REMARKS

ON A

REVIEW IN THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER,

FOR DECEMBER, 1826.

There is one point in this review which appears to require some notice, because it would seem to imply, that in my first Enquiry I had evaded the difficulty of my subject, and only imperfectly stated the arguments of those whom I opposed.

"We profess to hold a large portion of Mr. Faber's "writings in high estimation, and we should be ex"tremely concerned to detract from his well-merited

reputation. We think, however, it is saying too "much to affirm that the specified dissertation puts "the reader in full possession of the subject;' and "are particularly surprised at his adding, that it con"tains all the arguments' he recollects to have seen "in favour of the contested mode of interpretation, "when, in p. 51, he mentions five other writers, even "styled by himself eminent writers,' one of whom, “Mr. Holmes, has supported it by a chain of argu

66

mentation, which appears to us entirely new, and to "which we are sorry, therefore, that we can only re"fer, as it is too long for quotation, and would be "materially weakened by abridgement. See his Ful"filment of the Revelation of St. John displayed, " p. 205."

Any reader who will take the trouble to turn to the 51st page of my former Enquiry will see that I never called Mr. Holmes an "eminent "writer;" but that I merely quoted a passage from Mr. Gauntlett, in which he bestows that epithet on five commentators. Surely no careful and candid reader would consider such a quotation as involving a profession that I knew any thing of the writers specified, or meant to give any opinion on their merits. In fact, I had never seen Mr. Holmes's work; and did not suppose, nor do I now believe, that it had acquired such a circulation and authority in England (whatever may be the case in Ireland) as would have warranted my classing it with the works of Mr. Faber, Mr. Frere, and Mr. Cunninghame; and I must still affirm that, as far as I can see, the extracts from Mr. Faber's work do put the reader in "full possession of "the subject," (that subject being the simple question of whether days are natural days or years;) and that they do contain all the arguments which I had seen in favour of the contested mode of interpretation.

When, however, I heard of a new "chain of argumentation," I was really curious to see it; and felt that it would be my duty to examine it impartially. I therefore procured Mr. Holmes's work, which had never before fallen in my way; but, on turning to the page referred to by the Reviewer, I could find nothing at all to the purpose; and it seemed evident that he must have quoted from a different edition, (if there is more than one,) or else that there must be an error in the reference. I can honestly say, that I took a good deal of trouble in looking, and could only find the following passage on the point in question. Whether it is that to which the Reviewer meant to refer I really do not know; but I suppose it is not, as it is quite short enough to have been quoted in the review. I shall, however, lay it before the reader; premising that without intending to give any opinion as to its originality, I am much mistaken if it is argument.

"A Day. No period accurately resembles a day but a

66

66

year. The daily revolution of the earth round its

axis, resembles its yearly revolution in its orbit round "the sun; the great divisions of day and night re"semble the summer and winter, the two great di"visions of the year: and the four quarters of a day, "continually melting into and succeeding each other, "of morning, forenoon, afternoon, and evening, re"semble the four quarters of the year, spring, summer,

"autumn, and winter. ON THESE ACCOUNTS, a day, "in prophetic language, signifies a year." Vol. I. p. 26.

I do not know that this review contains any thing else to which an answer may not be found in some part or other of this Enquiry.

REMARKS

ON A

REVIEW IN THE CHRISTIAN GUARDIAN,

FOR FEBRUARY, 1827.

When I was preparing this second Enquiry, (which has been delayed by unexpected circumstances much longer than I anticipated,) I was desirous to correct what might be erroneous, and to supply what was defective, in the first. Some remarks in the Christian Guardian led me to address the following letter to the Editor:

"When you did me the favour to notice a pamphlet "which I lately published, containing an enquiry into the grounds on which the prophetic period of Daniel and St. "John has been supposed to consist of 1260 years, your "Reviewer observed He disposes of the arguments in "favour of this interpretation with considerable ingenuity, "but has not brought forward any evidence of its being "erroneous.'

"I trust you will not think me insensible of the civility "with which you have treated me, or inclined to cavil at

L