droughts, volcanoes, tornadoes, and other evils, at divers times and places, are all to be found in the pages of the Revelation."—Vol. i, p. 204.

We agree with Prof. Stuart that no man of sober discretion, who has ever studied Hebrew prophecy, can give ear to such interpretations as these. An expositor, for example, finds in Rev. vi the description of a certain war or pestilence. What now is his reason for making his specific application? Is it not because he finds certain things in the Apocalyptic picture which might tally well with the subsequent events in question? But the difficulty with this is, that it might tally equally as well with any other war, or any other pestilence, as with that to which he applies it. The truth is, the Apocalypse is designed simply to encourage the church by the prophetic assurance that Christ shall eventually reign over all his foes; and these pictures and symbols declare this in a generic, rather than in a specific, way. Besides, it is one continuous and connected composition; and to suppose that John, in his brief description of the church's victories, should turn aside to note minor incidents in civil or natural history, which are only very remotely or in no respect connected with the great subject in hand, is plainly inconsistent.

The more we have studied, the more we are disposed to accord with the views of Prof. Stuart, that there are three catastrophes in this book. The first is the downfall of the Jewish persecuting power; the second is the downfall of the Romish persecuting power; and third, the downfall of Gentileism-of Gog and Magog, and Satan and his hosts. All that exalts and opposes itself against Christ must at length be destroyed. Now if the pope and his adherents resemble the beast and the false prophet, and oppose themselves to Christ and his cause, they must be overthrown. Or if any other power, whether civil or ecclesiastical, oppose itself to the progress of Christ's kingdom, the Lamb in his wrath shall trample them down, he shall dash them in pieces as a potter's vessel. It is not necessary to suppose that the writer of the Apocalypse had the Romish hierarchy, or the English hierarchy, or any other, definitely before his mind when he wrote. Nor is it necessary to suppose that John, when he wrote, had distinctly before him any future civil occurrences, as the irruptions of the Goths, Vandals, and Huns, or the destruction of the Mohammedan empire. It was sufficient for the then afflicted and distressed churches of Asia and Europe to know, bleeding under the cruel wounds of that heartless and abominable tyrant, Nero, that the end of their sufferings would come, and that Christ, their prince, should reign victorious over all his foes.

The able and earnest reasoning of Prof. Stuart in support of the above theory must commend itself to every candid mind; and we believe the time is not distant when an entire change will come in the views of Christian and theological writers in respect to the applications of the Apocalyptic prophecies.*

The question as to the time when the Apocalypse was written, is elaborated and discussed by Prof. Stuart with equal care and ability. Very much depends on the decision of this question. If it was written near the close of the apostle's life, after the destruction of the city of Jerusalem, which is the commonly received. opinion, then Prof. Stuart's theory of the three catastrophes, viz., the downfall of the Jewish persecuting power, and of the Roman persecuting power, and of Gog and Magog, falls to the ground. If the work was written by the apostle after the destruction of the city of Jerusalem, then there could be no prophecy of that event; and the prophecies, from chap. vi to chap. xiii, cannot refer to that event. Prof. Stuart maintains that the Apocalypse was among the earliest of John's writings, and that it was composed before the destruction of the city of Jerusalem, as it appears to us on good and substantial grounds. The evidence for both of these opinions is ably and fairly presented, and the conclusion is finally made up with great power, that John wrote the Apocalypse in the time of Nero, about the year of our Lord 68.

The fourth argument of Prof. Stuart, that this book was written in the reign of Nero, is so conclusive that we cannot forbear quoting it in part:

6

"Rev. xvii professedly undertakes to explain the symbols of the beast, introduced at the commencement of the second catastrophe in the Apocalypse, chap. xiii, 1, seq. The last verse of this chapter leaves no room for mistake as to the application of the symbol. The woman sitting upon the beast, means 'the great city which hath dominion over the kings of the earth.' When John wrote the Apocalypse, no city but Rome could be thought of as corresponding to this description. Besides, in ver. 9 the seven heads are said to symbolize the seven hills on which the woman sitteth;' that is, the seven hills on which Rome was built, the septicollis Roma of the Latin writers. There is no room for mistake here. And as little room, it seems to me, is there for mistake in another part of the same explanatory chapter, viz., ver. 10. Here it is said, that the seven heads of the beast also symbolize seven kings, viz., of Rome. The writer proceeds: Five are fallen; one is; the other has not yet come; but when he shall come he shall remain but

We would especially commend to the reader's consideration the twelfth section on the hermeneutical principles applicable to the Apocalypse, wherein the above view is maintained.

for a short time.' That the Roman emperors were usually styled Baoilets by the Greeks, needs no proof. That the line or succession of emperors is here meant, and not the primitive kings of Rome, is certain from the connection of the five with the one who is, and the one who is to come. We have only to reckon then the succession of emperors, and we must arrive with certainty at the reign under which the Apocalypse was written. If we begin with Julius Cæsar it stands. thus Cæsar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius; these make up the five who have fallen. Of course the Apocalypse was written during the reign of Nero, who was the sixth."

The above argument is clear and conclusive. There are others quite as clear and convincing as the one above, that the Apocalypse was written in the time of Nero, as the testimonies of Epiphanius and Andreas, and the inscription to the Syriac version. Did our limits permit, we should be glad to give at least an abstract of them.

If the evidence is so conclusive, the reader will be ready to inquire, how happens it that the opinion is so common, that the Apocalypse was written near the close of the first century, and near the apostle John's death? This opinion seems to rest almost altogether on the supposed testimony of Irenæus, in Hæres., v. 30, who lived at the close of the second century, and who is the first writer that we know of who has said anything expressly on the point before us. The testimony referred to is as follows: ovde yap προ πολλου χρονου εωράθη [ἡ ̓Αποκάλυψις,] αλλα σχεδόν επι τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς, προς τω τέλει της Δομετιάνου αρχῆς; that is, “ the Apocalypse was seen not long ago, but almost in our generation, near the end of Domitian's reign." These words of Irenæus are cited verbatim by Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, iii, 18, and v, 8, who flourished about one hundred years after Irenæus; and Jerome, who wrote about seventy years after Eusebius, has quoted his account, (in Catal. v,) and thus this supposed testimony, that John saw his vision in the reign of Domitian, has been handed down from writer to writer till Dr. Lardner, apparently without ever supposing that there might be any mistake in their understanding of Irenæus. But so it turns out ;—or at least it is exceedingly probable, that the whole stream of Christian writers have misunderstood the testimony of Irenæus. It has been suggested recently by an acute German critic, Guerike, that when Irenæus says, "that when the Apocalypse was seen not long ago, but almost in our generation, προς τῷ τέλει της Δομετιανου αρχης," that the adjective Aoueriavov (for adjective it may be, says Prof. S., and if so, it is one which is generis communis, and not the proper name of Domitian,) belongs in accordance with the Greek formations to the

name Domitius, and not to Domitian, which would make an adjective of the form Aouriavíkóç. If it were a proper name, he says it should be written Tov Aoμeriavov. Now Nero's name was Domitius Nero, and not Domitianus, which is the name of the latter emperor. It follows, of course, that Irenæus himself has testified to the fact, that the Apocalypse was written in the time of Domitius Nero. Prof. Stuart adds :

"If he is right in his criticism on the word Aouriavov, past opinions in respect to it present one of the most singular cases of longcontinued and oft-repeated philological error which has ever come to my knowledge."

As to the time in which the Apocalypse was written, Mr. Benson says nothing; and Dr. Clarke, after quoting Dr. Lardner to some length, who advocates the common opinion, remarks:-" If the date could be settled, it would be of the utmost consequence to the right interpretation of the book; but amid so many conflicting opinions this is almost hopeless." But Prof. Stuart in our opinion has set this matter quite at rest. On such a subject it may be impossible to attain to absolute certainty as to the year; yet that it was antecedent to the destruction of the city of Jerusalem seems altogether clear from the internal evidence, as adduced by Prof. Stuart.

The great labor of Prof. Stuart, in composing his Introduction and Commentary, cannot be too highly praised. He seems to have waded through all the Greek, Latin, and German literature which relates to the Apocalypse. He has attentively considered every objection which could be, or has been, advanced against his views. He answers, with great pains-taking and care, more than sixty objections against the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, culled out of various German writers. As a specimen of his labor in answering these objections, we would quote the twenty-ninth on page 385, vol. i. Ewald objects that the apostle John was not the author of the Apocalypse, because composite verbs are much more frequent in his Gospel than in the Apocalypse. Prof. Stuart answers:"I have been through the whole Greek Concordance in order to see whether this is correct; and find it to be so far from being so, that even the contrary position, viz., the Apocalypse makes the more frequent use of them, is nearer the truth."

The twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh sections of the Introduction have been to us the most interesting and instructive parts of it. In these sections are presented a short historical account of the estimation in which this book has been held in different ages of the

church; also an historical sketch of its interpretation. These sections are written in Prof. Stuart's most lucid and spirited style, and, from his long attention to the Apocalyptic literature, he has brought together a mass of information here, which entitles him to the hearty thanks of every student and investigator of this most interesting portion of God's Word. We would gladly, did our limits permit, give the reader a synopsis of this part of the work. But as it is, we must be content to refer him to the work itself.

To prevent the establishment of error, as well as to sustain and propagate truth, is the solemn duty of every Christian writer. And when error comes indorsed by such a man as Prof. Stuart, it is the more dangerous and needs a more vigorous and caustic remedy. There is one more topic brought to view in the Introduction to the Commentary which seems to call for animadversion. He says, "What moral and spiritual edification is derivable from such portions of Scripture ?" e. g., as the architectural directions for building the tabernacle, the minute details of rites and forms under the Levitical priesthood, &c. What, thought we, as we read the paragraph from which the above is taken, has this learned professor forgotten what God says by the apostle Paul to Timothy, that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, &c.? But we were in some degree relieved, though not altogether, by an explanation on a succeeding page, where he admits that even such Scripture is profitable for doctrine, &c., in an indirect way. Our impression is, that Prof. Stuart yields too much oftentimes in his writings to the heterodox, the skeptic, and the infidel. He oftentimes gives too much place to the devil. Holy Scripture is too sacred and too precious to be given up or abandoned in one jot or tittle.

But so signal are the attainments of Prof. Stuart as a commentator, so earnest, so candid, so learned, and withal, in general so judicious, that we have regretted to mark anything as spots on the work on the Apocalypse, lest we should unduly diminish respect for it with the readers of this Review. We intended to take up several passages in the Commentary, and present our views at length on several controverted passages. We do not agree with Prof. Stuart in all these, especially on Rev. xx, 6. But in his main principles, in his views as to the general object of the book, -the coming and completion of the kingdom of God, in his view of the catastrophes, we go with him heart and soul. His work is the most candid, most clear, most learned, and altogether the most satisfactory of any on the Apocalypse we have ever read. We hope and believe it will put an end to those profane uses made of this sacred book by intelligent Christian ministers and VOL. VII.-2

050

M59 129