Let us only mention the discovery of the power of steam. Let us only think of the difference of time, in a journey from Dublin to Manchester now and twenty years ago. Let us think of a proposal, to send the mail from Liverpool to London in twenty minutes, and then say, what may not yet be done in three and a-half years. Truly, if we are convinced, as I am, that there is no scriptural warrant for supposing that days mean years; we are too ignorant of the powers which the Lord may employ, to hesitate, because we do not know how the circumstances can be brought about in the time.

Mr. Faber notices the contents of the whole period viewed collectively, and in so doing he mentions four powers, which he says, all of them continue during this period of 1260 days. 1st,-the little horn of Daniel's fourth wild beast. 2dly, the Apocalyptic ten horned wild beast which he says, is plainly identical with Daniel's fourth wild beast, when viewed as having absorbed its three predecessors. 3dly,-the Apocalyptic two horned wild beast. 4thly,-the Apocalyptic harlot. Now, I would remark, that the Scripture does not connect these two last, with the period of 1260 days. It does not say how long these are to continue, and therefore, whatever is to be done by them, should never be reckoned among those things which it is difficult to conceive as being done 1260 days. The inaccuracy is of no consequence, with regard to the two horned wild beast; but I think it a very serious inaccuracy, with regard to the Apocalyptic harlot. We have no doubt, that the apostacy of the Church of Rome must have its place in the book of Revelations, though we feel assured, that much of the error that has been held by Protestants in their interpretation of that book, has arisen from their determination to see Popery in every thing. It did not satisfy them, that the harlot represented an idolatrous church; but with many, the very beast that was to be used for her destruction, was Popery still. But it is to be remarked, notwithstanding the assertion of Mr. Faber, that "during the lapse of this very same period, the Apocalyptic harlot who rides the ten horned wild beast extends her influence over peoples," &c, notwithstanding this assertion, in the chapter in which the harlot is mentioned, there is not a word said of the time of her rise, or the time of her fall, or the length of her continuance. She is not identified with the 1260 days; she is represented indeed, as sitting in that period of her history, to which the vision relates, upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns, so similar to the beast in chap. xiii, that there is much reason to suppose it to be the very same. It is to be considered, that the vision is not a vision of the the rise and continuance of this harlot, but of the judgment of the great harlot, that sitteth upon many waters, with whom the king's of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. It is at the time of her judgment, that she is represented as sitting upon this beast, and preparatory to her judgment. She had, long before this, made the nátions drunk with the wine of her fornication; now, when nearly ripe for judgment, she is seen in connection with this beast, which first upholds her, and then "shall hate the whore, and make her desolate, and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire." There is no ground for taking exception against the idea of 1260 days being literal days, from the fact that the apostate church has lasted a much longer period of years. The Scripture has not connected the harlot with the period in question, except, that, at the time of her judgment, she is seen sitting upon that beast, who is to be the instrument of her destruction, and who, seeming to be raised

up for a particular purpose at the end of the great drama of the world; has that period assigned for his continuance, which is marked out for the continuance of other great actors at the close of the world's scene.

The last argument which Mr. Faber uses is a most important one, if he could only sustain it by the facts of the case. But if I shall be able to prove that he has entirely failed in it, and that it is not capable of being sustained by the facts, then I shall have done much to prove that his whole theory is without foundation. His argument is this: "The point is finally decided by the accurate and unambiguous specification of the time, about which the 1260 days are described as commencing." Now, with great respect to Mr. Faber, I maintain, and shall proceed to shew, that Scripture has not in the most accurate and unambiguous way specified the time about which the 1260 days are to commence, but further, has not in any way given a hint as to the time. I have, with this opinion in view, read attentively the passages in which this period is mentioned, and in none of them can I find the least trace of any thing to fix the time of the commencement of this important period. No commentator, that I am aware of, has ever asserted, that there is in the book of Revelations any specification as to the time at which the 1260 days must commence. Mr. Faber, indeed, asserts, that the time of the commencement of the three times and a-half of the little horn of Daniel is fixed, and that is the assertion that I now proceed to consider, and I think I shall prove it to be so entirely without foundation, that it must be a matter of surprise, that it should ever have been made. I shall give Mr. Faber's words: "Now, the gradual rise of the little horn or kingdom, and this its synchronization is clearly established by the fact of the first horns being plucked up before it, which would never have occurred, unless the little horn and the ten first horns had been contemporaneous." Now, I cannot discover the force of this argument. I cannot understand why it could not have occurred, that the little horn should not have plucked up three of the ten horns, unless they were contemporaneous in their commencement. I cannot discover why the little horn should not pluck up three of the ten horns, though it rose ten or fifteen centuries after those ten horns, provided only that it arose at some time during the existence of those horns. How this can prove the synchronization of their commencement, I am utterly at a loss to imagine. I rather think that I may add, that all your readers who pay the least attention to the argument, will agree, that it fails entirely to prove it. It only proves, that the little horn must arise during the period, in which the Roman empire is divided into ten horns. But the Roman empire divided into ten kingdoms, will continue to the end therefore, this only proves, that the little horn must arise three and a-half times before the end; but as to the period of its commencement it says nothing. But by the text of Daniel, rightly translated, as it is in our authorised verson, it can be proved that the rise of the little horn does not synchronize with the division of the Roman empire into ten horns, or kingdoms. It is said of this horn, Dan. vii. 24. "And another shall rise after them." If this is the right translation of the original text, it destroys Mr. Faber's synchronism, which is the sole prop of his argument, by which he would prove the necessity of the 1260 days, meaning 1260 years. He gives, indeed, as the meaning of the place, that the little horn springs up by stealth behind the ten horns. Mr. Faber has great names to countenance him in this interpretation, amongst others, J. Mede, and Bishop Newton; and it is with much hesitation, and after much consideration, that I venture to oppose such authorities. I feel, however, that there is the less presumption in dissenting on this point from such emi

VOL. XI,

nent men, because they upheld this interpretation for the purposes of supporting their theory. It was not the unprejudiced decision of their great and learned minds. It must be admitted on both sides, that the Hebrew word "acharihem," as applicable to either time or space, means after in time, or behind in space. The question is, what is its meaning in the text of Daniel? I would remark, that this is a chronological prophecy, and that alone would make it more probable, that the word was to be taken as a mark of time. Daniel frequently uses the word in his prophecy as relating to time; and as far as I can learn, without reading the whole of his prophecy over in the original, he never uses it as a mark of place. I shall put down some places in which he uses the same root. "What should come to pass hereafter"-(ii. 29). "I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation”—(viii. 19). "Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befal thy people in the latter days"-(x. 14). "And not to his posterity”—(xi. 4).

In these places the same root is used to signify the days, or the people that come after in time. In all the different English versions of the Bible, it has been translated as relating to time. The argument then, stands thus ; if we admit the propriety of translating the word "behind," still there is no proof that the little horn commenced synchronically with the division of the Roman empire; and if the word is rightly translated "after," there is a proof that the little horn does not synchronise with the division of the empire, but is subsequent to it. What becomes then of the assertion of Mr. F.? "Therefore, in point of chronology, the 1260 days cannot have commenced much later than the close of the sixth century, when, accord. ing to the testimony of history, both the ten larger kingdoms, and the synchronical little kingdom, had now started into existence."

When the proof of the synchronism fails, the whole argument or assertion falls with it to the ground. There appears then to be nothing in Scripture connected with the commencement of the 1260 days. at a period long past, which forces us to conclude that they have a longer period for their continuance than natural days. As far as any thing is to be found in Scripture as to the chronology of their commencement, they may have begun but a short time back, may be only now beginning, or may be yet future. Mr. Faber, indeed, having, as I have shown, without Scripture authority, connected in time the division of the Roman empire, and the rise of the little horn, laughs at the idea that these can be still future. He says, "The only mode in which this chronological argument can be evaded, is by an assertion, that the rise both of the ten horns and of the little horn, is still future. But this is such a mere evasion, that it is absolutely beneath criticism."

I can tell him another way in which it can be (not evaded, but) answered and overthrown; simply to deny and to disprove, as I have done, the synchronization of the rise of the ten horns, and the little horn. This destroys his whole case. I believe the ten horns to have arisen long since ; but I doubt much that the little horn has yet risen. I cannot learn any one power, into whose hands the saints have been given during 1260 years-let those years be counted from whatever period they may. I do not see that the saints, the believing people of God in England, have been given into the hands of any hostile power for between two and three centuries. On the contrary, they have declared, during that time, that no foreign prince, power, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction over them. Mr. Faber, indeed, laughs at the idea of the things predicted to happen in the 1260 days being yet future. I can only say, that whereas

I never beard or saw any explanation of any one of the series of events predicted to take place during that period, that was at all satisfactory, that did not, on the contrary, carry to my mind, and force upon me a conviction, that it was not borne out by facts; I can sometimes, while reading those very interesting portions of Scripture, as describing things yet future, catch some glimpses of future providences, not at variance with the analogy of Scripture. Let us take, for example, the prophecy of the two witnesses; I have considered the widely different theories upon them, put forward by different commentators; I could see no probability in any of them. I have conversed with some of the authors of these theories, and they have expressed their own want of satisfaction in their own systems, though preferring them to any other put forward by their neighbours. But let us try what can be made of it, on the supposition that it is yet future. Would it not be according to the analogy of Scripture, that as at the first advent of the Lord Jesus, there was one sent to prepare his way, so there might be either literally two witnesses, or a competent number to prepare. the way of the Lord, previous to his second advent? I shall not plead for an opinion early held in the church, that Enoch and Elias shall be the two witnesses, and shall personally come to preach the second advent of the Messiah. But, I would ask, is it not necessary that there should be some such extraordinary testimony, previous to the second coming of Christ, in order to fulfil that prophecy of Malachi, iv. 5,-" Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord, and he shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." I know that there are some persons who will say that this has all been fulfilled in the person of John the Baptist; but I am sure that those most acquainted with prophetical subjects, will admit, that it relates to the second coming even more than to the first advent of Jesus, particularly when we consider the answer of the Lord to his disciples, who asked him, saying, (Matt. xvii. 10,)" Why say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, that Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Then the disciples understood that he spoke unto them of John the Baptist." Here our Lord plainly says, that in a certain sense Elias had come, in the person of John, but in another sense, that he was also yet to come, and to restore all things, which certainly John had not done. If we look to the particulars predicted of the witnesses, we shall be struck with a great resemblance to Elias and his partial antitype John; they are to prophecy, clothed in sackcloth, as John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins. Their preaching would be like his "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." "If any man hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth." So said Elijah to the captain and his fifty, (1 Kings xvii. 1,)-"As the Lord God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word." And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and overcome them, and kill them." So when John had borne a faithful testimony in his day, Herod, the persecuting power of those times, laid his hand upon him and killed him. These are not accidental coincidences, but important, intentional points of agreement, which lead me to think that the two witnesses may probably be found to be persons who, in the latter days, shall go before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elias

It

whose ministry and testimony may last three and a-half literal years. seems to me likely that Jerusalem and the Holy Land, where our Lord was crucified, may be the peculiar scene of their ministry, and the place of their death, where there will be gathered, on that eventful period, Jews out of every kindred, tongue, and people-Jews, and, it may be, Gentiles also, out of more nations and of more languages than were collected together at the feast of Pentecost after the Lord's ascension. "And they that dwell (not upon the earth, but) upon the land, shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another, because these two prophets tormented them that dwell upon the land." After three and a half days, (a sufficient time to prove that they were really dead) the Spirit of God shall enter into them, and they shall be literally raised; they shall really experience that which Herod thought had happened to John, and then they shall be literally taken up into heaven. The Lord will thus act before the world on a small scale, in the persons of these two witnesses, that which they preached that Jesus would do for all his saints, when he should "descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first: and then we that are alive and remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we be ever with the Lord."

I do not give this interpretation with an expression of assurance that this is positively the meaning of the prophecy, but only that it appears to me to be more probable than any interpretation given of the witnesses on the hypothesis of the 1260 days meaning 1260 years; and that it completely answers the objection that any interpretation of the prophecy on the hypothesis of natural days must be absurd.

I have seen an answer to my former paper, by a very valued friend of mine in the Christian Herald; it would be out of place to reply to all its particulars in this article, which has already been extended to too great a length. There are many things adduced as arguments, which appear to me to have no force the strongest point is, when at the close of his paper he expresses himself satisfied with the general interpretation of many of the predictions in the Apocalypse. In answer, I have just to say, that with every one of the instances of interpretation, on the principle of days for years, which my friend adduces, I feel entirely dissatisfied. Whilst he argues from them that the principle is sound, I have been led by them to feel a conviction that the principle is unsound. So differently do the same things strike different minds. I feel a great necessity for any one engaged in controversy, to have an especial guard over his spirit, and to be very jealous of the state of his mind. I hope I exercise some of this watchful jealousy over myself, and that it is not through the power of prejudice that I have been confirmed in my sentiments by Mr. Faber's paper. I have seen more clearly than ever, that positions incapable of proof are required for the foundation of the system. I would presume to caution my readers against taking for granted, without examination, that the foundations of popular opinions in prophecy are really sound and defensible.. I would admonish those who wish their edifice to be firm, to examine the corner stone: there is really need to do so, when we see such a man as Mr. Faber resting securely his system of 1260 years upon the synchronization of the rise of the little horn, and the division of the Roman empire, as one corner stone of his building. It is not surprising, in a world where there is so little independence of mind, where so few give themselves the trouble of thinking for themselves, that