at once?" Please to observe, however, reader, that Mr. Y. quotes the words, A nation born in a day, as often adduced by his opponents.

From your book, Mr. Young, p. 22, They are not the exact words as you give them, but they are the sense of your words.

My words (says Mr. Y.) did not give such a sense, but the reverse."-I do not say that Mr. Y. adduces the words, 'A nation shall be born in a day,' but his opponents do, and Mr. Y. admits their force. And yet he now denies that the sentiment is in the Scriptures!

Mr. Y. says the words "are not found in the list of Divine promises, and therefore cannot guide our conclusions." Here the inconsistency is fully disclosed. If there be no such Divine promise, why do you allow it any weight? "The words do seem to promise something like a sudden change in the position of the Church."

"Could I mean to say" (he adds) "that this sentence was frequently adduced by the Scriptures? No, truly, but by opponents adduced from our authority-the Scriptures.

"It is not usual to speak of the Scriptures adducing sentences, and if they had adduced these words, they would not be likely to adduce them frequently."

Very true: but as I have not been guilty of the folly supposed, the words fall harmless.

6. I advance to the sixth charge. I understood Mr. Y. to affirm, that the power of the Man of Sin would not be destroyed by the battle of Armageddon. But he assures me, that he will not say absolutely that it will not, but only that there is a possibility that it may not.

How the Usurper should possess any power after he is "struck powerless with the manifestation of His (the Saviour's) presence," (Greek)

Jan. 1, 1868.

(2 Thess. ii. 8) would pass an angel's understanding to comprehend. How can he possess spiritual power, when he and his False Prophet, who by miracle deceives men to worship him, are cast into the lake of fire, and kept prisoners there? And when Satan is cast into the bottomless pit?

7. The seventh charge is, that I undertake to examine hearts as well as arguments. "He has searched the hearts of all of us who hold certain views about the millennium, and he finds there not bad logic, but unbelief of the worst type-even wilful, 'deadly unbelief.'

Nay, dear sir, you overstate the matter. I am persuaded that there is much unbelief among believers, specially in relation to the Lord's testimony about his personal return and reign. I look upon the large acceptance of books attempting to explain away the words of Scripture hereupon as proofs of this. But I do not affirm it of all. I mention no names. I do not suppose that this unbelief is of the worst type, or that it will destroy the souls of those who hold it. The words "deadly unbelief" are not used by me as belonging to any unbeliever. They are employed only after my venturing to foretell, that the infidel in a case supposed will thrust home his weapon to destroy the faith of some; and then I add "From such deadly unbelief the Lord preserve us !"

8. I close by remarking with regard to Mr. Y.'s three requests, that I have uniformly observed the two first. And I beg him to notice the difference between single inverted commas and double ones. With regard to the third, I hope I shall write so intelligibly as to let all see which are Mr. Y.'s views and which those of others. I have, I trust, disposed of the one case to which he refers.

Believe me, dear Sir,
Yours truly in Christ,
R. GOVETT.

THE TABERNACLE IN ABYSSINIA.

DEAR SIR,-Public attention having been of late so strongly drawn to Abyssinia by King Theodore's detention of the accredited agents of this

Jan. 1, 1868.

country, and the expedition now forming for their recovery, an additional interest will be felt in it by the readers of the RAINBOW as they noticed M. Zimpel's letter in your last number, with the statements (on Professor Levisohn's authority) regarding the family of Zadok and the tabernacle, &c., as stated in its keeping.

In the last chapters of Ezekiel, where the future arrangements of the land, with the restoration of the temple are spoken of, the family of Zadok was specially distinguished, and an apportionment made to them of, "a holy oblation-five-and-twenty thousand [reeds] in length, and towards the west ten thousand in breadth, and toward the south twenty-five thousand in length, and the sanctuary of the Lord shall be in the midst thereof. It shall be for the priests that are sanctified of the sons of Zadok which have kept my charge; which went not astray when the children of Israel went astray, as the Levites went astray." (Ezek. xlviii. 10, 11.)

Moreover, in the future temple, a special chamber is apportioned for "the sons of Zadok among the sons of Levi, which come near to the Lord to minister unto Him." (xl. 46.) It must, therefore, be of interest to the believers in literal fulfilment to hear any tidings of those who are to bear so conspicuous a part in what is yet to be, whether the tabernacle be really found still with them or not; for whatever it was, it is said of them that "they have kept my charge" when others went astray.

Your readers, who have had before them Professor Levisohn's statement in your last number, may like to know that it is strengthened by the earliest of our Abyssinian travellers, Bruce, who visited that country just a hundred years ago (1768), and spent some years in it.

The accounts he gave of it were somewhat too much for his countrymen of that day, and he was not believed, although later travellers, such as Buckhardt, Salt, Belzoni, and others, have long since vindicated his assertions; and much is coming to light, even now, to prove still further they were true.

66

He was a man of great intelligence and education, and in his Travels," which were first published in 1790, there were several chapters on the beliefs and traditions of the people with whom he had lived several years, having ingratiated himself with the king and other influential persons of both sexes, in the several capacities of physician, courtier, and soldier.

It is something new for us to think of Abyssinia as other than a barbarous country, without traditions or aught else in its past to interest us; but Bruce tells us of beliefs existing there in his day, which confirm the rabbinical story to which our attention was called in your last.

He found them believing, both Jews and Gentiles, that their king was in direct descent from the Queen of Sheba and Solomon, and that the 45th Psalm was a prophecy of her visit to Jerusalem; that she was attended by a daughter of Hiram; and that the last verse foretold her having a son by him, who was to be a king of the Gentiles; that the son's name was Menelik, educated by his father at Jerusalem, where he was crowned, and sent back with a colony of Jews, among whom were many learned doctors. That with them came also Azarius the son of Zadok, with a Hebrew transcript of the law in his custody, as Nebrit or high priest. That the book itself was burnt with the Church of Axum in the Moorish war of Adel, and that the charge of the holy things was still maintained by the Nebrits and keepers, who were all of the lineage of Azarias.

Menelik succeeded to the throne of Assyria in 986 B.C., when it was restricted to a male succession, in which it has continued since his mother's death, and they boast of having maintained a lineal decendant of the kings of Judah on the throne. They therefore deny that the sceptre has ever departed from Judah, and believe in a Messiah who is to come, under whom the whole world will be gathered, and become Jews.

Such was the belief among the Abyssinians of Bruce's day, a hundred years ago, and such, with some variations, would seem still to be the be

PRÆTERISTS AND FUTURISTS BOTH RIGHT.

DEAR SIR,-My attention has just been called to a short notice in THE RAINBOW for November last (No. 47), of my little publication entitled "Prophetic Outlines." Permit me to express my thanks for your favourable opinion of it, irrespective of the principles of Protestant interpretation, and the Year-day theory, which you correctly attribute to me.

May I, however, without presumption, venture to offer to your consideration one or two points which occur to my mind as worthy of reception and serious reflection at the present crisis on this all-important subject. I am the more emboldened to address you, because I perceive that two of the writers in the number to which I refer of your most valuable and opportune periodical have expressed opinions (p. 498 et seq. and p. 522) which would appear to be repugnant to the deductions at which I have arrived.

I acknowledge myself to be much guided by the principles to which you refer, but inasmuch as those principles are the conclusions of human reason upon divine things, I am not at all disposed to question your opinion that they "cannot meet [all] the requirements of prophecy."

It would occupy as much space of paper as my little book itself to discuss this subject, and for many reasons I am no controversialist. Controversialism rarely brings out the truth, and its indulgence is wonderfully repugnant to the exercise of that greatest of Christian virtues, charity.

But, Sir, the point which I wish to bring to the consideration of yourself, your contributors, and your readers is this:-That the student of prophecy, in whatever phase it may present itself to his mind, arrives at this grand, common conclusion, that the present is the crisis, the time of a terminating epoch in the affairs of mankind, in ac

Jan. 1, 1868.

cordance with the long-recorded and oft-repeated announcements of Holy Writ.

Perhaps, for the sake simply of expressing a crude idea, I may divide the body of prophetic interpreters into Præterists and Futurists; I am, of course, taking extremes; there are very many intermediate opinions; but in my view of the subject the Præterist conceives that the pictures shown in the Apocalyptic Visions have been successively arriving at their realization until they have been nearly all completed; the Futurist looks upon them as a grand rushing series of events taking place immediately before the close of the present dispensation. Does it, of necessity, follow that either is wrong?

Each, from his own premises, has arrived at the conclusion that we stand now at the brink of the grand crisis and may not this joint conclusion be reconciled without departure from the sure word of prophecy?

May not the whole Divine scheme admit of a double fulfilment ?

The long line drawn by the Præterist which, to his mind, at least, has its successive data of accomplishment in the history of the last eighteen hundred years, has a portion yet unfulfilled-the portion of sorrow and tribulation, the portion which must, for the elect's sake, be shortened. And may not that yet unfulfilled portion be that which presents itself to the Futurist as the interpretative realization of the entire prophecy? The idea is worth consideration, and, although I believe that I have met with it before and can claim no originality in its conception, yet it was suggested strongly to me by the perusal of the paper in your November number entitled 66 Scripture Woes of the time of the End."

Under any circumstances, each interpreter is, at this moment, standing on his watch in the attitude of immediate expectation, and surely this alone is a marvellous proof that the minds of thoughtful men are actuated by something more than the common operations of human reason in their contemplation of fast coming events.

One word more. If I am right, the Jew is in the like state of instant an