CORRESPONDENCE. THE MILLENNIUM. THE VERNAL STORM. THE vernal storm hath rent the trees, That pitied not spring's youthful pride. Unthinking mortals!—in that gale And when affliction's awful power Short-sighted creatures !—did we know J. H. B. M. CORRESPONDENCE. The Editor begs to remind his readers that he is not responsible for the opinions tion. THE MILLENNIUM. SIR, It is the maxim and the habit of the strong and good to pass by, rather than to refute, all weak and frivolous attacks against them. Upon this principle the church and her defenders have generally acted; but experience teaches us that it is a course often consistent rather with dignity than with safety. I am led to these remarks by circumstances which, I trust, you will not think beneath your attenAbout six months ago, a pamphlet was published, by the Rev. W. W. Pym, which contained the most positive assertion, that "the second advent of the Lord Jesus Christ must have taken place before the year 1847." If this had been the production of an ignorant man, it would, probably, have passed unnoticed; but, unhappily, it was written by one who bears a good character for zeal and ability as a Christian minister. The work was, at first, received (1 speak of the neighbourhood in which I reside) only by a few personal friends of the author. By sober and well informed persons it was quietly laid aside, as bearing in itself its own refutation. But, while those who should have defended the truth remained silent, the author's party were most active in disseminating their doctrine. The book became the subject of all conversations, and was heard of on all occasions, and from all lips. A large parish was thrown into much confusion; the poor were terrified; the weak amazed; the conscien tious rendered sad and the scornful found frequent occasion for a sneer. For, not content with asserting his own opinion as if it were infallible, the author had proceeded to pass a censure upon the church, of ignorance or duplicity, as either not knowing, or as omitting to teach, his doctrine of the second advent. Under these circumstances, a reply, of great penetration and singular candour, at length appeared. To all who were open to conviction this was conclusive; but being written in that spirit of honest indignation which is not only natural but almost necessary in one who feels deeply a groundless insult cast upon his church, it afforded to its adversary an occasion to defend himself in such a manner as to give him, in the eyes of his determined adherents, greater consequence than before. În vain were his tenets refuted; for, passing by their refutation, he proceeded to write of himself as a misrepresented and most ill-treated person. I do not say that he put forth no arguments in his defence, for, indeed, he did put forth those which ought to have been found in his first publication. But though wearing, to the unlearned, an appearance of much research, these in fact left the question where it was before. Passing by, therefore, the refutation of his tenets, he proceeded to assume the lofty tone of a superior person misused, to discredit his opponent because he wrote anonymously, and to vaunt his own superior charity and Christian temper. Now though it is easy for the cautious to detect the fallacies of his argument,-to know that there are many good reasons, and modesty among the number, for concealing a name,that an argument does not derive its value from him who wrote, but from what is written,-and that to boast of charity is to condemn oneself, this was not at all the consequence upon the minds of the adherents of this writer. On the contrary, they began to speak in tones of triumph; to represent that as now certain which was before but speculation; and to exalt their leader as learned beyond the wisdom of the church, and as a pattern of martyrdom to the cause of truth. To crown all, it is now asserted that, besides the unlearned converts of this and other neighbourhoods, five hundred clergymen of the church of England have embraced his doctrines. I am desirous, therefore, of submitting the following brief statement of the subject, to which I know not how I can more effectually secure attention than by addressing it through your pages. Let me, then, be as concise and explicit as possible :— - Mr. Pym has asserted, first, "that the second advent of the Lord Jesus Christ must have taken place before the year 1847 ;" and secondly, that "from the data furnished entirely by this prophecy" (Dan. viii. 14, ix. 24). "he can prove his point." His argument, derived from both his publications, when divested of all extraneous matter, is briefly this: "Christ will have come before the restoration of the Jews; the Jews will be restored on the expiration of the 2300 days (years) of Daniel, viii. 14; consequently if we could know the end of the 2300 days, we should know a point of time before which our Saviour must have come. But we may know the end of the 2300 days in this manner: In Dan. viii. 14, we find a prediction concerning the "desolation of the sanctuary;" in Dan. ix, we find Daniel in his prayer meditating upon the desolation of the sanctuary;" consequently, as the angel comes in answer to his prayer, we infer that the prophecy of the angel, Dan. ix. 24, is an explanation of the prophecy, Dan. viii. 14. Now the angel, Dan. ix. 24, says, Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city." But the word which we render "determined," signifies originally "cut," and consequently the meaning of the passage is, that the seventy weeks are "cut" out from the 2300 days; consequently the 2300 days and the seventy weeks begin at the same point of time. But we know that the seventy weeks begin with the edict of Cyrus, consequently the 2300 days begin with the edict of Cyrus also. Knowing, therefore, when the 2300 days begin, we know also when they end, and thus we arrive at the knowledge of a point of time before which the second advent of the Saviour must have taken place. Thus-Edict of Cyrus seventy weeks, or 490 years, before the complete fulfilment of Christ's first coming, or 483 years before the 30th year of Christ's life. Deduct thirty years for Christ's life before his ministry, leaves 453 years before Christ's birth to be deducted as a portion of the 2300 days (years) elapsed before the Christian era. this again leaves 1847 years from the birth of Christ, (or from the Christian era,) as the time when the 2300 days (years) must expire, before which expiration, it is argued, the second advent of Christ must have taken place." And This, Sir, is And stated to be "a calculation which a child may comprehend," and which "rests upon no uncertainty of human speculations ;" and upon this the church is considered to be highly censurable, as either not knowing, or as neglecting to disseminate, so important a truth. Now, in having thus limited the time of Christ's appearing to a year, or at most to a few years, Mr. Pym denies that he has violated the implied injunction of Scripture, which speaks of that time as "the day and hour of which knoweth no man; no, not the angels in Heaven." Leaving, therefore, this topic, I shall address myself only to the argument above, of which to shew that either premiss is untenable will, of course, be to invalidate the conclusion. And I think it must be evident that the truth of the whole calculation rests upon the proof that the 2300 days commence at the same point of time with the seventy weeks. For it is confessed that he can only tell the time of Christ's arrival by knowing that it must be before the end of the 2300 days; and of these, that he can only learn the end by learning the beginning; and that he can only learn this beginning by proving that it is identical with the beginning of the seventy weeks. If, therefore, he fail to prove this identity, the whole falls. For this proof, two principal arguments are adduced. First, that the vision explained in chap. ix., must be the vision seen in chap. viii., because the words "desolation of the sanctuary," in chap. ix., prove that Daniel was reflecting upon the subject of the vision recorded in chap. viii. secondly, that the word rendered (Dan. ix. 24) “determined," is, in the original, "cut ;" and it does not appear what the seventy weeks should be "cut" from, except the 2300 days. Of the first, I remark, that although the words "desolation of the sanctuary" may be the same in both chapters, yet it is by no means certain that the same desolations are, in fact, intended by the words; and unless Mr. Pym can shew that they must necessarily be the same, it is obvious that in employing these words as an argument for the identity of the visions, he is using an equivocal term, and consequently the argument is nought. Now it is very well known to all who have studied these chapters, that it is an opinion generally entertained by the learned, that the "desolations" of chap. viii., are desolations predicted, whereas the "desolations" of chap. ix. are certainly desolations existing at that then present time. This argument is, therefore, by no means sufficient to build upon in a positive manner. Indeed, how any one could have positively made what, to say the least, may be the desolations caused by the little horn-that is, either the Roman or the Mohammedan power-coincident with the desolation of Jerusalem in the days of Daniel, is wonderful to conceive. For the second argument, I ask whether, because the word rendered "determined" signify in the original "cut," this signification is sufficient to justify the inference that the seventy weeks are to be "cut" from the 2300 days, of which no mention is made; or, even if they are to be so cut, whether Mr. Pym has adduced anything to shew why they should be necessarily cut from the beginning, rather than from the middle of the period? It is, indeed, a conclusion utterly unconnected with its premises, to argue that the 2300 days begin when the seventy weeks begin, because the seventy weeks are to be deducted from the 2300 days. It appears, therefore, that the beginning of the 2300 days has not been proved to be the same with that of the seventy weeks; consequently the beginning of the 2300 days is not known; and if not their beginning, so neither their end; and consequently Mr. Pym cannot fix that point of time before which he has argued that our Saviour must have come. VOL. XI.-Jan. 1837. E Now, Sir, what I consider so censurable is, the very positive manner in which this gentleman has put forward as absolutely certain his own opinions upon a subject encompassed with such difficulties as this; and I ask of any reasonable person, whether it is fit that he should disturb the peace of parishes, as he has done, by involving our belief in Christ in our belief in propositions so incapable of positive proof as this? And from his publishing this as "what a child may comprehend," what inference can we draw but that not to have discovered what is so clear, and taught what is so important, the church must have been both blind and negligent? He speaks of her accordingly in the most flippant manner. Of such conduct, whatever may have been the motive, the consequence is schism. And surely, sir, he who can lightly afford occasion of schism, gives no evidence either of wisdom or of charity. Little, indeed, can that man have reflected upon his condition here who is insensible to the vast benefits which he owes to his church,-benefits which he can no more hope to reckon up, or to repay, than those which he owes to the parent or protector of his infancy. Lightly, then, to violate her unity, to encourage schism and disrespect against her, is an approach to parricide. Rather to her failings it would be a virtue to be blind; and from one of her ministers especially, such filial reverence was to have been expected, But and if he should have an accusation against her which might not be concealed, surely it became him not to exhibit it to all eyes, with pride and exultation, as a triumph, but, rather to confess it unwillingly and with mourning, as it were, the disgrace of his most valued friend; "And let him read, not loudly nor elate, That doom, But, sad as angels for the good man's sin, I am, Sir, with sincere respect, your obedient servant, W. C. O. PATRONAGE OF THE NEW CHURCHES IN THE METROPOLIS. (Concluded from vol. x., p. 700.) III. There is yet another objection which it may be right to allude to that raised against* the proposed plan of endowment of the new churches, by aid of the non-residentiary prebends of St. Paul's. The objection is founded upon a mistake. The resolution of the committee which expressed the hope that this might be effected was purposely worded so as to avoid defining the mode in which this was to be done, whether by annexation or appropriation. That was not for the committee to determine. They simply wished that the funds of the cathedral of St. Paul's should be employed for the benefit of London, for whose sake St. Paul's was founded, and in which its property lies. Yet there are obviously ways in which this might be effected without infringing any principle of property: e. g., no one could object to redistribution of property among the prebends them In a letter, by the Hon. and Rev. A. Perceval, to the Standard newspaper. PATRONAGE OF THE NEW CHURCHES, ETC. selves, so as to equalize them, as in the case of the more modern cathedrals; nor again, when so arranged, would any principle be violated by annexing to them the cure of populous parishes within the metropolis, and where their property lies. This (as was said) was not for the committee to decide; it is sufficient that their resolution may bear a good construction; and it had been better judged if the respectable clergyman who brought this charge had applied to some member of the committee for explanation. It may be added, that some of the prebends have been founded by bishops of London out of the revenues of the see, and so do not belong to the original foundation. It were a more unobjectionable course, also, if clergy who see that a dangerous principle is involved in the appropriation of the funds of cathedrals to other purposes, (whereas the same object might be safely attained by annexation,) would take the legitimate course of making known their sentiments through their archdeacons, and not discuss such questions in public journals. The commissioners wish to satisfy as well as (according to their views) to benefit the church; but if the clergy remain silent, or leave it entirely to the cathedral clergy, whom the lay-commissioners (the decided majority) might naturally suspect to be interested, what hope is there? They are ready to receive representations,-why not make them? If they are not made, those who think they see the evil, and speak not, have as large a share of the blame," si quid detrimenti ecclesia capiat," perhaps more than the commissioners, inasmuch as they have not the same difficulties which beset those placed in the highest offices of the church. IV. There is yet another class, who say, "What have we to do with London? London may take care of itself. We have each our own neighbourhood or diocese to look to." This is, in many cases, said well and conscientiously. And, certainly, if any one were, for the time, denying himself in order to relieve the spiritual wants of his own diocese and neighbourhood, one could only wish that others, or one's self, were doing likewise, or to a like degree. But it is often said, also, with a very inadequate notion of our real connexion with, or interest in, the metropolis. Have the extremities nothing to do with the heart? Are they not chilled or fevered, according to its beatings? And if it be permanently diseased, are not all their functions disturbed, and their motions distressed? And can a deep-rooted disease have now been fixed, for above a century, in the heart of our Christian country, a disease spreading like a canker, year by year, and not been felt in almost every extremity thereof? Again, where is our court mainly, the seat of our government, our public offices and institutions, our bank and banking houses, the nursery of our physicians, our courts of law, our houses of Parliament, the centre of our commerce, and our trading companies, our merchants, our colonies, our religious societies? Have we Is not the population of London swelled for our service? not, many of us, year by year, resorted thither? Do we not ultimately obtain thence very many of our articles of expenditure, the very books On the very merest princiwe read, and the raiment we put on? ples of justice, are we not (so to employ the apostle's argument) bound to minister to the spiritual necessities of those who minister to |