nterpretation of Bishop Newton!]

[Footnote 8: Faber.]

[Footnote 9: This is the opinion of Mr. Faber.]

[Footnote 10: Scott.]

[Footnote 11: Scott]

[Footnote 12: So Mr. Faber imagined.]

[Footnote 13: So designated by Nicholas, late emperor of Russia.]

APPENDIX.

THE NEW JERUSALEM.

Interpreters are much divided in opinion as to the import of this
symbol. Some think it represents the church on earth during the period
of the millennium; while others, no less learned and pious, consider it
as an emblematical representation of the heavenly state. Of those who
acquiesce in the former view, some consider the arguments "quite
conclusive." It may be conceded that much may be advanced, and with
great plausibility, in support of this position.

Perhaps the most specious arguments to this purpose are such as the
following:--"That the New Jerusalem is distinguished from the Old,
because of the superior light and grace of the present dispensation of
the Covenant. Moreover, the glowing descriptions of the church militant
given by the prophets, especially Isaiah, are thought to be as boldly
rhetorical as those of John; yet those lofty flights are confessedly
descriptive of the church on earth. Besides, who can conceive how "the
kings of the earth bring their glory and honour into" the heavenly
state? or how are "the leaves of the tree of life for the healing of the
nations," when there _are no nations to be healed?_ etc.

To these arguments the following answers may be given.

The church is one under all changes of dispensation, and by what names
soever she is called: but it does not appear that we are warranted by
Scripture usage to view the New Jerusalem as a designation of the church
in her militant state. She is indeed sometimes called in the New
Testament by Old Testament names: as when Paul calls her by the name
Zion, (Heb. xii. 22.) But he does not say, _new_ Zion. Again, when our
Lord promises, (as in Rev. iii. 12,) to reward "him that overcometh," it
must be supposed from the connexion, that, as in all similar cases of
spiritual conflict, this reward is to be conferred in a future
state,--heaven. But part of the reward he describes in these words:--"I
will write upon him the name of the city of my God, which is New
Jerusalem." Surely it may be supposed without presumption, that in this
place New Jerusalem means heaven. Nor is the assumption true,--that the
descriptive language of the Old Testament p