consequences. But the text tells us that power was given to kill with the sword, famine, and beasts, "in the fourth part of the earth." This is surely something more than an unsuccessful policy resulting from a quadrupartition of the empire; and the evil consequences of this policy were felt, not in the fourth part over which Diocletian presided only, but equally in the whole of the empire, a fact wholly irreconcilable with the prophecy as Mr. Galloway would explain it.

Of his interpretation of the Fifth Seal, I shall say nothing, as I have already, I fear, exceeded the limits allowable in a communication of this nature. But I cannot conclude without protesting against Mr. Galloway's interpretation of the Sixth Seal. It does, I confess, seem to me a wonderful thing that so many commentators, whom one cannot imagine to be under the influence of any irreverence or contempt for the words of inspiration, should be found capable of interpreting the awful prophecy of the Sixth Seal of such events as the civil recognition of Christianity, the destruction of Jerusalem, the Lutheran Reformation, &c.

"THE GREAT DAY OF HIS WRATH IS COME, AND WHO SHALL BE ABLE TO STAND."

If these words do not predict the great Day of Judgment and final retribution, is it possible for human words to predict or describe it? If these words do not predict the Day of Judgment, is it possible to maintain that a day of judgment is an article of faith, or revealed at all? In truth, Sir, it seems to me that any exposition of the Apocalypse, which requires us to explain these awful words otherwise than of the Day of Judgment, must necessarily be false. I can conceive no evidence in favour of any exposition of a prophecy, which could outweigh my conviction that "the great day of the wrath of the Lamb" must mean the Day of Judgment.

I remain, Sir, your faithful servant, Trinity College, Dublin, May 6, 1847. JAMES H. Tond.

NULLIUS ON REV. Ix. 7.

SIR, I imagine that Mr. Arnold is inaccurate (as Mr. Elliott remarks) in saying that "the reading ouoo xove (Rev. ix. 7) no longer stands in any critical text." It is rejected by Griesbach and Scholz, but adopted, besides Tregelles, by, at least, Tischendorf and Hahn. I wish, however, to draw attention to the fact, that the difference of reading makes no earthly difference, in relation at least, to the general force and signification of the symbol. In either case, the locusts" have on their heads as it were crowns," and these, either absolutely or in appearance, golden ones. In either case, they "have upon their heads" the badge of victory; and this, also, a victory which is spiritual-the only question possible being, whether this victory is real or apparent only, whether actual or only in profession. By opolo xovoy, Mr. Elliott understands that the crowns (turbans, as he, in violation of every principle of interpretation, makes them out to be) were of a yellow colour; and thus like gold, in a loose, fanciful,

rhetorical sense of the expression, inasmuch as gold is of a bright yellow colour. But I think that it must be evident that this is a sense of the expression quite inadmissible, under the circumstances of the case. Had, indeed, the language been rhetorical-had the object been to convey a peculiarly vivid impression of the brilliancy of the yellowhad this been the idea with which it was the object of the sacred writer to impress the imaginations of his readers, as, for instance, is the case in the first chapter, verse 14, where he speaks of the Saviour's feet as ομοιοι χαλκολιβανῳ, ως εν καμινῳ πεπυρωμενοι—in this case, a resemblance to gold as general as that which is furnished by a similarity of colour would have satisfied the language. But how is this the case in a passage which is not rhetorical, but one of plain description-a passage in which the object is not to impress, but to inform; and inform, upon a point so simple, so entirely within the compass of our conceptions and our language, one so little needing the intervention of metaphor to illustrate and render it intelligible, as that the crowns were of a yellow colour? Is it credible that, had this been all, the sacred writer would have said they were "like gold." Is it credible that he would have called the crowns "like gold," when all he meant by the expression was, that they were yellow in their colour? Accordingly in every similar instance throughout the book, the word ououos (like) is the expression, not for any merely rhetorical and fanciful, but, on the contrary, for a strict, proper, formal, resemblance. Thus, for instance, chap. i. ver. 13, "One like unto the Son of Man ;" chap. iv. ver. 7, "The first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like a calf....the fourth living creature like a flying eagle;" chap. ix. ver. 10, "They have tails like unto scorpions." In all these, and in similar instances, the meaning is, that the things are in effect that which they are declared as being "like." I apprehend, then, in the present instance, that, supposing even the reading opoto xpvow (like gold) to possess authority, the idea conveyed is still substantially the same as if the reading, on the contrary, was xpvooɩ (golden). All the latitude of meaning that I could concede, at the utmost, would be, that the crowns had a golden appearance, while the sacred writer did not mean to vouch for the positive solidity and genuineness of the metal,—that the profession was Christian, while he did not mean to warrant the sincerity or personal godliness of the persons making it. I doubt, however, whether even as much as this could, legitimately, be conceded; and, in general, it seems to me that the idea suggested equally by the expressions ως στεφανοι χρυσοι and ως στεφανοι ομοιοι Xpvoy-by one as much as the other is that of a community distinguished by the badge of "heavenly honour, and spiritual victory," a community associated, in some form, in a distinction peculiar (chap. xiv. ver. 14) to the Saviour and (chap. iv. ver. 4) his saints. To get rid of this idea would, of course, be very agreeable to Mr. Elliott, but if orεpavo xpvoo (crowns of gold) is the true reading, the thing is then an evident impossibility, and it seems to me, at least, that the difficulty is not sensibly diminished if the reading adopted, on the contrary, is that of σreparoi opoli Xovo (crowns like gold).

NULLIUS.

660

MR. ARNOLD IN REPLY TO MR. ELLIOTT.

LETTER VII.

THE PAULICIANS-continued.

SIR,-I am sorry to observe that Mr. Elliott complains, and I fear I must add with some reason, of "the tone of asperity" which has appeared in one or two of my late letters. I beg to apologize to him for it, and to assure him that I will endeavour to guard against it for the future.

I have now received his third edition, and find that the same extraordinary mistake that I exposed in my last letter remains uncorrected. The opinions of the Catholic writer, Petrus Siculus, are still mistaken for the opinions of a Paulician, and made to serve the purpose of establishing the purity of the Paulician doctrine as contrasted with that of the "established but now apostate (!) church." The same conjectural emendation of manibus for genibus is given: and all the other misrepresentations &c. that I pointed out in the first edition remain in the third.

One little variation is remarkable. The fatal narrative of the Paulician woman and Sergius, (the passage in which Mr. Elliott so unfortunately failed to distinguish the dramatis persona, and thus became the unconscious panegyrist of Catholic orthodoxy,) contains a little more of the original; and the author must have looked at the original and detected the curtailment of the "literal translation" of it which he had copied from Mr. Faber: for we now read, not that it is "too characteristic to allow of omission or abridgement," but "too characteristic to allow of omission; indeed, hardly of abridgement." It is plain that this alteration, though it makes the passage oddly incorrect-as implying that abridgement is possible without omission-was made for the purpose of informing the reader that the extract has suffered some little abridgement. How then did Mr. Elliott fail to discover its great amount?

I will now examine Mr. Elliott's arguments in favour of Paulician orthodoxy.

"Respecting the eucharist, it is scarce possible not to see, from Petrus's wording of the charge, that what the Paulikians objected to and denied was the doctrine of transubstantiatio; a doctrine already received in the Eastern or Greek church (!) as well as the Roman, though not authoritatively enjoined for some time after."-Vol. ii. Ed. I., p. 625: Ed. III., p. 309.

The assertion here is, not only that a man's not seeing transubstantiation to be the point objected to by the Paulicians is but a bare possibility; but that what reduces the possibility to such narrow dimensions is "the wording of the charge." It is necessary, therefore, to quote the very words in which the charge is preferred :

* Vol. ii., App. ii. p. 462.

Τρίτον τὸ τὴν θείαν καὶ φρικτὴν τῶν ἁγίων μυστηρίων τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἷματος τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν μετάληψιν ἀποτρέψαι· οὐ μόνον δὲ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλους περὶ τοῦτο πείθειν οἴεσθαι, λέγοντες, ὅτι οὐκ ἦν ἄρτος καὶ οἶνος, ὃν ὁ Κύριος ἐδίδου τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦ δείπνου, ἀλλὰ συμβολικῶς τὰ ῥήματα αὐτοῦ αὐτοῖς ἐδίδου, ὡς ἄρτον καὶ οἶνον. (p. 13.)

"

The third [test is], that they refuse the divine and awful participation of the holy mysteries of the body and blood of our Lord and God; and not only so, but that they think to convince others also on this point, saying that it was not bread and wine that the Lord gave to His disciples at the supper; but that He gave them symbolically His words as bread and wine.

Does the reader agree with Mr. Elliott that it is all but self-evident, from "the very wording of the charge," that what the Paulicians "objected to and denied was transubstantiation? According to the wording of the charge, the Paulicians held that our Lord gave the disciples, at His last supper, no material bread, no material wine, but only the symbolical bread and wine of His doctrine. Had "the wording of the charge" accused them of holding that our Lord did not give the disciples His body and His blood, then, indeed, one might have conjectured that they supposed Him to have given them the elements of bread and wine, but maintained that these elements were not so transubstantiated as to become the literal body and blood of Christ; but the present charge is, that they believed our Lord to have used no visible sign at all; to have distributed no elements; but only His words.

I cannot but think that every unprejudiced reader will be of opinion that the "wording of the charge" is quite inconsistent with the notion that the doctrine of transubstantiation was that which the Paulicians "objected to and denied."

It is, however, but fair to say that the Latin translation which Mr. Elliott prints (296), renders μɛráλnis by "conversio." There can, however, be no doubt that the real meaning of the word in our passage is participatio. For, in the first place, μeráλnic does not mean change generally; it implies an agent altering what he had before done; "μɛtáβολὴ et μετάληψις-quorum prius mutationem et vicissitudinem nobis vel insciis vel certe non operantibus accidentem designat: posterius mutationem quam nostrá sponte facimus et suscipimus." (Stallbaum ad Plat. Phædr., p. 58.) Its literal meaning of a " taking-back" is itself sufficient to convince any one that it cannot express the conversion of the elements into the body and blood of Christ. It is obviously used in its other sense of "taking a share of," "participating in," and it is, as one should expect beforehand, the word that is used to express this notion in the Greek Liturgies; e. g., in the Liturgy of St. Basil; iva ἁγνίσῃς ἡμᾶς πάντας τοὺς προσπίπτοντάς σοι, καὶ ἑνώσης σαυτῷ διὰ τῆς μεταλήψεως τῶν θείων σου μυστηρίων.* And so μεταλαμβάνειν (= " to come municate," to "take" the sacrament) is used by Petrus Siculus himself: διὰ τί οὐ μεταλαμβάνεις τοῦ ἀχράντου σώματος καὶ τοῦ τιμίου αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ;

* P. 77 of the Liturgia Orientales, vol. i.

Let us see whether Mr. Elliott is more successful in establishing the orthodoxy of the Paulicians on the subject of Baptism :

"As regards baptism," he says, "it is evident that the Paulikians objected and protested against the received doctrine of its efficacy by itself, and ex opere operato to the spiritual purification, quickening, and salvation of those to whom it was administered. They do not believe,' says Photius, in the efficacy of these things,' (i. e., of the wooden cross and of baptism, for he unites the two together,) to the justification or cleansing of the soul.' The same is in the inference from the Paulikian woman's reprobation of those who were accustomed 'with certain charms to cast out demons, &c.': a description that is but the counterpart of that which I gave long since of the baptismal exorcising process introduced into the church before the middle of the fourth century, and which we see there still continued." The statements which follow refer to the Western Church, with which, at present, at least, I have nothing to do. What I have quoted is all that relates to the Eastern Paulicians: and since I proved, in my last letter, by a translation of the whole passage, that what Mr. Elliott attributes to the Paulician woman belongs of right to Petrus Siculus, and that he is reprobating no baptismal process, but nominal Christians who professed to cast out devils by magic arts; the testimony which he puts in her mouth must, every word of it, be struck out. There remains, then, for the single proof by which it is made evident, that the Paulicians only objected to the ex opere operato view of baptism, the statement of Photius: "They do not believe in the efficacy of these things, (i. e., of the wooden cross and of baptism, for he unites the two together,) to the justification or cleansing of the soul.'" The note on the passage is, "Horum vim ad animæ purgationem venire non putant,' Photius ubi supra, B.P.M. 205."

One is at once a little surprised at finding purgatio animæ translated "justification or cleansing of the soul." It is difficult to conjecture any reason for this but the effect of it obviously is to represent the unpopular doctrine of baptismal justification as the doctrine opposed by the Paulicians.

But the reader's surprise will be increased, if he really traces back his steps to ubi supra. For there-supposing the Tabular view at p. 296 to be meant-we find no coupling together of the wooden cross and baptism whatever:* but read in the fourth charge, "vim (crucis) ad animæ purgationem pervenire non putant;" and in the seventh charge, "vii. Baptismum aspernantur; quod tamen se fingunt suscipere. Nam Evangelii verba baptismum existimant; quoniam Dominus inquit, Ego sum aqua viva.

"Elsewhere he says: Liberos suos ab ecclesiæ presbyteris salutari baptismo volunt aliquando lustrari. Existimant enim baptismum corpori prodesse; hujus tamen vim ad animæ purgationem pervenire non putant.'

Since I wrote the remarks in the text, I find from a quotation in Dr. Gieseler's essay, that Photius has, in one passage, coupled the cross and baptism together. They held λυσιτελεῖν τῷ σώματι τόν τε σταυρὸν καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα, i. e., they held the superstitious doctrine, that the cross and baptism were valuable as charms to defend the body from harm.