ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS.

T. S.; G. B.; J. S.; S. H.; and G. S. FABER; will be inserted.

M. A.; JUVENILIS CRITICUS; A FEMALE WELL WISHER TO THE ESTABLISHE CHURCH; COHEN; A. R.; and HISTORICUS; are under consideration.

We are greatly obliged to a correspondent for some literary intelligence from Cambridge, which came too late for insertion in this month's number. We are sorry to say, that from the same cause we have been obliged to defer the communication of T. Y. till next inonth.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. THE latter of the two passages from Paulus Diaconus, which Talib has adduced apparently for the purpose of controverting my mode of calculating the 1260 years, is cited in the third and fourth editions of my Dissertation; so that, what ever argument they may be thought to afford against my conjecture respecting the proper date of that period, it has at least been brought forward by myself. I had not indeed an opportunity of directly consulting Paulus, as I had of consulting the Novels of Justinian; I therefore gave his words, with a proper ac knowledgment, on the authority of Dr. Brett. Had I been able to procare a sight of the work itself, I should have given them more at large, as Talib has done; for the obvious reason, that his longer quotation establishes my theory far more decisively than my own does. Mine was simply, Phocas statuit sedem ecclesiæ Romanæ ut caput esset omnium ecclesiarum: each of Talib's citations adds the reason of the grant, quia eccleria Constantinopolitana primam se omnium ecclesiarum scribebat. This appears to me to constitute the important difference between the grants of Justinian and Phocas, which Talib says he cannot discover, and which I have discussed at large in my work. Justinian granted to the two patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople the titles of caput omnium ecclesiarum, and caput omnium aliarum ecclesiarum. The incompatibility of these titles might in itself shew of what nature they were: but the emperor explains his meaning very

• Christ. Observ. Jan. 1810, p. 16. CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 101.

fully, by drawing out a table of pre-
cedence as regularly as the heralds'
officer could have done, in which
the first rank in the church is as-
signed to the Roman bishop. Where-
as Phocas, as Baronius and Bright-
man rightly understand Paulus, con-
stituted Rome the head of all the
churches in direct opposition to Con-
stantinople; he took away the title
from one, as they observe, and gave
it exclusively to the other. With
respect to the title itself when thus
exclusively conferred, I can see no
very material difference between it
and that of ecumenical or universul
bishop. Cardinal Baronius, who, I
apprehend, understood the etiquette
and claims of his own court at least
as well as either Talib or myself,
considers them as synonimous, and
uses them indifferently; or rather
uses the one as explanatory of the
other: and in this he is followed by
the various writers who have treated
the subject, myself among the rest.
But, if Talib prefer the one name
to the other, I am not disposed to
contest the matter with him; though,
as far as I can understand Paulus,
I still think the gloss of the cardinal
conveys the true sense of his words;
at least it shews that Baronius gave
the sense, in which they were un-
derstood at Rome, and in which they
certainly have been understood also
by protestant writers-Phocas san-
civit, nomen Universalis decere Roma-
nam tantummodo ecclesiam, tanquam
qua caput esset omnium ecclesiarum ;
solique convenire Romano Pontifici,
non autem Episcopo Constantinopoli-
tano.

But, if I were to
stract, that so fa
concerned, the 12
2 K

grant in the abas the title was years might be

computed either from the grant of Justinian or from that of Phocas, I should neither thereby give up my own opinion, nor would Talib be any nearer establishing his. My conjecture (for after all it is only a conjecture, which if erroneous will not affect the solid body of my system) is not founded merely on the grant of Phocas, but on a very remarkable coincidence of circumstances, which I cannot deem accidental. I will say nothing of the rise of Mohammedism, and of my calculation of the number mentioned in the vision of the ram and the hegoat, because Talib may dispute the propriety of my explanation of the eastern little horn: but he seems totally to forget, that the delivering of the saints into the hand of the western horn, although a striking badge of the commencement of the 1250 years, is by no means the only one. Their commencement is to be marked, 1. by that delivering of the saints, 2. by the Gentiles beginning to tread the holy city under foot, 3. by the witnesses beginning to prophesy in sackcloth, 4. by the revival of the ten-horned beast, 5. by the flight of the woman into the wilder ness. The two first of these, I take it, are the key to all the others, which are connected and subordinate. Now the trampling of the holy city by the Gentiles is, I believe, universally understood to mean the reestablishment of Gentile demonolatry in a new form. Let Talib try if he can shew any such re-establishment at the era, whence he would compute the 1260 years. The trampling cannot mean the unauthorized and individual introduction of idolatrous superstition; because that commenced quite as early as the time of Constantine; at least neither the authorized nor the unauthorized introduction took place in the time of Justinian. The one was prior; the other was posterior: for Gibbon assures us, that the veneration of images and saints was not established even at the end of the sixth century, but fluctuated according to the humour of prelates and indivi

duals.. If then the holy city did not
begin to be trodden down of the
Gentiles in the time of Justinian,
the 1260 days cannot have com
menced then: because, according
as we understand the treading down
to be unauthorized or authorized,
the period must have commenced
either before or after the time of that
emperor. At any rate, it clearly
could not commence in his time;
because the holy city, in no sense
of the words, began to be then trod-
den down of the Gentiles. I think
however there cannot be a doubt,
that the authorized establishment of
idolatry is meant. Now this took
place in the year 607, immediately
after the grant of Phocas: whence
I was led to conjecture, that the first
year of the 1260 years was that
which began in the year 606 and
ended in the year 607. Let Talib
try if he can shew any such coinci
dence at the era when he supposes
the 1260 years to have commenced.
I am not aware, that the grant of
Justinian is marked by any similar
attendant circumstance. To this it
may be added, that the language of
Gregory the Great shews plainly,
that he had no idea that the Bishop
of Rome was either universal, or (if
Talib prefer the expression) sole
head of the churches: and, to the
best of my recollection (but I speak
from memory, and have no oppor
tunity of verifying what I say), the
council of Chalcedon offered the
title of universal bishop to the pope,
which at that time was declined. On
the whole, I see no reason for giving
up a conjecture, which is at least
probable, but which I have ever
wished to be considered only as a
conjecture not fundamentally neces
sary to my scheme of interpreta-
tion.

Another correspondent of yours, who signs himself Philo*, has also attacked my system.

1. He objects that the full of a tenth part of Babylon cannot mean the fall of the ancient French_monarchy; but must mean a separation

Christ. Observ. March 1810. p. 133,

of a tenth part from the communion of Babylon, the downfall of her empire within that district, the falling away in fact of that district from her authority; and he grounds his argument on the expression, Babylon is fallen. I should not see its cogency, even if I admitted the validity of its premises. The question is, not what France may be now, but what it was at the time of the revolution. Now at that time it certainly withdrew itself or fell away from the communion of Babylon; because it renounced popery, and set up atheism in its stead. But I do not think, that this is the proper meaning of the expression. Babylon is the whole idolatrous empire of the beast, both temporal and spiritual, comprising both the first and the second Apocalyptic beasts. When they are both overthrown, Babylon is fallen. The ten streets of the city are the ten horns of the beast. When any one of these is subverted, whether it be for a season or for ever, it is said to have also fallen. Thus Daniel speaks of three horus falling; by which he does not mean, that they fell away from the communion of Babylon, as Philo contends we must understand the falling of the tenth part of the city, but, as be clearly explains himself, that they were subverted or eradicated *. Now, if the ten streets be the ten horns, and if the falling of three of those horns mean their political subversion, I see not why the falling of the tenth part of the city may not mean its political subversion likewise. I repeat it, that the question is not what the state of France may be now, but what it was at the time of the revolution: and I contend, that one of the ten regal horus did then fall, or was overturned, whether I have rightly pplied the prophecy or not. The falling of five of the seven kings, which Philo adduces in support of his opinion, seems to me to make directly against it: for the expression falling is there used in the very

Compare Dan. vii. 8, 20, 24.

sense, in which I contend it ought to be used in the falling of the tenth part of the city. The present state of France has nothing to do with the question. A horn may fall, and rise again; or it may fall, and never rise again. The prophecy of the fall of the tenth part of the city does not specify, whether it should, or should not, be ever rebuilt. In fact, every one of the ten original horns of the beast has now fallen; but, as Sir Isaac Newton well observes, he is said from the beginning to the end of his career to have ten horns, in allusion to the original number, however that number might vary. Daniel predicts a remarkable fall of three of the horns; and John predicts a remarkable fall of another. Whether I be right in my application of their prophecies may be a matter of dispute: but their abstract meaning seems to me to be sufficiently plain. I equally and uniformly understand the fall of Babylon, the fall of the five heads, the full of the three horns, and the fall of the tenth part of the city, in the sense of subversion: and I see no reason to alter my opinion in favour of the interpretation proposed by Philo, that the full of the last means, that "one of the ten kingdoms of the beast was annihilated with respect to his power over it." Let any one apply such a plan of exposition to the other instances of falling, and he will immediately see its erroneousness. According to Philo, if he wishes to be consistent, when the three kingdoms fell, nothing more is meant than that they were annihilated with respect to the beast's power over them; and so likewise of the fall of the five kings or forms of government.

2. His objection to my exposition of the remnant being affrighted and giving praise to God, is well founded: but as I have myself antici pated it, and substituted another exposition, in the fourth edition of my work, just published, it is superfluous to say any thing more on the sub ject.

3. His third objection is founded on an exposition, which I am now persuaded is not tenable, and which I have accordingly altered in the fourth edition. In the former editions, I had followed (as I thought) the sufficient authority of Mede, Newton, and others, in understand. ing the hour, the day, the month, and the year, as mentioned in the prophecy of the Euphratean horsemen, to denote a period; and that period I accordingly supposed to mean 391 years. I am now much inclined to believe, with Dean Woodhouse, that the Greek will not bear such a meaning. At any rate I believe it ought to be translated, prepared to the very day, the hour, the month, and the year, in order that they might slay the third part of men. A remarkably precise time was fixed for the completion of the enterprize; and the reader may see with how much exactness, in Gibbon's account of the storming of Constantinople. But even if we suppose a period to be intended by the phrase, and that period to be 391 years, Philo will Redmarshall, April 5, 1810. not be the more assisted thereby. The period in that case will be the continuance of preparation, not the continuance of enterprize: it will end, when the four angels are loosed, not when the woe occasioned by them ceases; even if we are bound to adopt the opinion of Philo, that the woe and the supposed 391 years must end together. Granting that continuance is intended, the four angels are prepared during an hour, a day, a month, and a year; they are not employed in slaying the third part of men during that periodοἱ τέσσαρες αγγελοι οἱ ἡθοιμασμενοι εις την ώραν και ήμεραν και κηνα και ενιαυτον, ένα αποκλείνωσι το τρίτον των av@pwwwy. So that, any how, let the phrase be understood as it may, Philo can derive no warrant from it for maintaining that the second woe ended in 1672, after a duration of 391 years.

with the apparently interminable warfare in which I have been engaged through the medium of your valuable publication, that I am fain to exclaim, with Odin's prophetess,

Now my weary lips I close,

Leave me, leave me, to repose. But, to be serious; if I either do not answer an attack immediately, or if I see no sufficient reason to answer it at all, I must throw myself on the candour of your readers, and request them not to conclude, that my silence is owing to a conviction that the arguments brought against me are unanswerable. On this principle, I may at any rate be allowed neither to impugn nor to defend the new interpretation promised by Philo: valeat quantum valere potest. If he can throw any additional light on the difficult but interesting subject of prophecy, I trust that I shall be among the first silently to rejoice in his success. Macte nova virtute.

My time, Mr. Editor, is so much at present taken up with other matters, and I am so much fatigued

I have the honour to be, &c.
G. S. FABER

QUOTATIONS, FROM THE OLD TESTA-
MENT IN THE NEW, COLLATED WITH
THE SEPTUAGINT.

(Continued from p. 202.)
MAT. ii. 18. Doyvos, xas xxxvfuos,
na oduppos modus. PayrÀ XÀ21802
τα τεκνά αυτής και εκ ήθελε παρα
xλ9, OTI 8x 8101. —
Sept. Jer.
xxxi. 15. θρην8, και κλαυθμό, και
odupue. Paxyλ aоxhaus
ήθελε παυσασθαι επί τοις υιοίς, ότ' 8
8. The difference in meaning is
trivial. The Evangelist is rather
nearer to the Hebrew: but the va-

riation in the words sufficiently shews, that a quotation from the Septuagint was not intended.

iii. 3.......aure.-Sept. Isaiah xl. 5. 78 enμv, "of our God." The rest of the passage is exactly quoted from the Septuagint, and as exactly answers to the Hebrew. The same observation includes the paralle passage in Mark i. 3 and Luke iii. 4