habitants; seeing all sorts of sins, new and old, heard and unheard of, perpetrated everywhere in the light of the sun, and countenanced with atheistical security; as also, considering that the gospel seems to have finished its work where it is preached, with all sorts of signs of the like nature,- -we may safely conclude that the end of all things is approaching."-Owen.

Correspondence.

To the Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Prophecy.

SIR,-As you have undertaken in your last two numbers to give a complete list of every work that has been written upon the subject of "The Apocalypse," permit me to call your attention to one omission at least in your catalogue, and that too concerning a work which the Theological Journals have universally delighted to call a "CURIOUS" production, inasmuch as it has emanated from a member of the histrionic profession. I allude to a book styled, "The Apocalyptical History contained in the Book of Revelation, solved upon an entirely new and consistent principle; with a copious appendix. By Harcourt Bland, dramatic artist of the Theatres Royal, Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Bristol." Published by Murray and Son, Glasgow. 1857.

If the work in question were of insignificant bulk, I should not call your attention to its omission, but as it contains nearly seven hundred pages 8vo, and as it boldly attacks the hypotheses of Faber, Elliott, Moses Stuart, and others, I think it deserves (if only as a matter of fact) a place in your interesting catalogue.-I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,

4 HIGH STREET, CAMDEN TOWN, LONDON, 25th Jan. 1860.

THE AUTHOR.

66 THE THINGS THAT ARE COMING UPON THE EARTH.'

To the Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Prophecy.

SIR,-In a former part of the Journal of Prophecy, there appeared an article with the above title. Being too elaborate to analyse in a letter, I propose for your insertion a few remarks upon "the signs" that I consider believers are to take special notice of,-for the command was to watch."

With all due respect for the learned dissertations of divines upon Matt. xxiv. 15, and the other passages in Mark and Luke, I am fully persuaded that the words were intended for such as are disciples (living in the days of the period of the end of the dispensation, for it was added parenthetically, "let him that readeth understand,") "to look up, for their redemption "—the return of the Redeemer to Zion-"draweth nigh"-" that they might escape the things coming upon the earth."

To consider this as having taken place in the reign of Titus is a fatal mistake, for it destroys the truth of the words spoken to the men of Galilee who witnessed the ascension of our Lord, since He has not yet come as He went.

The sign, therefore, for believers (all others shall be as scoffers, saying, VOL. XII.

"Where is the promise of His coming?") is the setting up the desolating power in the temple at Jerusalem, or in the Holies, for we cannot conceive any spot on earth to be so named as such, except that which God himself appointed and selected.

It is the presumption of all figurative interpreters to apply this to St Peter's at Rome. Hence the necessity to illustrate all collateral points so as to make out their case.

The plain words of Scripture in answer to the question should be sufficient. The reference is to Daniel's king as the person who shall fulfil this; and as the vision was to be sealed until the time of the end, it follows that all attempts to begin and end the days (lengthened out into years, to bring out figurative interpretation) have proved unsuccessful.

There are other minor" signs" given; but the one of importance named was the one awful to contemplate for all "the tribes of the earth," but of much comfort to "the bride," who "shall be caught up to meet her Lord in the air"—" the glorious appearing;" for which St Paul's words, "Wherefore comfort ye one another with these words," ought to be "the holy conversation" of those so looking for "the blessed hope."

The signs of the times now bear great similarity to what was to foreshadow this manifestation of "the wicked one," and not a few learned and Christian men have gone far to prove a strong similitude to the "vile person." It is, therefore, the duty, for the reasons assigned, that all believers be found as the wise virgins, that they may realise, by pressing on towards the mark for the prize of the calling up in Christ Jesus, this glorious Epiphany.—Yours obediently, J. C. S.

1 PETER II. 24.

To the Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Prophecy.

SIR, I am not a "Darbyite," nor do I deny, but, on the contrary, firmly believe in the vicariousness of the life of Christ; moreover, I admit fully the force of ȧvýveykev—étì tò ¿úλov, as implying (to quote Dean Alford's words) "took them to the tree, and offered them up on it." The able article on this verse in your October Number seems conclusive on this point.

Another question, however, arises, which the words of the text by no means determine,—namely, From what time are we to date this imputation of sin to Christ, which brought Him to the tree, thereon to "put it away by the sacrifice of Himself?"

To my mind (I would humbly submit) the testimony of Scripture is very plain. Gethsemane was the place where the struggle took place which ended in victory. What could have been that "cup," which if possible to pass from Him, Jesus prayed might do so, adding, “not my will, but thine be done?" Surely not physical suffering, nor yet the maltreatment to which He was subjected? Was there not something more bitter still—that which, to His pure and holy spirit, must have caused anguish inexpressible—even sin, the imputation of sin? Listen to the language of the suffering Surety : "Mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of my head: therefore my heart faileth me." (Ps. xl. 12.)

If we might venture to point out any incident recorded, as probably marking the time when this "burden" was laid upon Him, would it not be when, having shewn forth the voluntary nature of His self-sacrifice, by causing those who came to seize Him to go backward and fall to the ground -(see Ps. xxvii. 2)—He then, as if to shew, not only the voluntary nature of the act, but also its substitutionary intent, pronounced those memorable words, fraught with a deeper meaning than lies on the surface, "If ye seek me, let these go their way?"

Surely to this deeper meaning alone applies the quotation from His former words, which the Holy Spirit has pronounced applicable—“That it might be fulfilled which He spake, Of them which thou gavest me, have I lost none."

One more saying (the last apparently to His disciples) shews that the "cup," the prospect of which at Gethsemane was the cause of such anguish, was already in His hand to drink: "The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" (John xviii. 11.)

That henceforth Jesus was a sin-bearer would appear from this, that before Pilate "He answered him never a word, insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly." Which remarkable silence seems closely connected, in 1 Pet. ii. 24, with His position, as "bearing our sins in His own body to and on the tree." And this is worthy of the attention of those who would infer, from the expression of the text, that Jesus bore sin during His previous life; for the context of the passage under consideration is one in which the Apostle is speaking of Christ before the judgment-seat of Pilate; and, therefore, only to His position there, and on the cross, which closely followed, can the words properly apply.

I do not deny that the life of Christ was "vicarious." Then was wrought out that righteousness which is the only hope of the believer. Nor would I deny that the sufferings of His life were vicarious. Only, is there not a clear distinction to be noted between suffering for righteousness, and suffering for sin?

In the one case, the Sufferer had ever the refuge of a Father's smile, and the sustaining consciousness of a Father's presence:- "He that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please Him." (John viii. 29.)

In the other, the solemn cry, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" reveals the Sufferer forsaken of God. A mystery incomprehensible, were it not for the explanation which inspiration affords :- -"He made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Cor. v. 21.)-I am, dear Sir, faithfully yours,

SHIRLEY, SOUTHAMPTON.

H. E. BROOKE.

To the Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Prophecy.

SIR,-Perhaps you would allow me to make a few remarks on the subject, "The New Heavens and Earth," and the article thereupon, in the January nnmber of your journal. I am unable to refer to the article therein criticised, and must therefore confine myself to the above paper on the subject.

1. I agree with the writer that the argument from "suitability," is insufficient to prove the difference between the new and the millennial earth.

2. The writer concludes that the millennial and eternal state are identical, from the fact, that their descriptions in Rev. xxii. 3 and xxi. 4 are parallel, and inclusive one of the other. To this it must be answered, that the texts in question portray like states, but states existing probably at different times. The former shews a state in which the curse is removed, and in which, consequently, there is no more death. It is a description of the "holy city, the new Jerusalem," the " Bride, the Lamb's wife." "And there shall be no more curse but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it." This is no description of the millennial state, (comp. Isa. lxv. 20,) but of the new Jerusalem, which certainly does exist in a certain relation to the earth during millennial times. The former describes the same state either of the same bride, or, more probably, of the new heaven and new earth when the blessed state or condition of that bride shall have been imparted to the whole renewed creation. There is not the smallest occasion, therefore, to suppose that the "all

things" spoken of as created anew, do not mean the "all things" connected with the object of which they are predicated upon; or, that they should be limited to the exclusion of "death," which the text pointedly mentions as therein included.

3. The writer's argument in connexion with 2 Pet. iii. and Isa. lxv. is singularly unfortunate and illogical. With regard to Peter: The object of the apostle is to strike terror into the hearts of scoffers and lovers of the world, from the inevitable destruction of all the things they were setting their affections upon; and at the same time, to stir up believers to a holy conversation, regardless of the loss of all things, in the blessed hope of an endless life of righteousness and felicity in the presence of God. We shall therefore certainly find the conflagration plainly spoken of by him, but only with the peculiar end which he had in view, which was to shew its awful certainty, and not its actual position in the course of future events. This is only in accordance with the manner of the inspired writers, who frequently enter into detail with regard to events which it was important that their readers should be informed upon, without classifying their order. As a general rule, the later prophecy unfolds the more ancient. Thus the New Testament unfolds many of the Old Testament prophecies, and the Revelation of John was certainly given, not only to unfold many things before kept secret, but also to enable us chronologically to classify future events. All questions, then, touching the chronological order of prophetic events, should be answered by a careful examination of that Revelation. And we find that Peter only spoke of the event under consideration in a manner suited to the characters for whom he wrote. And he did not therefore tell them when the conflagration would occur, but only that such an event was in the womb of time-that the day of the Lord was approaching in the which (ver. 10, év ), or wherein (ver. 12, d'), that event must occur. And as if to warn believers that it is not to happen immediately on the setting in of the day of the Lord, or on the first literal day of that period, he had before said that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." I have always looked upon this as an allusion to that day of the Lord so often spoken of in Scripture, and to its actual duration, which is more clearly revealed in the Revelation.

The writer, however, considers that the time is not left indefinite in consequence of the expression "wherein "—di' —which he connects with "the coming" of the day, in the sense of "by means of which coming." He thence argues that it is "by which day being present," or "when it is present," that the conflagration happens. Allowing, for the sake of argument, the relative position of, and the meaning attached to dia, so that the conflagration "is brought about by the presence of that day, or by that day becoming present "allowing even this, yet who, for an instant, can allow the illogical deduction that follows, viz., that if the conflagration does not take place till the end of the day, that then it is not brought about by the presence of that day, but by something else? Mark, the supposed causal agent is the "presence" of that day. Why then, may I ask, am I necessarily to infer that it becomes less causal of a certain event, because it happens at one period of its duration rather than another? The only conclusion that I should draw from any event taking place at its close rather than its beginning would be, that the "presence of the day became more causal as the day advanced, in consequence of the chain of events being lengthened out which were necessary precursors of such event, and which nevertheless could only happen in consequence of, and during the "presence" of the day.

And if the conflagration is really to occur at the commencement of the day of the Lord, and Peter had intended to express as much to his converts, he would have used far more distinct language. Moreover, what could have been a more convincing proof, in the hands of the apostle to the Gentiles, to those

to whom he wrote, that the day of the Lord had not set in, (2 Thess. ii. 2,) that the world had not yet been melted up? May we not almost suppose he would have used it?

4. With regard to Isaiah: The promise of the new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness, is taken from Isaiah. In the 65th chap. and 17th ver., we read of the promise; but, since in that verse there is no description of what dwells in it, we must go on to its immediate context, which shews forth a state of righteousness, though not of holiness; now this is a description of the millennial state, and, therefore, it must correspond with the eternal state, or the new heavens and earth. The errors here are many and glaring; of which a few are—

(a) The immediate context need not be referred to as an explanation of the promised righteousness which is to dwell in the new earth. The promised earth is in place of this world which is to be burnt up. Its righteousness, often foreshadowed in the Old Testament, is brought to light by the promises of the gospel. That a state of righteousness without perfect holiness is the promise set before believers by Peter, I cannot allow. The prophet mentions the new heavens and earth, but he at once reverts to the millennial state as most interesting to a Jew. And while an earthly state is invariably shewn to the future Jewish nation, a heavenly one is dwelt upon when Christians are exhorted. The writer says it is arbitrary to separate the 17th ver. from what follows. But this method of separating passages, apparently closely connected in the context, but which in reality refer to separate and distinct events, perhaps divided in their accomplishment by thousands of years, is often, as in this instance, necessary to their clear comprehension. The contrast between the 17th and following, is well preserved in our translation. In the 17th ver. the creation of the new earth is mentioned, but Israel is not told to rejoice in it, because it had no direct reference to them at that time. The creation there spoken of, is one in which the old creation shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. And then the 18th continues, "But be ye glad," &c. In this creation, which is full of remembrance of former things, Israel is called to rejoice. Isaiah's style is well shewn here, where, upon launching into a new theme for song, he at once hurries on to the end of the matter, and afterwards returns to fill up. Remark also, that, in the following chapter and 22d ver., the new heavens and new earth are again introduced as distinct from a certain state of the nation of Israel.

(b) To make the 18th and following verses refer to a description of the new heaven and earth referred to in the 17th, would be in direct opposition to the language of Rev. xxi. 4.

(c) The writer's argument makes Peter hold out as a promise to Christians what will only be the inheritance of the Jewish nation. I have no space to point out further incongruities.

5. The mention of fire as surrounding the presence of the Lord when He descends into the earth, is no proof that there will result thereupon the total conflagration spoken of by Peter.

6. I hold that the new earth is created after the conflagration, and the latter takes place at the time of the judgment of the great white throne—“The day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." (2 Pet. iii. 7.) Now, all hold that this judgment is at the end of the thousand years, except those satisfied with the assertions of Mr Molyneux. But the heaven and the earth flee away at that time, (chap. xx. ver. 11,) consequently the new creation was not in existence at that time, unless it can be supposed that both existed together; for the new are never to be removed or shaken, but to remain before God for ever, and after the judgment, He that sat upon the throne (comp. chaps. xx. 11, and xxi. 5) created all things new. I consider that one such argument, drawn from the Revelation, is worth twenty inferences gathered from the other inspired writers who were not handling prophetical events chronologi