not seen, may be known analogically by the things that are seen. (Rom. i, 20.)

In respect then to the terms by which the Hebrew Scriptures speak of invisible things, these uniformly in their first and primitive meaning and application, intend visible objects; the correspondence of which latter to the former, is from that authority which alone fully understands both. They are one and all from Him who pronounced, "If I have told you earthly things and you understand them not, how shall you understand if I shall tell you beavenly things? and no one hath ascended into heaven, but the Son of man who is in heaven."

On the contrary in uninspired languages, men professing themselves to be wise, or to understand invisible things, xat' λlav, and despising the wisdom of God hidden from the foundation of the world in mysterious types and signs, have applied and appropriated unmeaning words to invisible things, of which, whatever they may fancy, they have no real knowlege whatever. "For eye hath not seen them, ear hath not heard them, neither hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive of them as they are."

We may therefore denominate all Hebrew words, signifying invisible things, typical words, or words which in their first intention plainly denote visible objects, and nothing else, to those who seeing the letter understand not the spirit.

In truth then, the Jews seek only a bare sign, the Gentiles seek only the thing signified by the sign; but what God hath joined together as body and soul, type and antitype, sign and thing signified, let not man put asunder. Here Hebrew is at issue with all other languages. But still further, the subject matter to which this divine language is adapted consists altogether of analogies. (See Bp Sherlock on the Intent of Prophecy.)

If we consider, for instance, the primitive promise that the Seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head, following then the guidance of Bp. Sherlock, we shall find that the promised Seed is foreshadowed in his numerous offices and works, not by one, but by a vast succession of types, all necessary to complete in shadow the pleroma of his manifold operations, and the consummation of the restitution of ail things.

The same observation extends to his antagonist, the prince of the power of the air, the ruler of the darkness of this world.

And yet, while each successive shadow affords, perhaps, some new specific character contributing to complete the entire picture, a generic correspondence harmonises them all, so that

one and the same prophecy shall apply to all alike, while the prophecy is so nicely worded as to fit in some sense and construction the peculiarities of each. And so complete is the divine revelation, that, to those who translate both closely and adequately, and harmonise words, sentences, sections, and all Scripture, the finger of God is displayed unequivocally in the discovery of the self-interpreting powers of divine revelation. But so long as we regard the Bible as the work of men, and not as the work of God;- long as we do not prove to the utmost the Apostles' rule, Compare things inspired with inspired things, so long the light, I repeat, shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not.

I have now ventured my opinion respecting both the Hebrew chronology and the Hebrew language: respecting the Hebrew chronology, that it still stands unshaken and greatly confirmed by Sir W. D.; and respecting the Hebrew language, that it is the pure fountain-head of all the degenerate languages of the world. The Hebrew chronology is opposed sometimes by that of the Samaritan Pentateuch, by that of the Septuagint, and by that of Josephus. It is vindicated by Shukford and Davies, and, as far as I am any judge, most satisfactorily. And I much regret that some excellent men, in rejecting the Hebrew chronology, have not more fairly and fully stated the pros and cons on both sides, which is the grand desideratum at this time.

I regret also that they have so far failed in penetration and judgment, as to prefer versions and commentators to the Hebrew text; a blunder which will one day class them under the head of those who preferred a dark lantern to the meridian sun. Had they applied themselves to the concordance with the same diligence with which they have applied to the ancient versions, they might have discovered and testified to a sceptical generation, that the comparison of things spiritual with spiritual to the utmost, before human helps be called in, is the only rational and revealed key of Scripture, as Bp. Horsley has testified in his Sermon on the Resurrection. But we live in sceptical times; and in the same proportion as our belief of the inspiration of Scripture has declined, our insight into the proper mode of explaining Scripture, and our doctrinal views of its meaning, have correspondently degenerated from the standard of the Reformation. In the mean time, while we have slept, the enemy has sown his tares; so that when for the time we ought to be teachers, it is necessary that one tell us what be the first principles of the oracles of God, and what the key of knowlege.

What those tares are which constitute the perils of the last

days, succeeding to the superstition of the last times, any one may easily discover, who wishes so to do, by comparing 1 Tim. iii. 14. to the end of ch. iv., for the corruptions of the Faith, and 2 Tim. iii. for the destruction of the Faith itself by a transition from Plus over the happy mean of rectitude Par, to the opposite extreme of Minus.

The Corrective revealed to us, while we have the light, is described in 1 Tim. iii. 14-17. where we should do well to note what is generally necessary to salvation even in the case of children; and what is necessary, that the Man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto all good works. For all good works, all Scripture is required; and therefore let him who neglects any one part of revelation upon any plea, or sets up one part against another, be warned of the consequence of adding to and diminishing from the word which shall judge him at the Last Day. Rev. xxii.

I. M. B.

P.S. In confirmation of my former paper, I beg leave to add the following extract from Jackson's Chronology, Vol. ii. p. 341. "Another argument to prove that Sethos and Sesostris lived at the same time may be drawn from the conquest of Media and Assyria, which were then two distinct kingdoms. This must have been before the Assyrian empire was extended over the Upper Asia, and had Media subject to it, which was in the year before Christ 1250, according to Herodotus, who says that the Assyrians ruled over all Upper Asia 520 years before. the Medes revolted from them. This revolt happened upon the destruction of the army of Sennacherib, 710 years before the Christian æra. So the Assyrians had conquered all the Upper Asia 1230 years before this æra." This computation very nearly approaches to that which I have supposed to be intended in the 13th chapter of the Apocalypse retrospectively considered in respect to Assyria as a type; for if we reckon the 42 months there as containing 1260 days, intending so many years, they will terminate very nearly during the ministry of our Lord. I had not observed this place in Jackson when I wrote my former paper. I would further suggest a query respecting the 2300 evening and morning of Daniel viii. This number is sometimes taken for 2300 days i. e. years, and sometimes for 2300 evening and morning sacrifices offered up in 1150 days i. e. years. Now I lay it down as a first principle in the computation of the periods mentioned in the Old Testament, that whatever further they might intend, they all had a termination in specimen on the day of Pentecost, and with them all Old Testa

ment prophecy had a sample of completion, or first-fruits, as stated in the 8th of the Romans. May not these numbers then 1150 and 1150 have denoted the times of the superiority of Asia and Egypt over Europe, and then of Europe over Asia and Egypt? Need we be reminded of Egeus, the golden fleece, and Alexander, in respect to Europe; or of Jupiter Hammon, or Ham, in respect to Egypt and Asia?

I lay no stress upon such imaginations, but I state them because they may possibly lead to a source of information little thought of; and if they do not, no harm is done while they are proposed with diffidence and a good intention. I would only add, that their epoch may have been the corruption of the true religion at Babel.

CLASSICAL CRITICISM.

Mr. Editor,

Aberdeen, 27th April, 1826. The 65th Number of the Classical Journal has just reached me, and in compliance with your hints to Correspondents, I have transcribed the Criticism from Scheller, which I shall be glad to see inserted in your next number.

A CONSTANT READER.

"Imm. Jo. Gerh. Schelleri Observationes in priscos Scriptores quosdam. Lipsiæ, sumtibus Casp. Fritsch, 1785." Pag. 320.

1 CORINTH. XV. 29. Hic est ille decantatissimus locus de baptizatione super mortuos. In quo explicando etsi interpretes ita desudarunt, ut explicationum multitudine obrutus fere ille gemat, tamen sibi nondum satisfactum esse judicant intelligentes. Nolo illas repetere, a Wolfio aliisque operose recensitas.. Pleræque nimis quæsitæ videntur. Nonnullas recentiorum non vidi, ut de iis judicare nequeam. Equidem aliam, licet novam (ut saltem credo) tamen et contextui et linguæ indoli egregie convenientem, hic proponam. Judicent peritiores. Neque enim eam cuiquam conor obtrudere. Nempe Paulus, ostensurus Christum in vitam vere redisse, utitur his argumentis: si Christus cruci olim adfixus non redisset in vitam (1) v. 17. religionem Christianam esse vanam, niti testimonio humano, non divino (Christus enim tum fuisset merus homo), atque