the temple, "in the middle of the week." All attempts to crowd aside this point are in vain; for such an abolition could not be said to occur in any pertinent sense before the offering of the Great Sacrifice, especially as Jesus himself, during his ministry, always countenanced their celebration. Besides, the advocates of this scheme are obliged to make this last "week" encroach upon the preceding "sixty-two weeks," so as to include John the Baptist's ministry, in order to make out seven years for "confirming the covenant;" and when they have done this, they run counter to the previous explicit direction, which makes the first sixty-nine weeks come down "to the Messiah," and not end at John. By means of the double line of dates exhibited in the above diagram, all this is harmoniously adjusted; and at the same time the only satisfactory interpretation is retained, that after the true Atonement, these typical oblations ceased to have any meaning or efficacy, although before it they could not consistently be dispensed with, even by Christ and his Apostles.

The seventy weeks, therefore, were allotted to the Jews as their only season of favour or mercy as a Church, and we know that they were not immediately cast off upon their murder of Christ, (see Luke xxiv, 27; Acts iii, 12-26.) The gospel was "specially directed to be first preached to them; and not only during our Saviour's personal ministry, but for several years afterward, the invitations of grace were confined to them. The first instance of a "turning to the Gentiles" proper, was the baptism of the Roman centurion Cornelius, during the fourth year after the resurrection of Christ. In this interval the Jewish people had shown their determined opposition to the New" Covenant," by imprisoning the Apostles, stoning Stephen to death, and officially proscribing Christianity through their Sanhedrim: soon after this martyrdom, occurred the conversion of Saul, who "was a chosen vessel to bear God's name to the Gentiles:" and about two years after this event, the door was thrown wide open for their admission into the covenant relation of the Church, instead of the Jews, by the vision of Peter and the conversion of Cornelius. Here we find a marked epoch, fixed by the finger of God in all the miraculous circumstances of the event, as well as by the formal apostolical decree, ratifying it, and obviously forming the great turning-point between the two dispensations. We find no evidence that "many" of the Jews embraced Christianity after this period, although they had been converted in great numbers on several occasions under the Apostles' preaching, not only in Judea, but also in Galilee, and even among the semi-Jewish inhabitants of Samaria; the Jews had now rejected Christ as a nation with a tested and incorrigible hatred, and having thus disowned their God, they were forsaken by him, and devoted to destruction, as the prophet intimates would be their retribution for that "decision," in which the four hundred and ninety years of this their second and last probation in the Promised Land would result. It is thus strictly true, that Christ personally and by his Apostles "established the covenant," which had formerly been made, and was now renewed, with many of the chosen people, for precisely seven years after his public appearance as a Teacher; in the very middle of which space, he superseded forever the sacrificial offerings of the Mosaic ritual by the one perfect and sufficient Offering of his own body on the cross.

In the latter part of this verse we have a graphic outline of the terrible catastrophe that should fall upon the Jews, in consequence of their rejection of the Messiah; a desolation that should not cease to cover them, but by the extinction of the oppressing nation; it forms an appendix to the main prophecy. Our Saviour's language leaves no doubt as to the application of this passage, in his memorable warning to his disciples, that when they should be about to "see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place," they should then "flee into the mountains," (Matt. xxiv, 15, 16; comp. xxiii, 36, 38,) in order

to save themselves from that awful “consummation" of ruin, which he also pointed out as the "determined" fate of that impenitent city, after it should have endured the "desolating" ravages of a siege unparalleled in rigour and suffering, besides being "left desolate" by the abandonment of their God. The destined period of fulfilment arrived, and Josephus, who witnessed it, tells us that the standards of the Roman army, who held sacred the shrined silver eagles that surmounted their banners, were actually placed, during the capture, in the temple, opposite the eastern gate, and there sacrificed to. Equally exact, if the view proposed above is correct, are all the specifications of this wonderful prophecy

In the preceding investigation, several chronological points have been partially assumed, which entire satisfaction with the results obtained would require to be fully proved. A minute investigation of the grounds on which all the dates involved rest, would occupy too much space for the present discussion; I shall, therefore, content myself with determining the two boundary dates of the entire period, trusting the intermediate ones to such incidental evidences of their correctness as may have been afforded in the foregoing elucidation, or may arise in connexion with the settlement proposed.* If these widely distant points can be fixed by definite data independently of each other, the correspondence of the interval will afford strong presumption that it is the true one, which will be heightened as the subdivisions fall naturally into their prescribed limits; and thus the above coincidence in the character of the events, will receive all the confirmation that the nature of the case admits.

...

1. The date of the Edict. I have supposed this to be from the time of its taking effect at Jerusalem, rather than from that of its nominal issue at Babylon; the difference, however,-being only four months,-will not seriously affect the argument. Ezra states, (chap. vii, 8,) that "he arrived at Jerusalem in the fifth month [Ab, our July-August] of the seventh year of the king" Artaxerxes. Ctesias, who had every opportunity to know, makes Artaxerxes to have reigned forty-two years, and Thucydides states that an Athenian embassy, sent to Ephesus in the winter that closed the seventh year of the Peloponnesian war, was there met with the news of Artaxerxes' death, πυθόμενοι . . . 'Αρταξέρξην . . . νεωστὶ τεθνηκότα, (κατὰ yàp TOUTOV TÒν Xpóvov éteλeútnoev,) Bell. Pelop., iv, 50.) Now this war began in the spring of B. C. 431, as all allow, (Thuc. ii, 2,) and its seventh year expired with the spring of B. C. 424; consequently, Artaxerxes died in the winter introducing that year, and his reign began some time in B. C. 466. This latter historian also states that Themistocles, in his flight to Asia, having been driven by a storm into the Athenian fleet, at that time blockading Naxos, managed to get safely carried away to Ephesus, whence he despatched a letter of solicitation to Artaxerxes, then lately invested with royalty, veworì ßaiohevovra, (Bell. Pelop., i, 137.) The date of the conquest of that island is B. C. 466, which is, therefore, also that of the Persian king's accession. It is now necessary to fix the season of the year in which he became king. If Ctesias means that his reign lasted forty-two full years, or a little over rather than under that length, the accession must be dated prior to the beginning of B. C. 466; but it is more in accordance with the usual computation of reigns to give the number of current years, if nearly full, and this will bring the date of accession down to about the beginning of summer, B. C. 466. This result is also more in accordance with the simultaneous capture of Naxos, which can hardly

On these chronological elements, see Browne's Ordo Sæclorum, pp. 202 and 96-107.

have occurred earlier in that year. I may add, that it likewise explains the length assigned to this reign (forty-one years) by Ptolemy, in his Astronomical Canon, although he has misled modern compilers of ancient history by beginning it in B. C. 465, having apparently himself fallen into some confusion, from silently annexing the short intermediate periods of anarchy, sometimes to the preceding, and at others to the ensuing reign. The "seventh year" of Artaxerxes, therefore, began about the summer of B. C. 460, and the "first [Hebrew] month" (Nisan) occurring within that twelvemonth, gives the following March-April of B. C. 459, as the time when Ezra received his commission to proceed to Jerusalem, for the purpose of executing the royal mandate.

2. The date of the conversion of Cornelius. The solution of this question will be the determination of the distance of this event from the time of our Saviour's Passion; the absolute date of this latter occurrence must, therefore, first be determined. This is ascertained to have taken place in A. D. 29, by a comparison of the duration of Christ's ministry with the historical data of Luke iii, 1-23; but the investigation is too long to be inserted here. (See Dr. Jarvis's Introduction to the History of the Church.) A ready mode of testing this conclusion is, by observing that this is the only one of the adjacent series of years, in which the calculated date of the equinoctial full moon coincides with that of the Friday of the crucifixion Passover, as any one may see-with sufficient accuracy for ordinary purposes-by computing the mean lunations and week-day back from the present time. This brings the date of Christ's baptism to A. D. 25; and the whole tenor of the Gospel narratives indicates that this took place in the latter part of summer. Other more definite criteria of the season cannot be specified here.

The chief chronological difficulties of the Acts occur in the arrangement of the events associated with Cornelius's conversion, and arise from the vague notes of time (or, rather, absence of any definite dates) by Luke, between the account of the Pentecostal effusion, (chap. ii, 1,) and the death of Herod Agrippa the elder, (chap. xii, 23;) indeed, but for the periods noted by Paul, in Gal. i, and ii, it would be utterly impossible to adjust minutely the dates of this portion of the history. As it is, the subject is almost abandoned by most chronologers and commentators as hopelessly obscure and uncertain; but there is no occasion for such despair. The death of Herod is ascertained (by the help of Josephus, Antiq. XIX, viii, 2) to have occurred in the early part of the year A. D. 44, between which time and the Pentecost of A. D. 29, is an interval of fifteen years, covered by the incidents contained in chapters ii-xi of the Acts. The visit of Paul, spoken of by him as his second to Jerusalem, (Gal. ii, 1,) is obviously the same with that narrated in Acts ii, 30, since there is no mention of any intervening visit; it was made in company with Barnabus, and the "revelation" (Gal. ii, 2) answers to the prediction of the famine by Agabus, (Acts xi, 28,) which caused the journey. Now it is certain that the date of this visit ("fourteen years after") is not reckoned from that of his former visit, (Gal. i, 18,) for then it would have occurred at least seventeen years (14+3) after his conversion, which would be two years more than the whole interval between this second visit and the Pentecost referred to; it is, therefore, reckoned from his conversion, which makes his journey to Damascus, on which he was converted, occur one year (15-14) after this Pentecost. This is corroborated by two ancient ecclesiastical traditions, one of which states that Paul was converted in the year after the Ascension, and the other refers the martyrdom of Stephen (which was so connected with Paul's persecuting journey to Damascus, as not to have preceded it many months) to the close of the same year in which Christ suffered.

Paul's first visit (Gal. i, 18) must naturally be reckoned in like manner from his

conversion, as it is mentioned to show the length of his stay in Damascus and its vicinity, and is put in contrast with his intentional avoidance of Jerusalem on his conversion, (ver. 17;) we have thus the date of this same visit in Acts ix, 26, fixed at A. D. 33, four years after the noted Pentecost. I need not here discuss the length nor precise time of the visit into Arabia, (Gal. i, 17,) nor the exact mode of adjusting this passage with Luke's account in the Acts; these points are capable of easy solution, and do not require the supposition of some intervening visit in either narrative. Neither need I stop to reconcile the mention of travels in Syria (Gal. i, 21) with the sea voyage direct from Cæsarea to Tarsus, (Acts ix, 30;) the visit to Jerusalem occupied only fifteen days, (Gal. i, 18,) and there is nothing here to disturb the above dates.

Most chronological schemes, blindly following the order of Acts ix and x, without taking into special consideration this interval of three years spent by Paul at Damascus, have placed the conversion of Cornelius after that apostle's return to Tarsus, the arrangers being apparently actuated by a desire to fill up the period of fifteen years, by sprinkling the events along as widely apart as possible, for the sake of uniform intervals. But several considerations present themselves to my mind, which cause me to think this arrangement erroneous. In the outset, the question arises on this supposition, What were the other apostles doing these three years? Was nothing going on at Jerusalem or in Judea worth recording? But this interval is not thus left a blank by the sacred historian. Luke says, (Acts ix, 31,) “ Then had the churches rest," &c.; that is, as I understand it, during these three years, the persecution stirred up by Saul after the martyrdom of Stephen being arrested by the conversion of that enemy, the Christian societies generally enjoyed great quiet and prosperity. I cannot discover any pertinent cause for this remark, unless we suppose it to refer to the period succeeding this event. The same idea is carried by the mention of the travels of Peter "through all parts," (verse 32,) evidently during this season of outward peace, when his presence was no longer needed to sustain the Church at Jerusalem. It was during this tour that Peter was called to preach the Gospel to Cornelius; the year succeeding the conversion of Saul was probably spent by Peter in building up the society at the metropolis, his tour apparently occupied the summer of the year following; and in the third year Paul, on his visit to Jerusalem, finds Peter returned thither. This affords convenient time for all these occurrences, and connects them in their natural order. Lastly, under this view we can readily explain the plan of Luke's narrative in these chapters: after tracing the history of the Church, (specially under the conduct of Peter,) down to the persecution by Saul, he takes up the subject of this opponent's conversion, and does not quit him until he has left him in quiet at home-hence his omission of all reference to these three years, as being unsuitable to his design of continuity; he then returns to Peter, and narrates his doings in the interim. This parallel method of narration is proved by the resumption of Paul's history in chapter xi, 19, where Luke evidently goes back to the time of Stephen, in order to show what the dispersed evangelists had been accomplishing during the four years succeeding that martyrdom, and thus connect the preaching to the Gentiles with the latter part of that period, (ver. 20 ;) and this again prepares the way for the visit to Antioch of Paul, who had lately returned to Tarsus.

It is true, in this scheme there is made an interval of ten years between the establishment of the Church at Antioch and the visit of Paul to Jerusalem, about the time of Herod's death; but it is much better to place such an interval, during which no incident of striking moment occurred, after the Gospel had become in a measure rooted in the community, than to intersperse considerable periods of uninteresting

silence in its early planting, when matters which, had they transpired afterward, would be passed by as trivial, were of the greatest importance in the history. Intimations are given of the general prosperity of the cause, and there was no occasion to present the details of this period, until some remarkable event broke the even course of occurrences. Such an event was the visit of Paul, and especially the contemporaneous conduct and fate of Herod; and the latter account is accordingly introduced in the twelfth chapter by the phrase, Κατ' ἐκεῖνον δὲ τὸν καιρόν, always indicative of some fresh occurrence after a period of comparative monotony and silence. Nor is this interval left entirely devoid of incident; it is in fact filled up by the account of the preparation for the famine. It was “during those days," that the prophet Agabus visited Antioch from Jerusalem; some time after his arrival, he predicted the famine, and it is plainly intimated that the fulfilment did not take place immediately, but several years afterward, “in the days of Claudius Cæsar." That emperor, therefore, was not reigning at the time of its utterance, and as the famine took place in the fourth year of his reign, (Josephus, Ant. XX. v, 2, compared with i, 2,) there is here an interval of at least four years silently occurring between two closely related incidents of this period. The "whole year," during which Paul preached at Antioch, (Acts xi, 26,) is reckoned from his call thither by Barnabas, but does not extend to his visit to Jerusalem; it only covers his first labours confined to the city itself, (after which he itinerated in the neighbouring regions of Syria, Gal. i, 21,) and extends merely to about the time of the arrival of Agabus.

We thus arrive at the conclusion, based upon internal evidence, that the admission of the Gentiles by the conversion of Cornelius occurred near the close of Peter's summer tour, in A. D. 32; we cannot be far from certainty in fixing it as happening in the month of September of that year.

ART. XI.-LITERARY INTELLIGENCE.

Theological.

EUROPEAN.

WE shall doubtless have hereafter to chronicle the regular publication of Methodist books in Germany. Already, under the direction of our missionary, Rev. L. S. Jacoby, an excellent beginning has been made. The books are issued by J. G. Heyse, of Bremen, a publisher of established character, whom we commend to any of our friends who may wish to purchase books in Europe. We have before us, in a neat 12mo. of 144 pages, "Sammlung auserlesener Predigten von Johannes Wesley, aus dem Englischen übersetzt von W. Nast. Erster Band." (Bremen. J. G. Heyse, 1850.) This first part contains ten sermons; and the work will be issued in successive parts. The Hymn-book has also been issued in a neat 18mo. volume. A number of tracts, very neatly printed in 12mo., have been published with Mr. Heyse's imprint; of which we have

before us the following, viz: Des Flucher's Gebet; Der Letzte Tag ; Meines Freundes Familie; Wass muss ich thun um selig zu werden?; Die Wiedergeburt, von J. W. Fletcher; Betest du mit deiner Familie?; Die wahre Religion; Sonntags-Entheiligung; Was bist du?; Der Sünder und der Erlöser; Der Methodismus, von J. Wesley; Gedenke des Sabbath-Tags; Besitzt die Methodisten-Kirche alle Eigenschaften der wahren Kirche Christi?; Die Glaubensartikel und allgemeinen Regeln der Bischöfl. Methodistenkirche; Lebendiges Christenthum; Der Wahre Christ. The selection is very judiciously made, in view of the state of religion in Germany.

We have just received the first volume of JACOBI's Compendious Church History, (Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte von J. L. Jacobi, a. o. Prof. d. Theol. a. d. Univ. zu