The voice! the voice!-it is floating now And it mingles its sound with the true heart's joy- On the beautiful earth-the sunny air, If to that voice the pale lip mourn, That voice may shake the throbbing breast; That to an earthly echo dies, This mounts and rings above the skies. Correspondence. S. L. H. "PHOENIX" AND THE REV. G. S. FABER. SIR,-After all the pains which I systematically take to write clearly and unambiguously (for I deem perspicuity to be the first, the middle, and the last, in any writing which is meant to be useful), it is somewhat mortifying, that your estimable correspondent "Phoenix" should, so very singularly, misunderstand me. In the Churchman for March, 1843, p. 186-192, he adduces two sets of extracts from my Works, wherein he charges me with direct self-contradiction: and he compliments me by saying, that he greatly prefers the sentiments contained in the first set, to those contained in the second set. According to "Phoenix," the self-contradiction is this. In the first set, I declare, that the doctrine of Christ's divinity is so clearly propounded in Scripture, that, to any sober and honest inquirer, no verbal statement can be more decisive. In the second set, I remark, that, if the principle of absolute insulated private judgment be admitted, we must allow the exercise of it to the Socinian, as well as claim it for ourselves. Such being the case, since, abstractedly, the insulated private judgment of one man is just as authoritative (I did not say, concretely, as good), as the insulated private judgment of another man; and since, between the Socinian and the Catholic, the very point in dispute is the IMPORT of Scripture: I conceive it plainly to follow, that, in CONTROVERSY with a Socinian, the Catholic must inevitably go out of Scripture in order to bring some tangible evidence touching its SENSE; the point, that is to say, of the litigation. To this, the Catholic is driven not because he himself thinks Scripture insufficient to establish its own meaning, for his opinion is the very reverse; but · because his adversary denies the true MEANING of Scripture to be that, which, on the ordinary conventional principles of philosophy, any uninterested reader (we will say, an infidel, or a sensible heathen) would at once pronounce to be its MEANING. Now, whether self-contradictory or not, such, in a condensed form, was the whole that I said on sundry different occasions: and I fear I am so incorrigible, that I still hold the sentiments expressed in both sets of quotations, notwithstanding their asserted contradictoriness. "Phoenix" does not seem to have observed, that the entire matter turns upon the question: Whether the devout biblical Catholic is, or is not, engaged in CONTROVERSY on the nature of Christ as propounded in Holy Scripture. If he is not then he requires nothing more than the Bible for his own conviction; and he may well say, that, if the Socinian be not convinced by that, language cannot be more express, though it may be more scholastic or articular. : If he is then, since the Socinian claims the right of affixing his own interpretation upon Scripture independently of any proof or evidence, he must bring external testimony to demonstrate, upon strict historical principles, that his view of the SENSE of Scripture is correct, while the view of his adversary is incorrect. It is quite true, that a determined Socinian may doggedly deal with historical testimony, just as he deals with the Bible, or just as Mr. Newman deals with the testimony of the Roman Clement to the true catholic doctrine of Justification. Under these circumstances, I freely admit, that nothing more can be done. If an adversary declares, that evidence to the blackness of an article is really evidence to its whiteness, the discussion is palpably at an end. I certainly am not aware, that I have been guilty of any selfcontradiction: nor do I perceive, why, on pain of forfeiting the praise of consistency, I should be pledged to declare the Bible, alone and per se, insufficient to convince cither myself or any fair inquirer, that Christ is very God; BECAUSE, in controversy with a Socinian, I deem it argumentatively necessary to produce external evidence to the true SENSE of the Bible on this vital point. Sherburn-House, March 4. 1843. G. S. FABER. 265 LETTERS ON PROPHECY.-No. IX. To the Editor of the Churchman. SIR-The history of Persia and Greece, which has been given briefly in the vision of the ram and he-goat, is repeated, with further details, in another prophecy. I now proceed to examine the strange and monstrous novelties, by which every maxim of common sense has been violated, in a recent interpretation of this last vision. V. THE PROPHECY OF THE SCRIPTURE OF truth. This prophecy, more than all the rest, has obtained for Daniel that remarkable censure of our infidel historian, that he is too exact for a prophet. The prediction, down to the thirtieth verse, is indeed uncommonly minute and full. As far as this point, there has been scarce any variety of sentiment among expositors as to the historical sense. But as the last ten verses have been sometimes obscured by a supposed double reference to Antiochus and to a future antichrist, I now confine myself to the first nineteen verses. On the meaning of these there has been an almost unbroken harmony of consent in every age of the Church. I will first give a brief summary of the evidence for their fulfilment, and then examine Dr. Todd's theory. I. HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF FULFILMENT. 1. The prophecy opens with these words "Behold, there will yet stand up three kings in Persia, and the fourth will be far richer than all; and by his strength, through his riches, he will stir up all against the realm of Grecia." The three kings are plainly the three next successors of Cyrus, who was reigning at the time of the vision. The word yet proves this decisively. And these successors were Cambyses, Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspes, as we learn from Herodotus: "Now, when Cyrus was dead, Cambyses, son of Cyrus and Cassandane, took the kingdom" (ii. 1).-"The Magus, therefore, when Cambyses was dead, ruled securely under the title of his namesake, Smerdis, the son of Cyrus" (iii. 67).—" Darius, the son of Hystaspes, was then received as king" (iii. 88)." After Darius was dead, the kingdom passed to his son Xerxes" (vii. 4). 2. The riches of Xerxes, and the vastness of his expedition, require no proof. Herodotus continues: "Xerxes in this manner assembled the army, searching every region of the continent: for, after the recovery of Egypt, four full years he was preparing the armament with its needful provision, and in the fifth he marched with an immense force. And indeed, of all armies that have come to our knowledge, this was far the greatest; so that neither that of Darius against the Scythians, nor of the Scythians against the Medes, seems anything in comparison. For what tribe of Asia did not Xerxes bring against Greece? What stream did not fail in supplying his army, except the great rivers? The number which each nation sent I cannot recount exactly; but the number of the whole land army was shown to be one hundred and seventy myriads." U 66 He then enumerates sixty nations who composed the army, and ten or twelve more in the naval forces of Xerxes. What a strict fulfilment was here of the angel's description! "By his strength, through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia." 3. The mighty king," in the next verse, plainly is Alexander: for it must be observed that the fourth king of Persia is not described as the last, but as the height and solstice of the empire. The expedition of Xerxes was indeed that crisis, after which Persia began to decline, and Greece to prevail. That a king of Greece, and not of Persia, is here meant, is put beyond a doubt by the former vision. He is clearly the same with the notable horn of the goat, or "the first king" of Grecia. The history of Alexander exactly corresponds. In the words of Diodorus, "this king in a very short time did great things, and excelled all the princes that were before him in his wonderful achievements; for he conquered a great part of Europe, and almost all Asia, within twelve years, so that his fame was advanced to such a height as to surpass in glory all the heroes and demigods. The particular relations will sufficiently evidence his greatness, and the fame and glory of his name." 4. The division of Alexander's kingdom, and failure of his posterity, have already been shown to agree exactly with the prophecy. I will here add the words of Dexippus: "After the death of Alexander, Andæus his brother, surnamed Philip, and Alexander his son, by Rhoxane, receive the kingdom of the Macedonians. But Olympias, having destroyed Andæus, along with his wife, in the seventh year, is herself soon after destroyed by Cassander. Now she began to reign over the Macedonians with the two sons of Alexander— Hercules, son of Barsine, and Alexander, son of Rhoxane-whom also Cassander destroyed, and, casting out Olympias, even without burial, proclaimed himself king of the Macedonians." Thus the divided kingdom of Alexander was "not to his posterity, nor after his dominion." 5. The king of the south was Ptolemy Soter, son of Lagus. "In Asia, Ptolemy, one of those who had a share in the division, without difficulty possessed himself of Egypt...... Thus the Cyrenians and neighbouring cities lost their former liberty, and became subject to Ptolemy......He put strong garrisons into all the convenient places of Egypt, and succeeded for the most part in everything he undertook (Diod. xviii. 2). "He enjoyed Egypt as a conqueror; and, casting his eye on Coele Syria and Phenicia, used his utmost endeavour to possess their cities. To that end he made Nicanor general, who brought all Syria under his power, gained the cities of Phenicia and put garrisons in them, and returned to Egypt" (c. 3). "About the same time (B.C. 306) Ptolemy, coming with a well-appointed army, reduced all Coele Syria to obedience." At this point the history of Diodorus breaks off, just before the battle of Ipsus. Justin continues the narrative: "Ptolemy in Egypt, by wise industry, prepared great forces; he had enlarged the bounds of his empire by the acquisition of Cyrene, and had now grown so great that he had not so much cause to dread his enemies as to be dreaded by them " (xiii. 6). "The war being ended, Ptolemy dies with great glory, on account of his exploits" (xvi. 2). 6. One of his princes, stronger than himself, was Seleucus Nicanor. "Seleucus, fearing the worst, fled, with fifty horse only in his company, to Ptolemy, in Egypt, whose kindness towards all that came to him for protection and shelter was praised everywhere. When he was got safe into Egypt, he was entertained by Ptolemy with all expressions of kindness and affection. While Antigonus was thus employed, Seleucus came, with an hundred ships, out of Egypt" (Diod. xix. 4). "In a council of war, Ptolemy's generals agreed that Seleucus and Menelaus, staying in Cyprus, should bear up against their enemies." Seleucus, after the rout of Demetrius, at Gaza, receiving from Ptolemy eight hundred foot and two hundred horse, marched towards Babylon with confidence...... Having by these means obtained a powerful army, he easily brought Media and Susa under subjection, and sent word to Ptolemy how he had succeeded, having now the full royal power and majesty in his hands" (c. 6). 7. The dominion of Seleucus was to be "a great dominion." So Dexippus: "Seleucus, going up to Babylon and conquering the barbarians, reigned thirty-two years; wherefore he was called Nicanor. In the thirty-second year of his reign, having driven Lysima chus from Macedon, and being elated by the victory, he was slain by Ptolemy Ceraunus, when about to rule over the Macedonians." It thus appears that both the northern and eastern divisions had come under his power, and that he was on the point of obtaining the western also. Hence Appian calls him "the greatest of the kings after Alexander." 8. "In the end of years they will join themselves together." The words imply some considerable interval. Accordingly this intermarriage took place about sixty years after the accession of Seleucus, and thirty after his death, between Antiochus Theus, his grandson, and the daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus, the son of Ptolemy Soter. The marriage and its results are thus described by Appian : "When Seleucus was dead, the following received the kingdom of Syria in succession, the son from the father: first, Antiochus, called Soter, from his expelling the Gauls, who had invaded Asia, out of Europe; and, secondly, Antiochus, who was surnamed Theus by the Milesians, because he removed their tyrant Timarchus. But his own wife slew this god by poison; for he had two, Laodice, and Berenice the daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus: and Laodice slew him, and with him both Berenice and the infant of Berenice; but Ptolemy, the son of Philadelphus (v. 7), avenging these things, both slew 'Laodice, and invaded Syria, and marched as far as Babylon." We see, then, that Berenice, her father, her child, the women her attendants, and Antiochus her husband, all died almost at the same time; and that her brother, "a branch from her roots," came against Syria to avenge his sister's murder. 9. "He shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north." So |