both sides of every disputed question. You are, no doubt, aware that the students of prophecy in England have commenced a periodical publication-the "Morning Watch," for the purpose of laying before the public those views which they think important. Many of your readers will see this publication, and perhaps be disposed to receive its assertions without examination, as it treats on a subject in which they are interested, and presents, amongst its supporters, the names of many whom they respect. That the publication in question, if well carried on, may be generally useful and instructive, I have no doubt; but I have been very much surprised by the mis-quotations of scripture, which appear in one of its articles, and which, having been admitted into the first number, where more peculiar circumspection might have been expected, deserves to be pointed out both to its author and its readers. It makes no difference whether these falsifications of Scripture be resorted to in support of a truth or of an untruth, they equally call for exposure and detection. This has induced me to send the following remarks to an English periodical, that they may have a chance of meeting the eye of the author, and many of the readers of the paper in question:-they may, I conceive, be also useful among the readers of your publication in this country; I offer them, therefore, to you Mr. Editor, that if you think them just and called for, they may have the advantage of the wide circulation of your Magazine throughout Ireland. I allude to a paper which appeared in the first number of the "Morning Watch," upon the subject of the first resurrection.

It is not my intention to enter upon the subject of two resurrections of the just and the unjust, the one antecedent to the other. My object is only to notice the very unfounded assertions as to matter of fact, by which it is supported in the paper in question-a proceeding equally worthy of detection, whether employed in defence of a truth or of an untruth.

The author endeavours to prove the two resurrections from two distinct modes of expression adopted in the New Testament, when speaking of the resurrection "avaσraois." I shall put the argument in the author's own words, (p. 63,)—“It appears to have escaped the notice of many readers of Scripture, that there are two distinct modes of expression adopted in the New Testament, each of which has its appropriate use, and which do not admit of being interchanged with each other. The expressions we refer to are In avaσTaσis εK TWV Vɛкρwv,' the resurrection from (from out of) the dead; and 'n avaστασig Twv veкρwv,' the resurrection of the dead. The former expression we are prepared to maintain is applicable exclusively to the resurrection of the saints, and could not be used to express the idea of a general resurrection."

Will it be believed, that of these two expressions on which the argument is built, the first never occurs in any copy of the New Testament which I have seen. I have examined the places referred to in the subsequent part of the paper, in seven different editions of the New Testament, and in none of them do I find avaoraois ek TWY

""

νεκρων even once used. I at first thought that there might have been in p. 63, an error of the press, and that the article "rw" might have been introduced by the mistake of the printer; but I found the same expression again in pp. 67 and 68. The expres sion used in the New Testament is ανάστασις εκ νεκρων, not εκ των VEKρWV. Perhaps it may be said that the omission or introduction of the article makes no difference in the argument; and that the distinction between αναστασις εκ νεκρων and αναστασις νεκρων equally proves two resurrections. This would not justify a false quotation of the text, which shows great carelessness and ignorance, or great dishonesty in the author. But I deny that the omission or introduction of the article "Twv" makes no difference. I admit the force of the author's argument, on the supposition that the article is inserted; I deny it if the article is left out. I may admit what the author says, (p. 67) we maintain that the phrase η αναστασις εκ TWV VEKρWV can mean nothing else than the resurrection of a part of the dead, leaving another part unraised; but I deny that we can come to the same conclusion according to the genius of the Greek language, and the consistent use of the Greek article, from the phrase εk vɛkρwv." I feel convinced that had it been the intention of the inspired penmen to convey, in the places referred to, the idea of a resurrection of part of the dead, leaving the rest unraised, they would have written αναστασις εκ των νεκρων, and I am sure the anthor of the paper in question is of the same opinion; and having been firmly persuaded of two resurrections upon other grounds, perhaps from the sentiments of others, without considering the arguments himself, he felt convinced that the Greek article must be in the original, and therefore, without examination, quoted it as if it were there.

He

To support my opinion, that if the authors of the New Testament had wished to convey the idea of the resurrection of only a part of the dead, they would have inserted the article, I would refer to a place where there is an evident intention to convey this meaning, and in this place the article is inserted. I refer to Col. i. 18, where Paul calls Christ προτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων, the first born from (among) the dead. Here there is an evident intention to convey the idea of Christ rising first and leaving the rest of the dead unraised, and therefore the article is inserted. I would again refer to Eph. v. 14, where Paul writes, avaσra εK TWV VɛKρWV. had in the early part of his epistle called unconverted sinners dead, VEKρ8," in trespasses and sins; and here he tells them that God calls upon such as hear his voice to rise from among those dead persons, to leave them behind, and come amongst the living. Here, where there is evidently implied the idea of leaving a part unraised, the article is used, and it is not αναστα εκ νεκρων, but εκ των VEKρWV. Again, I would refer to Matt. xiv. 2, where Herod is introduced as saying to his servants, this is John the Baptist, he is risen from the dead-nyɛpoŋ año τWV VEKρWV. Now, if John had, at that time, risen from the dead, as it was not the time of the general resurrection, he must have left a part unraised, and therefore

the article is inserted. See also Col. ii. 12, Matt. xxvii. 64, xxviii. 7. We have, then, not "two distinct modes of expression," as the author in the Morning Watch asserts, but three distinct modes of expression, αναστα, &c. εκ των νεκρων

The first, with the preposition and article, seems to be used when it is intended to convey the idea of a part rising from among the dead, and leaving the rest unraised. The second, with the preposition, and without the article, when it is intended to convey the idea of rising from the dead, without intimating whether the whole or only part are to be raised. The third, where there is the genitive case governed by the former substantive, without the preposition, seems to be used when it is intended to convey the idea of the raising of the dead. The difference between the two expres sions, αναστασις εκ νεκρών, and αναστασις νεκρων, seems to be this ; the first denotes what man is to experience-the rising from the dead; the second denotes what God is to perform-the raising of the dead.

I have to remark upon two texts quoted in the paper referred toone in Phil. iii. 11, “εis τηy εžavaoτασiν Twv vekρwv." (p. 67.) The author speaks of this text as if it was the same, as if it had been written αναστασις εκ των νεκρων, and quietly and coolly says, translators are inaccurate.' He pronounces "it ought to have

"our

been rendered from the dead.'" I admit that the words would bear this rendering, but I deny that they require it; the genitive VεKOV might indeed be governed by the , but may also be, as our translators have supposed, the genitive case following the substantive εavaoraσiv, and so may literally be rendered the raising out of the dead. As in no place in the whole of the New Testament, is there to be found αναστασις εκ των νεκρων, we are forced to conclude that the phrase used here is not intended to be equivalent to it, but rather to be equivalent to that constantly used, αναστασις των νεκρών. I must further remark upon the very unjustifiable, false quotation, (p. 66,) Rom. i. 4. The author writes the Greek εξαναστάσεως νεκρων, as if it was one word. Now, I have before me seven different editions of the Greek Testament, of the highest authority, and there is not one of them that has it written as one word, but all of them have it " avaσraσews." (two

words.) I have never in any author met with such a reprehensible, unwarrantable mode of criticism. He first writes the phrase different from what his eyes must have seen, (if he ever looked before he wrote, into any edition of the New Testament which I have ever met with); and then having thus falsified the text, and even by his falsification having made it such a phrase as never occurs in any place in the New Testament, he says, "And here we may observe, once for all, that wherever the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is named, the same expression is used. As the liberty here taken, and the argument deduced are really almost incredible, I think it better to transcribe the whole paragraph.

"In Rom. i. 4, we have the term applied to Christ, "declared to be the Son of God, with power, by the resurrection from the dead,” εξαναστασεως νεκρων, (intead of εξ αναστασεως νεκρων) and here we may observe, once for all, that wherever the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is named, the same expression is used; implying not merely a resurrection from the state of death, but from out of those that are dead-literally from dead ones."

66

What does the author mean to assert ?-Is it after he has unwarrantably manufactured ežavaoraris out of two words, that that same expression" occurs, wherever the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is named? This 66 same expression," (εkavaσraσıç) never occurs but in one place in Scripture, that before referred to, Phil. iii. 11; or does he expect his readers at once to catch his spirit, and, without hesitation, turn his unwarrantably-acquired εžavaoraσis into AVAσTAσIÇ εK? Then, indeed, but not till then, some advances are made towards defending his assertion, that wherever the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is named, the same expression is used.

I beg to remark that what I have written is neither intended to weaken or strengthen the opinion of two resurrections. I have only attempted to expose unwarrantable arguments in favour of the doctrine, and to show that it cannot be proved by a mere criticism upon the words in which the doctrine of the resurrection is conveyed. I feel convinced that its truth must stand upon something stronger than the difference between αναστασις εκ νεκρων and αναστασις Vεkowy; and I feel deeply, that if true, the reception of it as truth can only be impeded by such unfounded arguments as those put forward in the paper I have been examining. The sooner such fallacies are detected, exposed, and discovered, the better for the cause of truth. But I wish to say, that I do not desire to impute wilful dishonesty to the author of the paper in question my mind does not accuse the unknown author of any designed plan of doing evil, that what he considers good may come; my mind acquits him of intentional untruth. That Christian character which I have neither right nor disposition to deny him, forbids the supposition. I should rather suppose that he was some young man too much used to sit at the foot of a great Gamaliel, and take up opinions at second hand; that being deeply convinced of two resurrections, on the authority of his teacher or teachers, he inaccurately retailed arguments he had heard, and made blunders, rather from a failure in his memory, than from any intention to deceive. Had the author arrived at his conclusion by the process of argument, carried on in his own mind, and had he given us in his paper the arguments that had convinced him, I feel assured he never would have fallen into the errors I have thought it my duty to detect. But there is no saying what false and weak reasoning may appear to possess both truth and strength, to a man that has arrived at his conclusion independent of his argument, and only resorts to the argument to defend a conclusion as to the justness of which, he has been previously and immoveably convinced.

I think the appearance of so very inaccurate a production, in the

first number of a periodical publication, intended to enlighten the country on the more important subjects of phrophecy, and the church's future expectations, ought to produce much more caution both in writers and readers. Men begin to be teachers on both sides of that very difficult subject, when they have, in truth, only commenced being learners; and when they can scarcely be said to have acquired the alphabet of prophetical language, they write pamphlets, and even books, pro and con, as if the whole arena of futurity had been set before them.

It would be well if men could be kept from jumping suddenly to conclusions, and then seeking for arguments to support them; but that they could be led, in a candid and unprejudiced spirit, to examine, deliberately, the language of Scripture; make themselves acquainted with the nice shades of its expressions, and become qualified to compare its wisely-adjusted phraseology.

If Christian men were thus led to wait upon the Lord, looking for the Word of God, and not the word of man, we might expect to see much light rise upon the church, and much unity and Christian fellowship prevail among men.

I beg to lay these remarks before your readers, through the medium of your valuable Magazine, if they shall appear to you founded in truth. I beg leave to express my hope, that if the subject of unfulfilled prophecy should be canvassed in your publication, it may be done in a temperate and cautious manner, unaccompanied by rash and unwarranted assertions on either side. There are difficulties connected with every theory that may be advanced, which might justly lead the well-informed and humble mind to cry out with the Apostle-" O, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" I beg to subscribe myself

A CANDID ENQUIRER AFTER PROPHETIC TRUTH.

ON THE CALCULATION OF PROPHETIC TIME.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-I have often wished to know, upon what good grounds the interpreters of Prophecy usually understand days to represent years, in the sacred history of times to come-and, until very lately, I did not meet any thing that seemed to me satisfactory on the subject, although it was quite evident that they could not literally stand for the usual period of twenty-four hours. Ezek. iv. 6, and Num. xiv. 34, show, indeed, that to attach such a meaning to the term day as is commonly done, in its figurative or emblematical meaning, is not inconsistent with the usage of Holy Scripture; but they do not prove that this key is to be applied to unfold the intricacies of the particular prophecies of Daniel, and the Revelations, or that it is applicable to Prophecy in general. On lately reading