on you. Increase and multiply and replenish the earth." Does it not suggest that Christ's redeemed ones are entitled to every blessing that Adam lost-every blessing of Paradise, and Paradise itself?

ISAIAH vi. 4, AND REVELATION XV. 8.

"The house was filled with smoke." "The temple was filled with smoke." It is expressly stated that this smoke was the effect of the glory and power of God displayed. If so, are we to understand that it was the dazzling of the eyes properly? This gave the appearance of smoke. It would be exactly what Milton speaks of, "Dark with excessive light."

JEREMIAH Xxlix. 7-22.

66

Our Lord read the Old Testament Scriptures, and searched into them. We almost fancy that we can trace His pencil-marks (so to speak) on this passage. There are references not a few to the language of this prophecy against Edom. Thus, "the wise and prudent," from whom "these things are hid," in Matt. xi. 25. Then we have (ver. 7) Edom's wisdom and the counsel of their prudent ones vanished. In Luke xii. 39, He speaks of "the thief coming by night;" and thus we have, (ver. 9,) "If thieves by night come unto thee." We have, John xiv. 18, “I will not leave you orphans ;" and here, (ver. 11,) "Leave thy fatherless children, I will preserve them alive." In several places of the Gospels, as well as in the scene of the garden of Gethsemane, He uses the figure of the cup; and here, "whose judgment it was not to drink of the cup," (ver. 12.) In Matt. x. 15, "More tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha ;" and here we have, (ver. 18,) “ As in the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrha." Perhaps, too, we might compare the question, "Who is that shepherd that will stand before me?" (ver. 19,) with His name, “I am the good Shepherd; all that ever came before me were thieves," (John x. 8, 11.) "The least of these my brethren," (Matt. xxv. 40,) is in the style of ver. 20, "Surely the least of the flock shall draw them out." The eagle and its prey is an image which our Lord has twice made use of; and here we have at ver. 22, "fly as the eagle, and spread his wings over Bozrah." Once more, here we have, "the heart of a woman in her pangs; and in John xvi. 21, “A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow." It is at any rate interesting and remarkable, that our Lord's style of speaking is so full of images borrowed from the Old Testament, and so full of allusions, even to the less often read and less often thought upon portions of the Word. He has left us an example; let us search the Scriptures as He did.

DANIEL'S SEVENTY WEEKS.

say

Limiting myself strictly to the subject of discussion between us, that most of the Fathers of the Church, for the first four or five cen

turies, interpreted the seventy weeks of Daniel according to the yearday theory.

Since the Fathers wrote some in Greek, and some in Latin, this assertion divides itself into two parts:-First, That, according to ecclesiastical usage, the meaning of ßdoμas, and of hebdomada, which they respectively substituted for shabua, was a week, or seven days. Secondly, That they made the seventy hebdomads to signify 490 years.

If these two be proved, it will follow that they must have made 490 days to stand for 490 years; i. e., so that they must, so far as this prediction is concerned, have used the year-day theory.

As to my first position, proofs almost numberless could be adduced; but, having already occupied so much of your space, I must be as brief as possible. I shall, therefore, content myself with quoting the statement of Du Cange, an undoubted authority. He thus defines hebdomada:

Septem dies totius septimana: vox nota.”

"He gives various proofs of this definition; and also that ẞdoμas was used in the same sense by the Greek Fathers.

"Hebdomada major," Quæ diem Resurrectionis Christi præcedit. Εβδομας μεγαλη. Græcis.

"Hebdomada in Albis: Hebdomada Grassa, &c.

“ Hebdomada Pentecostes quam Græci του άγιου πνευματος ἑβδομαδα vocabant."

μεση των νηστειων

"Media Jejuniorum Paschalium Septimana, ἑβδομας dicitur: μεση ἑβδομας in Concilio Calchedonensi, Act. ii.”

Du Cange also refers to Atlatius and Morinus, to the Greek and Latin Fathers, and to the Apostolical Constitutions; and, as it seems to me, shews most conclusively that there can be no doubt as to the ecclesiastical usage of ßdoμas and hebdomada; and that it fully warrants us, when we meet them in the expositions of the “ seventy weeks" by the early Fathers, whether of the Greek or Latin Church, to take each of them to mean (like our week) a period of seven days.

Chrysostom has an entire and celebrated homily on the ẞaouas peyan, in which he mentions incidentally that it is called great, not because it has more days than any other, for that all have the same number, &c. This language he could not have adopted, if he had not been supported by a general and long-established usage.

Among the heathen writers, éẞdouas, although in its primary signification a septenary number, was yet sometimes taken for a week. See Stephen's Thesaurus. Nor is this use of it without classical authority:

“ Τας δ ̓ ἑβδομας, ῥ σεμνος ἑβδομαγετης
Αναξ Απολλων ειλετ.” *

I am aware that Liddell, and also Facciolati, refer to Marcus Varro, who, after having traced the importance of the number seven in natural objects, in the first of his books called Hebdomads, adds, 'Se

Eschylus quoted in Dr Hales's Chronology, i. 118. London, 1809.

quoque duodecimam annorum hebdomadam ingressum esse, et ad eum diem septuaginta hebdomadas librorum conscripsisse." (Hengstenberg's Christolog., iii. 101.) It is evident that here the hebdomads of books are figurative and antithetical; and, therefore, that this instance cannot be adduced as a proof of general usage even by the heathen. Stephens quotes Cicero as saying, (in an epistle,) "Ne in quartam hebdomadem incideres," as classical authority for hebdomada standing for seven days; and Galen, in the case of ἑβδομας ὡς τας τρεις ἑβδομαδας εικοσιν queрas Teрlypapeora. But, strictly speaking, I am only concerned ἡμερας περιγραφεσται. about the ecclesiastical usage, and as to that there can be no doubt.

My second position is, That most of the early Fathers counted every one of Daniel's hebdomads as seven years, and the whole of them together as 490 years.

Primasius, a father of the sixth century, is my first instance, and is given on the authority of Mr Faber, who tells us that, in his commentary on the Revelation, he expounds this passage, "Post tres dies et dimidium, spiritus vitæ a Deo," as follows:- "Tres dies et dimidium possumus intelligere tres annos et sex menses, quos in ultima hebdomada Danielis quoque prophetia prænunciat affuturos: more Scripturæ loquentis utentes, quod dictum legimus quadraginta diebus, quibus exploratores terram Chanaan circuaverunt annus prodie refutabitur; ut hic vice versa, dies pro anno positus agnoscatur."

In the foregoing, we have four points established in direct opposition to Dr Conder's assertions::

First, An early father expressly makes the last hebdomad of Daniel to stand for seven days.

Secondly, He makes those days stand for years.

Thirdly, He makes use of that exposition to explain a passage in Revelation on the same principles.

Lastly, He quotes in his support the case of the forty spies, which is one of those relied on by the advocates of the year-day theory.

It is true that, in explaining the forty-two months and other periods in the Revelation, he extends them on a different principle. But in no case does he interpret days literally.

I may next take Jerome, who flourished towards the end of the fourth century.

His commentary on this prediction is valuable, inasmuch as he quotes the opinions of several before him. He first gives the calculation of Africanus, then three different ones of Eusebius, then that of Hippolytus, Apollinaris, Laodicenus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and Tertullian. Although he mentions the points on which these differed from each other, he makes no allusion to their deviating from the general principle which evidently runs through them all—that is, of allowing seven years for each of Daniel's hebdomads.

One of the opinions quoted by Eusebius suggests, that many suppose that one of the hebdomads should be extended so as to make of it

seventy years. But how is that sought to be effected? By still making that hebdomad stand for seven years, and then making each

VOL. XII.

2 D

of those years stand for ten years. Thus the general principle is first applied, as if that could not be dispensed with.

Lest it might appear that I expect too much to be taken on my word, I give extracts from Tertullian, one of those alluded to by Jerome, and who may be regarded as a fair specimen of all the rest— that is, of those who preceded Jerome. He flourished about two hundred years after Christ, and wrote learnedly and eloquently in the defence of Christianity. I take the following from his celebrated controversy with the Jews, in which he proves against them, just as we now do, that, reckoning according to Daniel's weeks, Christ must have come at the very time that Jesus appeared, preached, and was crucified :

:

"Itaque requirenda tempora prædictæ et futuræ nativitatis Christi, et passionis ejus, et exterminii civitatis Hierusalem, id est vastationis ejus. Dicit enim Daniel: et civitatem sanctam, et sanctum exterminari cum duce venturo, et destrui pinnaculum usque ad interitum. Venturi itaque Christi ducis sunt tempora requirenda, quae investigabimus in Daniele: quibus computatis probabimus venisse eum, etiam ex temporibus præscriptis, et ex signis competentibus et ex operationibus ejus, quae probamus ex consequentibus quæ post adventum ejus futura adnuntiabantur, ut tam adimpleta omnia quam prospecta credamus. Sic igitur de eo Daniel praedicavit, ut et quando et quo in tempore gentes esset liberaturus, ostenderet, et quoniam post passionem Christi ista civitas exterminari haberet, .. LXX. hebdomadæ breviatæ sunt super plebem tuam, et super civitatem sanctam, quoadusque inveteretur delictum et signentur peccata, et exorentur injustitiæ, et inducatur justitia æterna, ut et signetur visio et prophetes, et ut unguatur sanctus sanctorum. . . . Unde igitur ostendimus quoniam venit Christus intra LXII. et dimidiam hebdomadas? Numerabimus autem a primo anno Darii, quomodo in ipso tempore ostenditur Danieli visio ipsa. Dicit enim et intellige, et conjice ad perfectionem sermonis respondente me tibi hæc. Unde a primo anno Darii debemus computare, quando hanc visionem vidit Daniel. Videamus igitur anni quomodo impleantur usque ad adventum Christi. Darius enim regnavit annis xix. Artaxerxes regnavit annis xl. Deinde rex Ochus, qui et Cyrus reguavit annis xxxiii." And so he continues till Augustus, and then as follows:-"Nam omnes anni imperii Augusti, fuerunt anni lvi., videmus autem quoniam quadragesimo et primo anno imperii Augusti, quo post mortem Cleopatrae imperavit, nascitur Christus. Et supervixit idem Augustus, ex quo nascitur Christus annis xv. Et erunt reliqua tempora annorum in diem nativitatis Christi anni xli. Efficiuntur autem anni ccccxxxvii. menses vi. Unde adimplentur lxii. hebdomadæ et dimidia, quæ efficiunt annos ccccxlvii., mensus vi., in diem nativitatis Christi. Et manifestata est justitia æterna, et unctus et sanctus sanctorum, id est Christus: et signata est visio et prophetia, dimissa sunt peccata, quæ per fidem nominis Christi omnibus in eum credentibus remittuntur."*

* Tertulliani opera. Pp. 189-191. Paris, 1675.

Throughout the entire passage (and it is a long one) from which the above extracts are taken, Tertullian must have used the word hebdomada in the sense generally attached to it in his day, both by the Christians, whom he was defending, and by the Jews, against whose unbelief in Jesus he was arguing. For, if he had attached to it any new sense, without explaining and defending such a sense, he would have exposed himself to an overwhelming rebuke from his skilful opponents, and on that very point on which his whole argument hinges -viz., his interpretation of "the seventy weeks," and its subordinate parts. But, through the entire passage, he evidently takes for granted that his meaning of the word "hebdomada" is what was then in general use. And we have already shewn that, from the beginning of Christianity, the ecclesiastical meaning attributed both to the Greek, hebdomas, and to the Latin, " hebdomada," was a week, or a space of seven days.

Lastly, I give an extract from the Epistle of Barnabas, the companion of the apostles:

Ζητησωμεν ουν ει εστι ναος θεου. Εστιν, οπου αυτος λεγει ποιειν και καταρτίζειν. Γεγραπται γαρ. Και εσται της ἑβδομαδος συντελούμενης οικοδομηθήσεται ναος θεου ενδοξος, επι τω ονοματι κυρίου.

Προσέχετε, ἵνα ὁ ναος οικοδομηθη. Πως; μαθετε. λαβοντες την αφεσιν των ἁμαρτιων, και ελπίσαντες επι τω ονοματι του κυρίου, εγενομεθα καινοι, παλιν εξ αρχης κτιζομενοι διο εντω κατοικητηριῳ ἡμαν αληθως ὁ θεος κατοικεί εν ἡμιν. Πως; ὁ λογος αυτού της πιστεως, ἡ κλησις αυτου επαγγελιας ἡ σοφία των δικαιωματων, αἱ εντολαι της διδαχης αυτος εν ἡμιν προφητευων, &c.*

In this passage Barnabas speaks of the spiritual temple by the preaching of the Gospel, and he joins two prophecies together to shew that it had been foretold-that of Daniel and that of Haggai. From the former he proves that this was effected in the last hebdomas of Daniel. Hence it is evident that he must have taken this hebdomas to mean seven years, since it was impossible that the Gospel should have been thus preached in seven days. But as we have already shewn, that, accord. ing to ecclesiastical usage, an hebdomad was seven days, so Barnabas must have made these seven days stand for years; and this he did without thinking it at all necessary that he should explain the rationale of his doing so; which proves that such was at the time the general mode of calculating Daniel's seventy weeks. From a Correspondent in the Achill Herald.

* Quæramus itaque, an extit templum Dei. Existit; quandoquidem ipsemet se illud facere ac persistere testatur, Scriptum enim est; et erit hebdomada completa ædificabitur magnifice templum Dei in nomine Domini. Invenio igitur, quod templum existit. Qua ratione ergo ædificabitur in nomine Domini? Discite.... Attendite, ut templum Domini magnifice ædificetur. Quo modo? Dicite accepta remissione peccatorum, et spe habita in nomine Domini, facti sumus novi, iterum ab integro creati ; quare in domicilio nostro vere Deus existit: habitat in nobis. Quo modo? Verbum ejus fidei, vocatio ejus promissionis, sapientia justificationum, mandata doctrinæ; ipse in nobis prophetat; ipse in nobis inhabitat, &c.-J. B. Cotelerius, Epistles of the A postolic Fathers, vol. 1. 49, Amsterdam, 1724, Epistle of Barnabas, Lect. xvi.