Out of the churches of Christian nations, which, like the patriarchates of the more ancient church, would subsist side by side independently and with their own peculiar formation, would be formed the one great world-embracing church of the Christian people.

Leibnitz said correctly when he believed that the task of beginning the work was given to Germany, foreordained for the illumination of the nations, and in the first instance to its rulers. The beginning has been made in our times by the political equalisation of all Christian confessions in the German confederation; it was at the close of the great time in which the German people of every stock, reunited without difference between Wittenberg and Rome, had fought and conquered for the freedom of their fatherland. The establishment of the Holy Alliance in the same year is in its origin not German, and can hardly be taken account of here. The union of the Protestant and Reformed churches in the greatest part of Germany, with the retention of their peculiar doctrines, was the next step. A further advance is the improvement of the evangelical church and its constitution in Prussia. The most recent consists in the union which has approximated to each other the German established churches without prejudice to their independence. And to this we may add on the other side the happy phenomenon that the German Catholic church also, where it can express itself with freedom, in the far preponderating majority of its professed adherents both clergy and laity, firmly resists the provocations and intrigues of a fanaticism which, by means of the masses, will govern the Catholic church itself, strives to expel it as a foreign element which threatens death to the freedom of Germany, and cherishes and has manifested to its non-catholic German brethren a genuine Christian love.

With such facts we may cherish the hope that the spirit of a universal German church, embracing all German Christians on the basis of the Gospel, when its time has arrived, will also fashion for itself a healthy body in which it can enter into life with vigour, and work on and on for the blessing of our fatherland and all its members.

May Leibnitz's third centenary see such hopes realised!

III.

REPLY TO THE ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE DATE, AND ON THE POETRY, OF THE APOCALYPSE.

HAVING presented to our readers the comments of a Correspondent, on the views which we ventured to advance on these subjects in some previous numbers, we trust they are the better able now to appreciate our statements and arguments, by the consideration of what has been urged in opposition to them. A few

observations, however, seem to be required; yet, as we have no wish to engage in controversy, they will be as few and brief as possible. All who sincerely love truth will receive with thankfulness whatever aid may be offered for its attainment, even though it may not be given in the most agreeable manner. If, therefore, any error in our reasonings were pointed out, or any oversight in our statements of evidence, such service would be most gratefully acknowledged. But we really can derive no satisfaction, and think our readers will sympathise with us, from simply being informed, on the writer's authority, that our opinions are erroneous and pernicious; our reasoning, an unhappy specimen of critical license and extravagance, a perilous trifling with the word of God; our conclusion, a desperate expedient to favour Popery, and to deprive the predictions of the Apocalypse of any definite meaning; that one argument is unworthy of any biblical scholar, another scarcely ingenuous; that we have been guilty of an unfair exhibition of evidence, have revived provoking absurdities, and betray our consciousness of the untenableness of the arguments we employ for the conviction of others. This kind of composition clearly shows that the writer is very angry because opinions are maintained different from his own. But we are unable to see how biblical criticism, or any Christian object, can be promoted by the display of his indignation. We shall not attempt to retaliate, for we have no faith in the advantage of such controversy.

We regret that our correspondent did not confine his observations to the articles which he undertook to review. Instead of doing this, he has associated with them the Commentary of Professor Stuart, even when it differs from our statements. He has further chosen to represent our citations and arguments as borrowed without due acknowledgment from that work; and to attribute to us an agreement with its views concerning the inspiration, and the interpretation, of the Apocalypse. Now, though the general character of Professor Stuart's book was commended, and some of his opinions quoted with approbation, we maintain that there is nothing to justify the description of our being his close and complacent follower. The use of his work was declared as distinctly as possible; but we certainly did pretend to something of independent research and reflection, and do not fear that this claim can be disproved. Why we should be represented as drawing our citations and arguments from his work especially, we know not, since our correspondent declares that these had, long before, been discussed and disposed of by Dr. Lardner, and there are many other works from which they could be easily obtained. We are not anxious for the credit of originality, but we must protest against charges which tend only to excite prejudice, and which are, therefore, unfavourable to the truth. With Professor Stuart's views respecting

the inspiration and interpretation of the Apocalypse we have never expressed concurrence, and in several points should feel obliged to differ from him.

Passing by, therefore, all that applies exclusively to Stuart, Grotius, Paræus, Hartwig, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, and others, with whose views we have nothing to do, we shall proceed to notice the objections of our correspondent to what we have advanced, following in the course of his animadversions.

It is asserted by him, that the inquiry concerning the date of the Apocalypse is of no consequence, if it be regarded as poetry. To this it may be replied, that the date of the poetical prophecies of the Old Testament is allowed to be frequently of much importance; and that the form of a prophecy, whether it be prose or poetry, cannot affect the influence which the time of its delivery must have upon its application to historical events. It is also maintained by him, that if the early date be adopted, still it will be absurd to suppose that any of these predictions can refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish polity, for three reasons; these events were near, they had been foretold by our Lord, and they were of little interest to the Christian churches addressed. We reply, that it is expressly stated that the season for the fulfilment of some of these prophecies was at hand; that if our Lord's predictions respecting these events rendered superfluous any subsequent inspiration, so his teaching on all other subjects would render the inspiration of the apostles superfluous, except where their instructions differed from his; and, lastly, that we can fix on no event in the history of the church, or of the Roman empire, that can be compared, in religious significance and importance, with the closing scenes of the Jewish dispensation. The destruction, and the deliverance, then experienced, were a manifestation of the Son of Man in his glory, to which he himself directed the attention of his church, and which certainly ought never to be forgotten or disregarded.

We are accused of treating Protestant commentators and critics with disrespect, because we did not refer to their works and opinions. But it was not our object to review the literature of the Apocalypse. We merely sought to set forth what appeared to us of most importance in regard to our proposed inquiries. We did not feel under obligation to present to our readers what others deemed true and important, but what seemed so to ourselves. If some like to display their learning by long lists of authors and of references, we may be excused for preferring another course, and exhibiting arguments and testimony. If in any department of biblical science it is lawful to exercise an independent judgment, it is surely in such matters as we have presumed to discuss. If in any inquiries the review of opinions, and the recounting of names, are a painful and

profitless task, it is in such as these. Our correspondent is especially astonished that Dr. Lardner's writings on the Apocalypse were not referred to by us. Now, they were carefully considered, and kept in view by us throughout the investigation. But, highly as we esteem the researches of this eminently learned and candid writer, we should have felt it impertinent to offer anything to our readers respecting the Apocalypse, if we had been bound to adopt all his opinions, or were unable to advance anything which might not be found in works so well known as his.

The charge is often repeated, that we have unfairly exhibited the evidence respecting the date of the Apocalypse; but after very attentively perusing the observations of our correspondent, we cannot discover that he has exposed any error, or supplied any deficiency. The testimony of Clement was that first adduced in support of the early date, and against this nothing is urged in addition to the objections of Dr. Lardner, all of which we had incidentally noticed. He said, the tale may be a fiction. We replied, it is declared to be true by Clement, and is referred to, as exhibiting facts, by Eusebius and Chrysostom. He said, Eusebius supposed that Clement referred to Domitian and not to Nero. This we stated, but ventured to doubt the infallibility of the venerable historian of the church. Lastly, the Doctor denied the right of Sir Isaac Newton to make the apostle a young man at the time of the narrative, when he is declared to be old. We answered, that it was certainly lawful to apply this appellation to one seventy years old; and that this, or more than this, would be the age of the apostle, if we suppose that he returned from Patmos after the death of Nero.

The testimony of the Syriac version was next brought forward. This is alleged not to be conclusive. We grant it. But is evidence of no value unless absolutely certain? The title there prefixed to the Apocalypse is surely the testimony of an ancient writer of no mean worth, and may justly be regarded as exhibiting the general opinion of the churches by which it was used.

Arethas, whose evidence is next mentioned, appears to be viewed by our correspondent with peculiar aversion. He can hardly believe in the honesty of the person who can use such evidence as that of this ancient commentator. Yet Dr. Lardner has placed him in the list of his authorities, and we have only done the same. What is there to prove the worthlessness of his testimony? First, he lived only a thousand, or twelve hundred years ago, and, therefore, it is said, could have no better means of learning the traditions of the ancient church than we possess. We doubt this, especially as his work is founded on those of former commentators, which, with few exceptions, have since perished. Second, he is charged with declaring in one place, on the authority of Eusebius, that the apostle was banished by Domitian. This is a mistake; he

says that Eusebius made this declaration, but he did not believe in Eusebius, and declared his own judgment to be different.* Lastly, he admits that most commentators did not apply the vision of the sixth seal to the destruction of Jerusalem, though he did, and was convinced that the prediction was prior to that event. Now we cannot see that an author's testimony is worthless, simply because he does not go with the many, nor that our honesty should be called in question for considering his evidence to be of some importance.

The testimony of Theophylact is treated with the same contempt. It is said that he could know nothing but from the testimony of ancient writers. But then his works are valued because they do present the opinions of those who lived long before, and whose writings are lost. And his declaration respecting the banishment of John is just such a statement as would be derived from ancient records.

What there is in our citation of the opinion of Epiphanius, to deserve a severer rebuke than any administered to us in these Animadversions, we cannot imagine. His testimony, and that of some others, were referred to merely to show that in ancient times the date of the Apocalypse was to many a doubtful question, that there was no such general assent to any one view, as to justify us in regarding a different opinion as either peculiar to a few individuals, or as simply the result of conjecture. The fundamental fallacy in the reasoning of our correspondent appears to us to be the assump. tion, from the first, that all wise and well-informed persons have held his opinion. But from Egypt and Syria, from Cappadocia and Bulgaria, we have adduced contrary evidence; and nothing is said to invalidate the inference drawn from this combination of independent testimony, that there must have been a very early, as well as a wide-spread conviction, that St. John was banished by Nero, and that the visions of the Apocalypse were beheld before the destruction of Jerusalem.

We turn now to the observations which our correspondent has

*Our correspondent asserts, that Arethas says expressly, upon the authority of Eusebius, that John was banished into Patmos by Domitian. Dr. Lardner's statement is not quite so strong. He only asserts that Arethas says this, upon the authority of Eusebius. But the reference which we copy from the foot of the page, does not support Dr. Lardner's statement, still less that of our correspondent. It simply declares what was the testimony of Eusebius. Εξόριστον δε αυτον γενέσθαι εν Πατμῳ τῇ νήσῳ ὑπὸ Δομετιανου, Ευσεβιος ὁ Παμφίλου εν τω χρονικῳ αυτου βιβλιῳ παρατίθεται. Lardner's Works, v. 416. Lardner refers Arethas to the sixth century; our correspondent to the eighth, we presume on Mr. Elliott's authority. His argument does not seem to us conclusive. We do not think that Babylon and Bagdad were identical, nor that the recent erection of the latter could prove that the dominion of the Saracens, who were subjugated by the Romans, succeeded that of the Babylonians.