CRITICISM

Dear Sir—I have been requested to extract the following from Dunbar’s Greek and English Lexicon, to be sent for your consideration. He says in his preface, “I need offer no apology for endeavouring to explain several passages in the Greek Testament. I have taken a different view of them from our translators, and all the commentators that I have had an opportunity of consulting. Some of them submitted to distinguished scholars have met with their approbation. I would particularly refer to the observations on Acts 1: 6, and James 2: 1.” His observations on the former passage are the following: “The verb apokathistano occurs in Acts 1: 6, “Kyrie, ei en to chrono touto apokathistancis teen basileian to Israel?”—‘Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the Kingdom to Israel?’ as if apokathistaneis were the future of the verb. Dr. Bloomfield, in a note on the passage says, “Some explain ei by num; others by anon. The former may be considered a more accurate version. The idea seems to have arisen from the blending the oratio directa with the indirecta. I have great doubts if ei in an interrogative sentence ever signifies either num or anon. The interrogative particle ee may be so rendered, but not ei. I apprehend the meaning of the passage is generally misunderstood. It is evident that the Apostles were still looking forward to a temporal sovereignty to be established by our Lord; and that they expected to receive from him offices of power and authority in it. This, I think, is evident from the answer returned by our Saviour: the first part of which has reference to the time when the Kingdom of Israel was to be restored, which, he says, “the Father retained in his own power;” the other to the kind of power which they should receive. Their aspiring thoughts after temporal power had been formerly checked, and their views directed to a heavenly kingdom. These thoughts had again revived after his resurrection from the dead. Still, however, they were fearful of putting the question in a direct manner, but had recourse to a supposition evidently implying, in their own minds the certainty of the event, leaving it to be understood what was their real aim. There is, therefore, an apostopesis in the expression, which our Lord perfectly understood. Supposing this to be the case, the words may be thus translated, “Lord, if at this time thou art engaged in restoring the kingdom to Israel?” The object they had in view, but which they were afraid to name openly, may be thus expressed, tina dynamin en autee leep sometha? What power shall we have in it? Our Lord replied, “alla leepsesthe dynamin epelthontos tou hagion pneumatos eph’ hymas.” There is a similar apostopeesis in a conditional statement with ei in Philippians 1: 22. See Dr. Bloomfield’s Note on the verse.”

“Dunbar’s definition of apostopeesis is “a keeping silence; also a figure of rhetoric, by which the meaning is to be gathered from the context.”

“God hath chosen things that are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence.”—PAUL.

I am much obliged to Mr. Cameron for the above copy; and as the best acknowledgment I can make for the trouble he has taken, I will offer a few remarks upon its contents.

No doubt there is ample scope for views of passages in the Greek New Testament different from any yet presented by translators and commentators, the most highly esteemed in the theological world. But whether Mr. Dunbar has juster ideas than they off the true import of those passages, I am not prepared to admit, if Dr. Bloomfield’s criticism on Acts 1: 6, be endorsed by him as a specimen of his own. Dr. Bloomfield ranks as a distinguished scholar, profoundly skilled in Greek; but, deep though he be in human lore, his apostopesian critique proves him to be, like all other State-Bishops, a very shallow divine. If Mr. Dunbar approve the criticism, I can make no exception in his favour; but am strengthened in the conclusion to which I have been led by observation, that no philologist, however skilled in Hebrew and Greek, is competent to render a critical and accurate version of the scriptures, who is ignorant of the true import off the sure word of prophecy. This is illustrated by the case before us. Dr. Bloomfield is a spiritualist; and therefore infidel of what his class terms, the “temporal,” which is the only kingdom of God promised to Jesus and his brethren. Spiritualists use the word temporal in contradistinction to spiritual. A temporal kingdom with them is a veritable kingdom on earth, existing in time, as Victoria’s, or Otho’s, exists; while by a spiritual kingdom they understand a reign of evangelical principles in the hearts of men. Hence, they style the existing church of Christ as defined by them, his spiritual kingdom, and the only one he will ever have on earth; his everlasting and glorious kingdom being the receptacle of disembodied spirits among the stars. The apostles, as Dr. Bloomfield admits, looked forward with certainty to the establishment of a veritable kingdom in the Holy Land, even the kingdom which had once been possessed by Israel. The Bishop assumes that the apostles were altogether mistaken. Mr. Dunbar also, by invoking the doctor’s criticism, seems to participate with him in this assumption. But there is nothing in the text or context, nor in the Old or New, Testaments, to justify it. They can adduce no testimony to convict the apostles of error; therefore, as the only resource, they rack their ingenuity in the treatment of Greek particles and tenses, to fetch out such “a supposition” as will give their spiritualism the benefit of a doubt in its assumption and implication against the “temporal sovereignty” in which the apostles so firmly believed. If the critics understood and believed the prophets, we should have heard nothing off their apostopesis; but being ignorant of “the gospel of the kingdom” testified by them, Messrs. Bloomfield and Dunbar have entertained us with an hypothesis upon ei; which, we were almost tempted to add, “is all my eye,” and so forth.

Mr. Dunbar takes exception to the rendering of apokathistaneis by the future sign of the verb; as thou wilt restore again. It is true that apokathistaneis is of the present tense active; and should be, independently of position, thou restorest, or dost restore again. Suppressing the note of interrogation, and rejecting the ei, the question proposed affirmed the conviction of the apostles’ minds; as “Lord, in this time thou dost restore again the Kingdom to Israel.” From this it is clear, that they regarded the restoration as a future event; and that when it should come to pass, Jesus, the Lord, would be the Restorer. This, it is admitted by Dr. Bloomfield, was their certain conviction. Hence, though the verb is in the present, the facts of the case and the conviction of the inquirers, convert the present into the future, and fully justify the king’s translators in rendering apokathistaneis by the words thou wilt restore again—thou dost restore again, and, thou wilt restore again, are evidently equivalent, especially under the circumstances of the case.

The representation of the present tense by the future is a notable occurrence in the Hebrew; and will excite no astonishment when it is understood, that Hebrew verbs have only past and future tenses. They have no present tense to their moods. Thou restorest again, though represented by the present of the Greek verb, is obviously a future action; and therefore, Hebraistically, in the future tense; so that, had the question been written in Hebrew, it would either have been expressed by the past, converted into the future by wav conversive, or by the future absolute. Mr. Dunbar, then, is welcome to all he can make out of the discovery, that apokathistaneis is of the present, and not the future, of the Greek verb. It does not strengthen the spiritualist assumption an iota.

Messrs. Bloomfield and Dunbar admit that apokathistaneis occurs interrogatively. I would ask then, what word in the sentence converts it into an interrogative? There is but one, and that is this same particle ei. And yet Dr. Bloomfield says, “I have great doubts if ei in an interrogative sentence, ever signifies either num or anon.” For the English reader it may be remarked, that num is a Latin adverb, generally used in interrogations to which a negative answer is expected. If ei were rendered by num the question would be, “Lord, what? Dost thou in this time restore again the Kingdom to Israel?” The inquiry put in this form would imply incredulous astonishment; as if the apostles should have said, “Lord, is it possible that you are going to restore the kingdom to Israel now: surely not?” Ei cannot be taken in this sense, certainly; for the admitted mentality of the apostles forbids it. The idea of restoration did not astonish them; and believing that the time thereof was come, they sought confirmation of their conviction from the declaration of the Lord. But though ei may not signify num in the sense of an expected negation, it may still be regarded as an untranslatable interrogative particle; that is, a particle introduced into the sentence to transform it from an affirmative into a simple interrogative, just as it stands in the Common Version, untranslated except by the note of interrogation. I do not doubt that ei represented to the ear in speech, what “?” represents to the eye. In this sense, it is fairly expressed by anon, or an; as abiit, he is gone; an abiit, is he gone? So apokathistaneis, thou dost restore; ei apokathistaneis, dost thou restore? Dr.Bloomfield does not consider ei an interrogative particle at all; but merely a particle “in an interrogative sentence;” and therefore not representable by num and anon, which are interrogative particles; though in opposition to ei, he patronises ee, which he says is interrogative. His words are, “the interrogative ee may be so rendered (by num or anon) but not ei.” In the sentence before this, he says, he has “great doubts” about ei; and immediately after he has no doubts at all, asserting positively that ei may not be rendered interrogatively.

But the translators of the Common Version say, that ei is an interrogative particle, and is to be rendered as such; for they treat it after this view. If the question had been taken out of the verse where it exists, and, deprived of the note of interrogation, presented to them, they would have known it to be a question, because of the interrogative particle ei; but Dr. Bloomfield would not, not knowing the nature of it. He only knows the sentence to be interrogative from the words, “they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou, &c.” His opinion about ei is therefore mere speculation. But for the context he would not know if ei were in an interrogative sentence, or not. But with all his doubts, he thinks num a more accurate version of ei than anon; because num is more favourable to the apostopeesis he seeks to establish from a context of his own fabrication.

Having got rid of ei as an interrogative particle to his own satisfaction, if not to ours, he then proceeds to lay the foundation of a theory which is intended to afford aid and comfort to spiritualism, by reducing the apostolic question to nonsense.

He begins the work by intimating that “the meaning of the passage is generally misunderstood.” This general misunderstanding is, that the apostles meant what is obviously expressed in their question; an idea he attributes to “the blending of the oratio directa with the indirecta.” The transition from what is styled the oratio indirecta to the oratio directa occurs in the fourth verse. Thus, the indirect discourse is supposed to refer to the Kingdom of God, about which Jesus had been conversing with his apostles for forty days after his resurrection; and the direct to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. But the reverse is the fact; for the fourth and fifth verses come in incidentally between the third and sixth. The oratio directa is,

“Jesus being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God; they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?”

But Jesus not prepared to satisfy them on the subject, turns their attention to the work they had soon to engage in when they should be duly qualified. In doing this, he finished his conferences with them about the kingdom with the oratio indirecta about the gift of the spirit, introduced by Luke in the place referred to. They do not seem to have expected that the Lord would be taken from them; but concluded that, as they were to be endued with power from on high, it was for the purpose of cooperating with him at that time in the restoration of the kingdom Israel had once possessed. Hence the reason why they put the question to him. Dr. Bloomfield admits that the apostles were looking for the establishment of this temporal sovereignty, under which they should be promoted to power and authority; but extracts from the Lord’s reply, that the kingdom was a heavenly one, in the spiritualist sense; and the power to be received the gift of the Holy Spirit. But Jesus said nothing about “a heavenly kingdom.” He declined to tell them the time when the kingdom should be restored to Israel; and made no allusion to “the kind of power” they should receive under its sovereignty; neither did they ask concerning it.

It is amusing to hear a State-Church Bishop speaking with pious flippancy about “the aspiring thoughts of the apostles after temporal power,” which the Lord had checked on a former occasion! If it be quite compatible with the fitness of things that “Christian Bishops” should be lords, live in palaces, make laws for nations, and shine in the courts of royalty; why not for the apostles, their alleged predecessors, to reign with “the King of the Jews” as “kings and priests” over Israel and the nations? Are Jesus and his apostles to be excluded from all power, authority, glory, and honour, among nations upon earth; in other words, maltreated and tormented here, and exiled by violence of men as pestilent fellows to “the spirit-world,” as the only condition compatible with the spirituality of their doctrine: while their pretended “successors” may figure as the honourable of the earth, possessing power over the nations now, ruling them with an iron-rod; and, having waxed fat with all the good things of the present world, join the redeemed company among the stars, and rejoice in glory and honour for ever? Is this the nature, genius, and character of Christianity? Yea, verily; it is of the natural religion so styled of spiritualists: but not of the religion of Christ. Those who have power and authority under existing temporal sovereignties, will have no more of them under Christ’s reign, than Jesus and the apostles have now. The Day of Christ and the Night of Antichrist are rival and hostile periods. Antichrist’s time is now—a period in which Sin and Evil are triumphant; and during which Jesus and his brethren are excluded from their rights, and made the pious sport of learned fools. Antichrist’s is the Duo-millennial reign of Spiritualism—a sort of Fools’ Paradise, in which “the thinking of the flesh” revels in all the delights of self-deception, and devotion to its own conceits. For Jesus and his apostles to be supposed to have been anything but spiritualists—to have had a looking forward to temporalities—excites all the contempt latent in those who now possess them. Like the old Pharisees, they have a misgiving that, if Jesus and his brethren lay hold of “temporal sovereignty,” there will be no chance for them. Hence they hate the doctrine; and charge the apostles with ignorance, and unjustifiably ambition, for entertaining so unheavenly an idea! But the times will soon be changed, and the order of things reversed. The Day of Christ, when the apostles’ expectation expressed in their question will be realised, is at hand; a day of justice and intelligence, of peace and blessing, which will dawn upon the world like the rising sun, shining into oblivion all word-corrupting “suppositions,” and superstitions; and exhibiting to mankind the nakedness and shame of the “wise and prudent” who propound them.

Among these, it cannot be doubted, will be numbered the patentees of the Bloomfield apostopeesian supposition, so craftily and sophistically exhibited in the document in hand. One might imagine, from Dr. Bloomfield’s representation, that the apostles in the presence of Jesus, were like so many parish beadles in the presence of the Pope, or the lordly Archbishop of Canterbury, trembling before these sons of pride. There is not the least evidence from the passage that there was any fearfulness about the apostles at all. Forty days familiarity with the Lord after his resurrection had fully reassured them. Their timidity had all vanished when they found he was no phantasm; but “the Lord the Spirit”—a substantial, flesh-and-bones, person like themselves, only incorruptible and deathless, whom they handled, ate, drank, and conversed with as their Elder Brother. Dr. Bloomfield’s apostopesian supposition is based upon their assumed timidity. “They were fearful,” says he, “of putting the question in a direct manner, but had recourse to a supposition evidently implying, in their own minds, the certainty of the event, leaving it to be understood what was their real aim.” This is mere fiction, as any one unspoiled by a spurious criticism, may see by reading the account. The timidity not existing, there is no scope for the conversion of ei into a suppositious “if,” as though they inclined their heads obliquely downwards, and leered archly at Jesus from the corners of their eyes, and in a subdued and timid tone, said, “Lord, if at this time thou art engaged in restoring the kingdom to Israel, wouldn’t it be nice!” Ridiculous! Why Dr. Bloomfield must think they were a set of craven-spirited bishops, fishing for court favours at the hands of royalty! Edging on the king, as it were, to an enterprise in which they would come in for a considerable share of the loaves and fishes. Removing the note of interrogation, and converting the bishop’s rendering into an affirmative declaration, because of the present tense of the verb, it reads, “Lord, thou art at this time engaged in restoring the kingdom to Israel.” This affirms an untruth. Throw in the ei, and the text is converted into the hortatory hypothesis, “Lord, suppose thou art at this time engaged in restoring the kingdom to Israel.” This was calling upon Jesus for an impossibility; for being perfectly sane and conscious, he could not suppose he was doing what he well knew he was not engaged in. But if ei be admitted to be an interrogative as well as hypothetic (which interrogative quality Dr. B. greatly doubts, and then denies) the sentence becomes interrogatively suggestive, as, “Lord! Suppose at this time thou art engaged in restoring the kingdom to Israel?” Although the sentence is very much enfeebled by Dr. B’s rendering of apokathistaneis, it is equivalent to, “Lord we expect the kingdom to be restored again to Israel, wilt thou not engage in the work at this time?” This is equivalent to the common reading. There is no figure of rhetoric in the passage. It is a plain, straightforward, common sense, question, growing out of the forty days’ converse on the kingdom of God. The figures are all in the critics’ brains, which are so full of a spurious rhetoric, that they can see nothing in its obvious and unsophistic reality. “Thou art engaged in restoring” is a very verbose rendering of apokathistaneis, which is correctly enough translated thou restorest, or thou dost restore; but the verbosity is created to make the timid indirection of the apostles more supposable.

Dr. Bloomfield says, that in putting this question as he has rendered it, “the object the apostles had in view, but which they were afraid to name openly, may be thus expressed—tina dynamin en autee teepsometha—What power shall we have in it?” He then represents Jesus as replying to this question in the words, “but ye shall receive power, the Holy Spirit coming upon you!” What a wonderful thing is an apostopesis! Surely it is a sort of philosopher’s stone in its way, turning O into X, though in the nature of things having not the least resemblance to each other. “Lord, restorest thou at this time the kingdom to Israel?”—means, according to Dr. B., “Lord, what power shall we have in the kingdom?!” Dr. B., as “ a Right Reverend Bishop,” and communicator of the Holy Spirit to college candidates for “Holy Orders,” ought to know, that the apostles knew what power and authority they were to have in the kingdom; and therefore needed not to seek any information of the kind. They had inquired through Peter, what was to be their reward for forsaking all they possessed on earth, and following Him. Jesus told them without any apostopesis, that they should have power and authority as immortal kings over Israel when the kingdom should be palingenized, or renewed; as it is written,

“In the new-birth day (of the nation) when the Son of Man may have sat upon the throne of his glory, ye shall also sit upon twelve thrones, ruling the Twelve tribes of Israel * * * and shall inherit eternal life”—Matthew 19: 28-29.

“Fear not little flock, it is the Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”

“Even I am covenanted for you, since my Father has himself covenanted a kingdom for me, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit upon thrones ruling the Twelve Tribes of Israel”—Luke 22: 29-30.

After these plain, unfigurative, declarations before the crucifixion, the apostles were at no loss to know “the kind of power” they were to exercise in the restored kingdom. It was this very knowledge that prompted them to inquire of Jesus, whether the time had now come to fulfil his promise to them, seeing that he was now risen from the dead, and all authority (exousia) was his. He did not evade their question, but replied directly to the point. He did not give the remotest hint that the restoration was not to occur. He knew it would, and that He, being the Christ, would have to do the work; as it is written in the prophets,

“The many with thee shall build; the ancient ruins of past generations thou shalt raise up; and thou shalt be called, THE BUILDER of the breach, THE RESTORER of by-ways to rest in:” # and, “Jehovah hath formed Me from the womb to be his Servant to bring Jacob again to him * * * to raise up the Tribes of Jacob, and to restore the branches of Israel” * * * to be “for a Covenant of the people to restore the land, and cause to possess the desolate estates”—Isaiah 49: 5-6, 8.

“In that day, I will restore (ahkim) David’s dwelling place that is fallen; and I will wall up its breaches; and I will restore its ruins, and make it a city (benithah) as in the days of old: for the purpose of possessing the survivors of Edom, and all the nations where my name was proclaimed, saith Jehovah, who doeth this”—Amos 9: 1-12.

Jesus and his apostles understood these things, and one another when they conversed upon them; which “right reverend” and “reverend” philologists do not. There was nothing reprehensible in the inquiry about the time, nor in their desiring to be put in possession of the honour and glory of the kingdom. The Lord was no doubt as gratified at the interest they took in the restoration, as he would be grieved, if now on earth, to see the apathy, indifference, and infidelity respecting it, manifested by “the pious,” who profess to be his disciples. He sent out his apostles to infuse into mankind an aspiring disposition; a high ambition, which would be satisfied with nothing short of equality with the angels, and joint-heirship with God’s own Son. He ordered them to invite men to his kingdom and glory. Aspiration after these is quite compatible with peacefulness and humility among themselves, benevolence to their enemies, and faithfulness and meekness before God.

# Isaiah 58: 12. —Nethivoth lah-shahveth, by-ways for resting; that is, the country made so safe for travellers that they may, without danger, traverse the by-ways leading to resting places.

The scriptures justify us in saying, that at the time the apostles put the question, the Lord was unable to fix the time of restoration. In his rejoinder, he tells them plainly that the Father was the sole depository of the secret.

“The times and the seasons of the restitution,” says he, “the Father hath retained in his own power.”

Before the restoration of the kingdom to Israel could take place, Daniel’s prophecy of the destruction of the city and temple, and of the people off the Holy Ones, by the Lord’s army of Romans—Daniel 9: 26; 8: 24, had to be accomplished. This was the passing away of the heaven and earth constituted by the Mosaic law, in the generation contemporary with Jesus and the apostles; a dissolution and vanishment necessarily to precede the setting up of the “new heavens and earth in which dwells righteousness”—a constitution under which “Jerusalem shall be created a rejoicing, and her people a joy,” in every land where formerly they had been put to shame—2 Peter 3: 13; Isaiah 65: 17-18; Zephaniah 3: 19. Referring to this day of vengeance on Judah and Jerusalem, of which he spoke in his Olivetan prophecy, Jesus said,

“Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels who are in heaven; neither the Son, but the Father. Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is”—Mark 13: 32-33.

Jesus knew the order of events, but he did not then know the time of them. He knew that the coming of the Son of Man to destroy and take vengeance, was to precede his appearing as King in his glory to build up Zion—Psalm 102; 16—and to redeem Israel; but the times and the seasons he did not know, as he avers; and therefore, he could only tell the apostles that they had asked him for information he could not impart.

He could inform them, however, so much as this, that whenever the restoration off the kingdom might happen they had a work to do before it could come to pass. The kingdom would require “a people” to administer its affairs righteously—a necessity, which makes it impossible, therefore, that the unrighteous can inherit it—1 Corinthians 6: 9; Ephesians 5: 5. It would be their business, therefore, to collect this people together out of Judah and the nations—Acts 15: 14—by the proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom in his name, witnessing to him, that He is the man ordained of God to rule the world with them in righteousness. He knew they were unable of their own ability to make this proclamation to the nations, being ignorant of their several languages; and moreover, had they been able to speak all tongues, their proclamation would not have been regarded, as they were devoid of power to prove that they were heralds sent of God, and that the word they preached was his message to the world. Till the Day of Pentecost, then, they were powerless to execute the work of announcing the good news to every creature. “Tarry ye therefore in the city of Jerusalem,” said he, “until ye be endued with power from on high”—Luke 24: 49, by the Holy Spirit coming upon you—Acts 1: 8. They obeyed; and from the history of that notable day, we find that they became fully equipped on the reception of the Spirit, for the work of faith and labour of love before them; a faithful performance of which is to be rewarded by exaltation to the thrones in Israel, when the kingdom is restored to them in the palingenesia, or “times of restoration (apoktastaseos, a word of the same family as apokathistaneis) of all things”—Acts 3: 21, 25—pertaining to the nation.

But I need add only a few more words at present. A little scripture testimony, intelligently applied, is worth a library of spiritualism, with all its rhetoric, logic, and classic lore, to boot. These things, useful enough in their way, become in the hands of those who “grind divinity” for the multitude, the means of “darkening counsel by words without knowledge.” Dr.Bloomfield ranks as the most accomplished Greek scholar of his age. But for his skill in Greek, it is probable, he would never have been heard of. His ability to translate a Greek MS. which had foiled some “learned divines” caused his introduction to Earl Spencer, whose patronage eventually helped him to the Right Reverend Father-in-Godship of “London’s famous town.” But of what value is his Greek for scripture criticism while ignorant of the prophets? It is positively injurious. A single testimony from these upsets his whole hypothesis. A mere professor of heathen Greek undertakes to define the apostopeses of the New Testament, the idea is preposterous! There are many points there on which the apostles “keep silence;” but where the meaning cannot be gathered from the context. In this case it can only be collected from Moses and the Prophets. Let, then, a Gentile bishop or professor, with his pagan Greek, who is ignorant of the “sure word of prophecy,” undertake to interpret the apostolic silence by suppositions, and criticisms on particles, does the reader imagine he would be enlightened by the effort? Nay, it would only make darkness visible, as in the case before us. Criticism on Greek particles is no sufficient substitute for the prophetic testimony. Nothing can supply the lack of this in the interpretation of the New Testament. It is the pagan criticism off the unlearned in the prophets, that is the parent of spiritualism; and that wrests the scriptures to the destruction of the critics, and of them who heed them. There is much written at the present time, in this country, about giving the people a faithful and thorough translation of the Bible! I would like to know the man of this generation, who, being ignorant of the prophets, could do it. If he could, then he must have received spiritual gifts, as the word of knowledge, the word of wisdom, and the gift of tongues. He would then be qualified to translate by inspiration; but in default of these gifts, and a correct understanding of the prophetic word, there exists on earth no man that can accurately transfer the mind of God from Hebrew and Greek into his mother tongue. All translations, therefore, are of necessity more or less imperfect, owing not so much to ignorance of the language (though of this there is no little in the best of scholars as their controversies prove) as to stolid imbecility in the teaching of the prophets. The agitation, therefore, about a new and thorough translation of the word, is much ado about nothing; for if accomplished in the spiritualist sense, it will only be a monument of complacent foolishness, demonstrative of the presumption off the carnal mind, whose ethereal speculations are subversive of the truth of God. Let us, then, eschew the Grecian critics and their spiritualism; and take heed to the prophetic light that shines from the vernacular lamp, imperfect as it is. The light is brilliant enough to show us the divine purpose, and our interest in it; and to show us how we may obtain inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God; when they shall have seized upon the temporal sovereignties of the world; and have bestowed the spoils of the enemy upon the apostles, and on them who believe on Jesus through their teaching. In hope of a speedy fruition of this expectation, we conclude this article with the kindest feelings and best wishes for all concerned.