Abbildungen der Seite

gathering, any mountain a mountain of destruction; whereas Armageddon here is evidently intended to be a definite local designative. And if, to obviate this objection, the suggestion be added, as in fact it has by some been added, that the locality of Megiddo may perhaps thereby be intimated, which place was the scene of the great battle in which Sisera was vanquished (as well as that of King Josiah's defeat in later years by the Egyptians), and may in fact have derived its name from TIJ, as having been the local scene of that

great slaughter, Mr. Biley objects that we nowhere read of the mountain of Megiddo, but only of the valley of Megiddo, or the waters of Megiddo; Megiddo being a locality in the great plain of Esdraelon.

Hence my friend has felt constrained to try the prefix of y to the *1, as indicating the more probably intended Hebrew original to the Ar in Armageddon; with which as the first letter, the Hebrew word may mean a city. For, though the Hebrew for city is usually with a yod between the first and last letters of the word for city (thus, "Vy), yet, as Gesenius says, ")y is its equivalent. So HK1D "W

the city of Moab; besides that the plural of T]} is WW- Further,

with regard to the other part of the word Armagedon (the reading being preferred with one d, and the ending on passed over as a mere terminative), Mr. Biley suggests that it is to be looked on as a derivative from "7.30, a verb which in Arabic means to excel in honor; the noun substantive, with the same letters, which signifies nobility, honor, being the equivalent, Gesenins says, of the Hebrew "0.3, as m and n are often interchanged in Hebrew and Arabic. This word is used in 1 Kings i. 35 and Dan. ix. 25, to signify a prince. Thus derived, the word Armageddon, or Armagedon, might mean either a city excellent in dignity, or a city of a prince, a royal city; and, if written with the aspirate, Harmageddon, the city of the prince.

Thus far, I believe, Mr. Biley had been anticipated in his suggestions. For I have found a MS. note of my own, written about the time of the Crimean war, mentioning that some writers had applied the word, thus derived and explained, to Sebastopol, the siege of which was then proceeding; as if the war of Armageddon might mean the war of that imperial city, Sebastopol.

But in his application of the prophecy Mr. Biley is, I believe, original; or, I should rather perhaps say, in his applications of it. For he proposes the alternative of two interpretations.

1st, He suggests that the war of Constantinople may be hereby prefigured; Constantinople having been the Roman Sebastopol, or City of Augustus; not to add its celebrity and excelling dignity above all other capital cities from its very situation;—an excellence so eloquently set forth by Gibbon, in reference to the past, and so fully recognized in the great political world at the present time. An explanation this, Mr. Biley observes, which well suits the Apocalyptic context, speaking of the drying up of the waters of the mystic Euphrates, or power of the Turkish empire; the very key to which power is the possession of Constantinople.

Or rather, 2dly, (for this is what, with reason I think, my friend himself prefers,) it may mean Jerusalem, so often told of in Holy Scripture, as what is destined, after the Jews' conversion, to be the city of which "glorious things" will be spoken, and the "city of the great King." So by our Lord himself (Matt. v. 35), as well as in the Old Testament. Particularly let Dan. ix. 25 be here noted, where, together with the prediction of his sufferings, Jesus Christ is called Messiah the Prince, the same Hebrew word T13 being used as here, for Prince; also Ezekiel's prophecy in his last chapters, which speak of Messiah entering his redeemed city as its recognized Prince. But this, not till after that terrible, universal, final war, the locality of which more than one of the Old Testament prophets seem to point to as Jerusalem.—And who can help being struck with the fact of that Holy City having strangely become more and more during the last twenty or thirty years an object of high interest in the eyes of all Christendom? or, again, with the obvious fact, that the war which sooner or later must supervene on the breaking up of the Turkish Empire, will necessarily involve the Holy Land, and its Holy City Jerusalem?

I ought not to conclude without observing that, on all points of Hebrew criticism that are involved in the subject, Mr. Biley fortifies his positions most elaborately, and at large.

I am, Mr. Editor, faithfully yours,

E. B. Elliott.


Bible Animals. By the Rev. T. O. Wood, M.A., F.L.S., 8fc. London: Longmans. 1869.—The contents of this valuable book may already be familiar to a good many of our readers, who may have taken it in as it appeared in numbers. We would, however, be very glad to promote the circulation of it amongst those who are not acquainted with it. It is full of most interesting information, peculiarly well calculated to amuse and instruct young people, and would form a most admirable present or school prize, abounding as it does with excellent illustrations. The Biblical student, too, of riper years, will find it a most useful adjunct to his library, as great pains have manifestly been taken to present the results of considerable learning, and to exhibit the researches of recent travellers, such as Dr. Tristram, Sir S. Baker, and others. We extract a very curious remark about the Cat:—

"It is a very remarkable circumstance that the word cat is not once mentioned in the whole of the Canonical Scriptures, and only once in the Apocrypha. The Egyptians, as is well known, kept cats domesticated in their houses, a fact which is mentioned by Herodotus, B. II. ch. 66, 67. There is no prohibition of the animal, even indirectly, in the Mosaic law; but it may be the case that the Israelites repudiated the cat simply because it was favoured by their former masters. The only passage in the Apocrypha is a passing allusion in Baruch (vi. 22) where it is said of the idols, that bats and birds shall Bit on their bodies, and the cats also."

The Student's Book of Common Prayer: with an historical and explanatory Treatise. By William Gilson Humphry, B.D., 8fc. London: Bell and Daldy; Cambridge: Deighton. 1869. — Mr. Humphry is one of the Ritual Commissioners. In his treatise, which forms an appendix to the Prayer-Book, he has embodied a good deal of useful information, in small compass, about the history of the Prayer-Book, and has supplied a great number of the original collects and prayers from which our own are taken. We do not notice much that would not be already familiar to students of ritual works, but the condensed manner in which what is said is presented will make it a handy book of reference just now when snch questions are so much discussed.

Heaven's Whispers in the Storm. By tlie late Rev. Francis J. Jameson, M.A., Rector of Colon. With a Memoir of the Author. London: Hunt. 1869.—The author of this little work was a brother Bo " faithful and beloved" in the Church, that it is with peculiar interest we call the attention of our readers to it . "He, being dead, yet speaketh" to many friends, in these brief essays, his utterances in his last lingering illness. In such readers they will awaken much fond recollection of the author, and will form a touching and appropriate memorial of him; perhaps awakening regret that one so holy and so exemplary should have been so early removed, when the need of the Church for such is sore,—but regret mingled with glad thoughts, that "visions have dawned on him of the rest that remaineth for the people of God." Sorrow and trial, however, are so universal, that many others may be glad to avail themselves of the comfort and instruction which this little volume is well calculated to impart out of the fulness of the author's own experience.

England versus Rome. A Brief Handbook of the Roman Catholic Controversy. By H. B. Swete, M.A., Fellow of Oonville and Caius College, Cambridge. London: Rivingtons. 1868.—We have much pleasure in recommending this little manual which Mr. Swete has put forth. The chief questions which separate the Church of England from Borne are discussed in a very temperate manner, and with sufficient learning. "The views of both Churches have been expressed in the language of their own authoritative documents." The assertions and arguments of Romish doctors and councils in support of their opinions are alleged, and the counter-statements by which these assertions and arguments are met are carefully marshalled in reply. As a brief specimen of the author's method, we refer to his seventh chapter, "On the Language of Common Prayer." He first adduces the statements of the Council of Trent on this subject, and in a parallel column the doctrine of our 24th Article; to these he

subjoins,—(1) Teaching of the Word of God, (2) Custom of the Primitive Church, (3) History of the Roman Catholic Practice, (4) Progress of Reform in England, (5) Roman Catholic apologies, to which Mr. Swete furnishes the requisite answers. As we believe that there is very great ignorance, even among well educated persons, as to what are the questions at issue between the Churches, and still more as to the nature of the arguments by which our opponents uphold their views, we think Mr. Swete's book, which presents both bane and antidote in a clear, concise, and intelligible form, may be very serviceable. Mr. Swete would, we suppose, rank as a High Churchman, and we would not undertake to symbolize unreservedly with all his doctrinal statements; but we do not care to dwell on a few blemishes where there is so much deserving commendation.


The Irish Church Bill has passed through both Houses of Parliament, and before these lines are in the hands of our readers will, in all probability, have become law. Some of the provisions of the Bill have been modified in the House of Lords, and some small endowment has been thereby secured for the future Church of Ireland. But in its main features the Bill remains the same as when originally introduced into the House of Commons. The separation of Church and State is complete, and the sanction heretofore given by the State to the religious teaching of the people of Ireland is withdrawn. That work must henceforth be dependent on the voluntary efforts of its friends. We trust that they will not be wanting, and that no feelings of soreness or resentment will be allowed to interfere with the one great object of upholding the cause of Truth. Happy indeed shall we be if our anticipations of evil should be proved to be unfounded, and if the measure should be found to be attended with the happy results predicted by its supporters.

Ample are the assurances given, by those who profess to know the feelings of the Irish Roman Catholics, of the effect which the measure will have in conciliating their co-religionists towards the Imperial Government; but we are unfortunately old enough to remember similar assurances given just forty years ago, and to have seen how completely they were falsified by the experience of a few short years.

Oar relations with the United States of America remain unaltered. No attempt has been made to renew the negociations which were broken off by the rejection by the American Senate of the proposed treaty; and it seems to have been thought better to let the matter drop for a time, till men could look about in a calmer, and we hope juster, spirit. We have no other wish than that justice should be done; and if it should be decided by any impartial tribunal that any liability has been incurred by this country, the amount awarded will be cheerfullypaid. In the meantimewe are glad tosee that the conciliatory policy pursued by the new President is producing the happiest results. Virginia has agreed to the complete political enfranchisement of its coloured population, and will, we trust, with the other Southern States, soon be re-admitted within the pale of the Constitution.

The effect of the French Elections has appeared sooner than was expected. Although the number of declared opponents to the Imperial Government in the new Chamber was small, the Emperor was not likely to be blind to the fact, that they were returned by the votes of nearly half the electors, and represented the opinions of many more. He at once accepted the resignation of his Ministers, and promised considerable constitutional changes. He appears, however, to have committed the common fault of rulers in such times, of doing too much or too little. He has done enough to offend and discourage his supporters, without conciliating his opponents. The changes promised are scarcely sufficient to satisfy the friends of constitutional government, and the new Ministry is composed of men who have hitherto professed the principles, without possessing the ability, of those who preceded them.

« ZurückWeiter »