to xix. Whereupon comes thirdly in Apoc. xx a figuration of the triumph of Christianity. So Wetstein, Hernnschneider, Eichhorn, Hug, &c. in Germany; M. Stuart in America, and in England Dr. Davidson. In regard to which School, let me first advert for a moment to what I have indeed already much earlier remarked on,2 the singular dogmatism by which it is too much characterized. Instead of discussing and disproving the strongest, or at least the essential points of other interpretative systems, the law is almost à priori laid down that they are all totally wrong, and the Præterist Scheme alone conformable to the discoveries and requirements of "modern exegesis: :"3—a dogmatism the more remarkable, when exhibited by a man of calm temperament and unimpassioned style, like Professor Stuart.4 On certain weaker minds it is likely that this may be 1 Eichhorn makes his Judaic division of the Apocalypse to extend into Apoc. xii; and the Roman division only to begin with the Dragon's going to persecute the remnant of the woman's children, Apoc. xii. 18. 2 Viz. in my Preface, p. xx. 3 A favorite phrase, and almost argument, with many of this class of interpreters. 4 i. e. in the body of his Work. His Preface is in the undogmatic style that one might expect from such a man as Professor Stuart. Elsewhere however, not only does he dogmatically pass sentence of condemnation on Expositions of the usual Protestant view, (e. g. i. 161, "It is time, high time, for principle to take the place of funcy, for exegetical proof to thrust out assumption,") but even warms into such a burst as the following:- "In the name of all that is pertinent and congruous in prophecy, what has a history of civil commotions and literal famines, &c. to do with the object John had before him? Are we to suppose him in a state of hallucination when he wrote the Apocalypse? Away with all such surmises: and away too with all the expositions that are built upon them!" i. 208, 209. In Dr. Davidson, with whom of English expounders of the system 1 am best acquainted, the characteristic can scarcely fail to strike his readers. So, when speaking of myself and the Horæ, among other Protestant Expositors, in the Eclectic Review for December 1844, p. 644; “As an exposition of the Apocalypse it is a total failure; it is essentially and fundamentally erroneous.” A sentence this repeated at the conclusion of his Article on the "Revelation" in Kitto's Cyclopædia : yet without the slightest attempt at encountering the evidence and arguments in the Hora; to which however he will now find himself called, in my Preface to this Edition, p. xix. -So again of Protestant Expositors generally, in the same Review, p. 649: “ That the Revelation exhibits a prophetic view of the Church from the close of the Apostolic age to the end of time, is a position that can never be rendered probable. All who have attempted to expound it on this principle have totally failed." (Also Kitto p. 623, &c.) And on his own, or German view, ibid. 644; "The recent German works on the Apocalypse have served to point out the true path of interpretation:" and p. 648; "For the right interpretation of the mystical number 666, or 616, see Ewald's Commentary." Again in the Article in Kitto, this German Præterist Scheme is given in considerable detail, not as a suggested interpretation, but authoritatively, and ex cathedrâ, as beyond a doubt the true interpretation. imposing. But to others the question is sure to arise, What the grounds of this strange presumptuousness of tone? What the new and overpowering evidence in favor of the modern Præterists? What the discovery of such unthought-of-coincidence between the prophecy on the one hand, and certain facts of their chosen Neronic æra on the other, as to settle the Apocalyptic controversy in their favour at once and for ever? And then the surprise is increased by finding that not only has no such discovery been made, not only no such discovery been even pretended to, but that in fact they put it forward as the very boast of the Præterist system, that coincidences exact and particular are not to be sought or thought of: that the three main ideas about the three cities, or three antagonist religions represented by them, so as above mentioned, are pretty much all that there is of fact to be unfolded: and that, with certain exceptions, (of which exceptions more presently,) all else is to be regarded as but the poetic drapery and ornament.'-Now in German rationalists, like Eichhorn and so many others, men professedly disbelieving the inspiration of the writer of the Apocalypse, all this is quite natural and consistent. For he wrote, they take for granted, as a mere dramatist and poet; whether at the time of the Neronic persecution, or in Domitian's reign thirty years later, matters not seeing that in either case he is supposed to have thrown himself in spirit into Nero's times; and introduced into his drama, with all a true poet's skill and effect, the thoughts, hopes, and anticipations, especially of the Christian mind, then known to have been prevailing. As to details, what the limit ever assigned to a poet's fancy, except as his own taste or critical judg 1 So Stuart, i. 179 :-" Substantial facts lie at the basis of the Apocalypse. But what the drapery or costume? All symbol is of course drapery. It is the thing signified which is the person; the way and manner of signifying it is merely the fashion of the costume." Then at p. 200 he proceeds to state, with reference to the Apocalypse as "a book of poetry," "that Oriental Poetry, especially the Hebrew, follows out the detail of symbol and allegory, to give vivacity to a representation, much beyond what we do in the Western world:" and, at p. 203, reprobates those who "seek for historical events and facts, in remote ages, as the fulfilment of these so-called predictions." For “what defence can be made for converting episode into the main body of the work; or symbols of assurance that the Beast shall be overcome, into pictures of veritable historical events ?"-Similarly Dr. Davidson in Kitto, p. 627, adopts Hug's remark: "The particular traits and images in the Apocalypse are by no means all significant many being introduced only to enliven the representation, and for the purpose of ornament." ment might impose one?-But that Christian writers, like Professor Stuart and Dr. Davidson, men professing to believe in St. John's inspiration as a prophet, should deliberately so view and pronounce on the matter, so resolve even what seems most specific into generalizations, and what seems stated as fact into mere poetic drapery, is to my mind most astonishing. It is of course due to these writers to mark by what process of thought they arrive at this conclusion; and on what principle, and by what reasons, they have justified it to themselves. First, as might be anticipated, the discrepant and unsatisfactory interpretations given by former Expositors, of the school that seeks in the Apocalypse anything like a prophetic " epitome of the civil and ecclesiastical history of Christendom," figure, in allusion at least, in their announcement at the outset. (On which let me just observe in passing that Professor Stuart does not seem to have seen my own Commentary, when he published his ; and so cannot include it in his condemnatory reference.3)—Next, the intended use and object of the Apocalypse, at the time it was written, has seemed to the learned American Professor to furnish forth the true principle of exegesis, whereby to interpret it,4 And, supposing it proved that it was written during 1 66 Scarcely inferior in importance is the plain principle that generic and not specise and individual interpretations are to be sought for in the Apocalypse." So Professor S. at p. 203, after the extract given in my Note preceding.-As a striking example of the extent to which this is carried by him, I may refer to his Vol. ii. p. 146; where, after setting forth the destruction of Jerusalem and Judaism as the first grand theme of the Apocalypse, from Apoc. vi. to xi, he says; "If no history by Josephus existed, the arch of Titus at Rome would tell the story that Apoc. vi-xi. had been fulfilled. Nay!" Equally well would it have been fulfilled, had the Jewish persecuting power been crushed in any other way, or by any other means." So too in his Vol. i. p. 205. 2 Though Professor Bush at New York had seen and noticed it some time before Professor Stuart's publication. At Vol. i. p. 204, after mention of the Gothic invasions of the Empire, &c, as subjects supposed to be figured by the Protestant interpreters, he adds; "The misfortune is that what applies to this particular battle, &c, would apply equally well to every particular battle that has been fought." If this Edition of the Horæ fall into his hands the Professor will see, by what is stated in the Note at p. xix of my Preface, that the direct contrary to this is asserted as characterizing the specific historical interpretation in the Hora; and if he will test my explanations, he will, I think, soon find how little the above statement can apply to them. I think I may say, with regard to all the chief and detailed interpretations, that they are shewn to be applicable to nothing else whatsoever with the same exactitude, as to that which they are applied to. So in the Preface p. 4; "I take it for granted that the writer had a present and 1 Nero's persecution, and that the Church, then “ bleeding at every pore," could take little interest in information as to what was to happen in distant ages, (excepting of course the final triumph of ́ Christianity,) or indeed as to anything but what concerned their own immediate age and pressure, whether in Judæa or at Rome, therefore that to this the subject-matter of the Apocalypse must be regarded as confined. And whereas, on this exegetic hypothesis, scarce anything appeared in the actual historic facts of the particular period or catastrophe in question, which could be considered answering to the prophetic figurations, therefore that all idea of any particular intent and meaning in these prophetic figurations must be set aside; and that they must be regarded as the mere drapery and ornament of what was indeed but an Epopee, albeit by one inspired.-Finally, for this generalizing view of the Apocalyptic imagery, Psalm xviii, which was David's song after his deliverance from Saul, and Isaiah xiii, xiv, on the fall of Babylon, (the former more especially) have seemed to the Professor to furnish a sufficient precedent.2 The reader has here, I believe, a fair and sufficiently full sketch of the main principles, origin, and justificatory view of his Exposition put forth by the learned American Professor: as also very much, though less consistently, by Dr. Davidson. And on this the following observations naturally suggest themselves.-1. As to the date of the Apocalypse, how unfortunate are these Christian Professors and Critics, as compared with the infidel critics of German rationalism! To the latter the Domitianic date serves quite equally well with the Neronic; seeing that a poet may make a Poem about times past, quite as well as about times present: and that thus Irenæus' decisive testimony, one corroborated from so many other quarters, may be received, as Eichhorn in fact receives it, without the slightest trouble immediate object in view; and that he spoke intelligibly to those whom he addressed." And so again and again, i. 156, 159, 162, 194, 197, 208; ii. 310, 472, &c. A favourite expression of the American Professor. So i. 159, 207, 209, &c.—But how does this square with what is intimated of the state of the Laodicean Church; "Thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods," &c? 2 So Stuart i. 170, &c. 3 For Dr. D. in Kitto, p. 623, cannot refrain from the just observation: "The Apocalypse was designed to promote the instruction of God's people in all ages. It does not belong to the class of ephemeral writings. Its object was not merely a local or partial one." Adding, however: "This general characteristic is perfectly consistent with the fact that it arose out of specific circumstances; and was primarily meant to subserve a definite end." 4 See his Preface, p. xlv. or inconvenience. Whereas with these other interpreters of the same prophetic school, if this their foundation fail, the whole fails: and on what a mere quicksand, in this respect, their structure is raised, and in what imminent danger of being engulphed, the reader of my sketch of evidence on the Apocalyptic date will, I think, soon see.1— 2. As to the very limited use and object which they assign to the Apocalyptic prophecy, as if only or chiefly meant for the Christians then living, by them to be understood, and by them applied in the way of encouragement and comfort, as announcing the issue of the trials in which they were then personally engaged,-what right has Professor Stuart thus to limit it? Was it not accordant with the character of God's revelations, as communicated previously in Scripture, especially in Daniel's prophecies, which are, of all others, the most nearly parallel with the Apocalypse, to foreshow the future in its continuity from the time when the prophecy was given, even to the consummation: and this, not with the mere present object of comforting his servants then living, but for a perpetual witness to his truth; to be understood only partially, it might be, for generations, but fully in God's own appointed time? So, for example, in the prophecies already fulfilled, concerning Christ's first advent; prophecies which even the disciples understood not, till Christ himself, after he had actually come, explained them. So in Daniel's, extending to the time of the end; and which, till the time of the end should come, were expressly ordered to be sealed up.2-Besides which what historic evidence have we of Christians of Nero's time having so understood the Apocalypse, as the American Professor would have it that they must have done ?3 Not a vestige of testimony to the fact of such an understanding exists; albeit quite general, according to him, among the more intelligent in the Christian body. On the contrary, the early testimony of Irenæus, disciple to Polycarp, who was himself disciple to St. John, indicates a then totally different See especially my examination of Professor Stuart's evidence and argument in the Appendix to my Vol. i. 2 Dan. xii. 9. The sealing was evidently with reference to that part of the prophecy which concerned the distant future. * See the extract from his Preface, Note, p. 502 suprà. So again i. 126; "John wrote in order to be read and understood; and therefore intelligent persons of his day might understand him." Also ii. 326, &c. ་ |