etatoproArtittt.
LETTERS FROM THE HOLY LAND. IX,
BY REV. EDWARD PAYSON lIAAIMOND
Monday morning December 3d, Mr. Paschal
called to take us to the Mosque of Omar, situa
ted, as everybody knows, on the site of Solomon's
temple. By paying one pound, our party of four
were able to gain admission to this sacred spot,
which, but a few years ago, was closed to all but
Moslems. It was a charming morning, and as
Mr. Paschal, whom we met in quarantine at Bey
tout was a wealthy resident in Jerusalem, we felt
quite at home. He was himself a Moslem, and
thus able to gain for us special favors from the
keepers of the Mosque. We took with us the slip•
pers which we bought in Damascus, with which
to enter the " Grand Mosque" in that city, for
no ono is allowed to tread upon the sacred floors of
a Mohammedan place of worship with shoes
contaminated by contact with , the common
earth. But is • difficult to attempt a descrip
tion
,of what we saw after the yellow pointed
slippers were on our feet, and we within the
grounds . where once stood the proud temple of
Solomon. The great size of the temple Area or
Haram, as it is called, was what first attracted our
attention. It is about a quarter of a mile in length
and• 1000 feet in width, and surrounded on all
sides by a high wall. Near the centre of this
Area rose majestically the Mosque El Sakah,
'Dome of the rock"—called so, I suppose, from the
fact. that one great object of this imposing build
ing seems to be to render, or keep sacred an ine
mense rock which is situated immediately under
the .centre of the dome. We ibuod - it protected
by a high screen, but we managed to find a place
where we could at least lay our hands upon it
It rose about five feet above the floor on which
we stood. Mr. Paschal said to us, very serious
ly "that is the top of Moriah—the threshing
floor of Araunah the Jebusite." It was very
large, not less I should think, than 50 feet
square. It seemed at first, very strange to us
that when the top of Moriah was cleared away
this rock was left.
We found numerous references in our Bible to
this rock. The word to David was." Go up, rear
an altar unto the Lord in the threshing floor of
Arannah the Jebusite"—" and David built there
an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt-offer
-ings and peace-offerings: So the Lord was en
treated for the land, and the plague was stayed
from Israel." (2 Sam. xxiv.) "And the Lord
commanded the angel; and he put s sword
again into the sheath thereof. When David saw
that the Lord had answered him in the threshing
floor of Ornan the Jebusite, then he sacrificed there.
Then David said, this is the house of the Lord
God, and THIS IS THE ALTAR OF THE 'BURNT
OFFERING FOR ISRAEL." (1 OILTOIL xxi and xxii.)
That was the site therefore fixed for the temple.
And of Solomon it is written, "Then Solomon
began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusa
lem in Mount Moriah, were the Lord appeared
unto David his Father, IN THE PLACE THAT DA
VID HAD PREPARED IN THE THRESHING FLOOR
OF ORNAN THE JEBUSITE." (2 Chron. iii. 1.)
It appears that this rock must have been used
for an altar in the temple of Solomon. It must
have been upon it, therefore that the holy fire
descended at the dedication of the temple. We
read therefore, "When Solomon had made an
end of praying, the fire came down from heaven,
and consumed the burnt.offering and the sacri
fices; and the glory of the Lord filled the house."
(2 Chron. 7: 1.) After the destruction of the
temple its very site was covered with rubbish in
contempt of the Jews, but when the city was
captured by Omar, about the beginning of the
seventh century, he was led to the great rock
which marked the site of the temple of Solomon,
over which he resolved to build a Mosque " the
fairest and the largest of the fourteen hundred
which he erected during his khalifate."
After walking around the rock, and gaging
upon the brilliant dome which appeared like one
hemisphere of stained glass, we descended, by a
short flight of steps, into a cavity beneath the
rock, and we saw there what appeared like mar
ble capitals, beautifully adorned with spiral work.
Very likely they once belonged to the temple.
We were told there was a secret entrance from
this cavity to some underground rooms, where
tradition says that some of the vessels of the
temple and.the tables of the law were secreted.
The Mohammedans have called the four corners
of this apartment, "the praying places of Abra
ham, David, Solomon, and Jesus;" but this cav
ity beneath the great rock, it is believed, was
only the cesspool of the altar of burnt-offering, by
which the blood of the animals slain in the tem
ple above, was drawn off to the vale of Kedron.
As we saw the veneration in which the Moslems
professed to hold those places which are dear to
all readers of the Bible, we were reminded of
141ahoiamet's policy, to incorporate in his religious
system as much as possible attractive, both to the
Jews and. Christians of his day.
We tried to talk with our Moslem friend, who
was with us in the Mosque of Omar, and with
whom we had become well acquainted in Quar
antine, of the Saviour who taught in the tem
ple which stood upon that spot, but he seemed to
think no more of Him than of the prophets; his
answer was, "yes, I love Jesus Christ, the same
THE AMERICAN PRESBYTERIAN, THURSDAY, MAY 16, 1867.
as I love Moses and Abraham, but I love Mahomet
better than either ; he was the great prophet,
even the comforter whom Christ promised to send
into the world."
From the Mosque of Omar we proceeded south
to the Mosque of El-Aksa, which also stands on
the site of Solomon's temple, and within the
Area of the Haram. It was built about the
seventh century by Justinian, in honor of the
Virgin Mary, afterwards converted into a Ma
hommedan Mosque. It resembles many of the
churches seen on the continent of Europe. Its
lofty roof is supported by numerous pillars, be
tween which the Mahommedans say, all who
pass are sure of Paradise. But we were most
interested with the sub-structures of El-Aksa,
for there we saw the vaulted remains of Solo
mon's temple. They were most massive and
solid in their appearance. Numbers of the
stones were fifteen feet in length, and eight feet
deep, all of the finest limestone rock.
The sight of these massive foundations im
pressed us more than the stately Mosque of Omar,
for they spoke to us of the temple 'of the Lord,
where His special presence was annually seen by
the High Priest, "when making reconciliation
for the sins of the people." We were then taken
where we could get a sight of the great reser
voir that stretched beneath the temple. Dr.
Barclay says it is seven hundred and fifty feet in
circumference, and fifty feet deep. was the
only one of our party who ventured to explore it,
but my,wife became'alarmed for my safety, and at
her earnest entreaties, I soon emerged into the
light of day.
We greatly admired the golden gate of Solo
mon. We had before seen the outside of this on
our way to the Mount of Olives—it projects sev
eral feet from the wall, and rises some dis
tance above it. It is now built up, but in Jeru
salem's palmy days it must have been a splendid
gateway. Once inside of it, it has the appear
ance of a somewhat dilapidated building; but it
is something like the other double-arched gate
ways which are still to be seen in the walls of
Jerusalem. Its stones are, many of them, as large
as those we saw in the vaults of El-Aksa. We
noticed a beautiful monolith with a massive capi
tal embedded in a corner of the wall. Through
that arch-way, we thought, the Saviour had no
doubt often passed, with His heart yearning with
love toward those who were willing to offer those'
sacrifices which can never take away sin, but who
were unwilling to believe that He was to be the
great atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world.
We have not time for a longer letter concerning
our visit to the Mosque of Omar. We are aware
that we have given a very imperfAeWea of what,
may be seen on the site of Solomon's temple, but
we may have time to refer to it again.
MILLENARIANISM.
BY REV. W. T. EVA
A brief rejoinder to Rev. D. G. Mallery's
"Reply to Mr. Eva" on this subject, is all that
is necessary.
1. Mr. Eva disclaims altogether the using of
bad names, as applied to Millenarians in whole or
in general. We did designate the wild vagaries
of the Anabaptists, the Mormons, and the Miller
ites, as "fungus outgrowths" of Millenarianism,
and we cited them as illustrations of the "tenden
cy" of Millenarianism, to ward "fanciful inter
pretations " of the word of God, etc. And Mr.
Maliery has by no means shown the statement to
be erroneous, or the illustrations to be destitute
of truth. He labors, indeed, with the aid of
Professor Duffield, to draw a line of distinction
between the doctrines of Millenarianism and those
of the Millerites. But it will be observed that
he has not made good his case, for the points of
difference are only such as relate to matters sub
ordinate and secondary, and do not touch the
fundamentals of Millenarianism—viz: the pre-
Millennial advent of Christ; the first resurrec
tion (of the righteous dead;) the thousand years'
reign on the earth; and the second resurrection
at the close of that period. These are the points
that we laid down as distinctively Millenarian;
these are about the only points, we suppose, in
reference to which there is a common agreement
among Millenarians, for in reference to minor de
tails almost every one of them has his own
theory; and if our information and impressions
are not erroneous, all these points were held by
Mr. Miller and his followers.
2. Mr. Mallery has a special antipathy to Dr.
Shedd, whose statements, in his History of Chris
tian Doctrine, we quoted as authority, and makes
himself merry over that work, as a book of " wide
margins and large type," classing it with " Bea
dle's Dime Novels," etc. Now, we enter into no
defence of Dr. Shedd's book—that, like every
other book, must stand upon its own merits; but
we respectfully suggest that such attempted irony
does not show that the work is not a reliable his
tory. Nor, indeed, do the citations which are
made from the Nicene Creed, the Augsburg Con
fession, or the Catechism of Edward VI.; for
-those citations are, after all, of parts of those
formula;, which are quite'obscure and ambiguous,
and worth very little, or nothing, in settling the
question as to what is the theory which they
really teach on this subject. And the same re
mark may be made in regard to the passages
"quoted froth. the writings of Luther, to show what
he " thought about it." As between Dr. Shedd
atid D. G. Mallery, or even Shimeall, there can
be but one choice of authority, and with all due
deference to the learning and piety of our beloved
co-presbyter, we presume to award it to the
former. But what has brother Mallery to say of
G,bbon, and Mosheim, and Neander ? Among
the unfortunate habits of Millenarians, is that
one into which they almost invariably fall, (is it
one of the tendencies of their system to foster a
feeling of self-esteem and pride of personal judg- .
ment in a question of Bible Hermeneutics?) of
thinking and speaking contemptuously, not only
of " dignities," but also, and especially, of the
great lights of learning and piety in the Church,
whose opinions and teachings may be against
them; a habit in reference to which we feel ever
inclined to offer the prayer of the Liturgy, "Good
Lord deliver us!"
3. In regard to the Westminster Confession, it
remains true,s, not Dr. Shedd, but the writer
of the articles to which Mr. Mallery replies ven
tures to affirm, " the Westminster Confession ig
nores" the Millenarian hypothesis utterly. Mr.
M. asserts, after Robert Baillie, that " most of
the chief divines" in the Westminster Assembly
"were Chiliasts.",, Strange, if such were the
fact—especially when we consider that they were,
as is said, very " troublesome" in the Assembly
—that they did not succeed in securing for their
favorite theory a "local habitation or a name"
in the Confession. Surely,,they must have been
more docile a` id pliant, than such Chiliasts as
brother Mallery, or this result would never have
been reached. He says the Confession is a
"compromise, so that a full statement of a dis
puted point is not to be expected." Why, there
is no statement at all of any thing that is dis
tinctively Millenarian, or even like it, but just the
reverse, as any one, by reading the last article,
may see! Strange " compromise," this! And
as to the passages cited from the Catechisms, we
who are not Millenarians, can and do adopt their
sentiments and use their petitions, with just as
much sincerity and consistency as Millenarians
themselves. We believe in and pray for the "has
tening of the kingdom of glory—the second
coming of Christ, and our reigning with him for
ever !" The questions between us are only as
to the when and how.
4. Mr. Mallery asserts that Millenarians do
believe that the preaching of the Gospel will be
successful in accomplishing that whereunto it is
sent, etc., but maintains that it is not sent for
the conversion of the world, but only to be " a
witness," and to "call out of the nations a people
for His name." Now, on this subject, what is the
teaching of the inspired Record ? Mark the
phraseology ,E. t.4e Great Commission: "Go ye
into all the wild and preach the Gospel to every
creature." - ciCthe declaration of Paul: " For
after that in the wisdom of God, the world by
wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the
foolishness of preaching to save them that be
lieve." The Gospel is to be preached to all;
none can be saved who do not believe; and all
who do believe are to be saved through the fool
ishness of preaching. Ergo, it is by this ins , ru
mentality that all who are ever saved, will be
saved—and by this instrumentality, therefore,
that that blessed state will be brought about in
the world, when "wasting and violence" shall
cease out of ,the land; when truth and justice
and piety shall triumph among men, and every
one shall "know the Lord, from the least to the
greatest!"
And if Millenarians—not all of course, but as
a general thing—are not hampered and crippled
by their theory in the prosecution of earnest,
zealous, aggressive missionary work, we confess
that, to a large extent, we have misunderstood
their views and their feelings. We do not say,
indeed, with Layman in his pertinent article of a
few weeks ago, that "we have never known" a
Millenarian to be an earnest revivalist, for we
have known some who were such; or that no
Millenarians have entered, or do enter the mis
sionary field. But we do say, from what we have
seen and think we know, that if revivals of reli
gion and the prosecution of the missionary work
were left to Millenarians, we should seldom wit
ness the one, and rarely hear of the other. How
could it be otherwise with those who believe that
the world is ever growing worse instead of better,
and will continue to do so, until the coming of
Christ? To us, it would seem that you might
as well attempt to persuade the farmer to sow his
seed and cultivate his field when he believed
there could follow no harvest, as that one should
labor for the conversion of the world, when he
did not believe that the world could be converted.
And, in fact, brother Mallery confesses that Mil
lenarians do not labor for the conversion of the
world, but only for the witness to the nations, and
the salvation of the elect.
5. In reply to our remark that " the weightof
learning, opinion, and piety in the Church, both
of the ages past, and of the present day, is against
the Millenarian theory," Mr. Mallery replies that
it "proves nothing for either side," and refers to
the assumed "fluctuations" of opinion in the
Church in different ages, on this subject, as nul
lifying its force. But we did not advance the
proposition as in itself proving anything. We
distinctly allowed that the " suffrage of num
bers," or the weight of authority, could not de
termine a question of Revelation. At the same
time we affirmed, and we now repeat the affirma
tion, that the fact furnishes a presumption against
the Millenarian theory; for if that be the Bible
theory, it is very strange that, since the days
when the Church became entirely emancipated
from Judaizing opinions and influences, now
about sixteen hundred years ago, it has been so
almost unanimously rejected. Where, Millena
rians, where are the commentators, the. theolo
gians, the preachers, whose learning, and elo
quence, and piety, have blessed the Church and
the world, who were believers in your doctrine?
And " Echo answers, where ?" for though we
allow that there have been a few, yet it must be
confessed few indeed and "far between !" And
as to the " fluctuations" spoken of, ecclesiastical
history will bear out the assertion, that during
the period now mentioned, there have been, to
any extent at any rate, no such " fluctuations"
in regard to Millenarianism. The voice of the
Church was nearly a unit, even before the days
of Whitby, as that author, in his learned Trea
tise, abundantly shows, while since, according to
brother Mallery's own allowing, it has been so.
Nor do we at all see that the tide is " now turn
ing back once more," Millenarianism not being
so prevalent at this hour as it was twenty-five
years ago, when, under the teachings of such
men as Bickersteth, Cunningham, Brooks, and
Noel, in the pages of by far the ablest work ever
published in, the interest of that theory, the Lit
eralist, it did attain sufficient prominence to at
tract considerable attention.
6. Our cautions to Millenarians in reference to
their, speculations on the chronological prophe
cies, etc.,, it is attempted in the paper to which
we are now rejoining, to turn against Anti-Mil
lenarians; and brother Mallory, reiterating that
caution, asks the question: "But why caution
Millenarians only? Are they the only sinners
in this regard?" In reply to which we answer
that perhaps they are not; but they surely are
the chief sinners—" sinners above all other rnen "
—on this point, For where--to give but a single
alustration--where is a writer or a preacher who
has made himself so absolutely ridiculous in this
matter, as the really eloquent and pious John
Cumming, of London ? So often has he fixed
the time of the winding up of the present dis
pensation, and so often, has he failed to realize
his predictions, that his name has actually,
among worldly men, become a by-word, and he
himself a laughing stock. .Only this moment
did we pick up one of the secular papers of to
day's issue, and find this paragraph:—" The
Last Woe, is Oumming's last work. It ought to
be his last woe, and the last froin him imposed
upon the public." We would not, of course, hold
all. Millenarians responsible for the indiscretions
of Dr. Cumming or any body else; nor do we
view this matter with concern as, it may affect
him or any other man personally, bat only, or
mainly, for the honor u relirjon 15ut l;po du-pro
test against this tampering with the "hidden
things that belong unto God" in any quarter,
and most of' all among Millenarians, because, more
than others—far more, according to my reading
and observation—they are apt to be given to it.
Too much occasion to unbelievers to blaspheme,
and too many infidels, as from our personal know
ledge we can testify, have been made in this
way, for us to regard this thing as a matter of
indifference and unconcern.
7. Finally, Mr. Mallery confesses that he can
bring from the Scriptures no single passage which
clearly and indisputably teaches Millenarianism.
At least lie attempts to bring none; and makes
the stra.noe and wild—so it seems to us—asser
tion: "Nor is any other doctrine so to be found
there." What, brother Mallery, is not the doc
trine that man is a sinner so to be found there?
Look at Eccl. vii. 20. Is not the doctrine of jus
tification by faith so found there? Look at Ro
mans v. 1, and that of a future judgment, too,
as in Acts xvii. 31? These doctrines and others
may, indeed, be disputed—riot, however, because
they are not clearly and indisputably taught in the
Bible, but because those who dispute them do
not acknowledge the authority of the Bible, or
at least, the sole and sufficient authority thereof.
Infidels dispute them; Universalists, Unitarians,
Roman Catholics, and some of the Friends also
may, but in all these cases there is wanting a full
and unreserved faith in the "plenary inspiration"
of the Bible, or in the Protestant principle that
it is the " only and sufficient rule of faith and
manners." But by all who acknowledge these,
the passages now cited are, with not a single ex
ception, held as clearly and indisputably teaching
the doctrines referred to. But how different
with Millenarianism! The question here is not
between believers, and Infidels, or Unitarians, or
Romanists; it is among those who are of one
mind in regard to the inspiration and authority
of the word of God; and occupying, as we do,
this common platform, we say, Show your doc
trine clearly and explicitly taught in the Bible.
Give us a single passage where it is positively and
unmistakably found!—one single one, in reference
to which you can say, " Here is my doctrine—
dispute it if you can 1" And brother Mallery
gives up the whole question by candidly saying,
Aro, we cannot do it!
Well, that is right, that is honest, that is
Christian-like. And as no clear and indisputa
ble Scripture can be brought in favor of the
theory that at the coming of Christ the righteous
dead only shall rise, and they shall reign a thou
sand years with Christ personally, at the close of
which time the wicked dead shall rise, and that
the kingdom of God or the kingdom of Christ
Somewhat after the form of a literal, worldly,
sensual kingdom is to be set up and prevail upon
the earth during that period, I will, with one or
two Scriptures which are clearly, positively, un
mistakably, and indisputably against this theory,
bring this article to a close and dismiss the whole
matter: —John vi. 40: "And this is the will of
Him that sent me, that every one that seeth the
Son and believe on him, may have everlasting
life; and, Twill raise him up at the last day "—not
a thousand years before the last day, but AT the
last day; a declaration four times by Christ re
peated in that single chapter. Again says Jesus:
"My kingdom is not of this world." " The king
dom of God omteth not with observation, neither
shall they say Lo here! or Lo there! for behold
the kingdom of God is within you!" And the
Apostle Paul:—" The kingdom of God is not
meat and drink, but righteousnew, peace and joy
in the Holy Ghost."
WHOM DO YOU LOVE BEST?
Every single reader wh :se eye has fallen upon
this caption has instinctively answered to him or
herself already. Whether we are willing to ut
ter the name or not, it is sharply defined in our
Own minds—we have no doubt about it—we
know whom we love best, and if the question be
put to the little bright eyed one at our feet, who
has ,scarcely yet learned to speak its mother
tongue the answer will not long have to be waited
for.
There is a large body of men and women in
the world, very many of the readers of this paper
among that number, who have most solemnly de
clared, publicly` in the presence of witnesses,
that they love the Lord Jesus Christ better than
all else besides. Better even than themselves.
They have deliberately taken Him as their best
love who says," Whosoever he be of you that for
saketh not all that he path, he cannot be my dis
ciple."
Dear friend are you one of that company?
Let us talk about our love a few minutes. This
Jesus is a real living person—no fiction, no
spiritualized mysticism. He is just as truly alive
to our love or our neglect as that earthly name
which we love best. He is as real as your moth
er, and loves you much better than she could do.
Your mother's love was greatly strengthened by
what she suffered for you, and. the cares she has
had in your behalf. But Jesus has suffered more
and done more for , you than your mother.
Viewed in this light, do you love Him more
than you do your mother or the partner of your
life.? Remember His word in Matt. x : 37.
"He that loveth father or mother more than me
is not worthy of me." He will have no divided
heart.
When you are called upon to take 'your place
as a teacher in the Sabbath-school or the Mission
school, do,you go
,promptly and reu'arly ? Or
if you have not been invited to go, do you so
love Jesus that for the sake of,souls you offer
yourself to this work ? Do you sacrifice your
ease, your time for readin g , your peasant hour
at home for the wearying but precious work. of
the school? If you do not, whom.do you love
best, Christ or your ease?
There is to be a meeting for prayer: The
world never makes its arrangements in view of
prayer-meetinv. Do you? Do you close your
store, or arrange your worldly cares on that day
with a view to faithfully attending this holy
place? Do you refuse all invitations however
attractive or promising Which would detain you
from meeting your best beloved in the place of
prayer? Do you make your family affairs bend
to this appointment with your Loved One? Jesus
loves the place of prayer and attends it with
fai. bful regularity. If you do not, whom do you
love best?
"I tell you except your righteousness exceed
bhe ri-s-hboo-uzwese of the- Zpribes- and PharispAs
you shall in no wise eater the kingdom of
heaven."
You need to employ a man in your business or
a domestic in your family. • As a lover of the
Lord Jesus, you will certainly feel that here He
has given you new opportunity of serving Him,
The world has its way of providing for these
wants. It scorns any one who has been unsuc
cessful or who has fallen into poverty or sin. Its
philanthropy is confined to the cold cellp of the
aims -house, the hospital or the asylum. It knows
little of the philanthrophy of the individual or
the family. The world commutes its duty to the
unfortunate by its poor tax and its pubic sub
scriptions. But Jesus takes the poor sinner by
the hand, and leads him or her by kind words
and forgiving confidence to a better life. Whose
example do you . follow ? Dou you say, I cannot
risk my business by employint , such an one; he
will probably fall again, and bring loss upon
me ? For whom are you doing business, your
self or Christ? Or do you stand back in holy
horror and say I cannot in any way tolerate about
me the guilty and grossly fallen man or woman ?
I prescribe no rule for your conscience my bro
ther, or sister but this. James v: 20. " Let
him know, that he which converteth the sinner
from the error of his way shall sa»e a soul from
death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."
What would Jesus love to have you do? If
Christians will not lift up and trust the fallen
who will? Be careful in your decision that you
do not put your business gains or family conveni
ence over against doing Christ's will. Do you
not dare to trust these minor matters into the
hands of Him to whom you have intrusted your
immortal soul?
There comes to every Christian young man a time,
when he must seek for, or decide upon the busi
ness of his life. Do you so seek and so decide
that you can clearly feel that it was the love of
the Lord Jesus and His plain answer to your
prayer that determined your course ? Do not
commit the sin of Ananias here. Christ demands
your entire service and woe to youi Christian life
if you keep back any part of the price.
If you are a Christian, you have no right to
choose a business only because it is lucrative or
promises fame or power. You must seek it from
a desire to honor and serve the Master or you
have departed from the ruling motive of a holy
life. Whom do you love best, self or Christ ?
A Christian man is prospered in worldly
wealth and he is seeking an investment for his
gains.' Stop my brother and see if the only
questions you ask about the different purchases
you propose are not essentially selfish and world
ly. Have you, even once, earnestly on your
knees asked your best friend how He would have
you invest this surplus? Do you habitually put
out your money to please the Lord Jesus ? Ile
gave you this money and has given you plain in
dications what to do with it. And yet I fear you
Ave not looked to or thought of His pleasure in
the whole matter.
Oh worldly Christian! In all that gives you
power, influence and position among men, you
follow worldly maxims and example entirely, and
yet you profess to love Jesus best of all !
Can you wonder if your worldly friends doubt
the sincerity of your professions?
"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or what
soever ye do, do all to the glory of God.