detached like Lord Lovat's; and that thus his neck and body not only have a head, but are connected with it?—As for the rest of his argument, I fear its wit will all evaporate at the simple touch of common sense and truth. My reasoning is not what Mr. Arnold states it to be; "The tails having heads means that the tails have governing authorities." When converting one part of the symbol into the thing symbolized, my habit is to convert the other. The pictured horsetail in vision had connected with it the pictured serpent-like head in vision. The horsetail ensign in real life, which I suppose to answer to the first particular of the symbol, had connected with it the governing Pashas, which I suppose to answer similarly to the symbol's second particular. I must not overlook Mr. Arnold's and his German authorities' counter-solution of the enigma in vision. The original of the figure, proclaim the triumvirate of Messrs. Wetstein, Heinrichs, and Arnold, is to be found in the amphisbæna; a species of snake that has two heads, one at the tail, as well as the proper head in front. Let me ask then, Was "the proper head,” in front of the Apocalyptic animal in symbol, a serpent-like head, like that of Mr. A's amphisbæna, as well as the one behind? Was it not lion-like, and thus totally different ?—Further, says Mr. Arnold, the intent of the serpent-like head depicted behind, and here apparently insulated from the other, was "to account for so large a portion of mankind being killed by the deadly emission of smoke, fire, and brimstone." But how so, when this smoke, fire, and brimstone, was only emitted from the lion-like heads in the front?-Surely the solution of Apocalyptic symbols is hardly Mr. Arnold's forte. 6. Mr. Arnold closes his Critique on my explanation of the Second Woe by an exemplification of the ease with which "an ingenious maker of Apocalyptic systems may adapt history to the requirements of his system, by magnifying this and diminishing that, throwing his lights here and his shades there, looking out for illustrative passages where illustrations are needed, and neglecting to look for them where it would be undesirable." The Hungarian invasion of Western Christendom in the tenth century furnishes his example. He transcribes from Gibbon a lively description of its horrors; and, alluding to my frequent notice of that historian "as the unconscious interpreter of pro phecy," proceeds to show, in proof of "the absurdity of which (he says) I am constantly guilty," how easily I might have quoted Gibbon to prove the accuracy of the Apocalyptic symbols, if I had taken this irruption of the Hungarians for the second woe. What then does Mr. A. adduce from Gibbon's sketch of the Hungarian invasion, to answer to the second woe's loosing from the Euphrates? What to answer to the fire, smoke, and sulphur of the symbol? What to "the hour, day, month, and year,” in which the slaying of the third part of men (the third apparently nearest the Euphrates) was to be accomplished? Just nothing! The totality of the parallelisms elaborated by him in this his one chosen example is as follows:-1st, and with reference to the lion-like-heads in the symbol, that Gibbon speaks of the garian Norman and Saracen as sometimes quarrelling on same ground of desolation, like Homer's two lions over the carcase of a mangled stag:" 2. that he describes the Hungarians as "equally formidable in flight or in pursuit ; " a description aptly answering to the figure of the serpent-like horse-tails ending in heads in the vision, with which heads, it was said, they did injury! دو 66 Hun "the Have I not reason to thank Mr. Arnold for thus unintentionally adding confirmation to the Hora; illustrating as he has so clearly, not the ease, but the impossibility, of an expositor fairly inferring from Gibbon the correspondence with the Apocalyptic symbols of any history but the true one? -- SECTION IV.-The Witnesses. Under this head Mr. Arnold makes two attacks on the Horæ :the one against my representation of the Paulikians as Witnesses for Christ; the other against my application of the prophecy of the resurrection and ascension of Christ's witnesses, after their slaughter by the Beast, to the outburst and establishment of the Reformation. 1. The Paulikians. And here I must confess to increasingly painful feelings in my examination of Mr. Arnold's Pamphlet. I could wish to regard 1 Mr. A. ought to have shown where I have ever built an interpretation on Gibbon's rhetorical language. I may say, not once. my opponent in the same honorable character in which I wish to be regarded myself, of a cere seeker after truth. Already that character has seemed to be somewhat compromised by the eminently uncritical nature, for the most part, of his remarks and objections: no candid, comprehensive, discriminating review of evidence there appearing, as by an equitable Judge; but partial and often captions notices, as by a determined partizan. The same is the nature of his remarks here, perhaps yet more strikingly. His commencement indeed is a profession of the utmost fairness. No one can blame Mr. Elliott for resolving to abate and suspect the evil that is reported of the Paulkians by their adversaries." But, having said this, all fairness is in fact thrown away. Citing Gibbon in support, who on this subject, as on one involving questions of rital Christianity, that comparatively little interested him, has neither made his usual elaborate research, nor exercised fully his usual discrimination, and Gieseler, who has shown a want of discrimination and fairness in his summary of evidence not very creditable,2-I say on the strength of these two opinions, as if unquestioned and unquestionable, Mr. Arnold lays it down as a clear fact, that the Paulikian sectaries were "disbelievers of a true birth of our Saviour, and of the truth of his human body, believers too in a phantastic crucifixion of Christ, and in the eternity of matter;" and such in morals, that "they could not be entirely defended against the reproaches of their enemies, that charged them with secret abominations" of the 1 Gibbon had read the most important original record on the subject, that of Petrus Siculus, but not that of Photius. He justly observes on the former," The six capital errors of the Paulikians are defined by Peter Siculus with much prejudice and passion." Yet he himself reports these six as their errors, on Peter Siculus' authority, without that rigid cross-examination of his different statements that under these circumstances was necessary. The list of charges moreover against Genasius in Peter Siculus, he omits using as a counter-check to the other; and while very much fairer than their modern assailants, and thus allowing them to have "sincerely condemned the opinions of the Manichæan sect," and been "simple votaries of St. Paul and of Christ," was yet so inconsistent with himself as to admit the Gnostic and Manichæan heresies charged on them. I have not seen Gieseler's separate Treatise on the Paulikians, but have the brief Section on the subject in his Text Book before me. He there rests on Peter Siculus' and Photius' charges in detail, as if indisputable; and does the same evidently in his separate Treatise, judging from Mr. Arnold's quotation. vilest kind. And therefore he holds up my representation of these sectaries as witnesses for Christ, as a profanation of sacred things, "that cannot too strongly be reprobated."-Was it then on this groundwork of evidence that I so represented them? What will the reader think, when told that there is in the Hora a discussion of the whole evidence, abundantly more elaborate than either Gibbon or Gieseler appears to have made: and in which it was shown, out of the mouths of the accusers themselves, that not only was the general charge of Manicheism palpably falsified, but falsehood stamped on each and every one of these selfsame particular accusations! 2 This discussion, which occupies some fifty pages of my Work, from p. 578 to p. 632, and which Mr. Arnold must of course have had before him when he wrote, he yet no more notices than if it had no existence. It may be that I have drawn my conclusions unadvisedly, and with too much of partiality to the sectaries in question. My own deliberate belief is that I have only so reasoned on the hostile evidence against them, as any one of our upright and learned Judges on the English Bench would have done, were such evidence in a case of defamation brought before them. At any rate it became Mr. Arnold to state and to refute my arguments, before launching his " reproba 1 So Gieseler, quoted by Mr. A.; who however evidently adopts the statement as his own. cross. 2 Thus as to the first charge, that of denying Christ's true birth, we find it also bitterly charged against them that they asserted "the Virgin Mary to have had many sons by Joseph after the parturition of Christ." So both Peter Siculus and Photius.-As to the second, of believing in Christ's phantastic, or mere imaginary crucifixion, we find it also made matter of accusation, that they abominated and reviled (instead of adoring, like the Greek apostatized Church) the wooden And why? As an accursed instrument of punishment, used by wicked men of course with reference to Christ's actual punishment by crucifixion. So Photius and Cedrenus. And Peter Siculus adds of the Paulikian Genæsius, that he said, "Anathema to them that adore not the cross; meaning by the cross Christ himself forming it by his extended hands.-As to the third charge of belief in the eternity of matter, Photius tells us that they believed the evil principle to have sprung from darkness and fire; and that this fire " nec principio carere, nec æternum esse ;" was neither without a beginning, nor eternal. The shameful charge of immorality is contradicted, as I have shown, by incidental admissions on the part of the hostile historians; from the very beginning of the history of the sect, as founded in the seventh century by Constantine, all through, to its perpetuation in the eleventh century in Western Europe. tion" against the view founded on it :—a reprobation which under these circumstances will, I am sure, be judged a mere brutum fulmen; except indeed against himself! 2. The death, resurrection, and ascension of the Witnesses. "And when they shall have perfected their testimony, the wild Beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them; and he shall overcome them, and shall kill them. And their dead bodies shall lie in the broad place 3 of the great city, which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord hath been crucified.4 And they from the people, and kindred, and tongues, and nations, shall see their dead bodies three days and a half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. And they that dwell on the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets vexed" them that dwell on the earth. And after the three and a half days the breath of life from God entered into them; and they stood upon their feet: and great fear fell on them that saw them. And they (or I)7 heard a great voice from heaven, saying unto them, Come up hither! And they ascended up to heaven in the cloud: and their enemies beheld them. And the same hour there was a great earthquake: and the tenth part of the city fell; and in the earthquake were slain seven 1 Mr. Arnold adds the following strange argument. "When the witnesses have completed their testimony, the Beast is to make war on them and kill them: before then, if any man will hurt them, fire is to proceed out of their mouths, and devour their enemies. But the Paulikians were persecuted long before by the sovereigns" (unscathed sovereigns,) "of the Greek empire." Now on what authority does Mr. A. thus limit the time of the Witnesses destroying power taking effect against their enemies, as if only "before then?" In Jeremiah's case God had said, "I will make my words in thy mouth fire, and this people wood, and it shall devour them: " yet did Jeremiah suffer much and long, before the prediction was fulfilled, and the people destroyed.-Compare Zech. i. 6; "The prophets do they live for ever? Yet my words, which I commanded the prophets, did they not take hold of your fathers?" * όταν τελέσωσι την μαρτυρίαν αυτών. 8 εν τη πλατεια. * caraupwon. The aorist is often in this book used Hebraistically as the' perfeet or pluperfect. eBagaricar, So in 2 Pet. ii. 8., (eßararıger,) “Lot vexed his righteous soul." 7 Many manuscripts read, ŋksσα. ส * το πνεύμα της ζωής. |