woman in the wilderness, should jointly constitute a period of 1260 years: I should then have thought that we were justified in understanding that period, as Bp. Lowth rightly understands the 70 years. But, when we find that a totally different mode of expression is adopted, when we are separately told that the times of each will amount to 1260 years; I can no more believe that we have a right to curtail at our pleasure the times of each, than I could believe that each one of those nations should not serve the king of Babylon precisely 70 years if the prophet had seriatim told me that each of them should.

To proceed however to more important matter. "For his positive assertion", says Mr. Whitaker, "that the boly city can be understood only in a " figurative sense: by interpreting it of the visible "Church of Christ, he introduces into this book "no less than four images of that; the woman in the "wilderness, the holy city, the two witnesses, and "the company of 144,000: while, by the construc"tion he puts on the witnesses themselves, he most singularly makes the prechristian church (as he "terms it) prophesy 600 years after its own dura❝tion. This is symbolizing with a vengeance!"*

66

To the first of these objections I answer, that Mr. Whitaker's two great oracles Mr. Mede and Bp. Newton, whom he affects on all occasions to bring forward against me and for whose talents he cannot have a higher respect than my self, do the very same. Like me, they both introduce into the little book no less than four images of the Church; and, what is

* Letter, p. 14, 15.

more,

more, the self-same images that I myself do*. Nor does the slightest confusion arise from this circumstance, for reasons which I have fully stated in my Dissertationt-To the second objection I answer, that he has most singularly misrepresented me. I freely allow, that I should indeed have "symbolized with a vengeance", if I had ever represented the literal prechristian church as beginning to prophesy in sackcloth 600 years after the expiration of its existence: but, so far from making the assertion which Mr. Whitaker is pleased to put into my mouth, I made one diametrically opposite to it. I consider a simple reference as a sufficient answer to this objection.

* In the case of the Euphrates, Mr. Whitaker sarcastically complimented me on my exposition: now he openly censures me. Yet in both cases I merely followed Mr. Mede. I shall soon begin to suspect, that it will be a knotty point to decide which of us is the most staunch friend to that great expositor, notwithstanding Mr. Whitaker refers us to "the proofs he "has given of being conversant with the works of the truly "venerable Mede". (Letter, p. 2.) I much fear, that, as Mr. Mede's avowal that the Pope is Antichrist "marred the savour of his ointment" at court, so my avowal that the Pope is not Antichrist does the same good office for me with Mr. Whitaker. He surely must view my luckless Dissertation with a most jaundiced eye, or he would not find fault with me for saying the very same that Mede says.

+ Vol. I. p. 59, 60, 61.

See my Dissert. Vol. II. p. 52, 53, 54, 55, and parti. cularly p. 54. Mr. Whitaker might just as well have asserted, that the second set of the men of understanding mentioned by Daniel were the first set arisen out of their graves. Dan. xi. 33, 35.

The next point to be considered is whether the great city, mentioned in Rev. xi. 8, can mean the literal Jerusalem. Mr. Whitaker maintains that it does: I maintain that it does not. In this opinion, and in my opposition to the conceit of Mr. Whitaker, I am supported by St. Jerome; by Mede, the two Newtons, Lowman, Fleming, Brightman, Daubuz, Jurieu, Mann, Doddridge, and Heidegger*; and among the Papists by the Bp. of Meaux. Throughout the Apocalypse Jerusalem is never once called the great city, except it be intended in this single passage: whereas Babylon is no less than twelve times denominated the great city. In short, upon all occasions, the great city is used as the synonym of Babylon. As for Mr. Whitaker's assertion, that "the application of great to the holy city is but in

just consonance with that passage of Scripture in "which our Lord declared it to be the city of the "great King", it is unworthy of a writer of his talents. He might as well argue that the Jews were the greatest nation in the world, because they were peculiarly the people of the great King. If however he did, Moses would speedily confute himt.

Here I might properly conclude the present argument; for the point in debate between us is, not whether the great city mean Rome or the Roman empire, but whether it mean the literal city of Jerusalem or no. Nevertheless, since Mr. Whitaker

I have not the opportunity of turning to any more protestant expositors; and perhaps the reader may think that I have already turned to quite enow.

+ Deut. vii, 6, 7.

has

has taken upon himself to ridicule my opinion that it denotes the whole Roman empire, I am very ready to discuss with him, whether the apocalyptic Babylon, which all our best commentators suppose to be the same as the great city mentioned in Rev. xi. 8, mean the city or the empire of Rome. He observes, that, "as if the words of the Apostle were "too express to run quite counter to them, Mr. "Faber contrives so to extend the imaginary city he brings upon the stage (a kind of metropolis by "the bye, which from the greatness of its own extent seems to leave no room for dominions) as "to include Jerusalem". And he afterwards believes that he shall receive the thanks of "the "sober reader for saving him the trouble of travel

86

66

ling into Germany and England to find a street "of the great city where our Lord was crucified"I shall first rectify Mr. Whitaker's misrepresentations, and then proceed to the argument-I never represented "my imaginary city" as a metropolis. I asserted, on the contrary, that Babylon or the great city denoted no literal metropolis exclusively, but the whole Roman Empire, Rome in conjunction with her numerous provinces: and this I again assert. As for sending "the sober reader* into

66

Germany and England to find a street of the great city where our Lord was crucified"; I maintain, that both Roman Germany and Roman

*Mr. Whitaker more than once uses this word sober, as if to intimate that no expositon, which presumed to differ from his own, could lay any claims to sobriety. I have elsewhere likewise seen it introduced with considerable effect, when a writer wished to excite a prejudice against a position, which he knew not how to confute.

England are streets of the great apocalyptic city, in the sense in which I understand it, and in which from the general context of the Revelation I am persuaded it ought to be understood. What I said was this: if the whole Roman empire be symbolized by the great city Babylon, then the streets of that city will denote provinces; and, our Lord being crucified in one of those streets or provinces namely Judea, was therefore justly said that he was crucified in the great city*-My idea, that Babylon or the great city cannot mean the literal city of Rome exclusively, is supported by Brightman and Daubuz and Lowman and Fleming and Doddridge and Jeurieu and Heidegger and the Bishop of Meauxt;

SQ

* It may not be amiss to observe, what Mr. Whitaker has not thought proper to notice, that our Lord was not crucified in the literal Jerusalem, which Mr. Whitaker is determined to erect into the great city. This circumstance is noticed by Mede with his usual accuracy.

+ "Hæc urbs magna est illa tota ditio cujus est Roma metropolis : quo sensu decima pars urbis cadit, infra ver. 13. Platea est pars aliqua Romanæ ditionis, in qua spectaculum hoc visen. "dum exhibitur, cujus gaudium se diffundit per totum "imperium. Urbs autem ipsa magna una cum metropoli sua iń "reliquo versu describitur, idque duobus disertis nominibus, "et adjuncta simul insigni nota, nequis in orbe forsan erraret "Primum nomen est Sodoma-Secundum nomen est Ægyptus, "non urbs aliqua, qualis Sodoma, sed integra regio et provincia. "Unde hoc nomen non est proprium ipsius metropolis, sed totius ❝ ejus ditionis commune". Apoc. Apoc. Fol. 174, 175.

"The great city is that city which reigneth over the kings of the "earth, or Rome, the empress of the world. Streets of the great "city are its public places throughout its dominion; for the great city "" is not considered so much in its buildings, as a seat of empire. It is Rome, and the Raman empire, says the Bp. of Meaux;

" and