the Romans. That Judea could successfully resist the Roman power, no considerate person would believe. Hence the flight of Christians in accordance with the warnings of the Savior. But still the case can hardly be imagined, where all would be able to make good their escape. The sick, the aged, paupers, persons of a hesitating or doubting turn of mind, must, or at least would, delay, or give up an effort to fly. Then, among the faithful and zealous teachers of Christianity in Palestine, there must have been those who chose to remain and preach repentance and faith to their perishing countrymen. These I regard as symbolized by the two witnesses in 11 : 3." (ii : 227.),

But is there any historical proof that such illustrious preachers did stay, contrary to the express directions of Christ ? 'None at all. Is there any proof that they tormented. those who dwelt on the earth ; that nations and peoples and tongues rejoiced in their death, and were terrified by their resurrection in any sense? Not a particle. If there were any teachers, or death, or resurrection of any sort, it excited so little attention and made so little impression, that the general and constant impression of the ancients was, that there were no Christians there at all. But Prof. Stuart finds it hard to imagine that all could escape, and thinks that some teachers must have chosen to stay and preach, and that the zealots would probably kill them; and that the Christian religion would prevail notwithstanding, and this is the death and resurrection of The witnesses !

And now we ask any man to sit downand read ch. 11:1-14, and compare with it an interpretation so purely imaginary and conjectural, an interpretation that cannot call in one historical fact to its support, and then to say whether it can be the true interpretation of a passage so striking and sublime? Ought we not rather to find the interpretation of such a passage in a series of events that deeply affected and agitated the world, and not in a series that made so little impression that no record of them ever was made, and even the memory of them has entirely faded away? It is of no avail to say that we must not interpret too minutely and specifically, the drapery and costume of prophecy. We admit it. But it is a still greater offence utterly to evaporate the vital energy of such a passage, by applying the most moving and striking symbols of the book to purely imaginary and utterly improbable events.

But Prof. Stuart says, that Christ has plainly foretold the persecution of Christians at the time in question, and refers to Matt. 24:9-13. Mark 13 :9-13. Luke 21 : 12-16. No doubt he foretold persecutions in these words, but they were plainly to precede, not to follow, the flight of Christians from Jerusalem. For the persecutions were included among the preceding signs; and after them, he says, when ye shall see certain other signs then flee from Jerusalem to the mountains. See Luke 21 : 20, 21. Mark 13 : 14, 15. Matt. 24: 15, 16. His words, therefore, indicate no persecution of Christians in Jerusalem after the flight to the mountains, but clearly imply the reverse. Plainly then, that theory must be wrong which compels us to look for the two witnesses in Jerusalem, just before its fall.

Nor is this the end of the violence which this theory compels us to do to the laws of prophetic interpretation. It compels us to find in Jerusalem some organized civil power to slay the witnesses, that can be called the beast that ascendeth from the bottomless pit. Prof. Stuart, (ii : 232) has well, set forth the perplexity of interpreters on this point. Eichhorn says that ongiov is generic, and is put for onpra, and that Ongua means the locusts, in ch. 9:2. That is, the beast means beasts in general, and beasts in general, means locusts in particular. Grotius and Hammond say that it means the famous impostor Barochchab, &c.; but enough of such theories. According to Prof. Stuart, it should mean the Zealots; for he thinks it extremely probable that they killed the Christian teachers, who probably remained at Jerusalem. But as it would be hard to show in what sense the Zealots were the beast that ascendeth from the bottomless pit, he finally, as a last resort, fixes on Satan—though he is nowhere else in the whole Bible thus designated, and though the word plainly denotes a civil organization and not an individual person. All this violence results of necessity, from endeavoring to convert a song of triumph over the conversion of the world, into an account of the fall of Jerusalem. Let the language of ch. 11:15–19 be taken in its plain and obvious sense, and there will be no difficulty in knowing who the beast is; for, as we have seen, he lives till just before the conversion of the world, and the slaying of the witnesses also takes place so near to that great event, that we are not obliged to hunt up some new and strange meaning of the word beast, or to consider it as denoting the devil. The one great beast fulfils all the conditions of the case.

But Prof. Stuart relies on what is said as it regards the slaying of the witnesses in the city in which our Lord was crucified, as proof that the literal Jerusalem is meant. Yet he is utterly unable to carry out the literal interpretation, through the passage. Speaking of ch. 11:1, 2, he says, “ How can we consider the representation before us as anything more than mere symbol ? Is it to be once actually imagined, that John actually, expected the Gentiles who would tread down the holy city, and the exterior part of the temple (την αυλήν τήν έξωθεν) to spare the interior part of the temple and the worshippers there? This would be to suppose him wholly ignorant of the manner in which war was conducted at the time when he lived. Moreover, as to matter of fact, the reverse of what is implied by such a supposition actually

took place. The temple--the very sanctum itself—was the great slaughter house at the time of the Roman invasion, and all the sacred building was destroyed together, at one and the same period.” He resorts of necessity, therefore, to a spiritual interpretation of the temple, and of measuring its parts and worshippers, and preserving a part, and giving up a part to the Gentiles. But we have the same right to interpret the city spiritually, that he has so to interpret the temple. Moreover, consistency requires it, for mixed interpretation is worse than mixed metaphor. Indeed, Prof. Stuart, in reply to Ewald and Bleek, says, “Why should

, we adopt an exegesis which is half literal and half figurative ?!! (ii: 215.) So say we; and yet see how this very thing is done in this passage (i : 184): “ The city where our Lord was crucified, was about to be destroyed.” This he takes as a literal fact,

a and thus proceeds: There was the temple of God, and there in former days he had dwelt. The most holy place is therefore measured off, for exemption from destruction, i.e. the spiritual part of the ancient dispensation is still to be preserved.” Is not this exegesis half literal and half figurative? So too, he refers the sealing in ch. 7, to the literal Jewish nation (ii : 139), although the transaction manifestly indicates merely the salvation of a portion of God's elect, i. e., the true spiritual Israel, from impending perils, just as the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel on the gates of the heavenly city (21 : 12), denote that all the elect of God have finally reached their eternal home in that city. We regard, therefore, all arguments derived from a reference to " the city called Sodom and Egypt, where our Lord was crucified,” in favor of the idea that ch. 11:15–19 refers to the fall of Jerusalem as utterly baseless. A figurative interpretation is in part indispensable, as Prof. Stuart has clearly shown (though we do not regard his particular one as correct), and both consistency and the exigency of the case demand a spiritual interpretation throughout. In short, it is not possible to introduce the fall of the literal Jerusalem here, as we have abundantly shown, without the utmost violence of every kind. But a spiritual interpretation will render all symmetrical and consistent,

Thus have we examined the general outlines of what is regarded by Prof. Stuart as the first catastrophe, and shown that they do not present to us the harmonious parts of a consistent system, but warring elements that refuse to combine in harmony either with each other, or with the providence of God. It would be easy still further to illustrate and prove this by descending to minuter details, but this general view of the so called first catastrophe, is all that our limits will admit.

We will now proceed to consider what is called the second catastrophe.

We have already indicated that upon the face of it, as presented by Prof. Stuart, it is a most singular and unexampled catastrophe, beginning as it does nearly 1800 years ago, and stretching over the middle ages, and about to be completed at some indefinite future time. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of more incongruities and inconsistencies than are involved in the endeavor, to blend Nero, the Roman Emperors collectively, and the future enemies of the Church, together with all intervening eneries, in one and the same catastrophe. It sets at defiance all laws, poétical, historical, exegetical, or prophetic. :

The centre of this theory, as presented by Prof. Stuart, lies in the assumption that Nero is the beast described in chap. 17. This view exerts in this theory, a wide-reaching influence through the Apocalypse. It is made extensively to control its interpretation, and to reverse, on grounds of internal evidence, the prevailing opinion of the ancients, that it was written in the time of Domitian, and to fix it before the fall of Jerusalem. How then is this theory established? It is by assuming that John has in chap. 17, in direct terms, asserted the truth of certain rumors concerning the death of Nero, and his return to life, and to the imperial authority, which heathen soothsayers had circulated in the Roman empire, not because he believed them, but to point out Nero as the beast spoken of in chap. 13, 16, 17.

Now this, we do not hesitate to say, is at war with every sound principle of interpretation. The words of John are— The beast which thou sawest was and is not, and shall ascend from the abyss, and go into perdition, and all who dwell upon the earth, whose names were not written from the foundation of the world, in the Lamb's book of life, shall wonder when they behold the beast, that was and is not, and yet is.” (17: 8.)

These are as absolute and solemn affirmations as it is in the power of language to make, and they occur in a series, the rest of which is admitted to consist of absolute affirmations; e. g. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth (v.9); and there are seven kings, five have fallen, one is, the other not yet come, &c. (v. 10). The ten horns are ten kings (v. 12). They shall fight with the Lamb, and he shall overcome them (v. 14). God hath put it in their heart to give their kingdom to the beast (v. 17). T'he woman is the great city, &c. (v. 18). All these are not rumors, but direct assertions of facts.

But verses 8 and 11 are in the same style of affirmation, and are closely interwoven into the series. Who, then, has a right to break out these links from the chain of assertions, and to declare that their design is not what it seems to be, and what the words imply—to assert real facts, but something quite different, i. e., to retail unfounded rumors of heathen soothsayers concerning Nero, in such a way as to point him out as the beast? We protest most earnestly against such a violation of every sound law of interpreta

tion. When the editors of the improved version of the New Testament came to John 1: 10, "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not," they merely inserted πεφωτισμενος after εγενετο, and then all became "facile and congruous." "He was in the world, and the world was enlightened by him," &c. But with what indignation was the question asked, what right have you to insert noμevos ? John says nothing about it. But this is a small affair, compared with the insertions needed to bring out the new sense of Rev. 17: 8. Let us listen to Prof. Stuart. We have enclosed his additions in brackets, in order that the reader may see at a glance what John actually does say, and what additions are needed to bring out the new sense.

"What the angel says, seems to be (?) equivalent to this. The beast [means the Roman emperors, specifically Nero, of whom the report spread through the empire is, that he] will revive, after being [apparently] slain, and will come [as it were] from the abyss or Hades; but he will still perish, and that speedily. [The beast symbolizes him, of whom it is said that] all the world will wonder at [and worship] him when they see him thus returned [as they suppose] from the under world, [that is, all] whose names have not been inscribed in the book of life, before the world was made.'" (ii: 323.)

Now, it will be seen that the effect of the additions is not merely to modify, but directly to contradict, what John actually says. John affirms, that the beast will revive after being slain, and that this fact shall excite universal wonder. The additions imply that nothing at all of this kind will take place, but that it is a mere unfounded rumor.

But there is one part of this verse that no violence can pervert or silence. It is the exception of those whose names were written in the Lamb's book of life. Was this a part of the heathen rumor? Did the soothsayers declare that all should wonder at the return of Nero from the abyss, except those whose names were written in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the world? The supposition is absurd. What did they know or believe concerning the Lamb's book of life and election from eternity? This exception, then, can be no part of the heathen rumor-of course the universal wonder to which it is an exception, is no part of that rumor, but a reality; for would the inspired apostle John gravely make so solemn and emphatic an exception, to an unfounded heathen rumor about a universal wonder, which he well knew never would take place? But if the universal wonder is a reality, the cause of it is also a reality; that is the coming up of the beast from the abyss is a reality, and not a heathen rumor about Nero. Therefore, the whole statement is a reality and not a rumor. Thus, not only the whole scope of the