nus has taken the trouble to consult Anastasius for me, and has very kindly furnished me with the following quotation from that author's Historia Ecclesiastica et de Vitis Pontificum, Pt. ii. p. 44, cap. 3; Bonifacius 3; Anno Christi 606; Phocæ Imp. 4.

"Bonifacius natione Romanus ex patre Joanne Cabaudioce sedit menses octo dies viginti octo. Hic obtinuit apud Phocam Principem ut sedes apostolica beati Petri apostoli caput esset omnium ecclesiarum; id est ecclesia Romana, quia ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium ecclesiarum scribebat."

Having now, as far as is in my power, answered the inquiries of X. Y., I shall leave it to the consideration of your readers, whether the date of the authentic documents of Justinian, or of the alleged grant of Phocas, be the most probable one from which to compute the period, when the saints and the times and laws of the church were to be delivered into the band of the papacy (Dan. vii. 25); when, also, the symbolical abomination of desolations was to be set up in the church (Dan. xi. 31, xii. 11.

The great importance of this inquiry is obvious: for if Mr. Faber be right (as I think he is) in placing the battle of Armageddon at the end of Daniel's 1290 years, it follows, that, if the 1260 years commenced in A. D. 606, the battle of Armageddon will not (reckoning by earrent time) take place till the year 1895; and, therefore, that, before the world is cheered with one ray of light, we must look for yet eightyfive years of calamity and judgments far more fearful than any we have witnessed. But if, on the contrary, we are to place the commencement of the 1260 years at the date of Justinian's edict and epistle to the pope, then the end of Daniel's 1290 years, and the total destruction of Daniel's fourth beast, with the false prophet, or remnant of the papal power, will take place at Armageddon about the year 1822. And

though forty-five years more (being till the end of Daniel's 1335 years) will elapse before the dawn of the blessed Millennium, yet we may hope that these forty-five years will be a period during which the hearts of the servants of God will rejoice in beholding the building-up of Zion.

For my own part, I cannot think that the great prophetical period of 1260 years, which is announced twice in the book of Daniel, and no less than four times in the Apocalypse,should conimence at the date of a transaction which rests upon such slender authority as the grant of Phocas. I am, &c.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer

HAVING in a late paper stated my objections to Mr. Faber's interpreta tion of Rev. xi. 13, I shall no communicate the one which I woul propose to substitute in its place. ! is, indeed, with still greater defe ence that I enter on this part of m undertaking; for I have often foun by experience, in studying the pr phetical writings, how much easi it is to raise objections to the inte pretations of others, than to off any satisfactory solutions of o own. Nor am I unmindful, that th interpretation which I am going offer will itself also be liable mrany objections. Indeed, it is t hope of seeing these stated, and a gued with wisdom and ability, 1 some of your learned correspo dents, that chiefly induces me send this communication. ground which I shall occupy is far as I know, in part untrodden any former commentator: and wh this circumstance increases my d dence, it also increases my desire a full and impartial discussion.

T

In commencing this discussion must indeed freely confess, there is one clause in the pass under consideration, to which I myself unable to assign any

factory meaning. It is this; "And in the earthquake were slain of men"—or rather, as it stands in the original, "names of men— seven thousand." I am inclined to think, with Mr. Faber, that the word slain is here to be understood in a symbolical sense; and that the death spoken of, like that of the witnesses in the preceding verses, is a civil and political, not a natural, death. At the same time, I by no means feel quite satisfied that this is the meaning of the word. Still less am I convinced, that the expression names of men, denotes titles of distinction and office. For though I allow that such an interpretation is possible, and even plausible; yet there is this to be said against it, that in the only two passages of the New Testament, in which something of the same expression occurs, it obviously does not admit of this interpretation. I allude to Acts i. 15, «The number of the names together were about an hundred and twenty:" and to Rev. ii. 4, " Thou hast a few names even in Sardis, which have not defiled their garments:"-in both which places the word names (ruar) is simply equivalent with persons, and has no reference to any particular title of distinction or of fice. Equally undecided am I as to the import of the phrase seven thousand: whether this number is to be taken in a definite or in an indefaite sense that is, whether it means that precisely seren names or titles (supposing that titles are signified) should be "slain," while the seven, multiplied by a thousand, is descriptive of the multitude contained under these seven titles: or whether the number "seven," being the number of perfection, when multiplied by a thousand merely denotes the indefinite number of the names. Perhaps future commentators may be able to throw a clearer light on this mysterious clause: but in the uncertainty which seems at present to envelope it, I shall nearly adopt Mr. Faber's interpretation of the symbo

1

lical language, though I shall apply it to different events.

Upon the whole, then, according to the views exhibited in my former paper I should thus interpret the passage in question.

1

"And the same hour was there a great earthquake." About the same time with the events before mentioned-namely, the war against the witnesses, their death and resurrection, (or, if Mr. Faber's conjectare be adopted, during the same apocalyptic period with these events-i. e. under the sounding of the second' woe-trumpet)-a great commotion, either political or religious, took place, which shook the Ronian city-namely, the idolatrous empire of the Beast to its very foundation." And the tenth part of the city fell." A consequence of this commotion was, that one of the ten original kingdoms of the Beast, which had hitherto formed a constituent part of his empire, was now separated from it, and renounced allegiance to him." And in the earthquake were slain names of men seven thousand; and the remnant were' affrighted, and gave glory to the God' of heaven." During this great commotion, and in consequence of it, important changes took place in the kingdom which had thus fallen away' from the dominion of the Beast: many names or titles of distinction and office were abolished; but the rest of the inhabitants, struck with a holy fear, renounced idolatry, and turned to the service and worship of the one true God.

serving to myself the liberty of further illustrating or defending my interpretation as occasion may offer, and as may become one, who professes himself to be, not a champion for victory, but an inquirer after truth.

PHILO.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

IN Dr. Adam Clarke's Prospectus of his intended comment on the sacred Scriptures, the following passage, concerning the Septuagint, excited my attention. "As I found this truly venerable version was that to which our blessed Lord and his apostles had constant recourse, and from which they made all their quo tations"

The inaccuracy of supposing that our Lord himself, who wrote nothing, and who preached to none but those who spake Hebrew, or a dialect of that language, quoted constantly the Greek translation of the Scriptures, is entitled to the most candid construction from the writer of this paper; because he was formerly betrayed into a similar one, though not quite so unqualified: for animadverting on which he was much obliged to the Editors of the Monthly Review. Fas est, et ab hoste doceri.'

But the question to which I would draw the attention of your numerous readers, is this: Do the writers of the New Testament uniformly quote the Septuagint, whenever they refer to any passage in the Old Testa

ment?

I am by no means disposed to enter the lists, on such a subject, with one of so high a reputation for biblical learning as Dr. Adam Clarke; but I have been, for many years, almost unavoidably under the necessity of examining this particuJar question; and I must presume to aver, that his assertion is unsupported by fact; or, at least, far too unqualified; in which I am persuaded I shall have all learned men,

who have turned their studies to this subject, on my side.

Far be it from me to speak of the Septuagint as not venerable, or as entitled to small authority in determining the true reading or meaning of the Old Testament. It is, indeed, exceedingly venerable; as the most ancient version ever made of the Hebrew Scriptures, and as the only one extant in the days of Christ and his apostles. It was at that time, Į apprehend, in universal use among the Hellenists, or Jews dispersed through the nations, who spake the Greek language; and read in their synagogues: and, no doubt, it was commonly received and used by the churches of the Gentiles converted to Christianity. Nay, more: I am of opinion that this translation of the sacred oracles, into the language at that time most generally culti vated of any on earth, was one grand means, in the hand of Providence, of preparing the minds of very many Gentiles to expect a great Deliverer from Judea, and of welcoming him when preached to the nations.

Its honour and usefulness have been very great indeed, and it is entitled to very high veneration Yet, like other honoured and vene rable instruments of our God, it is fallible; and must not be made the rival and competitor of the original Scriptures. No inan, who has compared the Hebrew text with the Septuagint, can deny, that in numerous instances, and in many of no small importance, the latter materially differs from the former; not only as to the masoretic points, but as to the words themselves. Yet if the sacred writers of the New Testament uniformly quoted from it, even where it essentially differed from the Hebrew text as it has been transmitted us; and if they were divinely inspired in so doing, who can help seeing, that the Septuagint is to be considered as the authentic word, and that the Hebrew text should be altered according to it, wherever there is any difference?