will be seen that the second part of the theory of Alcassar, after all that Prof. Stuart has done to support it, is totally at war with any just interpretation of ch. 13–20. By the same course of reasoning as we applied to the first beast, it can be shown that the effort to interpret the second beast, called generally the false prophet, as the priestly hierarchy of pagan Rome, is at war with the radical structure of this part of the book. The pagan hierarchy has been long extinct. The false prophet is yet alive, and with the beast, is yet to be taken and slain. Of course, he represents the papal hierarchy of false teachers, and not the pagan hierarchy of old Rome.

Thus far we have regarded only the bold outlines of the German theory. We have looked at the framework of the building which they have tried to erect. If now we were to descend to more minute details, it would be easy to accumulate evidence of the falsehood of the theory to any extent, but it would be wearisome, and our limits forbid. There are also, some other topics which deserve discussion, such as Prof. Stuart's views of the modes of designating time in the Apocalypse, and on the question of a literal resurrection of the dead before the millennium. But either of these points would require an independent essay for its full discussion, and we omit them here.

We will only notice one striking fact: Prof. Stuart is a decided oppposer of the millennarian theory; and yet more arguments can be derived from his commentary for its support, than from any other book we know of, not written by a millennarian. Now it is of little avail to ridicule the millennarians, as Prof. Stuart once did, and yet concede to them their interpretation of their leading proof texts.

It is well known to the readers of their works, how much they rely on Rev. 20:4-6. Phil. 3:8-11. Luke 14: 14. Isa. 26 : 19. 1 Cor. 15 : 23, 24. 1 Thes. 4:16, to prove their theory of a literal

a first resurrection, before the general resurrection. And yet Prof. Stuart not only concedes, but insists that these passages do teach or intimate that doctrine. True, he denies that those who partake of the first resurrection, will remain, and reign on earth. He insists that they will ascend and reign with Christ in heaven (ii : 485) : “May we not conclude, then, that John did not mean to designate a resurrection apparent to all the dwellers on earth, or apparent to the fleshly eye, but one which, although not outwardly seen by men, and unattended by any proofs, or outward and visible tokens, will in reality take place, in order that martyrs and faithful saints may, as it were, anticipate their final state of glory, and enjoy the triumphs of the church, in the splendor and excellence with which redeeming love will invest them."

Doubtless the millennarians are willing that Prof. Stuart should have his own opinions on this point. They will also give them just as much weight in regulating their own opinions as they see fit.

a

But one other thing they will surely do. They will exult in the fact that the power of truth has at last compelled the great father of philology in America, to admit the fundamental correctness of their interpretation of these passages. And they will feel that the barriers that prevent a transition from such a concession to the rest of their doctrine, are shadowy and imperceptible.

We say not this by way of reproach. If their views are correct, let them prevail... But we do not regard them as correct. In our judgment they introduce a false theory as to the conversion of the world, and tend to paralyse the present efforts to effect a purely spiritual regeneration of the haman race. We therefore regret to see them gain strength by what we regard as unauthorized concessions. We will only say that the interests of the Church require a radical re-investigation of this subject, in a very different spirit from what has often been manifested in the discussion of millennarian views.

In our review of Prof. Stuart, we have spoken with earnestness and freedom. We could not in any other way have done justice to our feelings and convictions on a subject of such moment. The most careless observer must see that a great crisis in the history of this world hastens on. The free church movement in Scotland, and recent events in Switzerland, are raising the question of the entire dissolution of the union of church and state throughout Europe. The efforts of the Romish hierarchy to regain their lost ascendency are redoubled. We are the special objects of their wiles. All things tend to a re-investigation of the whole history of the Romish church, and to such a judgment as she has never yet undergone. The great want of the world is a pure, a united church. Never did the people of God more need guidance and strength. They need to see among them a pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night. They need to see that pillar standing between themselves and their foes, shedding light on one side and darkness on the other. In the Apocalypse we see such a pillar of cloud and of fire. In it we hear God's exposition of the present crisis, and of coming events. The Apocalypse is THE TRACT FOR THE TIMES. In it there is no spurious charity, no pantheistic philosophy of history, no transcendental liberalism. It is a clear, pure, omnipotent utterance of the heart and mind of God. It is the sharp, twoedged sword, that proceeds out of the mouth of Christ. It is the iron rod, with which he will break his foes.

The interpretation of such a book stands high above all personal considerations. In it not only the whole world, but the whole universe, are vitally interested. At this very hour an intense interest fills all heaven-yea, it fills God himself

, in view of the events transpiring and soon to transpire on earth. And what we solemnly believe and deeply feel to be acceptable to God, and for the high est good of man, that we must speak--that we have spoken.

To unfold the details of what we regard as the true interpretation of this book, is inconsistent with our limits. That we regard the papacy, and the unholy union of church and state, which have been the main corrupters of the church, and of human society as included in it, is plain from what we have said. Still, we would not make it a syllabus of history. We would sketch only a grand outline of the great mystery of God, and pay a due regard to the great laws of poetry and of symbolical prophecy. Nor would we neglect even trichotomy. But we would insist on it that the crises of the book, and those of history, shall correspond. The nature of history is such that we know what its crises are, without a revelation. They reveal themselves. And we would not by force, apply the most splendid crisis of the Apocalypse, where in the book of history, we find no crisis at all. Prophecy and history are counterparts; and their similitude to each other on the great scale, is natural and obvious. That similitude we would never disregard. Nor would we ever contract the mind of God to the narrow dimensions of the generation when John wrote.

We do not believe that the generation then living either did or could understand all of the Apocalypse. Much they could understand. The letters to the churches were plain. The grand idea, God WILL FINALLY TRIUMPH OVER SATAN AND ALL HIS Hosts, lies, on the face of the book. Its moral influence is always elevating and bracing, even if not understood in detail. But it was designed as a book for ages; providence was to aid in its interpretation, and it should become most clear when most needed. Such a book we believe God can make, such a book we believe he has made-and as such with all gratitude and reverence, we receive it.

If Kepler was willing to wait centuries for an intelligent reader of his exposition of God's works, because God had waited thousands of years for an exposition, uttering the memorable words: “Jacio en aleam, librumque scribo, seu presentibus, seu posteris legendum, nihil interest ; expectet ille suum lectorem per annos centum ; si Deus ipse per annorum sena millia contemplatorem præstolatus est ;"I shall we think an inspired apostle incapable of such sublime waiting? Nor does it move us that, at the opening of his book he says, “the time is at hand.” He was

" then judging from God's point of vision, with whom a ihousand years are as one day—he was judging on the scale of eternity-he was, in fine, surveying the scene from the same point of vision as

, Christ, when at the close he said, in view of the completion of the whole system, Surely I come quickly, to whom the apostle responds, Amen, even so, come Lord Jesus. Who will not join with the beloved disciple in a response so heavenly? But there is not time fully to discuss the principles of prophetic

See Bacon's Sermon at the Ordination of President Woolsey, p. 29.

.971

interpretation, or of interpretation in general. We will only say that if any have ever gone to the extreme of overlooking the circumstances of the writer, and the thoughts and feelings of his age, and his peculiarities as a man, the prevailing danger is not now of that kind. All things now tend to break up the Bible into a series of writings to be looked at exclusively on the human side, and interpreted as the results of human minds.

The idea of one great centralizing, inspiring mind, who saw each book as the part of one great system, as its human author could not see it, and who saw the reference of his words to future results, as he could not see it, is in multitudes fast fading away.

For our own part, we believe the present tendency to be far the most dangerous. Edwards may have erred in too minute an interpretation of types and symbols; but standing as he did at the point of vision of the great eternal mind, breathing the air, and seeing the light of Heaven, he correctly grasped the great system of the Word of God. And when the trial of the fiery day shall come, and the wood, hay, straw and stubble of human error shall be consumed, we fully believe that the German theory of interpreting the Apocalypse on which we have commented, will be utterly reduced to ashes, while the main features of that of Edwards, as disclosed in his history of the work of redemption, will for ever shine as pure gold in the bright splendors of eternal day.

We will also add, since so much has been said of late of the progress of interpretation in general, and especially since Mr. Barnes has called in question the antecedent probability that any of the Scriptural quotations of Edwards are apposite, that we regard such things as adapted unduly to degrade our holy predecessors in the great battle of God, and to inflate the men of the present age with an extravagant idea of the attainments of the age. We are sorry to see so much that tends to this result in Prof. Stuart's work. We freely admit that much progress has been made in interpretation in some respects. But it is long before the vast mass of German interpreters will reach the heights where Calvin stood three centuries ago. Noble exceptions, we freely admit, there are. But it cannot be denied that the predominating tendency of German interpretation has been to relax the nerves of faith in a full inspiration of the Word of God, and to reduce its interpretation to the same dead level with the interpretation of merely human books. We would avail ourselves to the utmost, of every advantage furnished by German industry and investigation. But after all, nothing can make good the loss of that eminent power of spiritual interpretation which is the peculiar gift of the Spirit of God, and whích Edwards possessed to a degree rarely, if ever, equaled on earth.

A man thus guided, and so eminent in logical power, could not miss the main scope of the Word of God, as it regards the great

system of doctrines—or, as a general fact, misapply the Word of God; and in truth few writers interpret Scripture on all great doctrinal points with such precision and correctness as President Edwards.

May God give the same spiritual insight into his Word to all our young men, and especially may he guide them into the true interpretation of that glorious book of prophecy which was the last message of Christ to his own church, to guide her on to victory!

ARTICLE V.

MIRACLES.

By Rev. Enoch Pond, D.D., Prof. of Theology, Bangor 'Theological Seminary.

In the following article, I propose, first, to define or describe miracles; secondly, to show, that the Bible contains veritable accounts of real miracles; thirdly, to consider the leading object of miracles, and their bearing on the divine authority of the Bible; and then to consider the question of their continuance.

By a miracle, I understand an event or work, not only out of the common course of nature, but contrary to it; transcending, obviously, the capacities of creatures; and implying, in every case, a direct intervention of the divine knowledge or power. A clear and proper miracle is always, and may be known to be, a work of God.

Miracles may be divided into two classes, viz: those of knowledge, and of power. In miracles of the first class, there is a display of knowledge-there are disclosures, which are possible to no being but God. In those of the second class. there is a display of power, which no being can exercise, except the Creator.

Intelligent creatures in this world may arrive at various kinds and degrees of knowledge; and they may make displays of their knowledge which shall astonish and confound the uninitiated ;, but they never work miracles. Intelligent creatures in other worlds may have knowledge vastly superior to our own; and were they permitted to have communication with us, might make disclosures far exceeding all our present conceptions. But there are some things which even they cannot do. They cannot perform a

I can conceive that some ministering spirit, if he were allowed to make the communication, might inform me what had been doing in the city of London to-day, or yesterday. But could he tell me, of

proper miracle.