scriptural examination-as a friend of truth, I can desire nothing more. But the man who will attempt to vindicate our awful and criminal neglect of Roman Catholics, must prove one of these two things-either that the principles of their religion are not at war with the Bible, and fatal to the salvation of those who depend on them; or, that to sit down in indolent and careless indifference, in the midst of a population perishing in guilt and ignorance around them, is the duty of those who have received a ministration of the Gospel, which they profess to consider a divine commission, and who are to maintain the doctrines and discipline of a Church which they profess to consider constituted on an apostolic model. I have considered again, and again, the plan which I detailed in the book which I have submitted to the public for promoting the instruction of the Roman Catholics, and the more I have considered it, the more I feel convinced, not only that it is practicable, but that if proper instruments, under a divine blessing, were employed, there could be little doubt, that the Lord would prosper his own word, and bring our poor countrymen, if not to a knowledge of his blessed Gospel, at least to see the abomination of some of those superstitions, and the evil of that despotism that shuts up the Bible from their knowledge. And, now Sir, returning my humble thanks for your kindness in granting insertion to this letter, and intreating that you will open the pages of your valuable publication to a thorough examination of this subject, and that you will exercise your own pen, to urge the bishops and clergy to a solemn consideration of the deep responsibility that rests on them, in their neglect of the Roman Catholics of Ireland-permit me to subscribe myself your very faithful servant, ROBERT M'GHEE. ON THE STUDY OF PROPHECY. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER. MR. EDITOR-May I be granted the liberty, through your pages, of requesting the attention of your able correspondent, R. D. to a short paper on prophecy in your Number for October, 1830, which contains matter that does not fall within the scope of his observations on Mr. Faber's communication. I still conceive that R. D. is mistaken in the result, although his reasoning is learned and judicious. However I do not presume to interpose. The paper, which I have referred to, takes up an argument arising out of the 2300 days in the Prophet Daniel, with a few additional remarks. I have been led to read it since I received your last Number, and I find the same conviction impressed upon my mind, as when it was written. I hope I may be permitted to ask your excellent Correspondent, in what light my arguments appear to him, and, if he should see them to be inconclusive, that he will have the goodness to inform me of their defects, through the medium of the Examiner; as I trust my desire is to know the truth. Perhaps you will give me leave also to avail myself of this opportunity to correct a typographical error. About the middle of page 744, the sen tence which begins with "To my apprehension," ought to end thus, "Who understand 1260 days in symbolical prophecy, as signifying 1260 years." I remain, Mr. Editor, yours faithfully, W. N. FABER ON THE 1260 DAYS. to the edITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN examiner. SIR-When, at the request of an excellent Irish Clergyman, I transmitted to you a communication relative to the proper mode of reckoning the 1260 days, I stated, that it was not my intention to enter into any controversy on the subject. A paper on the same topic, by your correspondent R. D. appeared in the recent February Number of the Christian Examiner, which I only received last night. With respect to this paper, I simply request, that those who read it, would also read my communication to yourself, and along with it, my Sacred Calendar of Prophecy; in which sundry points, touched upon by your correspondent, are discussed at large. My own opinion remains unchanged: nor do I think it necessary to say any thing in reply, beyond offering a few remarks on the mode in which R. D. attempts to dispose of the argument from Daniel's seventy weeks. I. That argument on which alone, if it were in any wise necessary, I should be content to rest the whole question, was to the following purport: 1. The Hebrew word, shabua, exactly like our English word week, when expressed absolutely or without any limiting adjunct, (as, for instance, a week of years, and the like), NEVER, throughout the whole Jewish Scriptures, occurs in any other grammatical sense, than that of a week of days. 2. Now, in Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks, the word shabua occurs precisely in this absolute form of expression. 3. Therefore, according to the UNIVERSAL tenor of Scripture language, WITHOUT A SINGLE EXCEPTION, the word shabua, in the prophecy of the seventy weeks, is incapable of bearing any other grammatical sense than that of a week of days and to ascribe to it any other grammatical sense, is a mere gratis dictum, totally unsupported by the authority of evidence. 4. Such being the case, when Daniel wrote seventy weeks in the absolute form of expression, he did the very same as if he had written four-hundred and ninety days; just as St. John, when he wrote forty and two months, did the very same as if he had there written, twelve hundred and sixty days. 5. But the seventy weeks, or the 490 grammatical days of Daniel, are, as all agree, equivalent to 490 solar years. 6. Therefore, we have a distinct proof, that, in a long chronological prophecy, Daniel used a grammatical day to express a solar year: and thence, since the numbers in the seventh and eighth and ninth and twelfth chapters of Daniel are clearly homogeneous, as being all comprehended in long chronological prophecies, while (in the letter at least) the number in the twenty-fifth verse of the fourth chapter, is not homogeneous as respecting an only brief occurrence peculiar to a then living individual; the ascertained interpretation of the number in the ninth chapter, determines the true interpretation of the homogeneous numbers in the seventh and eighth and twelfth chapters. II. This was the argument: and the obvious mode of answering it was, to have produced from Scripture a distinct and palpable instance, where the word SHABUA, when expressed ABSOLUTELY, bears the grammatical sense of A WEEK OF YEARS. But how does your correspondent fall to work? VOL. XI. 2 L Why, truly, instead of even attempting to produce such an instance, (which, if produced, would, I readily admit, have nullified the whole argument), he quotes Grotius as saying, that Daniel's seventy weeks cannot be interpreted as denoting literal weeks of days, but that they must be interpreted as denoting seventy weeks of years. So says Grotius; no doubt, very sensibly and so say I, likewise. For I am quite ready to say, that, in point of interpretation, Daniel's seventy weeks are weeks of years; just as I say, that, in point of interpretation, St. John's forty and two months are months of years. But what has this to do with the matter in hand? Truly, just nothing at all. The dispute respects not the interpretation of Daniel's seventy weeks, as to the amount of time which they ought to be viewed as comprehending; for. concerning that point, there is no difference of opinion: but it respects the grammatical import of his naked insulated phrase, SEVENTY WEEKS; a phrase expressed, as he expresses it, SIMPLY and ABSOLUTELY. This, and this only, THE POINT OF BARE GRAMMATICAL IMPORT, &s contradistinguished from THE POINT OF PROPHETIC INTERPretation, is the real and true matter in debate. The prophecy of the seventy weeks, an expositor may INTERPRET just as he is plainly compelled to do by circumstances: but the antecedent and perfectly independent business of a grammarian, is dryly to ascertain THE BARE GRAMMATICAL IMPORT of the phrase, SEVENTY WEEKS. Now, from the unvarying tenor of Scriptural language, I contend, that the naked or absolutely expressed phrase, SEVENTY WEEKS, is incapable of any other grammatical sense, than that of seventy weeks of days; just as the naked and absolutely expressed phrase, FORTY AND TWO MONTHS, is incapable of any other grammatical sense, than that of forty and two months of days. But, in each case alike; in the case of the seventy weeks, and in the case of the forty and two months; THE POINT OF GRAMMATICAL IMPORT is quite and clean a different matter from THE POINT OF PROPHETIC INTERPRETATION for the one point bears to the other point much the same relation, as abstract bears to concrete. Yet, though, in my former communication, I thought I had laid down the distinction between the two points in a manner which could not possibly be misapprehended: your correspondent (and here lies the palpable fallacy of his attempted answer) seems resolutely determined to confound them together. Let your correspondent, recollecting that GRAMMAR is at present our exclusive concern, produce, if he be able, from the whole volume of the Hebrew Scriptures, a single solitary instance in which the word SHABUA, when expressed absolutely or without any limiting or explanatory adjunct, ever bears any other grammatical sense that that of A WEEK OF DAYS. To this one distinct requisition, I beg leave to pin him down. Is he able, or is he unable, to produce such an instance ? If he be able, let him by all means bring forward this necessary atum; and I faithfully promise to acknowledge his victory. desider If he be unable your readers will probably think with me, that the discussion is finished. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your correspondent seems to intimate, that I build upon the mere authority of Mede, in regard to the grammatical import of the naked word shabua. I do no such thing; I build upon evidence, not upon authority. This, however, is quite clear-that the man, let him be who he may, who, without even an attempt at proof, maintains the grammatical possibility of the naked or absolute word SHABUA denoting A WEEK OF YEARS, builds upon mere dogmatism, not upon satisfactory evidence. Since R. D. asserts, that SHABUA, when written absolutely, may, in point of grammar, denote A WEEK OF YEARS as well as A WEEK OF DAYS; I simply request him to prove his assertion. But, in truth, his very statement, that we want the variety of books in the Hebrew language, by which to judge as to the full extent of meaning which use ascribes to a word, is a virtual confession, that his assertion is incapable of proof, and consequently that it is nothing more respectable than bare unsupported dogmatism. Yet, upon this sandy foun dation of an imagined and purely gratuitous grammatical possibility, which never has been proved, and which never can be proved, your correspondent is content to erect an edifice, wholly, and even confessedly, unsupported and unrecognised by Scripture. In a word, he pretends not to deny, that wherever in the Bible the term SHABUA Occurs nakedly and absolutely, it invariably occurs in the sense of a week of days. Yet, for no better reason than his own mere assertion of grammatical possibility, he calls upon us to admit, that, in the ninth chapter of Daniel, where, as elsewhere, it occurs nakedly and absolutely, its true grammatical import is a week of years. ON THE RETURN OF THE JEWS. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER. SIR-In my former letters I have endeavoured, perhaps unsuccessfully, to render questionable the grounds upon which the literal return of the Jews has been considered by many as necessary, in order, as they say, to vindicate the style, and the announcements of the ancient prophets. I have attempted to shew that in cases where the return from Babylon must have been meant, exclusively meant, language of a description was employed, which, were it not for the necessity of such an exclusive application, would be considered as not suited to the occasion. I have further endeavoured to show, that no inference in favour of a literal return, is justified from the promise to David, that he should never want a son to sit upon his throne, and that there is nothing incompatible with probability, in supposing the temple described by Ezekiel, to be the very plan to be adopted on the return of the Jews from Babylon. I have considered the difficulty arising from the promise, that the ten tribes should return to the land of their fathers, and referred to places where the return from Babylon was unquestionably meant, and yet where the ten tribes were included in the promise. Before I conclude this part of the subject, I wish to say something more in reference to this last point, and consider one or two passages on the subject of the return which require explanation. With respect to the return of the ten tribes, those who wish for information on that subject should read, if they have not done it already, what is contained in the Christian Examiner in reference to that division of the children of Israel; by doing so, they will find something which, probably, will lead them to doubt, whe ther there is any thing in their history, which makes it necessary, in order to the accomplishment of prophecy, that there should be any future occupation of the promised land, by the Jewish people. Indeed, the simple fact, that the ten tribes, as a distinct portion of the descendants of Abraham, are no where, that we know of, to be found, should occasion some hesitation on the part of those, who infer from the mention made of them in the promise of a return, that, on that account, the promise is yet unaccomplished. Where are the ten tribes? is a question which may very fairly be asked by those who contend that the promise to them, as far as a literal return is concerned, has been accomplished. Where are the ten tribes? Search the world over and you cannot find them. We have, it is true, been amused, from time to time, with wild speculations about the Affghans in Asia, and the Indians in America; but no sober-minded person was over imposed upon, for a moment, by such improbable deductions as those speculations were supposed to warrant. The fact is, that the ten tribes, as a distinct body, are at present, not forthcoming; and so evident is this, that we are sometimes told, that though there is no appearance of them just now, whenever the time arrives for the accomplishment of the promise, they will then be made manifest, by some miraculous sign, that will decide the point to the satisfaction of the whole world—that is, we first assume a theory, which, in all reason, would seem to require, that a certain class of persons should be palpably forthcoming; the fact, however being, that this is not the case, we have recourse to a miracle, in order to supply a fact necessary to the support of our hypothesis. Would it not be more reasonable to consider the disappearance of the ten tribes as a strong presumption against the theory itself? I may be mistaken, but to me, I confess, the subject appears in such a light as leads me to answer this question in the affirmative. Before I conclude this subject, I beg leave to quote a passage from Josephus which seems to confirm the opinion, that the ten tribes were inincluded in the promise, and did return to their own land. In reference to the appellation Jews, he says, "They were called by that name, from the day that they came up from Babylon, from the tribe of Judah, which having came first into those parts, both themselves and the country received that name."-Josephus, L. xi. chap. v. sec. 7. Here is a pretty clear intimation, that the other tribes did, in process of time return: that is, that some of every tribe availed themselves of the permission granted to them, to occupy the land of their fathers. It is hardly, I suppose, necessary to observe, that the distinction in the above quoted passage, is not between the tribe of Judah and Benjamin, but between that of Judah and the ten tribes. Such passages as the following are supposed by many, to be inapplicable to any thing that has yet taken place. Behold the days come saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days, Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE Lord, our righteOUSNESS." Jer. xxiii. 5. By comparing this passage with Jer. xxxiii. 15, we find that it had an accomplishment in the return of the Jews from Babylon. The same may be said of other passages containing language of the same character. Now, the question is, was that the only accomplishment the prophecy was to have? So far as its literal sense is concerned, I should say it was. If it had a literal accomplishment at all, it would seem, that nothing short of an intimation, either found in the body of the prophecy itself, or somewhere else, that though the event directly referred to would be a fulfilment of it, yet another event more remote, and more remarkable, though of the same kind, was pointed at-nothing, I say, but such an intimation would warrant the |