case.

says, “Hitherto all in the exegesis of the Apocalypse is fluctuating, arbitrary, and of course uncertain. No idea of any regular plan and connexion throughout this book, seems to have suggested itself to the minds of the writers of that day.”—(Vol. i., p. 453.)

of the work of Victorinus, the earliest commentary on the book, Stuart says, "No plan of the whole work is sought after, or even conceived of; no effort to get at the circumstances and relation of the writer of the Apocalypse and his times, and bring them to bear on the explanation of the book.”—(i., 455.) At the close of the eighth century, he informs us, “no real and solid advances were made.”—(i., 458.) From this period to the Reformation, he says there was nothing important in the way of exegesis.” The Reformers, also, in applying it to the papacy, according to Prof. Stuart, erred, and no clear and definite light dawned till the Jesuit Ludovicus ab Alcassar wrote in 1614. He introduced substantially the view that Prof. Stuart now.advocates, to the great grati fication of the Romanists of his day. Grotius and others followed him, till at last Èichhorn presented this view in its most brilliant form. Of the main features of his exegesis, Prof. Stuart says, “they substantially agree with the general tenor of the book.”(i., 472.) Such, according to Prof. Stuart, are the facts of the

And in view of them we ask, is it at all likely that the true interpretation of the work was at first plain and actually understood, and yet that all traces of it were so soon and so utterly lost? We have not the slightest belief that the book was ever understood as Prof. Stuart now interprets it in the apostolic age, nor indeed ever until the days of the Jesuit Alcassar.

But mere general principles can never settle the interpretation of the book. In order to do this, it is necessary to examine their application in detail. Although a minute examination of all of Prof. Stuart's exposition is impossible in our limits, yet enough can be considered to aid us in forming a judgment of his fundamental view. This we shall next attempt.

Meantime we will remark, that although it would be a great error, to misinterpret the Apocalypse for the sake of assailing Rome, it would be no less an error, on the eve of the coming and greatest conflict with that power, to throw away weapons of heavenly temper expressly provided for the conflict by God. If God has specifically spoken of the Romish hierarchy in words of consuming fire, then no indefinite human theory of a general certainty of the destruction of all God's enemies, can make good the loss of God's own words. We all know that God's enemies will fall, but who are they? The mother of harlots will of course bé destroyed, but who is she? Is it nothing to have in God's own words a description of the very powers with whom we are to contend ? No words have an edge and a power like those of God. If the Spirit has given us a sword against the greatest enemy of God and man now on earth, well may the Christian soldier say in the words of David, “there is none like that; give it me.” The interpretation of the Apocalypse, then, is not a question of mere abstract theory. It is vitally connected with the greatest moral conflict of this or any other age.

Professor Stuart has followed the fundamental principles of the Jesuit Alcassar, as the basis of his exposition, i. e. he regards the Apocalypse as “a continuous and connected work, making regular advancement from beginning to end, as parts of one general plan in the mind of the writer. Ch. 5-11, he thinks, applies to the Jewish enemies of the Christian Church; ch. 11-19 to heathen Rome and carnal and worldly powers ; ch. 20—22 to the final conquests to be made by the Church and also to its rest, and its ultimate glorification.” (i. 463, 464.)

Of course he regards the fall of Jerusalem as the great catastrophe of the first part, and the development of this catastrophe he finds in ch. 11: 15-19, and all that precedes from ch. 6, is designed to prepare the way for this result. A prominent part of this preparation is to be found in the slaying of the witnesses, which occupies the greater part of ch. 11. Now, it is our conviction that this part of the theory cannot be carried out, without doing greater violence to all true laws of prophetic interpretation than is to be found in all the works of Bishop Newton, Scott, Fuller, Edwards, or any of the defenders of the common English theory.

In the first place the language in ch. 11 : 15—19, has no fitness to describe such a catastrophe as the fall of Jerusalem. It is upon the face of it, a song of triumph for the conversion of the world to God, after a divine inquisition and judgment, and a retribution to good and to bad, and a glorious victory over hostile nations; and if it were not a case of life and death to the theory, no man, we are assured, would ever conjecture that there was the slightest reference to the fall of Jerusalem or to Jewish affairs in the whole passage. To make it so apply, requires the utmost violence in forcing the words to say what they obviously do not say, and not to say what they obviously do say, as we shall soon show.

Again, this view disagrees with the declaration of the angel in ch. 10:5—7, that in the days of the sounding of the seventh angel the mystery of God should be finished, as he has declared to his servants the prophets. Now it is plain that the existence of the papal anti-christian power and her civil allies ruling the world in the name of Christ, corrupting society, and preventing the conversion of the world to God, is the great mystery spoken of by Paul, in 2 Thess. 2: 1–12; and the destruction of these powers by the glorious advent of Christ is the finishing of that mystery. Moreover, the general scope of prophecy in both dispensations, is to hold up the universal prevalence of the kingdom of Christ over manifold opposition, as the finishing of the mystery of God. The solemnity of the whole scene, the oath of the angel that there should be no longer any delay, but that when the seventh angel should sound the mystery should be finished, all imply a long protracted series of antecedent events, on a great scale, followed by the full development of God's system, the triumph of his principles, and the cessation of that mysterious and long continued triumph of Satan, that had so severely tried the people of God. All the expectation thus' excited, the language of ch. 11: 15–19 in its obvious sense, perfectly gratifies. It implies that the exercise of the great power of God has been for ages withheld, and therefore Satan had come in great power, and organized vast systems to desolate and destroy the earth, but that at length God had taken to himself his great power and reigned. The nations indeed rage and oppose; but the time of divine judgment and recompense has come. Saints and martyrs are to be rewarded, and those who have destroyed the earth are to be destroyed. Hence the all-comprehending idea of the whole is to be found in the anthem thạt bursts from the lips of the angelic host," the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever.” The fundamental ideas of this passage are precisely those of ch. 19, 20; so much so, that those may be regarded as a mere expansion of these. ..

And now, how are these things to be changed into a mere catastrophe of wrath, like the fall of Jerusalem? The nature of that catastrophe can be easily gathered from the ample and undoubted predictions of Christ with reference to it. It is a day of judgment and of wrath ; but not of the conversion of the world ta God. Christ anticipates no such result. Jerusalem is rather to be trodden down of the gentiles for a long period, even until the times of the gentiles shall be fulfilled. Moreover, as it regards the catastrophe itself, our Savior is full and precise. Is there even a hint of this catastrophe in this passage ? Not one. Even Prof. Stuart virtually admits this, for he endeavors to account for it thus : “the writer is a Jew, and how can he dwell on the destruction of his beloved city and people with a minuteness of representation ? He turned from the scene with weeping as a sympathizing Jew,' &c., ii. : 145. Again,“ The shouts of victory in heayen, fill the ears and occupy the mind of the seer, and turn away his attention from the sad spectacle of the overthrow of his beloved city and people.” We confess that this account of the matter, in view of all the circumstances of the case, is little less than ludicrous. The fall of Jerusalem is assumed to be the great catastrophe for which, during six whole chapters, John has been preparing the way.

He had heard the words of Christ describing that catastrophe. Six seals have been opened full of omens of wrath. Six trumpets have sounded their blasts of vengeance; every form of terror has been accumulated ; but just when the final catastrophe comes, and the

highest development of wrath is demanded, alas! the heart of John is too tender to present it. He omits it entirely, and his ears are filled and his mind is occupied by the shouts of victory in heaven; and those shouts have no reference to the fall of Jerusalem, but solely to the conversion of the world!

It is so plain that the fall of Jerusalem is not here represented that Bleek, Ewald and others deny that there is here any catastrophe at all. Prof. Stuart regards this as unaccountable; to us it is not. It is far more rational to deny any catastrophe at all, than to find the fall of Jerusalem in such a passage as this.

Moreover, there is other internal evidence against this view. The enemies over whom God triumphs are indicated in a way that clearly shows that Jews are not meant. They are called ta korn (11:18.) the nations, or the gentiles. They, and not the Jews, are angry, and resist God. This is perfectly decisive, for never are the Jews called ra eovn, in the general and unlimited sense. This is the common and universal antithesis of the Jews. In opposition to this, Prof. Stuart quotes some passages in which the Jews are called a nation, in the singular, i. e., Gen. 12: 2. Ps. 33: 12. Is. 1: 4. 9:2. 26: 2. 49: 7. But how manifest is it that to call the Jews a nation, is not the same as to call them ta čovn, the nations. A nation they were; the nations they never were. Nor were they ever so called. Neither does the passage in Gen. 35: 11, to which he appeals, sustain Prof. Stuart. Here God says to Abraham, “a nation and a company of nations, shall be of thee.” Now the Jews were not in the strict sense a company of nations, but of tribes. Therefore, Rosenmüller says, "Propagatio e patribus undecim tribuum am natis, et Benjamine mox nascituro indicatur ;” and he quotes Le Clerc to the same effect. D'ij is here used in a peculiar and unusual manner; and the use is decided by the context. But never are the Jews called absolutely and independently ta eðvn. Prof. Stuart also appeals to Ps. 2:1. "Why , do the nations eðrn D?jJ and the people laor d'ex's imagine a vain thing ?” The raging of the nations here, he says, “ applies principally to rebellious Jews." (ii., 242.) Yet the inspired apostles in Acts 4: 27, do not take this view. After quoting the passage from Ps. 2, they say, in explanation of its fulfilment, " for of a truth, against thy holy child Jesus, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together, &c.” So then inspiration has decided that by the gentiles, the Jews are not here meant, for they are distinguished from the people of Israel. There is then, as we have before stated, no case in which the Jews are called ta eOvn, and of course the enemies here referred to, are not the Jews, but the hostile nations of the world at large, as the whole scope of the passage plainly shows. Nothing therefore, but the utmost violence can force this passage into a

description of the fall of Jerusalem ; and yet to the theory of Alcassar, Eichhorn and Stuart, such an application is essential. That theory therefore must be false.

Still further, the same theory renders necessary either an obscure or an imaginary interpretation of the slaying of the two witnesses. It compels the interpreter to find the fulfilment of this prophecy in events preceding the fall of Jerusalem. But it lies on the very face of the prediction that the witnesses were of such power and influence as to torment those that dwelt on the earth, and that their death would arrest the attention of the people and kindreds, and tongues, and nations, and fill them with joy—that their resurrection would fill them with terror, and be attended with great convulsions.

Let us now call to mind that our Savior took especial pains to point out to his disciples the signs by which they might foreknow that the fall of Jerusalem was at hand, and enjoined it on them to escape. Moreover, the general belief of the Christian world, ever since, has been, that they did escape, and that no Christians were in Jerusalem when it was compassed about by the Romans.

And yet this theory compels us to find these two illustrious witnesses of God in Jerusalem at this very time, and to discover events corresponding to their death and resurrection, and the great convulsions attending it.

Now by a stern necessity, either an absurd or an imaginary exposition must be adopted. If it is admitted that there were no Christians in Jerusalem, then the interpretation is absurd, for it finds God's two illustrious witnesses either among the abandoned Jews or the heathen. Herder and Eichhorn look for them among the Jews, and select the Jewish High Priests Ananus and Jesus, whom the zealots slew. That is, the guilty leaders of God's abandoned enemies on whom his vengeance was soon to fall, are God's two witnesses, whom the beast from the bottomless pit will slay, and whom God will raise to glory! Where in Mede, Newton, Scott, Fuller, or Edwards, can anything be found comparable to this for intense absurdity? Prof. "Stuart has taken good heed to avoid this Scylla, but in doing it, he is obliged to fall into the Charybdis of purely imaginary interpretation.

There is not a solitary scrap of history by which it can be made to appear probable that there were any Christians in Jerusalemmuch less, that there were two or more teachers deserving of a description so magnificent-much less that they were put to death, -much less that it excited the attention of people, and kindreds, and tongues, and nations-still less that they rose, and great fear and convulsions attended their resurrection.

What then is Prof. Stuart's ground? He admits, that “according to the testimony of the ancients, the great body of Christians fled beyond the Jordan to Pella, when Palestine was invaded by THIRD SERIES, VOL. III.

7

NO. 2.