Page images
PDF
EPUB

1335, commencing from 1865, runs on to 3200 A.D. Why the 1290 years' period should be placed first in chronology, when in Daniel's prophetic statements it stands second; and why it should be dissociated altogether from the 1335 years' period, when in Daniel it seems to be so directly and closely associated with it,— are further questions which of course will suggest themselves to the reflective reader. But with them I am not at present concerned.

With regard to what Mr. F. adds respecting other inaccuracies of statement in the notices of his prophetic scheme given in my first edition, and the apology offered by me for them, I too must beg to add a word. Hearing of his complaint on this head against me, I drew up and sent him a list of all the places in which I could find that he had been quoted or referred to in that edition of the Hora. The number was between sixty and seventy; and out of these Mr. Faber wrote me back that there were inaccuracies

Of

in, I think, seven. One or two were inaccuracies in trifles. the remainder the most important were, as I remember, the three following:-1. that on the sixth Trumpet I alluded to him as not making the loosing of the four angels from the Euphrates synchronize in date with that of the sixth Trumpet's sounding, or of the commencement of the hour and day and month and year period, whereas in reality he does make those epochs synchronize;— 2. that in regard of the Beast I spoke of him as making its seventh head to be the Latin empire begun by Charlemagne, whereas he explains it of Napoleon's empire;-and 3. that in stating him to make the Beast's image mean the images of the saints throughout Papal Christendom, I did not add, as I ought, that he explains the genitive in that phrase, the Beast's image, to signify simply that the images were the property of the Beast, not his likeness or representation. Mr. Faber speaks, in his Note, of the "absurdities" thus liberally but unjustly ascribed to him. Absurdities is a word that I should not have wished to use with reference to such opinions of Mr. Faber's as I might deem erroneous. But certainly I think that in all these three cases the correction detracts as little from the unreasonableness of his interpretation as in the case of that of Daniel's three periods first referred to. It was my original purpose, I may observe, to have noted in my second edition on each occasion the inaccuracy I had fallen into in my first. But when I considered that the more accurate version of Mr. F.'s opinions had still to be objected to by me, just as before, it seemed scarcely worth the while: nor did my second Preface, or my general notice of Mr. Faber's Exposition, at the close of my History of Apocalyptic Interpretation, vol. iv. p. 475,

appear to me, under those circumstances, to furnish a better opportunity. Besides which Mr. Faber had himself, in his last publication on prophecy, proclaimed aloud the inaccuracies, and so rendered any such intention on my part less necessary. Hence the tacit correction of them in my second edition of which his Note complains.

In conclusion let me be permitted to say, though by no means wishing to defend any of my incorrectnesses, yet that I think the multitude of the references made in my work, amounting as they do to many thousands, and its weight and press of matter, might fairly seem to a kind and candid reader to furnish a claim on his indulgence, in the case of inaccuracies on points of less moment cursorily glanced at; especially under the circumstance mentioned by me to Mr. Faber, of the author having been frequently called away from his books, during both its composition and its printing, by heavy family afflictions. "Humanum est errare." Almost at the same time that Mr. Faber's complaint of my having misrepresented him was brought under my notice, I was also led to notice a very serious misrepresentation of myself made by Dr. Candlish in his Pamphlet: even as if I had all but violated good faith in connecting together two extracts from King Edward's Catechism, as speaking of one and the same Church: whereas an intervening extract showed that the Church of the latter was quite different from that of the former. It needs but to mark the language of the intervening extract, given in Dr. C.'s own Pamphlet, to see that the mistake is altogether with him, not me. The inadvertence on his part is the more remarkable, as the whole tone nearly of his Pamphlet, as well as the whole character of the man, is good evidence that it was with no mere professed and mock sorrow, but with real sorrow of feeling, that he made the charge.

But I am occupying more of your space than I intended, and must conclude. I am, Sir, with much respect, yours faithfully, Lausanne, Oct. 31, 1846. E. B. ELLIOTT.

1 Mark the words in the intervening extract; "Canst thou yet further depaint me out that congregation which thou callest a kingdom or commonweal of Christians." Is it possible that such language can mean any other than the "cougregation," called by the writer also "a kingdom and holy commonwealth," in the preceding extract; that is, in my first extract?

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHURCHMAN'S MONTHLY REVIEW. DEAR SIR,-I feel not a little flattered by your kind mentioning of me in your review of Mr. Close's Lectures on the Second Advent.

You say: "Here comes in the one error of Mr. Faber (recently "adverted to), by which he mistakenly passes the protestant "boundary, and proposes" (namely, as the Rule of Faith) "Scrip"ture as interpreted by the early Fathers."

And you subsequently describe me, as "holding, that Scripture "alone is insufficient, and that we must have the recorded consent "of Primitive Antiquity before we can maintain any doctrine."

The Italics of one error and alone have been employed by yourself. Hence, since no more than one error is ascribed to me, though certainly a very grave one, inasmuch as you exhibit it to consist in denying Scripture to be the alone Rule of Faith, you will not wonder at my feeling the personal necessity of DISAVOW

ING that one error.

I have so often and so fully explained my real principle, that I will not undertake the apparently hopeless labour of going through the same task again. It is sufficient to say that I deem Holy Scripture the SOLE Rule of Faith. Whence, of course I do NOT propose, under the aspect of a COMPOUND Rule of Faith, "Scrip"ture as interpreted by the early Fathers:" and still less do I hold, or did I ever hold, that "Scripture alone is insufficient," and that "we must have the recorded consent of Primitive Antiquity "before we can maintain any doctrine."

In full accordance with my repeated explanations in the course of several years, I EXPLICITLY DENY, that I maintain, or ever did maintain, the one error which you ascribe to me.

Scripture is our SOLE binding Rule of Faith: but we cannot, I suppose, use it as such, unless we annex some definite ideas to its language; or, in other words, unless we interpret it. All that I have ever done, through sundry different Works (as, indeed, their very titles imply), is, through the concurring TESTIMONY of the ancient Creeds and the earliest Fathers, to ascertain, as far as I could ascertain, the sense in which the Primitive Church universally understood Doctrinal Scripture: that is to say, all which I ever did was to essay the establishment of a NAKED HISTORICAL FACT. When that FACT was ascertained, I freely left the use of it to the discretion of my readers. If you think the interpretation of any modern writers better than the interpretation of the Primitive Church, I have no quarrel with you. Every one to their taste.

I would simply say, that some interpretation, whether ancient or modern, we MUST have: for, if we read our Rule of Faith without annexing any ideas to it, it is practically no Rule of Faith to us; we might just as well read so many sentences of a language which we do not understand. Even if I had ever maintained the error which you ascribe to me, you certainly would be liable to the retort courteous: "A very able writer in the Churchman's Monthly "Review falls into the error of proposing, for our Rule of Faith, not Scripture simply, but Scripture as interpreted by himself." And again our talented reviewer maintains: that "Scripture "alone is insufficient," and, consequently, that "we must have "the recorded consent of himself and other moderns who agree "with him before we can maintain any doctrine."

[ocr errors]

In justice to Mr. Close, I would remark in parting, that the argument, which you adduce from Chillingworth, leaves the true import of the millennian prophecy where it found it; though, doubtless, that gentleman's assertion touching the universal judgment of the Church is erroneous. Since the prophecy is as yet unfulfilled, the Primitive Church, unless by a special revelation from heaven (which, I believe, is not pretended), could pronounce upon the true import of the prophecy with not a whit more certainty than the Church of the fifteenth century. It is of considerable importance to ascertain the universal judgment of the Primitive Church touching the import of DOCTRINAL SCRIPTURE: but it is of no use at all to ascertain the OPINION of that Church touching the import of an UNFULFILLED PROPHECY.

Sherburn-House, Nov. 6, 1846.

G. S. FABER.

[Mr. Faber, in his Primitive Doctrine of Justification, 2nd ed. p. 362, says, Qualify yourselves, by a diligent study of Primitive Antiquity, to decide what are really the doctrines taught in the Bible, and then exercise your right of judgment," &c. And again, p. 365,-" In the settlement of Articles of Faith on the authority of Scripture the only rule, the Principle of the Anglican Church is that of an Appeal to the recorded consent of Primitive Antiquity from the very beginning."-EDIT. C. M. R.]

THE

CHURCHMAN'S MONTHLY REVIEW

AND CHRONICLE.

DECEMBER, 1846.

THE DOMESTIC LITURGY AND FAMILY CHAPLAIN. In Two Parts: the first Part being Church Services, adapted for Domestic Use, with Prayers for every Day of the Week; selected exclusively from the Book of Common Prayer. The Second Part comprising an Appropriate Sermon for every Sunday in the Year. By the Rev. THOMAS DALE, M.A., Canon Residentiary of St. Paul's, and Vicar of St. Bride's. London: Longmans. 1846.

THIS useful work has now been some time before the public, and must, we presume, have met with a favourable reception. We should be sorry, however, to allow the year to close, without giving it a place among our brief notices. More will not be required. The object of the work is one of acknowledged importance, and it will not be supposed that we shall have any material fault to find with a volume which has attached to it the respectable name of Mr. Dale. We shall therefore simply give an outline of Mr. D.'s preface, in explanation of the design and plan: and perhaps add a remark or two suggested by the review.

The leading design of Mr. D.'s volume (a goodly quarto) is to enable the head of a family to take upon himself the office of "domestic chaplain" on the Lord's day, in such cases as render it obviously expedient, e. g. the want of a second public service-domestic sickness-or where it is the laudable custom to read a sermon to the assembled household on the evening of the Sabbath. "For the purpose, then" (to quote Mr. D.'s words), "of facilitating the ex1846.

5 Y

« PreviousContinue »