J

would have been written plainly in the Apocalypse; but that, being there expressed enigmatically, it would have been declared orally (eppéon) by the apostle, if it were proper that it should be known in the days of Irenæus. Now what can be more relevant to this proposition, than the assertion, that the apostle was seen not long ago? especially when a similar expression was just before employed to describe those who not only saw him, but held intercourse with him, and were therefore worthy of confidence, in respect both to the text, and the meaning, of the Apocalypse.bid bluedz We are told that Mr. Elliott is astonished that we should attempt to revive such an absurdity. We are really sorry for it, having much respect for him; but we cannot regard his astonishment as any proof that our criticism is wrong. The reference to the date of Mammon', and the appearance of Dr. Harris, we deem altogether inappropriate, first, because Irenæus is not referring to the date of the Apocalypse, but to the discourse of the apostle and, secondly, because no one would now be quoted as a compet tent witness to the text of Dr. Harris's work, on the ground that he had seen Dr. H. Let the statement be put thus: Some persons who saw Southey, declare that an obscure passage in his Lafe of Nelson was written by him as it is now printed; there being, when that book was published, reasons for this designed obscurity. We do not pretend to know to whom the passage applies. Indeed, if it were proper that its obscurity should be removed at this time, it would have been explained by the author himself. For it is not long ago that he was seen, but so late as the reign of King William.' Now we cannot see that the reference to Southey, as seen, is in the smallest degree less proper in the last sentence than in the first. It would be in some degree improper in both; because we do not now refer to those who have seen an author, as the most competent witnesses, either to the text, or to the meaning of his works. The explanations are now given through the press, which formerly would be given through those who had the opportunity of seeing a writer. We think, therefore, that the supposed statement respecting Dr. Harris is not parallel: and, moreover, that both the inferences are illogical. The first should be, that Dr. Harris was not seen at a later period by the persons through whom information was received respecting him and his works: and the second, that it was supposed, that they who saw Dr. Harris were more competent than others to state if he had explained an obscure passage in Mammon; and that if they saw him lately and he gave them no explanation, it was because the time was not yet come for the full and clear disclosure of his meaning. We should not ourselves have chosen this mode of analogical reasoning, but it appears to us only to confirm the conclusion we had deduced simply from an examination of the passage itself... 28 Kew 26

Hd Our reply to the argument for the later date of the Apocalypse, drawn from the tenor of its Epistle to the church at Ephesus, is described as a mere evasion; because we have referred to the date of its establishment by St. Paul, instead of referring to the date of St. Paul's epistle to that church, and the date of the second epistle to Timothy. The church is said to have left its first love, and we argued that, having been founded in A.D. 55, it might have come to this state before A.D. 68. Our correspondent, thinks we should have taken the date of St. Paul's epistle, A.D.. 61, and have shown how this decay of piety could take place within five or six years. But to this we must object. If there were proof that at the later date no change for the worse had as yet appeared, it would not follow there were not causes in operation even then speedily to produce such change. The further they were removed from the time when they were first impressed by the Gospel, the more likely it would be that some would lose the ardour of their early affection. But we maintain that there is nothing in the Epistle of St. Paul to show that some evident deterioration had not taken place in the church at Ephesus, even when he wrote. We have noticed his address to the bishops of Ephesus, as indicating his expectation that this change might take place, and that soon. After my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you." Acts xx. 29. This was said A.D. 58. We can see nothing in the quotation given by our correspondent from St. Paul's epistle to prove that the church at Ephesus présented only occasion for commendation and thankfulness. The apostle merely states that he gives thanks for their confidence in Christ, and their love to the brethren, of which reports were brought to him during his imprisonment at Rome. Now in the epistle of the Apocalypse, the church is commended for its labour, and patience, and fidelity, and perseverance. True, in the epistle of the Apocalypse, censure is added to this commendation; but it does not follow that there was no similar occasion for censure when the apostle wrote, though he expresses none. He might have been unacquainted with it, or have deemed it better to refrain from noticing it. It surely cannot be inferred, because an apostle at Rome, writing to the church at Ephesus, expressed no censure, that therefore there could be nothing to require censure from Him who searches the heart, and who is present with all his churches, nothing then, and nothing five years after, to be described as the losing the first love.

Besides, it should be remembered, that St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians is, in a remarkable degree, destitute of all references to the particular condition of that church, or to his previous prolonged residence there. On this account, as well as for other reasons, it has been supposed that the epistle was intended for other churches, as well as for that of Ephesus.

The second epistle to Timothy has, we think, nothing to do with this discussion, since there is no proof that it contains any special reference to the Ephesian church. But the general tenor of this letter will show that it is highly probable that the churches in that part of Asia were in a state similar to that of the church of Ephesus, as described in the Apocalypse. This thou knowest, that all they who are in Asia are turned away from me,' i. 15. Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is/ past already, and overthrow the faith of some,' ii. 18. These also resist the truth, men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith,' iii. The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine,' iv. 3. Now, we cannot imagine, how an epistle which contains such statements in reference to a church, can prove¶ that the church could not have lost its first love.wtub

J

Our correspondent complains that we have misrepresented his argument by describing it as intended to prove that the date of the Apocalypse was A.D. 96, whereas he only sought to prove that it could not be A.D. 68. Now we did not refer to his argument only, but to o all that are adduced. If the Apocalypse was not written at the one time, it must, we think, have been written at the other. The controversy merely respects these two dates. All the argu–2 ments that prove the one date disprove the other, and vice versat We described the arguments as intended to prove the latter, instead of to disprove the former date, to suggest the improbability, that if written at A.D. 96, no clearer indications ofs so late as date should be discovered. via boon te it t azadonsell ads dava The arguments contained in the extract from L'Enfant and Beausobre apply chiefly to the opinion of Epiphanius, that the Apocalypse was written in the time of Claudius. We do not see that they present any valid objection to the position we have main-: tained. 1. The argument founded on the decay of piety in thes churches at Ephesus, Sardis, and Laodicea, we haves already consi dered. The epistles to the Corinthians and the Galatians show/o how soon, when deprived of the presence of the apostles, the early 1? churches might fall into errors, vicious practices, disorder, and contention. 2. There is no evidence that the Nicolaitans were and sect. They were men who followed the example of Balaam,? (ii. 14), and they are designated by a Greek term corresponding to the Hebrew name of the apostate prophet. The epistles to the Corinthians show that, long before this time, Christians were enticed to attend at idol-festivals, and so were seduced to licentious-// ness and idolatry. 3. There is nothing to show that the churches addressed in the Apocalypse had been subject to any general and l legalised persecution. All the churches of Christ were from theg beginning subject to some persecution. That kind and degreejo which existed prior to A.D. 68, accords, we think, much more with

t

9

the language of the Apocalypse respecting trials already experienced, than the more severe persecutions which were endured before A D. 96. Antipas may, like Stephen, have fallen a victim to popu lar outrage. If one case of martyrdom be here mentioned, we may conclude such cases were few. We cannot help thinking it was because the f witnesses for the later date were regarded as incontestable,' that these arguments were deemed important; and that as very different sestimate would have been formed of their worth, if they had been considered independently.wondo busyboys Jesq III Our correspondent complains that we represented him as maintaining that the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple werel of little interest to the churches addressed. We certainly did supe pose this to be the meaning of his exclamation What so unlikely as that what was about to befal the Jewish nation should have been made the burden of a Divine communication to the Christian churches of Roman Asia? We do not see what others meaning can be assigned to this objection, distinguished as it is from the objections founded on the proximity of the events, and the pres vious prediction of our Lord. We are accused of attempting to elude the argument. We thought we had given a distinct answeri to the three reasons by which our correspondent's position was sus T tained. There are two other points which we might have noticed, -the opinion which seems to be maintained, that the great end of prophecy is to display the foreknowledge of God, and the supposed enigmatical character of the prediction of the Apocalypse, compared with the distinctness of that recorded by St. Matthew. To this we reply, that the prophecies of the Bible are designed to display the moral government of God, as well as his foreknowledge; and that d they may be most important for the first end, when little needed for A the second. We regard all the predictions of the Apocalypse as valuable chiefly on the former account. Then secondly, the clears knowledge we have of the application of our Lord's prediction is owing, in great measure, to our sure knowledge of the circumb stances under which it was delivered. We think that the applica tion of the prediction of the Apocalypse to the same events, woulddo be equally clear to those who had a sure knowledge of the circum-09 stances under which this prophecy was delivered. and yout

1998

IV. We are said to be illogical, for representing our correspond-) ent as appearing to deny the existence of Hebrew poetry, because he had asserted that our characteristics belong equally to prose. We certainly do not claim the honour of discovering these characters teristics The parallelism of the lines has, since the time of Bishop Lowth, been acknowledged as the great characteristic of Hebrewor poetry, both by Jews and Christians, by English and by foreign writers. That parallelism belongs equally to prose and poetry, is an opinion we believe peculiar to our correspondent. If he had

informed us what he had discovered, to be the characteristics of Hebrew poetry, we should have been spared this mistake. But we think we were justified in saying, he appeared to deny the existence of Hebrew poetry, when he denied that parallelism was any mark of poetry, and gave no hint of his own discovery.

We expressed our inability to comprehend how sensible representations could embody ideas without images; or, how visions could be interpreted, if what they revealed as truly existing were left as unimaginable as ever. In return we are requested to say, how the scene can be conceived in which the Lamb is represented as taking a scroll from the hand of Him who is seated on the throne. To this we reply, that, if there was a sensible representation, there must have been pictorial images. If there were ideas without images, then nothing was seen; thoughts were suggested, but no vision was beheld. Whether in this case there were a sensible representation or not, the incongruity of the parts of the description, if taken literally, shows that some must be taken figuratively. We have before adduced this vision to prove that parts of the descriptions are poetical; and the vision of the new Jerusalem shows, that parts of the scenes described could not have been seen. Of the Îatter we find no difficulty in forming a pictorial conception. Our correspondent asks, 'What is a hieroglyphic but the sign of an idea, without being the image of anything? We think not. Hieroglyphics, symbols, and emblems, are the pictures of something; though not of the ideas which they represent. In this respect they differ from common language. The word war has no resemblance to war, either as a conception or a reality. But the representation of a sword, as a symbol of war, is the pictorial image of a real sword. Our correspondent asks, if we really mean to say, that we can picture to ourselves all that is taught by means of emblems and symbolic representations. Most certainly not. We can picture to ourselves the symbols when their nature is visible; but what is taught by means of them, being spiritual, the eye could not see, and therefore the imagination cannot pictorially portray; though it can conceive it, as it conceives all things spiritual and invisible.

Our correspondent charges us with throwing out insinuations for which anger would be the best apology. We really cannot accept this excuse, and do not see that we require any other. We should be sorry to be wanting in respect to any one; but, if addressed in a style which nothing less than infallibility could warrant, we must be permitted to indicate our distrust of this assumption. To the statement that he had charged Professor Stuart with impiety, our correspondent gives a plain contradiction. It would have been as well if he had also given a plain explanation of his own words,-'On the supposition that the future apostacy of the Christian church stands plainly revealed in the apocalyptic visions, the scepticism of