1.

I. Speaking of the testimony of Irenæus, your contributor says: Our correspondent informs us, that the expression, they saw him, may refer to a man ; but that he was seen, must refer to a ghost. What rule of Greek, or English grammar, may require this difference in the usage of the active and passive forms of the verb, we must confess we do not know, and sour (correspondent does not state. I have said nothing of the kind. My words are That the apostle was seen at the end of the reign of Domitian, is phraseology applicable to an apparition, not to a living man.' There is not a word about any difference between seeing him and his being seen.

이

The forced interpretation put upon the words of Irenæus, is almost the only point upon which your contributor differs from Stuart, who gives up the construction which connects the verb épán with the apostle, as untenable. I find that Mr. Elliott, in the new edition of his Hora Apocalypticæ, expresses his as tonishment that, at this time of day, any respectable writer should be found so bewildering himself as to attempt the revival of the absurdities which Professor Stuart rejects.'So, however, ohe adds in a note, (vol. i. p. 52,) the writer in "The Biblical Review,"a who adopts Wetstein's view. What would the writer think, if it were to be said in the next century, supposing the date of " Mammon'?* to be the subject inquired, into, that "it was not so very long before, Dr. Harris having been seen at the end of king William the Fourth's reign." Surely two things would be inferable from this statement, viz.: 1. That Dr. Harris was never seen later than that epoch, 2. That his being seen at all, just at the pointedly speci fied epoch, was a fact only referable to that epoch; his then noted apparition being not such as of men seen from day to day, and while they live conversant with their fellows, but rather like the passing apparition of a spirit from the other world.non 9 Artusad

་་

II. Your contributor assigns, as his reason for entirely passing over the internal evidence for the later date of the Apocalypse, that the arguments did not appear of any value. I submit that this is an unsatisfactory reason for so singular and partial an omission. He then refers to my argument, that we cannot suppose the Divine address to the church at Ephesus as having left her first love, to have been dictated to St. John as apostolic superintendent of the Asiatic churches, prior to A.D. 68, when St. Paul's second epistle to Timothy (at Ephesus,) and his epistle to the Ephesians, were not written earlier than A.D. 61; and some have assigned to the former the date of A.D. 67. Instead of fairly meeting this

1

* Mr. Elliott's choice of this illustratio ad hominem-the good taste of which we are not concerned to criticise-compels us to state, that Dr. Harris is not the author of the articles under discussion.ED.

argument, drawn from the state of the Ephesian church, as described in the apostolic epistle, your contributor remarks that the church at Ephesus was founded by St. Paul, A.D. 55. We do not wonder, therefore,' he adds, 'that, after the lapse of ten years, it should be true that it had left its first love.' But, unfortunately for your contributor's argument, after the lapse of six years from the foundation of the church, we find St. Paul thus writing to his Ephesian converts : ، Wherefore, I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, cease not to give thanks for you.' And if the epistle to the Ephesians was written as laté as some chronologists suppose, this language must have been addressed to them nearly about the same time that, according to your contributor's hypothesis, St. John was addressing them in an opposite strain !

مجمع

The reference made by your contributor to the date of the foundation of the Ephesian church is, therefore, altogether irrele vant, and a mere evasion of the argument; which he further misrepresents, when he adds: If this be the strongest evidence which can be drawn from the Apocalypse, to show that it was written about A.D. 96, we think our readers will excuse us for not having troubled them with reciting and refuting such arguments.' The argument was not adduced to prove that the Apocalypse was written so late as A.D. 96, but simply, that it could not have been written so early as A.D, 66.

Of the internal evidence which your contributor treats with such unwarrantable contempt, Lardner judged very differently; and he has closed his chapter on the Revelation with transcribing part of L'Enfant and Beausobre's preface to the Revelation, which I must be permitted to cite, not simply in justification of my own views, which your contributor deems unworthy of the trouble of refuting, but as deserving, from their intrinsic importance, the attention of the biblical students. ، Having quoted Irenteus, Origen, Eusebius,

and diver

divers other ancients, placing St. John's banishment in Patmos in the latter part of the reign of Domitian, and saying, that he there saw the Revelation, they say, “To these incontestable witnesses it is needless to add a long list of others, of all ages, but of the same sentiment, to whom the authority of Epiphanius is by no means comparable." And then they go on, "We must add to so constant a tradition other reasons which further show, that the Revelation was not written till after Claudius and Nero. 1. It appears from the book itself, that there had been already churches for a considerable space of time in Asia; forasmuch as John, in the name of Christ, reproves faults that happen not but after a while. The church of Ephesus had left her first love. That of Sardis had a name to live, but was dead. The church of Laodicea was fallen into lukewarmness and indifference. But the church of Ephesus, for in

stance, was not founded by St. Paul before the last years of Claudius. When, in 61 or 62, St. Paul wrote to them from Rome, instead of réproving their want of love, he commends their love and faith. 2. It appears from the Revelation that the Nicolaitans made a sect when this book was written, since they are expressly named; whereas they were only foretold and described in general terms by St. Peter, in his second Epistle, written after the year 60, and in St. Jude's, about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by Vespasian. 3. It is evident, from divers places of the Revelation, that there had been an open persecution in the provinces. St. John himself had been banished into Patmos for the testimony of Jesus. The church of Ephesus, or its bishop, is commended for their labour and patience, which seems to imply persecution. This is still more manifest in the word directed to the church of Smyrna, chap. ii. 9. I know thy works and tribulation. For the original word always denotes persecution in the Scriptures of the New Testament; as it is also explained in the following verse. In the thirteenth verse of the same chapter mention is made of a martyr named Antipas, put to death at Pergamos.... All that has now been observed concerning the persecution of which mention is made in the first chapters of the Revelation, cannot relate to the time of Claudius, who did not persecute the Christians, nor to the time of Nero, whose persecution did not reach the provinces. And, therefore, it must relate to Domitian, according to ecclesiastical tradition." (Lardner's Works, vol. vi., 8vo., pp. 327, 8.)

Your readers will now be able to judge of the propriety of your contributor's peremptory allegation, that all the internal evidence is in favour of the earlier date of the Apocalypse.'

171

6

,

III. I am represented as maintaining that if the earlier date be adopted, still it will be absurd to suppose that any of the 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 Christians addressed. My words are, that, to the Christian world at large, those events were interesting chiefly as a fulfilment of the Divine threatenings;' and my argument is, that, as the Jewish war began in 66, its events could not be the subject of prediction at that time; and that it is not supposable that what was plainly announced in the Gospel of St. Matthew twenty years before, should be obscurely indicated in the enigmatic language of symbol on the very eve of its fulfilment.' Your contributor has not weakened the force of this argument by his attempt to elude it.

IV. Your contributor represents me as appearing to deny the existence of any Hebrew poetry, because I showed that all the characteristics which he insisted upon as proving the poetical cha racter of the Apocalypse, belong equally to prose. This is not very

VOL. II.

3 M

logical; and the charge might with as much reason have been applied to Professor Alexander, who agrees with me, that parallel. isms are not peculiar to Hebrew poetry. It is because I not only believe in the existence of Hebrew poetry, but have bestowed a considerable degree of attention upon the poetry of the Old Testament, that I am prepared to maintain that the Apocalypse has neither the form nor the characteristics of Hebrew poetry, with the exception of the occasional ascriptions of praise or doxologies, which partake of a lyrical character.

Your contributor is at a loss to conceive how sensible representations can embody ideas without pictorial images, or how visions can be interpreted, which reveal as existing what is left as unimaginable as ever. Perhaps he will tell us how we are to imagine a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes taking the volume out of the hand of the throned form;-or, a city of which the length and the breadth and the height are equal. What is a hieroglyphic, but the sign of an idea without being an image of anything? Does your contributor really mean to say, that we can picture to ourselves all that is taught us by means of emblems and symbolic representations? If not, I must confess that I am at a loss to understand either his sneers or his arguments. In my paper on Vision of the Celestial Jerusalem,' inserted in your July number, I have endeavoured to show that, while the scene itself was mystical and figurative, some of the ideas, not being susceptible of representation, must have been orally suggested to the mind of the apostle by the angel. I will not here pursue the subject further.

The

Finally, your contributor charges me with being very angry because opinions are maintained different from my own.' He altogether mistakes the temper of my articles; but I must say, there is such a thing as preserving the appearance of a calm temper while throwing out insinuations for which anger would be the best apology. Of the spirit of my animadversions upon the work of Pro fessor Stuart, your readers will be able to form their own judgment, since I have not given my version of his opinions, but have fairly cited his language, which I profess myself unable to reconcile with the character of the learned writer.' That I have charged him with impiety for his scepticism in regard to certain human interpretations of the Apocalypse,' is not more correct than some other alles gations to which I am under the unpleasant necessity of opposing a plain contradiction. I have not impeached the learned Professor's character or motives. His language, which your contri butor thinks at times injudicious,' I consider as bordering upon profane, when applied to the very words of our Lord; and his mode of dealing with the Apocalypse I cannot but regard as equally at variance with correct views of the nature of Divine inspi ration and with sound principles of interpretation. The higher

Professor Stuart stands as an authority, the more reason there is to apprehend mischievous results from the rationalistic principles of criticism which he has adopted. I must adhere to the position, that to deny the historical application of the prediction, is to destroy the character and evidence of prophecy; as applying, cere tainly not to the design, but really to the tendency of Professor Stuart's work. And I have the satisfaction of knowing that my warning voice has not been raised altogether in vain.

C

We have given the remarks of our correspondent on our reply to his former animadversions, wishing that our readers should have every advantage in forming their own judgment on this discussion, But we are unwilling that the controversy should be carried over to another year; and therefore, though the time at which ceived his remarks renders it quite impossible that we should discuss fully all the subjects to which he refers, we shall, at once, offer the few observations which appear to be necessary for our own justification.

man

J

6

,:

e re

12

I. We are charged with misrepresentation for stating that, according to our correspondent's view of the words of Irenæus, they saw him might' might refer to a man, but he was seen must refer to ghost. Now his own declaration was, that the latter expression was plainly applicable to an apparition, and not to a living This is surely equivalent to our statement, that it must refer to a ghost. We had quoted the previous words of Irenæus, they too testifying who saw John,' and had argued that, as the same verb is used, there could be no objection to referring the passive verb to the person to whom the active verb refers. We wrote they saw him,' instead of who saw John.' We e suppose it will be allowed that the former of these expressions may be substi tuted for the latter. Or, supposing that Irenæus, having said they too testifying who saw John,' had also written, for it was not a long time ago that they saw him,' instead of writing, for it was not a long time ago that he was seen,would not they saw him,' certainly refer to John? We ask then, why he was seen," must refer to a ghost? Our correspondent gave no reason, but simply asserted that the phraseology was applicable only to an apparition. We can' see no difference in the phraseology but this, that the verb in the one case has the active form, and in the other the passive. Our correspondent does not mention this distinction, but he fails to point out any other. The proposition of Irenæus, which is sustained by the passage in dispute, is, not that the name of Antichrist would have been known by John himself, nor that it

1