behind him the surest testimonies), gave us reason to hope the best things from his paternal counsel and support: but since his most worthy successor stands completely blessed and adorned with all the virtues and advantages of his great predecessor, why should we doubt but he will abundantly make up the loss we have sustained; and by by your painful labours and endea vours bring many souls, both in the Christian and Pagan world, to eternal happiness, and at length crown you all with an everlasting reward in heaven! " (To be continued.) (Continued from p. 12.) II. In reply to the second pamphlet of Anonymous, I shall notice such passages in it as appear to me to require an answer *. It is written with the same liberal and excellent spirit as the former one, and there fore on that account alone would deserve attention, even if the author could not claim it on the score of his talents, which is far from being the case: yet his second pamphlet is in a considerable degree a repeti. tion of his former one. his ghostly counsels, and pastoral To the Editor of the Christian Observer. admonitions and encouragements, feed and cherish our little Indian church in this her infant state. "For my own part, I must acknowledge, from a lively experience and an inward conviction founded on the promises of God, that to me there is an appearance of a mighty harvest amongst these pagans, and that great numbers of them might, even in our days, be gained over to a true conversion by the ministry of the word, if Christians, who have the means of salyation put into their hands, would use their best endeavours, and exert that diligence, that zeal and vigour, that is necessary for bringing about so glorious, so desirable an end. I have wholly devoted myself to this work, and will, by the divine grace strengthening me, go on still to devote myself. "In this sure hope of the conver, sion of the Gentiles, I leave Europe, to return to the Indies again, imploring the Divine Majesty, that he would be graciously pleased to conduct me safe thither, through all the perils of the deep, and to direct and prosper my endeavours of guiding many souls to salvation. I promise myself, gentlemen, your prayers and assistance in this work, commending myself and fellow-labourers to your wonted favour and protection. May Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the whole world (the knowledge of whom you study to diffuse throughout the universe), assist you always by his Spirit, strengthen your minds by his divine power, unite you by the bond of mutual charity, render all your deliberations effectual, and 1. Anonymous thinks with me, that the 1260 years have not yet expired; but he adopts Mr. Mede's arrangement of the vials, by which the seventh vial is made exclusively to synchronize with the seventh trumpet, and consequently the six former vials to precede the seventh trumpet. By this arrangement he is enabled, without rejecting my proposed dates, to consider the slaughter of the witnesses and the fall of the tenth part of the city as yet future. With respect to my own arrangement, which makes the blast of the seventh trumpet usher in all the seven vials, I had in part argued as follows: "The temple of God is opened in consequence of the sounding of the seventh trumpet: the temple of God is said, in precisely the same phraseology, to be opened immediately before the effusion of the vials+: no other opening of the temple is mentioned, nor is there *A Supplement to Remarks on some Parts of Mr. Faber's Dissertation. Hatchard. + Compare Rev. xi. 15, 19, with Rev. xv. 5, 6, 7, 8. xvi. 1. any intimation given that it was shut and opened again: therefore, since this one and the same opening succeeds the first blast of the seventh trumpet, and precedes the effusion of all the vials, the seventh trumpet must begin to sound before any one of the vials is poured out; whence the seventh trumpet cannot be posterior to six of the vials, synchronizing only with the seventh." In reply to this, Anonymous urges, that various openings of the temple are mentioned in the Revelation as occurring at various times: whence the two openings, which I deem one and the same, may be different and not synchronical. On turning to his references, I do not find, that in any one of them mention is made of the temple being opened: the only two passages where that is specified, are those which I had cited, and which I considered (and, I think, justly) as relating to one and the same opening. In all the places to which Anonymous refers, an internal view of heaven, not of the temple, is presented to the imagination of St. John*. "Yes," but says Anonymous, "the temple and heaven are synonymous terms;" and he quotes the authority of Sir I. Newton for his opinion. He argues, that, since such things as were placed within the temple were seen by the prophet when heaven was opened to his view- namely, the cherubim, the altar of incense, and the candlestick-the opening of heaven must have been the opening of the temple: therefore the opening of the temple is mentioned elsewhere than in Rev. xi. 19, and xv. 5. That heaven is described by St. John with imagery drawn from the temple, after the manner of Isaiah and Ezekiel, is sufficiently clear: but this is very far from proving the point which Anonymous would establish. Had the design of the prophet been such as this writer ascribes to him, he would have arranged the temple-furniture in the interior of his visionary heaven with perfect accuracy: but this a See Rev. iv, and viii. is not the case. Anonymous maintains, that St. John, under the terms heaven and the temple, speaks of only one and the same object as being presented to his imagination; because the cherubim, the sevenbranched candlestick, and the altar of incense, which were placed in the interior of the temple, are said to be likewise in the interior of heaven. Whatever value this argument may be of, it is one of those which will equally prove either side of the question. For example, St. John tells us, that the sea of glass, which Anonymous rightly judges to be the brazen sea of Solomon, was in the interior of his heaven, immediately before the throne, the cherubim, and the candlestick: but the brazen sea was not in the interior of the temple: therefore neither can the throne, the cherubim, and the candlestick, which St. John evidently fixes to the same place as the sea, be in the interior of his temple: consequently the heaven, which he saw, must have been a different object from the temple which he saw. If Anonymous claims to argue, that the visionary heaven of St. John must be the same object as his visionary temple, because each contained the cherubim, the candlestick, and the altar of incense; I have just as good a right to argue, that they are not the same object, because the sea which occupies the interior of his heaven, did not occupy the interior of Solomon's temple. The arguments of Anonymous, which I have wondered to see used by Sir I. Newton, does in fact prove neither side of the question. What St. John did really see in his vision must be gathered by another process, for it assuredly cannot by this. My own idea of the matter is, that he first beheld an aperture in, the sky, through which he was suddenly rapt by the Spirit. Having passed the aperture, he saw heaven spread before him, exhibiting most probably the appearance of a convolution of clouds, as painters usually depict it. Immediately at Compare Rev. xiv. 6, 14—18. his feet flowed the sea of glass; and, beyond the sea, the throne, the cherubim, the candlestick, and the altar, were presented to his imagination: while in the back-ground arose the shadowy fabrick of the temple. That such was the perspective, is, I think, sufficiently clear from the language used by the prophet, which can in no wise be reconciled with the theory of Anonymous. Each time, when he speaks of the opening of the temple, he calls it the temple in heaven. Now, supposing heaven and the temple to be different objects presented to his view, such language is perfectly intelligible: but, if they be one and the same object, as Anonymous maintains, I confess myself quite unable to understand the prophet's phraseology. According to my interpretation, I can form a clear idea of St. John's view of the temple in heaven: but, what he can mean by the temple in heaven according to the gloss of Anonymous, that is to say, the temple in the temple, I must devolve to that writer the task of explaining. The prophet tells us, that he saw the throne, the cherubim, the altar, the candlestick, the elders, and the temple, all equally in heaven now, why one of these visionary objects should be identified with the heaven, which alike contains them all, rather than another, I cannot conceive. On the whole, I shall be bold to say, that my argument for arranging all the seven vials under the seventh trumpet still remains in full force. But, were it otherwise, Anonymous would still have another difficulty to enSt. John expressly calls the seven vials, taken collectively, by the name of the seven LAST plagues *. Such being the case, they must be last with respect to certain other plagues likewise taken collectively. But the only plagues, to which they can be thus referred, are the septenary of the trumpets. Now, according to the arrangement of Anonymous, the seven vials, taken collec counter. * Rev, xv. 1. tively, as the prophet classes them, are not the last plagues. In his arrangement, the last trumpet and the last vial are the only last plagues. The six former vials cannot be called the last with respect to any collection of plagues already mentioned, because they precede the seventh trumpet. Anonymous separates the seventh vial from the six: but John classes them together as forming one series. In short, instead of taking septenary by septenary, and of following in the case of the vials the analogy of the allowed arrangement of the trumpets, the series is suddenly and violently dislocated. The seventh seal introduces the seven trumpets. What then? Why, the seventh trumpet similarly introduces the seven vials, would any person naturally suppose. No, says Anonymous, nothing of the sort: the seventh seal may introduce the seven trumpets; but assuredly the six first vials are poured out before the sounding of the seventh trumpet, and then the seventh trumpet and the seventh vial commence together. I see no reason to give up one tittle of my original opinion. 2. Anonymous further objects to the mode, in which 1 interpret the death of the witnesses: partly, because that death must (he contends) be the universal death of the whole collective body designated by the term witnesses; partly because they could not be deemed to be about to finish their testimony at the period to which I assign their figurative death; and partly, because they did not ascend to heaven by obtaining an establishment, but were only tolerated. (1.) Under the first objection he urges, that at the very time when I suppose them to be slain in Germany, they obtained an establishment in England. This would doubtless be an objection, if I had ever maintained the death of the witnesses to be the universal death of the body: but this is the very point in question, which yet is palpably begged by him. He does not seem to be aware that his objection no furnishes an answer to itself. If he contends, that the whole collective body of witnesses must be slain in order to accomplish the prophecy, he must likewise contend that the same whole collective body (without any exceptions in either case) must prophesy in sackcloth during the full term of 1260 years: but by his own acknowledgment, they ceased thus to prophesy in England, not to mention other countries, at my era of the war, and therefore before the expiration of the 1260 years: hence it is plain, that, whenever those years shall expire, the whole collective body of witnesses will not have prophesied in sackcloth during the full term: but, if the whole collectire body be not spoken of in their sackcloth prophesying, I see reason why we are bound to suppose that the whole collective body is spoken of in their death. Analogy requires the same mode of interpretation in both cases: before therefore Anonymous establishes the universality of the death of the witnesses, I shall expect him to establish the universality of their sackcloth ministry (without any exception, let him observe) during the entire term of the 1260 years. had myself argued as follows: The death of the witnesses takes place, not throughout the whole of the great city, but only in the broad or principal street of it. Therefore it cannot be an universal death, but must be a particular one. Hence the witnesses may be exempt from persecution elsewhere, though they are slain in that one street. On this principle, namely the non-universality of the death of the witnesses, which seems to me necessarily to result both from the present argument and from the analogy afforded by the preceding one, I framed my interpretation. Now it is a somewhat singular thing, that Anonymous fully allows my premises, and yet denies the obvious conclusion to be drawn from them. Like me, he asserts that the whole affair of the death and resurrection of the witnesses is to take place solely in one particular street of the great city; but he contends, nevertheless, that their death is to be universal. On this foundation, he builds the following exposition. The universal death of the witnesses is to occur at the close of the 1260 years, which are not yet expired; there. fore this universal death is still future. In order to be universally slain, the whole collective body of the witnesses is to be gathered together into one particular broad street of the Roman city: and this street is conjectured to be England. When they have there lain dead three natural years and a half, they are to rise from the symbolical death of total suppression, and are to ascend into the mystic heaven of triumphant establishment. To adopt this opinion, nothing more is required of us than to admit such particulars as these. Towards the close of the 1260 years all the witnesses from all quarters of the world are to assemble together in England, as the birds and beasts once flocked by a certain divine instinct into Noah's ark. None are to be absent; because, says Anonymous, the prophecy cannot be accomplished except in the suppresIsion of "the protestant church general." At this period, therefore, they are to congregate into England with one consent from all the numerous British colonies; not only from all the British colonies, but from Sweden, Denmark, Holland, and the various protestant regions of the continent; not only from the various protestant regions of Europe, but from the widely extended domains of the united American states. Nothing is to prevent the universality of this stupendous pilgrimage; because the prophecy cannot be accomplished except by the death of the whole collective body of witnesses, of "the protestant church general," says Anonymous; and this death is to occur in only one street of the great city; and that one street is England. As we live in an age of wonders, I shall not presume to discuss the possibi lity of these marvellous events; but Anonymous must allow me to suspend my belief, until I become a convert to the stubbornness of absolute facts. But these are not the only difficulties which we are required to encounter. If the papal Roman empire be the great city, and if England (agreeably to the prophetic injunction) be come out of that city; it is passing hard to conceive, how it can still be, not only a street of the papal empire, but the broad street, so called in contradiction to sinaller streets or alleys. In a map of the western Roman empire, England would, to be sure, be geographically included within its limits; but, when we consider that throughout the Apocalypse the great city is obviously spoken of in reference to a corrupt religion, and that the faithful are exhorted to come out from her, it is not easy to believe that a kingdom, which in the judgment of Anonymous himself, has come out of her, is still the principal street of her empire. Anonymous has thrown away much criticism on the word πλατεία. I never asserted, nor thought of asserting, that it denoted a forum, in the same manner that ayopa does; that is to say, in a, translation verbum de verbo. I only said, that it denotes a broad or principal street; and, since the definite phraseology of the prophet (THE Tλareas) requires us to conclude that there was only one such street in his figurative city, I argued, that most probably the great square or forum was intended: but, when I was simply performing the function of a translator, I of course rendered the word, not the forum, but the broad street. If Anonymous chooses to suppose any other large street rather than the forum, my interpretation will be just the same; provided he acknowledges, that there is only one such street in the city. I shall finish this head with briefly observing, that the jut of the whole argument between us is the universality or particularity of the death of the witnesses. If Anonymous can prove the universality against the foregoing arguments, he will indeed overturn my exposition, but he will not thereby establish his own. (2.) His second objection I have answered again and again usque ad nauseam. At present, therefore, I shall only remark, that, even if my answer be deemed insufficient, my interpretation may still remain firm. We are not bound to translate av two either when they shall have finished or when they shall be about to finish. As Dr. More remarks, it may as well be rendered while they are performing, or during the time that they are discharging. Such a translation will at once remove any chro nological difficulty, if indeed one do really exist. (3.) To his third wholly unfounded objection, Anonymous will find a reply from Dr. Robertson, if he will turn to my Dissertation itself, vol. ii. p. 89-92. 4th edit. 3. There is one more point in the pamphlet of Anonymous, which it may be expedient to notice: be endeavours to prove, contrary to the general opinion of expositors, that the beast and false prophet are slain at the battle of Armageddon precisely at the end of the 1260 years, and consequently that that period does not terminate at the commencement of the seventh vial, but at its conclusion. To this idea the following is a sufficient answer. The restoration of the Jews, as all commentators allow, commences certainly not before the end of the 1260 years. Some think it commences precisely at the end; and some, a short period after, the end: but, with good reason, none place it before the end. Now the prophets unanimously place the destruction of Antichrist in Palestine, where the returning Jews have already arrived: therefore Antichrist must perish at the least so long after the end of the 1260 years as would be required for the Jews to be collected into Palestine; and consequently he does not perish precisely at their end. Having now, I believe, answered |