but we regret still more, the rationalistic and irreverent spirit which would shrink from invoking the Divine blessing upon any material substance that is deemed worthy of being employed in His service.

Much more might be said concerning the history and uses of this remarkable work of human ingenuity; but we must draw these observations to a close. It were greatly to be desired, that in our large and populous cities, the ringing of bells could be made subservient to private, as well as to public, religious ends; and be employed for example, as calls to private devotion at the different hours of prayer. Some check ought also to be applied to the indiscriminate ringing of bells upon trivial or unfitting occasions; and a remedy devised for the abuses which, we fear, sadly desecrate many of the church belfry towers. But upon this subject we must be content with directing attention to some valuable observations to be met with in Mr. Markland's "Remarks on the Reverence due to Holy Places,"-a work which we most heartily wish was both studied and appreciated by every member of the English Church.

Since the above was written, we have received a tract on "The Use and Abuse of the Church Bells, by Walter Blunt, A.M." (London: Masters,) which was noticed in an early volume of this magazine. It does not enter into the history of church bells, but gives some practical suggestions respecting the restraints which ought to be put upon their use. This little tract differs very widely from Mr. Gatty's flippant volume. It breathes throughout a most earnest and religious spirit, and we should wish to see it placed in the hands of all incumbents, churchwardens, and others, who may be able to exercise authority over the ringing of the bells. We are convinced that among the many reforms now needed, is one which may extend to the bells and belfries of our parish churches, and we should be glad to see Mr. Blunt's suggestions carried out and adopted, wherever they are practicable. Judging from the tone of his tract, we infer that Mr. Blunt has, in his own parish, acted upon the rules he here lays down; and although we are well aware, that what may be done with ease in one place will often meet with hindrances in another, still we would fain hope that where there is so much room for reform, prudence and perseverance may in time be able to effect some permanent improvement.

HOARE ON THE HARMONY OF THE APOCALYPSE. The Harmony of the Apocalypse, with other Prophecies of Holy Scripture. With Notes and an Outline of the various Interpretations. By the Rev. WILLIAM HENRY HOARE, M.A., Late Fellow of S. John's College, Cambridge. London: Parker. 1848.

THE author tells us in his Preface, that he intended this work as "an attempt to reduce the admitted diversity of opinions to something like a general order and harmony" and that in the execution of this task, he has endeavoured "to correct the too forward conclusions of individual judgment by a proper deference to the teaching and authority of the Church."

With respect to the former of these objects, when we consider that the opinions of commentators on the meaning and fulfilment of the Apocalypse are generally inconsistent with, and often contradictory to each other, it is difficult to imagine what the author means by reducing such diversity to "something like a general order and harmony." But a perusal of his book shows us that his method was a very simple one. It consists merely in omitting, without notice, all such expositions as did not coincide with his own views and this he tells us very plainly :-" My choice (he says) in selecting among" [he means, we may presume, selecting from] "the opinions of different authors, has been guided chiefly by considering which seemed most in accordance with the dignity of the subject, and with the analogy of other prophecies;" in other words he omitted all such interpretations as did not come up to his own views of the "dignity" of the subject, and of "the analogy" of other prophecies: and this he calls "reducing the admitted diversity of opinions to something like a general order and harmony."

A peculiar theory, moreover, enables him to include in this harmony many interpretations, which to ordinary readers seem widely different and even inconsistent. This is effected by the aid of a general principle," which he thus describes :

"The principle to which I allude is this: that it seems to be with many of the prophecies, as it is with the laws of perspective: the trees which form an avenue, or the long line of arches which compose some rich and venerable aisle, to a spectator at a distance all appear one: and so a prophecy, which at first sight might appear wrapt up in one single accomplishment, as time advances may prove to expand itself into many nay, we can imagine that to the eye of the prophet himself the whole group of such accomplishments, divers and successive though they be, may at the distance of time at which he lived, have been purposely represented, rather in their collective unity, than in their several component parts."

All this is but throwing dust in our eyes. For when a line of trees or columns appears as one, it is because we really see only one, all the rest being in fact hidden behind that one which is nearest to us and if we suppose such a series to be but one tree, it is because we are under a mistake. There is no such thing then as a "collective unity" in the one single tree which happens to stand between us and all the rest; it is just as much one individual tree as if all the others were felled or had never existed: we do not see, therefore, why, on the strength of this illustration, we should suppose a "collective unity" in the one single accomplishment of a prophecy, which appears to us the accomplishment only because it is nearest to us, and because its proximity prevents our looking forward to the true accomplishment which it conceals from us. The illustration, therefore, only helps to point out the cause of our mistake, when we assume what is passing in our own day, and, therefore, is nearest to us, to be the sole fulfilment of the prophecy, or any fulfilment at all. But it does not follow that the Prophets themselves were under this mistake, for a mistake it plainly is, as our author's illustration from the row of trees or columns evidently shows. Why must we suppose the Prophet to have taken his station at that precise point from which, according to "the laws of perspective," he can see but one tree? Why may we not just as well imagine him to stand out in front, and to look directly at the whole range of trees or arches ?

The "general principle," therefore, reduces itself to this: that if we suppose the prophecies to admit of a series of successive fulfilments, we may the more easily harmonise, and reduce to "something like a general order," the most discordant interpretations. Nothing need embarrass us. The same prophecy may be a prediction of some heathen persecution of Christianity; and at the same time a prediction of the Mahometan wars; or of the victories of Napoleon and the French Revolution; or of any other event that any expositor may find it convenient to assume as its accomplishment. And thus all is harmony and order: we may shake hands with all the interpreters, however at variance with each other, and profess to agree with all; and if occasionally some little difficulty should arise, we have only to bring into play our author's former principle, of selecting only such interpretations as "seem most in accordance with the dignity of the subject and the analogy of other prophecies." But is not all this a gratuitous hypothesis; invented purely for the purpose of meeting difficulties of our own creation? What reason have we to assume that there exists any such series of successive fulfilments of prophecy as our author's illustration presupposes? The convenience of such a supposition is indeed obvious: for it enables us to meet unsatisfactory or imperfect interpretations without rejecting them altogether. We have only to hint that they are part of a series, with "a collective

unity," and that a more complete fulfilment is still to come, and then we need not give up any event which may be adduced as an accomplishment: it may still be a "primary" or "partial" fulfilment of the prophecy.

But there are cases, when this theory fails altogether to reduce the discordant opinions to order and harmony. Thus for example our author (pp. 196, 197) gives us a table of the opinions of nine or ten expositors, from Machiavel to Mr. Elliott, respecting the signification of the ten horns of the beast in Dan. vii. and Rev. xiii. These authors, it is true, agree in supposing the ten horns to be ten nations or tribes by whom the Roman empire of the West was invaded and conquered: but here the agreement ceases: and the difficulty is this, are all these to be regarded as successive fulfilments of the prophecy, and so all to be received as true? If so we shall find that we have got not ten, but twenty or thirty horns amongst them all particularly if we consider as distinct those nations which some of these commentators arbitrarily combine into one. Thus Machiavel considers the third horn to be the Suevi and Alans; the fourth to be the Vandals; making but one horn of the two former; Sir Isaac Newton on the contrary unites the Vandals and Alans into one, and makes them the first horn, whilst he considers the Suevi of sufficient importance to be a horn in themselves; and afterwards he takes another portion of the Alans, as constituting by themselves the fourth horn. Daubuz, again, combines the Visigoths, Sueves, and Alans into one, and makes them his fourth horn: Mede makes the Ostrogoths and Lombards in Pannonia and afterwards in Italy, the ninth horn: while Bishop Lloyd and Dr. Hales make the Ostrogoths alone the second horn, and the Lombards in Hungary and the northern parts of Germany the tenth.

What then is to be done? If we take all these for fulfilments, our row of trees or columns becomes rather awkwardly numerous. We must therefore "select among the opinions"; a matter of no small difficulty in this case, where our author's rule of considering which seems most in accordance with the dignity and analogy of prophecy, is no help to us-for it is clearly as consistent with dignity or analogy to make the first horn the Ostrogoths as to make it the Franks, or the Vandals.

And in this perplexity our author leaves us: he does not so much as attempt to reduce the diversity which he exhibits in a tabular form in all its nakedness, to anything like a general order or harmony. And this, be it remembered, in the case of a prophecy which he, and all the writers whose discrepancies he tabulates, consider as already fulfilled.

The rules of logic must, therefore, be had recourse to instead of "the rules of perspective." All these opinions may be false, although they cannot be all true; and as there seems no mode of

choosing between them, we are strongly led to suspect that the error lies in supposing the prophecy to be fulfilled, and, as Bacon forcibly expressed it in the language of Scripture, "seeking the living among the dead."

This argument our author notices, but states it with great unfairness and it will be necessary before we go farther to make some remarks on this unfairness. First, however, let us premise that the argument has been employed by a class of writers, who have recently been termed Futurists, (for a nickname is indispensable in modern theological warfare). By this name the Præterists (for so we may call the opposite school), have chosen to designate those who regard the main predictions of Daniel and the Apocalypse as still unfulfilled; and our author's list of "Futurists," is as follows (p. 213), "BURGH. TODD. MAITLAND. MCCAUSLAND. TRACTS FOR THE TIMES, No. 83., &c. &c." The capitals are Mr. Hoare's; and in the "&c." are included, which perhaps he did not recollect, all the Fathers of the Church without exception. But in what he says of these expositors, we must not understand him as intending to speak irreverently of the Fathers by Futurists he means only the modern authors whom he names, although his definition includes (without his knowing it) a much more venerable company. Of the interpretations proposed by these expositors our author says, (p. 216,) "But what weight can they reasonably expect us to attach to their mode of explanation, when the very ground of it is the alleged diversity of opinions on our side? and when this diversity has been shown to affect chiefly some inferior matters of detail, and by no means to exist to the amount supposed?"

When we say that this is an unfair statement of the ground of the modern Futurist expositions, we do not mean to accuse our author of intentional unfairness. It is quite obvious that his prejudices did not permit him to understand the argument of his opponents; which is this:-The authors who maintain that the Apocalypse (or any considerable portion of it) is fulfilled, differ widely as to the events, which they assign as its fulfilment : some direct us to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Pagan persecutions of Christianity; some to the Papal corruptions in dogmatic theology, and the persecutions of the reformers by the Court of Rome; some again tell us that Luther and his followers are plainly predicted. These are discrepancies which must be admitted to affect something more than "inferior matters of detail," unless Mr. Hoare would have us believe that it is a thing of inferior moment whether we believe Romanism or the Reformation to be the beast of the Apocalypse. The argument of "the Futurists" then is not this-Discrepancies exist among expositors, therefore the Apocalypse is not yet fulfilled; but their argument is-It is impossible to suppose that a fulfilled prophecy could be the subject