proceeds, in fine, to my answers to Mr. Maitland's chief objections against the year-day.

The first of his objections was the novelty of the year-day theory. And, says Mr. Barker, "At p. 233 (of the Hora) the fact is granted for the twelve first centuries.". Really it pains me to speak so often of the inaccuracies and misrepresentations of a Christian friend. But they are such, and so constantly recurring, that I am perfectly amazed at them. At page 229 I thus write: "It is, I believe, the fact, that for the first four (not twelve) centuries, the days mentioned in Daniel's and the Apocalyptic prophecies respecting Antichrist were interpreted literally as days, not years, by the Fathers of the Christian Church." At p. 233 I say that with regard to the smaller Apocalyptic period of the 3 days (Apoc. xi. 8) patristic expositors from as early as near the close of the 4th century both applied and argued for the year-day principle: indeed that it was a principle recognized and argued on, though not with reference to Daniel or the Apocalypse, by Cyprian in the middle of the 3rd century.

Mr. M.'s second objection regarded the diversity of opinions among the year-day expositors. I retorted the charge of an equal diversity among the day-day expositors. Yes! says Mr. B. (with an encomium on the Futurists accompanying that seems a little self-complacent) "The Futurists, in virtue of their theory, can only pretend to make guesses at truth." But is there no such thing, I beg to ask, as internal evidence in the Apocalypse; on which, irrespective of other considerations about the actual fulfilment, one might as reasonably expect expositors on the Futurist and day-day view as their year-day opponents, to be agreed? Yet is there not great disagreement on these points among them.1

Mr. M.'s third argument was drawn from the curse pronounced in Apoc. xiv. 9, 10 on all that worshipped the Beast and his Image: to which my reply was that this is a voice of warning that

imin, by which that edict became, as Gibbon says, a general and fundamental law of the whole Roman world." Mr. Barker most strangely speaks of the defeat of Maximin" as an event " of little consequence." Did he wish to use terms about it, and express a sentiment, the most diametrically opposite to those used and felt by the Christians of the time?

1 Let me just add a new illustration. Dr. Zullig is, I believe, the latest of German Futurists. And among other novelties in him, I find that he makes the Woman of Apoc. xvii. Babylon the Great, sitting on the seven hills, to be Jerusalem; having searched out some seven hills, mentioned here or there in Scripture, as connected with Jerusalem. The key to his explanation on this point he seems to have found in Apoc. xi. 8, where the Witnesses are said to have fallen in "the great city;" and he was well aware that the only city called "the great city" in the Apocalypse is that mentioned in Apoc. xvii. and xviii. Babylon the Great. Assuredly he is right so far in identifying "the great city" in Apoc. xi. with that in xvii. xviii. Internal evidence requires it. But what other day-day futurist will agree with him?

has reference not to times past, but to times apparently even yet future. Mr. B. seems to admit the validity of my reply by not attempting to contravene it. But, says he; "How can Mr. E. escape from the argument of Apoc. xx. 4, they that had not worshipped the Beast and his Image,' said of the saints of the resurrection generally." He only anticipates me by the answer; "Mr. E. will say that they (i. e. such as may be saved of the professing Romanists) did not really worship the Beast." Assuredly I shall. Mr. B. says: "But surely they did." Will he have the goodness then to explain the force of the appeal, " Come out of her my people;" addrest to some of God's people in Babylon (the Beast's seat) at the very eve of her final destruction?

He further adds that the Beast must naturally be understood according to Daniel, to wear out the saints of the Most High for the whole period of the 1260 days. But Daniel most certainly does not say so. Must the day-day Futurist, to help out his scheme, force words or sentiments into Daniel's mouth which he cannot actually find there? And so too of the Gentiles of Apoc. xi. 2; 66 They shall tread (Tarσ) the Holy City forty and two months." Persecution, says Mr. B., is implied during the whole 42 months. Oppression of the truth, I admit: but not actual persecution of the saints.-As to the Beast's time of actually persecuting Christ's witnesses, it is in some sense or another defined in that notable verse Apoc. xi. 8, όταν τελέσωσι την μαρτυριαν αυτών, the "Beast from the abyss, shall make war on them;" a commencing epoch which it is for Mr. B. to reconcile with the idea of the Beast of Daniel (and of course the Apocalyptic Beast from the sea also) wearing out Christ's saints all the 1260 days of his reign, and the Gentiles persecuting Christ's saints the whole 42 months of their continuance.

And this leads me to notice the point reserved (if I remember right) in my last Letter, with reference to the internal difficulties attending the common translation of Tay Teλeσwo Apoc. xi. 7, "When the witnesses shall have finished their testimony, the Beast that ascendeth out of the abyss shall make war on them." Mr. B. at p. 45 says that "the difficulty only attaches to those who expound the whole vision symbolically," making " the Papacy to be the Beast;"" while to others the sense is clear enough." I believe I have already in this Letter proved decisively the identity of the Beast from the abyss and Beast from the sea. Indeed that simple expression in Apoc. xix. 19," And I saw the Beast (To Ongor),

1 My present distance from England has prevented my having the pages of the last Churchman's Monthly Review, which I presume contain my last Letter, in time to refer to it before sending the present Letter.

&c.," to which I have already alluded in a Note, must suffice, I should think, to convince Mr. B. on that point, if he will but consider it without prejudice. For it is incredible but that this must refer to the Beast so recently seen and described in Apoc. xvii, which is the Beast of the abyss; and Mr. B. admits that (probably from the reference to the False Prophet that wrought miracles before him, mentioned in verse 20, immediately following) that it is the same with the Beast from the sea in Apoc. xiii. This point settled, suppose, for argument's sake, that the Futurist scheme is correct, and that the Beast from the abyss and sea, instead of being the Popedom, is some future personal Antichrist, to continue 1260 literal days. Then as the Gentiles 42 months of treading down the Holy City is evidently identical with the Witnesses' 1260 days of prophesying in sackcloth, we find the facts following result from the translation of Teλer that Mr. B. contends for.

1. The Beast Antichrist's 1260 days' reign must commence at the expiration of the Witnesses' 1260 of prophesying in sackcloth; his first act being to make war on them. And the immediate result of that war is to be their slaughter. For if the war were prolonged any time, their testimony must be correspondingly prolonged, and therefore exceed the assigned 1260 days. Others of the saints may be supposed to remain after the Witnesses' death and resurrection, the subjects of the Beast's subsequent per

secutions.

2. The Gentiles' 1260 days, being the same as the Witnesses, must end with the Beast's rise and reign.

3. Thus there are two consecutive periods of 1260 days' persecution of the saints, though Daniel only mentions one.

4. As the Holy City is only to be trodden by Gentiles for 1260 days, and then evidently to be delivered from its oppression, this its oppression must end with the Beast's rise; and consequently the Beast not tread it.

5. But the Holy City (according to Mr. Barker and the Futurists) is Jerusalem; and Jerusalem is specially to be the Beast Antichrist's seat, and so to be trodden by him; and the Jewish Temple to be the very place of his worship.

6. Moreover he must make this city his seat under the very circumstance of one tenth of it falling with an earthquake on the Witnesses' ascent.

7. And the rest of the men not slain in the earthquake are at this self-same time and occasion of the Beast's opening reign "to give God glory," though it is elsewhere said that "all are to worship the Beast whose names are not in the Lamb's Book of Life."

This I think will suffice. I might add more.

And now I here end my letters of reply to Mr. Barker's Pamphlet. They involve the points that are the most characteristic and important in the Hore. The Vials I do not care to enter on: and as to my Millennial argument it is quite unnecessary to enter on it, since Mr. B. here generally agrees with me. As I see however that he has written one Letter in your Review in answer to my Reply on the Seals, and proposes to write some more on other points, I reserve to myself the right, which I suppose belongs to me as the party attacked, of sending one further Letter of rejoinder on such points as I may think it well to notice. There are many inaccuracies in his first Letter which must at any rate be observed on. And when they are rectified, it will be found, I believe, that he has not done much to affect the evidence offered in the Hora.

I am, Sir, your obedient faithful Servant,

E. B. ELLIOTT.

THE

CHURCHMAN'S MONTHLY REVIEW

AND CHRONICLE.

DECEMBER, 1847.

1 APOSTACY. A Sermon in reference to the late event at St. Paul's, Knightsbridge. Preached on the 22nd Sunday after Trinity, 1847. By the REV. WILLIAM J. E. BENNETT, M.A. Perpetual Curate. London: Cleaver. 1847.

2 A STATEMENT OF FACTS, in reply to the REV. W. J. E. BENNETT'S Sermon, in reference to a late event at St. Paul's, Knightsbridge. By ALEXANDER CHIROL, B. A. London:

Burns. 1847.

3 STRICTURES ON A SERMON ENTITLED "APOSTACY,” &c. &c. By CAUSTIC. London: Saunders. 1847.

4 A REPLY TO A STATEMENT OF FACTS MADE BY MR. ALEXANDER CHIROL, B. A., in reference to a late event at St. Paul's, Knightsbridge. By the REV. J. E. BENNETT, M.A., Perpetual Curate of St. Paul's. London: Cleaver. 1847.

In the year 1834, on the Feast of All-Saints, three or four individuals met at Oxford and drew up a prospectus or advertisement for "Tracts for the Times: " they deplored the lamentable increase of sectarianism, which they attributed to the fact of certain doctrines (held by the great divines of our Church in the 17th Century,) being withdrawn from public view. The Apostolic Succession, and the Holy Catholic Church, they said, were principles of action in the minds of our forefathers, and in those days "not