find its accomplishment in the breaking up of the Jewish polity when Jerusalem fell. These expositors must have held it to be future; for the Epistle to the Hebrews was written many years before the ruin of that city. If so, Mr B. must be mistaken in saying, that "all commentators understand the apostle explicitly to state" that it was past. He repeats this statement about the unanimity of commentators. Of course, he could not mean millennarian ones, for they hold the opposite. But even his own friends desert him here, though he does not seem aware of it. Dr Urwick, in his work against millennarianism, already referred to, speaks thus,

6

"I by no means deny that language similar to what I have quoted as referring to the final change of the mundane system, is sometimes used figuratively, to signify great revolutions in society; perhaps, however, not quite so often as has been supposed. The statements in Hebrews xii. 25-29, are commonly explained as intending the change of dispensation from Judaism to Christianity. The expression, whose voice then shook the earth,' seems to refer to the quaking of the earth at the giving of the law; indeed, the terms ‘earth' and 'heaven,' as used in that connexion, seem rather to require a literal than a figurative meaning. As to the promise, Yet once more, I shake not the earth only but also heaven,' it answers the context better to explain it of the convulsion of the mundane system at the last day, than of a change of dispensation. The permanence which is ascribed to the state of things consequent upon the shaking of the earth and heaven, cannot in strictness be predicated of the Christian economy of the church, because, though that economy continues longer than the Jewish, it is not the everlasting state. The designation kingdom that cannot be moved,' will apply with much greater propriety to the ultimate, than it will to the present, condition of the church. A title to that kingdom,' and the earnest of it, are received by believers now, just as believers are spoken of by the apostle Peter, as now 'receiving the end of their faith, even the salvation of their souls,' when he had before mentioned that salvation as 'ready to be revealed in the last time."" Pp. 239, 240.

But let us examine the prophet's words a little. The disputed expressions occur twice in the same chapter and the 22d verse, is evidently an enlargement and illustration of the 6th and 7th. In the 21st the prophet repeats the prediction, "I will shake the heavens and the earth;" and then he adds, "I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the HEATHEN; and I will overthrow the chariots and those that ride in them; and the horses and riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother." We have looked in vain for any consistent interpretation of this passage. Mr Brown never alludes to it at all. We should like to know to what events he affixes it; and how it can possibly refer to the

breaking up of the Jewish economy, either political or sacred. The prophet foretells a destruction of the kingdoms of the heathen, with their chariots and horses; but, on the contrary, he promises blessing to Israel. How could the invasion of the Roman armies, and their sack of Jerusalem, with the slaughter of two millions of Jews, be "destroying the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen"? Or did this take place before the birth of Christ? No. That was pre-eminently a time of peace. The temple of Janus was shut. The earth was at rest. The tumult of the nations had died into repose. Chariot and horse, spear and sword, were idle.

"No war or battle's sound

Was heard the world around:

The idle spear and shield were high up-hung;
The hooked chariot stood

Unstained with hostile blood;

The trumpet spake not to the armed throng;

And kings sat still with awful eye

As if they surely knew their sovran Lord was by."

None of the scenes which the prophet describes took place at the first advent; but they are the very scenes so often predicted as to take place at his second. May we not conclude, then, that it is to the latter, not the former, that the prophet was pointing?

Then as to the apostle's quotation of the passage, we must say that Mr Wood's statements seem obvious to us, and his reasoning unanswerable, notwithstanding Mr Brown's counter affirmations. To us it appears impossible to attach any other meaning to the apostle's words, than that he looked upon the prediction as still unfulfilled. The expression, "now he hath promised," vv dè èyλra, seems explicitly to declare this, and nothing else. They tell us of the apostle's expectation-an expectation founded upon a promise. It was, no doubt, to Haggai that the promise was made, as Mr Brown says; but it was upon the certainty of that promise that the apostle rested his hope of that future shaking that was to establish every thing immoveably and for ever.

Here we must stop for the present. We hope, however, to resume our remarks in our next number. Meanwhile the following closing observations suggest themselves.

In the discussion of these various passages, both in this and the preceding article, we have endeavoured to bring out the opinions of sound commentators as fully and largely as possible. We have not adduced these as authorities to which it becomes any

Milton. Christmas Hymn.

one implicitly to defer. It behoves us to call no man master, and to concede to no one any authority in the interpretation of the Divine Word. The utterances of the "lively oracles" are to be listened to directly as coming from the lips of God, not as echoed to us by the erring voices of men. But still it is sometimes of use in controversy to know what have been the judgments of the sound and the learned; and especially what have been the grounds of these judgments. We would lay no one under constraint or bias, but we would bring out the whole essence of the subject, as it has passed through the minds of others, that each may calmly judge what is the true and the scriptural.

Our reasons for being so careful in our reference to commentators of acknowledged soundness, ought however to be stated more fully, as they bear considerably upon the merits of the present volume.

Mr Brown conveys the impression throughout his work that it is only millennarians who hold the interpretations which he is controverting. He is mistaken in this, as we have shown. For almost every one of these interpretations we have produced are the opinion of anti-millennarian critics and theologians. We trust that we are not afraid to stand alone when constrained to do so. But here we have good company, much better company, in general, than Mr Brown has. There is hardly one of his interpretations for which we could not produce neologian authority, as indeed we have done, while for each of ours successively we have produced substantial and recognised expositors. This should have abated the strength of some of Mr Brown's expressions, and led him to look upon his opponents and their opinions with considerably more favour than he has done.

We do not mean to say that the expositors held all that we hold as to the meaning of the passages controverted, but they held substantially our sense of them, in direct opposition to that which Mr B. attaches to them, and which he considers necessary for the safety of his system. We can take up this disputed text and say, Calvin interpreted it just as we do, but not as Mr Brown does. We can point to another and say, such was the sense which Turrettine affixed to it. It is our view of the passage, not Mr Brown's. We can turn up another and say such is the judgment of Thomas Scott. We can fix on another and say, Jonathan Edwards thought as we do as to this passage. We can open another and say, Robert Haldane expounded it as we do. These men did not draw the inferences which we do. They did not arrange these texts as we do. But they were at one with us as to the meaning. They were entirely opposed to Mr Brown in his interpretations. If such be the case, it is clear

that we are no innovators. We are taking Scripture as so many sound divines have done before us. They laid the foundation, and we are but building thereon. It is Mr Brown who is the innovator. It is he who is devising new meanings for plain texts, because the old meanings,-which Calvin and Turrettine and Scott approved of,—are now discovered to be millennarian in their tendencies. And is not this a strong though indirect testimony in our favour? We are quite willing to peril the whole controversy upon those texts alone, in favour of whose literal sense a post-millennial expositor may be found. We are willing to set aside all texts in whose favour we have no such testimony to produce. We engage to construct and defend pre-millennialism, solely on those texts for whose literal interpretation a post-millennial commentator can be found. In these circumstances is it not unaccountable that Mr Brown, in reference to these very texts, should charge pre-millennialists with distortion, and perversion, and sacrificing Scripture to the necessities or conveniencies of their system? If Scripture has been made to give way to system, who is guilty in the matter?—Not we; for we have shown that the men who were unbiassed by a system, the men who opposed our system,-give their testimony in favour of our interpretations. They differed widely from us on some points; they would have rejected our inferences, but they were at one with us as to the meaning of the passages. Let then our inferences be refused; let them be subjected to the epithets that have been heaped upon them; still let our interpretations be received with calmness and respect, as the interpretations of men whom our opponents venerate no less than we.

While we have these men upon our side thus far, we have all the critics of the neologian school against us. With almost none of our interpretations do they agree, except when forced by critical necessity. They find no difficulty in resolving into mere poetical figures or orientalisms some of the plainest passages of Scripture. Accordingly, they give millennarianism no quarter. Yet it is remarkable that that section of German critics which is returning, or has returned to soundness in the faith, is adopting not only pre-millennial interpretations, but the pre-millennial system itself. Olshausen, in his work on the gospels, not only expresses himself decidedly on the point, but wonders how it can be doubted. Gess, in his work on the Revelation of God, speaks still more at large, and to the same effect. Others also have given testimony to the same effect. But this properly belongs to the history of millennarianism, and cannot be entered on here.

The present controversy is one which is not likely soon to sub-side. For it is not a controversy called up by human disputants; it is one forced upon our notice by the ominous events of the day

we live in. It is the signs of the times that are compelling men to make up their minds on this momentous matter. These signs mean something; and something too in which we have the profoundest interest. They are either the forerunners of a millennium not materially differing from the present state of things,— a millennium in which the earth is not renewed, but remains barren and accursed,-a millennium in which Satan is not bound, but still roams the earth,-a millennium, of which the utmost that can be said is, that there "will be far less mixture than now,”* but tares still growing plentifully in it, and the enemy still busy in sowing them,-a millennium from which Christ being absent in person, the church, as Mr Brown says, will be "miserable without him:" or they are the signs of the great day of the Lord,—the forerunners of the King himself, for whom the church, in her loneliness and widowhood, has been waiting so long, and under whose righteous sway she hopes to see all things "made new."

ART. II.-The Lands of the Bible visited and described, in an extensive journey, undertaken with special reference to the promotion of Biblical Research, and the advancement of the cause of Philanthropy. By JOHN WILSON, D.D., F.R.S, Missionary of the Free Church of Scotland, &c. With maps and illustrations. 2 vols. Edinburgh: W. Whyte & Co. 1847.

"Have we not trodden together this land of wonders?" says Mr Graham, missionary to the Jews from the Irish Presbyterian Church, who travelled with Dr Wilson for many months. "Have we not deepened our assurance of the promises and prophecies of our faithful God, as we traced the exactness with which the curse has taken effect upon this devoted country? From Lebanon, and Tabor, and Carmel; from the ruins of Bethel and Samaria, and from the rock of Tyre and desolations of Jerusalem, we have learned new lessons of divine faithfulness and love. Indeed these are the lands,- The Lands of the Bible,'—and here are the people, and especially the Jews, for teaching to the nations of the world that God is the Lord, and shall be obeyed; that his word is more stedfast than the heavens and earth, and will surely come to pass." (P. 615, vol. ii.)

The Bible speaks throughout in the tone and character of a witness. It testifies of things which are infallibly true and sure. It does not reason about divine realities, but gives us God's own