HEINlTS
ON THE
INTERPRETATION OF PROPHECY.
BY
M. STUART,
PROFESSOR IN ANDOVER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY..%t-c'nbr Eh$t(D X,
-WITR ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS.
NEW-YORK:
VAN NOSTRAND & TERRETT,
123 FULTON STREET.
1851.




Entered accorcing to Act of Congress, in the year 18412, by
MOSES STUART,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts.




PREFACE.
No apology is necessary for engaging in the investigation
of the subjects, which are briefly treated of in the following
sheets. These matters are of deep interest to every inquiring Christian; and the character of the Scriptures, in the
view  of the world, is in no sinall degree concerned with
them. Unbelievers reproach us with giving credit to a book
which is full of enigmas, and allege that every one interprets
it according to his own fancy, and so as to support his own
particular opinions.  Nor is this all.  They even charge
ambiguity upon the Scriptures themselves-; and they are apparently moved to do this, by the ever varying, discrepant,
and sometimes even opposite conclusions of expositors. No
book, they say, which is plainly and honestly written, could
possibly afford roonm for such diversity of opinion.
Particularly have such charges been made against the
prophecies. These have been compared to the ambiguous
vaticinations of the heathen oracles,'and pronounced to be
deserving of merely the same credit which is given to them
by enlightened minds.
One might reply to all this by saying, that the abuse of a
thing is no good argument against the right and proper use
of it; that the mistakes of expositors are not chargeable upon the original writers, unless those mistakes are unavoidably connected with the expressions of those writers; and
finally, that when men, ill-informed or ignorant of the true
nature of scriptural language, risinterpret or pervert it, it can




4                      PREFACE.
be no good ground of objection to the sacred books as they
are in themselves.
If, in addition to such a reply, it can be shown that the prophecies, against which the charges in question are specially
directed, are susceptible of a plain, fair, and natural interpretation, and that historical facts accord with such an interpretation, the stumbling block that is cast in our way would
seemn to be removed.
An attempt to do this, in regard to some of the more important prophetic passages, which have of' late'years been
the subject of frequent and animated discussion, is made in
the following pages.  To write a large volume on such topics
would be comparatively easy; to select, combine, and exhibit
matter appropriate to a small one, is a more difficult task.
If the path in which I travel should be thought by some to
be new, I hope this will not prevent any reader fiom giving it
a leisurely and thorough examination, before he abandons it.
If some of the results, in this little treatise, should appear new
to the reader, I must suggest to him, that they are not the
consequence of seeking after novelties, but simply of following out the plain and obvious principles of interpretation.
If he does not find it to be so after examination, let him condemn the book.
If there be any Biblefor us, it is one which consists of human language, interpreted in a manner consonant with the
laws of language.  My principal object is, to protest against
the substitution of fancy and conjecture in the interpretation
of the Scriptures, in the place of established principle and
rule. With a sincere love for all that is new, whenever it is
better then the old, I am still, throughout this book, a thorough Conservative in respect to the fixed and immutable principles of reasonable hermeneutics.  I hope for a hearingI will not despair even of approbation-by those who love
this species of Conservatism.  At all events, if it must be that




PREFACE.                      5
any will be disposed to turn away from the subject with only
a slight examination of it, and thus decline to give me a fair
opportunity to gain their assent, I would at least say: n(l'iaoov
Miv, IXvotf  8!!
It is time for the churches, in reference to the matters
now before us, to seek some refuge from the tumultuous
ocean on which they have of late been tossed. To those
who long for a quiet harbor, a chart, which offers even any
tolerable grounds of hope that the course toward such a haven is marked out, will not be unwelcome.
I make no promises. I have satisfied myself as to the
course which ought to be pursued; and in this state of mind
it is natural to cherish a hope, that a process of thinking and
reasoning, similar to that through which I have passed, may
satisfy others.  With this hope I give my little book to the
public.
Some of the views, which are exhibited in the following
pages, may be found in the early volumes of the Biblical Repository, ranged under different titles. But they are here
repeated with many modifications and additions. My present
apprehension is,h-that continued and often repeated study and
reflection have corrected those views, in some respects; if
not, they have at least served to expand them. There is,
moreover, some important advantage in having them brought
together, and exhibited so that a comparison of them may be
easily made.
The introduction of a few Hebrew and Greek words was
unavoidable, in the execution of my plan. For the most
part these are so managed, as to occasion no serious embarrassrent to the well-informed English reader.
Thus far the preface to the first edition of this work. A
second being now demanded, I take occasion to say, that I
1*




6                     PREFACE.
have carefully revised the whole; made a number of corrections which sometimes qualify, and at other times set aside,
the diction originally employed; and in a variety of cases, I
have made additions, some of which at least will not, as I
trust, be deemed unimportant. The criticisms of friends,
and the objections of opponents, have as yet reached me only
in a very few cases. Most of the additions, therefore, are
only such as were prompted by my own mind, after revising
the whole work.
It would be easy to swell the volume to a considerable
size, and still leave many things unsaid, which might be appropriately said. But a large book would defeat some of the
purposes that I have in view, and anticipate other things
which I hope ere long to publish in a different way.
M. STUART.
T7zeol. Seminary, Afndover,
Sept. 10, 1842.  5




HINTS
RESPECTING THE
INTERPRETATION OF PROPHECY.
1. INTRODUCTION.
THE. history of scriptural interpretation presents few, if
any, phenomena more peculiar than those which have been
exhibited, by some of the modes in which parts of the books
of Daniel and of the Revelation have been explained, by a
large class of English and American expositors. It would
be a difficult task to enumerate all the writers of the class
in question, who have made their appearance before the
public; and still more -difficult, to make out even a sketch
of all their peculiar and in some respects ever varying interpretations. It is no part of my present design to attempt
this. As a polemic, or an antagonist of particular writers,
-it is not my wish or intention to appear. Nor is it at all
within my purpose to write a book on the general subject
of expounding prophecy. My design is, to keep strictly
within the bounds designated by the title of this Essay;
and therefore I shall attempt no more than to give some
HINTS, addressed to the consideration of the Christian public, in respect to some two or three of the principles gene



8                  rINTRODUCTION.
rally adopted by the expositors already named, in their interpretation of Daniel and of the Apocalypse.
The subjects of discussion to which I have adverted,
may be comprised under three distinct heads. The first
is the proposition, that there is in many parts of the prophecies, an occult, mystical, undeveloped meaning, which
renders those predictions occasionally pregnant with a double sense. The second, that some other prophecies have
a meaning which is so concealed and obscure, that it can
never be discovered until the events take place to which
they refer. The third is, that the leading designations of
time in the book of Daniel and the Apocalypse, viz. " a
time, times, and half a time," and "forty and two months
or twelve hundred and sixty days," comprise, not the actual
period literally named, but 1260 years. In other words,
the general principle, in respect to this third head, is, that
the times, named in the two books before us, are designed
to be understood as meaning, that each day is the representative of a year.
For a long time these principles have been so current
among the expositors of the English and American world,
that scarcely a serious attempt to vindicate them has of
late been made. They have been regarded as so plain,
and so well fortified against all objections, that most expositors have deemed it quite useless even to attempt to defend
them. One might indeed almost compare the ready and
unwavering assumption of these propositions, to the assumption of the first self-evident axioms in the science of
geometry, which not only may dispense with any process
of ratiocination in their defence, but which do not even
admit of any.
If I have overstated the confidence that has been felt
and exhibited as to the principles in question, it is not from
design.  I have stated merely the impression that has been




INTRODUCTION.                   9
made on my own mind, by the perusal of many expositors
of prophecy; and I would merely make the appeal to every
intelligent reader, whether my representation is not substantially correct.
Is it lawful and safe, nlow, to call in question a mode of
interpretation so generally admitted, and which has so long
been current among us?  Lawful, I think, it may be; for
the Scriptures have prescribed to us none of the rules
which lead to such interpretations as those to be examined,
nor have any of the Creeds of Protestants dictated any
thing which binds us to admit them. Safe it may be, provided truth admits of our questioning such rules; and
surely it must be safe, if truth demands that we should reject them, for it is always safe and proper to follow truth.
The true and legitimate principles of interpretation depend on no individual man, no sect, no party. They are
independent of all parties, else they would be of little or no
value. They depend on no niceties of philosophical theories, on no far fetched and recondite deductions, on no caprice of fancy or imagination. Were they so dependent,
they would be of little value' even to the learned, and of
none at all to the great mass of men who read the Scriptures.
The origin and basis of all true hermeneutical science
is the reason and common sense of men, at all times and
in all ages, applied to the interpretation of language either
spoken or written. The faculty of interpreting is as natural as the faculty of speaking; and the rules or principles
of interpretation are formed merely by observing how the
faculty of exegesis develops itself. All science of interpretation so called, all modes of expounding language proposed by whomsoever they may have been, (unless indeed
they may truly be the result of inspiration), which are not
founded on the simple basis described above, can put in no




10                 INTRODUCTION.
just claim to our confidence, and have no right to exact
our homage.
A scientific digest of the principles of interpretation, if
rightly prepared, would be made in the like way as a grammatical treatise. In the latter case, the usages of language
as to the forms of nouns, verbs, pronouns, etc., are first observed; then the manner in which sentences are constructed.  A simple and true account of these, constitutes what
we call the Grammar of any language.  So is it, also, in
respect to Hermeneutics or the science of interpretation.
The general usage of intelligent men, in respect to interpreting the language which they hear or read, is first observed, and then a record of this is made and reduced to a
scientific form.  The result is, a book of Hermeneutics.
Nothing can be more certain, than that language was
not constructed by the aid of grammar as a science; for
this science is only a regular digest of facts observed in respect to language already spoken, with some obvious deductions- of general principles from these. These principles the rational nature of man, when employed in speaking or writing, instinctively follows. They are not matters of calculation and of consciously designed effort. So
also in Hermeneutics; the principles of interpreting what
we hear or read are instinctive, they belong to our rational nature.  Science only collects and arranges them, and
then draws deductions from them.
If this account be correct as to the origin of the science
of interpretation, it would seem to follow, that any principle inconsistent with the general laws which our nature
and reason have prescribed, or any principle beyond the
circle of that prescription, cannot be safely trusted. Should
any one ask: Why do the proper principles of Hermeneutics address themselves to all intelligent men with an imperative force?  The answer is, that they are imperative,




DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.            11
because they are the laws of our communicative nature
and faculties-because we find the basis of them within
ourselves, and are conscious therefore of their binding force.
But suppose that we are called upon to giye our assent to
a rule of interpretation which is not-founded in the usages
of men, nay which is even contrary to these or inconsistent
with them, are we obliged to yield assent?  Just as much,
I answer, as we should be to yield our assent to a proposition in grammar, which would convert into a rule of the
English language the patois of some little district or village.
For example; not far from the place where I am writing,
is a small collection of people, who have, no one knows
how long, been accustomed to say: I does; I reads this;
I goes to-morrow, etc.  Shall this- be inserted, now, as an
additional rule for the declension and use of verbs in the
next edition of Murray's English Grammar?  If you answer in the negative, then why should a rule of interpretation foreign to general usage, or inconsistent with it, be
incorporated into a system of Hermeneutics?
~ 2. OCCULT OR'DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.
The bearing of what has been said, the reader will
speedily perceive. Our first question, as above proposed,
is, whether we are to regard the position, that " there- are
many occult passages in the prophecies, which are pregnant with a double meaning," as a po:.ition founded in the
common-sense principles and usages of mankind as to the
interpretation of language?
On this question I shall now proceed to make. a few remarks; keeping in view, however, the title of this Essay,
and remembering that I am pledged only to give HINTS,
and not to write a Thesaurus of hermeneutical science.




12           DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.
I must first of all define the meaning of double sense, so
that the subject of discussion may be distinctly understood.
If we ascribe to any passage of Scripture a literal, obvious, historical sense, and interpret it as conveying the
meaning which its words naturally and obviously seem to
convey, and yet at the same time ascribe to these same
words another meaning which is occult or obscure, but still
is designed to be conveyed by those.same words, we then
make out a double sense. For example; if the second Psalm
is construed as a description of the coronation of David or
Solomon on the hill of Zion, and all that is there said be
literally and historically applied, and still we go on to find
in this same Psalm, that is, in the words of it, a secondary
or spiritual sense (as it is often named), then we give to
it a double sense. We first ascribe to it an obvious and
historical meaning, endeavoring to make this out in the
best manner that we can; and then we suppose that there
is a w6ovoLXa, i. e. an occult or secondary and spiritual meaning, by virtue of which the Psalm becomes applicable to
Christ, the true and spiritual Messiah. So, to produce
another example, if we interpret the 45th Psalm as an
epithalamium or nuptial song, on the occasion of Solomon's
marriage with a foreign princess, and endeavor to adapt
every thing in it to the historical sense consequent upon
such a method of exegesis, and yet after we have executed
this task, we proceed to show, or at least endeavor to show,
that a Vrovotao runs through the whole, by virtue of which
we may find in the words a description of the King Messiah and of his union with the Church, then we give to
this Psalm a double sense.
The question now before us is: Whether this is a reasonable, practicable, well-grounded method of interpreting
the Scriptures?
I shall not stop here to argue with those, who, finding




DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.              13
difficulty in such a direct and palpably occult sense throughout the whole of those two Psalms, expoundt one part of
the second Psalm, for example, as historically descriptive
of the literal David, and the other part as belonging to the
King Messiah, because it seems incapable of a literal application to David, except by doing violence to the meaning of the words.  In like manner do they expound many
other portions of the Old Testament Scriptures. I' do not
stop to argue with such expositors, because the violence
which is done to sound rules of interpretation, by arbitrarily introducing two subjects of the writer's discourse,
when he plainly and obviously presents but one, is so great,
that but little danger to the churches can ever arise from
such an error.  It is so plainly a trespass against the laws
of our nature as to the interpretation of language; it is so
arbitrary in its proceedings, when it appropriates one part
of the text to one subject, and -another part, which is indissolubly connected, to another and totally different subject;
that-nothing like a general persuasion of propriety in practising such a method of interpretation can ever be brought
about.  There are indeed those who so interpret many
passages of the Old Testament; there have been such in
days that are past; but, as I have already said, it is doing
such violence against the first principles of our reason as
to the interpretation of language, that little or no serious
evil can well be supposed to flow from it.. The imagination of some readers may be excited and pleased by the ingenuity of such devices, but the sober understanding and
judgment of none can be satisfied.  That must always be
a wavering and uncertain state of mind, which follows the
adoption of such views; and the faith, which is connected
with them, must be feeble, tottering, doubtful, and mostly
inoperative.'  Nature abused and driven away will sooner'
or later return and claim and vindicate her rights.  The
2




14           DOUBLE SENSES OF P-ROPHECY.
common sense of men must ultimately prevail over whim
and caprice.
It is the other method of interpretation, namely, that
which makes a primary and secondary meaning throughout
such passages of Scripture as are supposed to relate to the
new dispensation, that has been the usual and prevalent
one among those who defend the ~rr6otoa or occult sense.
This then, at least, must be briefly examined.
The first and great difficulty with this-scheme of interpretation is, that it forsakes and sets aside the common laws of
language. The Bible excepted, in no book, treatise, epistle, discourse, or conversation, ever written, published, or
addressed by any one man to his fellow beings, (unless in
the way of sport, or with an intention to deceive), can a
double sense be found. There are, indeed, charades, enigmas, phrases with a double entendre, and the like, perhaps,
in all languages; there. have been abundance of heathen
oracles which were susceptible of two interpretations; but
among even all these, there never has been, and there
never was a design that there should be, but one sense or
meaning in reality. Ambiguity of language may be, and
has been, designedly resorted to in order to mislead the
reader or hearer, or in order to conceal the ignorance of
soothsayers, or to provide for their credit amid future exigencies; but this is quite foreign to the matter of a serious. and bona fide double meaning of words. It bears no
comparison with the alleged vaovota in question. Nor
can we, for a moment, without violating the dignity and
sacredness of the Scriptures, suppose that the inspired
writers are to be compared to the authors of riddles, conundrums, enigmas, and ambiguous heathen oracles.
How then can we prescribe a rule of interpretation, and
apply this rule to the Scriptures, when we are constrained
to: acknowledge, that no other book on earth, addressed




DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPRECY.            1i
by intelligent' and serious men to the reason and understanding of their fellow beings, can bear interpretation by
such a rule?
I am aware of the usual answer to this question, viz.,
that " the Bible is a divine book, and that, since God is
the real author of it, we must not expect to place it on the
common basis of other books."
But how can we be satisfied with such an answer?  I
am indeed fully persuaded, that " all Scripture is given by
inspiration of God." I believe the Bible to be of divine
authority; and that the men who wrote the Scrzptures were
under a divine influence which guarded them against error
or mistake, when they composed the sacred books. I have
no hesitation in admitting and defending these positions.
But I cannot deduce from them any thing in the way of
defending a double sense. For why should we suppose,
because the Bible is a divine book, that its manner, style,
or diction, differs essentially from those of all other books?
We may well suppose the matter to transcend the discoveries of unenlightened reason.  But why should the manler of communicating information to us. differ from what
is usual and common among men? Nay, we may boldly
advance further and ask: How could the Bible be what it
is, viz., a revelation from God, provided its diction and the
principles of interpreting it are to be regarded as- entirely
diverse from those of all other books?  What can be more
rational or plain than the proposition, that when God speaks
to men for their instruction, he speaks by man, and for
men, and therefore expects to be understood. Did ever a
considerate father undertake to teach his children, and yet
employ language the words and exegetical principles of
which were entirely beyond their cognizance'? And when
God speaks to his erring children, with an intention to enlighten and instruct them, and to reclaim them from their




16          DOUBLE SENSE: OF PROPHECY.
wandering ways, does he employ words in such a manner,
that no analogy drawn from human methods of interpreting
language can enable men to understand what he communicates?
Independently of the disputed question before us, no
man on earth would hesitate a moment as to the answer
which he must give. A revelation must be intelligible,
or it is no revelation. It must be made in language that
men have been accustomed to use, or they have no key to
it. And if it be made in such a language, then it must be
interpreted by the common rules and usages of language,
else there is no key again to the meaning. A revelation
in the peculiar language of angels, (if they can be supposed
to use a language), would have no meaning, and be of no
use to men. Who possesses the appropriate dictionary or.
commentary?  Who has studied the grammar-and idiom?
A revelation (so called) to men, which is clothed in words
not employed agreeably to the uisus loquendi, and not to be
interpreted by the usual principles of exegesis, is of course
no revelation at all. It is no more than sounding brass or
a tinkling cymbal; for it neither gives any -distinct, articulate, intelligible sounds, nor does it represent them to the
eye. It is in vain, therefore, that we seek for any rules,
by which such a book can be explained.
Indeed, the moment we assume that there is:in the Scriptures a substantial departure from-the usus loquendi, either
in the choice of words, the construction of sentences, or
the modes of interpretation, that moment we decide, that,
so far as this departure extends, they are no revelation.
According to such an assumption, moreover, a necessity
would of course be presented for a new inspiration, in order to find out and comprehend what the authors of the
scriptural books meant. But if a new inspiration be needed,
then of what use or advantage are the Scriptures, or have




DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.            17
they ever been, to men? It would be just as easy to comr
muiicate a revelation de novo to men, so often as they
needed one, as it would be to give them special inspiration
in drder that they might understand what had already been
communicated. Nothing then could be gained by such a
Bible as the case before us supposes.
We must, therefore, either concede that the- usual laws
of language are to be applied to the Bible, or else that it is,
and can be, no proper revelation to men, unless they are
also to be inspired in order to understand it. For if we
suppose words are to be employed, and sentences constructed and interpreted, in a manner entirely new and
different from all that has hitherto been known or practised, then there is no source from which we can derive
rules to interpret the Bible, unless it be'one which is supernatural and miraculous.  Who then is it, that has a just
claim to supernatural instruction or illumination? Among
all the contending and antagonist parties, some of whom
have virtually claimed-such inspiration, who is in the right,
and is to be heard and confided in with respect to his
claim?
These views may serve to show, that we must give up
any pursuit, in this direction, after a terra firma on which
we can with confidence fix our resting place. Either God
has spoken more humano by men to men, or he has not
spoken what they can with any good assurance pretend to
understand without miraculous aid.
A'divine book, therefore, must, like all other books, be
intelligible in order to be useful; and if intelligible, then
it must conform to the usus loquendi, both in respect to
the choice of words and the meaning of them. How then
can the Scriptures present us every where with examples
of the Vr6orta or double sense, when we find, and expect to




.18          DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.
find, such a sense in no other grave book on the face of all
the earth?
To prevent all misunderstanding of what I mean, however, it is proper to add here, that I do not by any means
design to detract from the force of those passages of Scripture, which declare that religious experience is necessary to
a full and spiritual understanding of some portions of the
Bible. What is true of other books must, in the way of
analogy, be true of the Bible also. We do not expect any
one fully to understand Milton's Paradise Lost, who has
little or nothing of a poetical taste. We can not suppose
that any one, who is destitute of attachment to mathematical and philosophical science, should enter fully into the.comprehension of a La Place or a Bowditch. Even so with
the Scriptures which unfold a spiritual and experimental
religion.  Religious experience is necessary to the- full and
adequate understanding of such passages as relate'to that
experience.  But all this is far enough from establishing a
double sense. In truth, all this is only in the way of analogy with regard to other books besides the Scriptures.
If now there were no other obstacle in the way of a double sense, except that it is entirely different from and opposed to all analogy in respect to interpreting language,
this one consideration would come near to settling the question. Nothing but divine authority for such a mode of interpretation would-make it proper to practise it.
But secondly, there are other difficulties in abundance;
and a few of them must be brought into notice. The very
name, rn6vota or occult sense, shows that the meaning in
question is not deducible from or by the laws of language;
for it is against the usage of all times and nations to employ language in such a way. The question then arises,
of course, in the second place: How is an occult sense to
be ascertained?




DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.            19
Lexicons, grammars, hermeneutics, yea vernacular power
over a-language, are all set aside by the process that we
are investigating.  To what arbiter then shall we repair?
Who or what is to decide, so that we may put confidence
in the decision?
Is fancy, or imagination, or the spirit of allegorizing, to
sit on the throne of judgment?  These judges, as I apprehend, are hardly grave and sober and considerate enough
to be trusted with- so weighty and difficult questions. Besides, inasmuch as the matter now before us is not one
within the province of common sense, but one sui generis
and altogether beyond the reach of scientific principles, who
among the many judges, differing widely from each other
and often standing opposed to each other, is to be acknowledged as the Supreme Court?  Candidates for this honor, I am aware, make their appearance on all sides.  All,
moreover, possess equal authority, unless some one or
more can show that he or they are inspired.  By what
rule or principle shall we adjust their conflicting claims?
By the degree of learning which they possess, or the
strength of imagination, or the dexterous power to draw
vivid fancy-sketches, or the depth of piety? None of these
principles of judging will answer our purpose.  It were
easy to name men to whom some one of these characteristics belongs in a high degree, who nevertheless have indulged in most extravagant phantasies as to making out
the double or second sense of Scripture.  Some examples
of this nature will be produced in the sequel, but at present we are merely concerned with the principle. In the
usual cases of exegetical error, we have a-test to which an
appeal may be made, and this is, the laws and usages of
language inl general. If men will not conform to these, in
their criticisms, then one may justly show their unreasonableness, and thus deprive their exegesis of any important




DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY,
influence. But in the case before us, we have launched
on an ocean without bottom  or shore, and have neither
chart, compass, or rudder. How we are safely and surely
to steer our course, no one, so far as my knowledge extends, has yet shown us.
In fact, unless we say that every man's own fancy is his
rule, in the matter of an occult sense, I wot not where we
are to find a rule.  Is there any resort except to inspiration? I can see no other.  If then we should resort to inspiration as the guide-whose inspiration, or alleged inspiration, is to be trusted? I am aware that there are claimants, even on this ground.  But; we are not accustomed to
give credit to claims of such nature, since apostolic times.
When interpreters will heal the sick, and raise thedead,
and — cast out devils, we will begin to bow submissively to
their alleged authority for making out a second or occult
sense.  Until that time has arrived, I'would hope that we
may be permitted to withhold -our assent from their decisions, provided we find them not well supported.
From  its very nature, an occult sense is one which language does not naturally convey.  Of course, nothing less
than the authority and influence which dictated any particular passage of Scripture, can with certainty inform  us
what the hidden or secondary sense of it is.
In the third place, if such a principle of interpreting
Scripture be admitted, how is it possible to ascertain within what bounds it shall be confined?
By some, every part and parcel of the Old Testament is
regarded as capable of a double sense; and consequently,
whenever it becomes in their view desirable, on any account, to resort to such a sense, they hold themselves at
liberty to do so. Nor have such views always been confined to minds of the lower order, or to men of little knowledge., Origen, who believed in the eternity of matter, in



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.            21
terpreted the first chapter of Genesis as having an occult
moral or spiritual sense throughout. The waters of the
firmament above, were. the good thoughts and desires of
men; those in the depths below, the bad ones. The history of the temptation and fall of Adam and Eve he regarded as an allegory, in order to set forth the power of sin.
Even so the history of Sarah and Hagar. The Mosaic
ritual was never intended to be taught as a literal and historic reality, but in all its parts it must be' regarded as conveying an occult sense. Of course all other parts of the
Scripture may be subjected to a similar process; but more
especially the Canticles. Origen, moreover, has had many
followers, both in ancient and modern times. Who has
not heard too, of Cocceius, in recent times, who, with
much more learning than Origen and with equal strength
of fancy, outdid his illustrious predecessor?  The piety
and learning which were united in Cocceius have given
great authority to his exegesis; and throughout all Protestant Christendoml, even down to the present hour, there
are followers of his mode of interpretation to be found, although with great varieties both in the theory and practice
of expounding.
In the Roman Catholic church the practice of spiritualizing, (as the developing of a double sense is called),.has
been even more general and more unlimited than among
the Protestants.  The Jesuit, who discovered that the account of the creation of " the sun to rule the day, and of the
moon and stars to rule the night," in the first chapter of
Genesis, was intended, mystically and in the way of. nvotaw,
to teach the supremacy of the Pope and the-inferiority of
kings and cardinals, was merely a specimen of what has
been very' common in that church. But who among'all the
Protestant mystical interpreters can refute the Jesuit? I
know of no argument that can reach him, when ro'vota in




22~2         DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.
the Scriptures is once fairly and fully conceded. He has as
good a right to say, that Gen. 1: 16 was designed to convey an occult sense, as such Protestants have to aver, that
Ps. nI. XXuI. XLV. cx. and other parts of Scripture, have a
double sense. Who is, or can be, the final arbiter in such
cases?
Once admit that an occult or mystic second sense may
be given to any passage of Scripture, and you must of
course concede to every man the liberty of foisting in upon
the Scriptures such a meaning, whenever and wherever
he pleases. If he is abundant and excessive in his phantasies, it would be difficult to say by what court he is to be
tried; much more difficult to point out the authority which
has a right to pass final sentence of condemnation. In a
cause to be tried, where there is neither Statute nor common law for a guide, and.where every man (as to the matter
under cognisance) has the right to do what seems good in
his own sight, a court must be somewhat puzzled in making out a final and authoritative decision.
You smile when one tells you of the Jesuit, who preached
seven sermons from the interjection O! Yet nothing more
was necessary even, to double this number, than a lively
fancy, and the power of spiritualizing with such vigour
as to make out a variety of meanings for the said interjection. You smile perhaps still more, when one tells you of
the preacher, who selected Cant. 1: 9 for his text, (in which
the bride is compared to the horses in Pharaoh's chariot),
and drew from its occult meaning eighty-two particulars of
resemblance between the horses and the church, the last
of which was, that as the steeds of Pharaoh moved with a
steady pace over both hill and dale, so the church moves
with the steady gait of perseverance through the Wilderness
which she is traversing. You will say: " This is excessive;
this is ridiculous." But who shall prescribe the bounds of




DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.            23
fancy, when she is once authorized to move in any direction she pleases?  If you should suggest that, at least, imagination must be bound by the principle of producing
something useful, in such a -development of occult meanings; one might reply by asking: How can you'show that
the seven sermons'of the Jesuit were not all useful sermons? Certainly they may have been so. And as to the
expatiator upon the points of, resemblance between Pharaoh's horses and the church, at most we cannot, on your
ground, condemn him' unheard. If all his points of likeness were as well chosen as the last, he surely might have
important subjects before him for discussion; and who can
aver, that he did not gravely and profitably discuss them?
Indeed this plea of converting the Old Testament in particular to useful purposes, proffered by Origen and in vogue
more or less since his time, may be urged on to any extent that fancy or imagination may judge best. Who that
is familiar with the history of interpretation does not know,
that many a grave interpreter has spent much time and
pains in analyzing the proper names of Scripture, in order
to evoke from them some mysterious spirit with a message
from a terra incognita? It is thus, according to the view of
such expositors, that the Scriptures become edifying; thus
that every part of the Old Testament becomes lighted up, as
it were, with the lamp of gospel truth. On this ground, also, any man; who understands Hebrew as well as Cocceius
did, -(and truly he was no ordinary adept), may make the
first chapter of the first book of Chronicles as edifying as
the 19th Psalm, or equally didactic with the Sermon on the
Mount. In the first verse of the Chronicles, the name
Adam might suggest, not unnaturally, the whole history of
the race of man, with all their attributes, powers, developments, and destiny.  Seth, (i. e. nO from  ns. to put, place,
substitute, etc.), naturally suggests the great Redeemer of




24           DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.
men, who was put in our place, or substituted for us, i. e,
"he was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for
our iniquities;" and so the whole doctrine of the vicarious
sufferings of Christ- is suggested to our consideration by
the name Seth. Enosh (t;i3   from  tans to be sick) of
course teaches us the doctrine of man's frail and dying
state; and by indirect consequence it reminds us of all the
duties which are attendant upon such a state and naturally
connected with it-a text, therefore, of vast meaning, even
of boundless import. And so we might pass on through
all the genealogical tables in the first book of the Chronicles; which, when thus treated, instead of being mere
genealogies in which the church has now no very special
interest, would then become pregnant with a divine and
transcendental meaning, and be filled, as one might almost
say, " with the fulness of God."  In this way, too, we can
demonstrate, that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine
and for instruction in righteousness. Who then can forbid us to engage in such an excellent work as this? Who
can bid us to stop, when thus bending all our powers to
vindicate the divine authority and excellence of the Scriptures, and to show that no other book on earth can bear
comparison with them, as to adaptedness for conveying, at
all times and in every possible manner, both doctrine and
practical instruction?  Even the least important part of
them, (if indeed it is lawful to say that any one part is less
important than another), has more of significance, more
that is adapted to our edification, than all the other books
which the world contains.
If now to all this I should add large professions of most
sincere and ardent desires to glorify God by such a view
of the Scriptures, and to convince men how he has indeed
"magnified his word above all his name;" if I should, at
the same time, bestow degrading epithets on all those who




iDOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.           25
deny the supernatural fulness of meaning and the secondary and spiritual sense of'the Scriptures, and insert in every convenient place an inuendo that they are fast verging
toward rationalism; should I not secure an attentive hearing of many, yea very many, among both laity and clergy?
This, or something of much the same tenor, has often
been done; it doubtless will be often repeated in future
time. Nor is'the man who does this, at all within the
grasp of his mystic brethren, who call themselves more
sober. There is, as we have seen, no court of appeal.
And the man who outgoes all his competitors in the extension of the spiritual or occult sense of the Scriptures, provided the meanings which lie gives may tend to edification,
is of course entitled to a precedence in the great and good
work (as many deem it) of rendering the Bible edifying
every where and to the highest degree; and all this, too, in
such a way as to show that it is a book unlike all other
books, and has a fulness of doctrine and instruction which
are worthy of a God, and which God only could impart to.
it. On the ground of double or occult sense, the right of
such a man to the claim in question cannot be disproved./.
The advocates for a double sense, or spiritualizing, will
doubtless reply to all this, that'the abuse of a thing is no
good argument against the use of it.' In most cases this is
certainly to be conceded. But if a thing is of such a nature that it is all abuse, and must be so, it is a good argument against it. Of such a nature I must believe the practice of mystical interpreters to be. John Bunyan was a
man who did not lack genius or piety. Yet he has given
to the world a treatise in which he undertakes to show, that
not only the temple with its solemn ritual and impressive
service was significant of good things to come, but that the
parts all and singular of the same were in like manner significant. The vases, the censers, the trays, the snuffers,
3




~26         DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECYd
yea the snuff itself of the lamps-all, all had anl important
spiritual meaning. Will you say, that Bunyan was dreaming a second time here, to much less purpose than his first
dream which has rendered himn immortal? If you do, it
were easy to refer you to Origen, to Jerome even, to Augustine, to Cocceius, to Jones of Nayland, and to a host of
other men distinguished for talents and piety, who have
wandered scarcely less into dreaming regions than Bunyan.
When we are gravely told, in many a Commentary, that
in the parable of the good Samaritan, the man that travelled
from Jerusalem to Jericho through the wilderness, and fell
among thieves and was robbed and wounded, represents
Adam and his posterity travelling through the wilderness
of this world and robbed and wounded by Satan; that the
priest and Levite, who passed by without helping him, represent the law which cannot save the sinner and good
works and ceremonial observances which cannot help him;
that the good Samaritan is Christ; that the oil and wine
are the forgiveness and grace of the gospel; and that the
gratuitous work of helping the wounded man is a lively
emblem of the Redeemer's gratuitous work in respect to
sinners-all this, we are solemnly assured, is edifying,
it makes the Scriptures profitable for doctrine, and consequently no valid objection can be made against it. Be it
so then; but why stop here? Why choose out those parts
of the parable which may afford room for tracing imaginary resemblances, and leave the rest as being of no important significance?  What means the setting of the
wounded man upon the ass; the bringing him to an inn;
the two pence given to the host; the promise of more on
the return of the Samaritan?  By what rule or principle
does the interpreter stop short of these, and leave them out
of the category of " things profitable for doctrine?"  Is it
not the useful, the edifying, which makes this mode of




DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.              27
spiritualizing lawful?  If so, then we mayvindicate those,
who out of Adam, Seth, Enoshl, (1 Chron. 1: 1), bring out
the greatest and most important of all gospel-truths'and
the most important of all the precepts of practical piety.
In my apprehension, at least, the latter have as good a
claim to our confidence as the interpreters of the parable
of the good Samaritan, who have just been described.
We have heard of a preacher, who selected from Ezra
1: 9 the clause nine and twenty knives, for a text.  How
he made this profitable for doctrine, we are not told. We
have read of still more extraordinary spyiritualizing.  The
fact to which'we refer is briefly this: in Gen. 29: 2 it is
said, that Jacob "looked, and behold a well in the field."
The spiritual instruction -or rather consolation deducible
from this, was expressed by the preaching interpreter in
the following pathetic exclamation: "What a mercy that
the field was not in the well!"
But enough of examples.  And if I am again told, as I
doubtless shall be, that these only serve to expose the abuse
of the Ln.ovoi; I must again reply by asking the advocate
of the principle in question to point me to the tribunal,
which decides, or has authority to decide, where the limits
of such a practice must be drawn.
Once more; I am not able to satisfy my own mind, why
merely a double sense should be assigned to various passages of Scripture.  Why not three, seven, ten, or (with the
Jewish Rabbies) forty-nine senses?  Fancy can make out
all these, with little or no difficulty.  Why not give to the
Scripture, as Cocceius maintained we should do, all the
meanings which it is in any way capable of bearing?
The only pertinent answer that can be made to this is,
that it is not usual, even where fancy is permitted to play
a conspicuous part in the interpretation of ambiguous sayings, to make out more than a doutble sense; consequently




28           DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.
it would be against usage to assign so many meanings to
the Scripture. But this answer will hardly suffice. It is
not usual, in respect to any grave and honest discourse, to
make out more than one meaning to words; but the advocates of double sense have brought us into company with
the interpreters of enigmas, charades, conundrums, and
heathen oracles of double e,.tendre, and invited us to keep
pace with them. If we must do so, then why may we not
at least make out this distinctive claim for the Scriptures,
viz. that their superiority to every thing of such an equivocal nature is manifest, by the fact that the language of
the inspired books is capable of bearing all possible senses,
be they more or less?  If the divine origin of the Bible
cannot be proved in this manner, it must be conceded that
we may at least show, in such a way, that it is a book diffierent from all others which the world contains.
Let me add, in the fifth place, that the mode of interpretation against which I am contending, can never be relied on
for the, establishment of any scriptural doctrine or precept.
Few, if any, of the advocates of double sense will venture to assert, that we can depend on an occult sense to
establish any position of importance. The most that is
usually claimed for this method of interpretation is, that it
pleases the fancy, excites and gratifies the imagination, and
thus makes the truth more agreeable to many minds. Yet
the occult meaning, in order to have any degree of confidence reposed in it, must harmonize with those texts of
Scripture which are plain and direct.  Indeed, the bare
statement of the whole matter affords evidence enough,
that we can never pretend to rely on an occult meaning as
the foundation of an argument, by which any, even the
least important, position is established.  The simple question is, then, whether we shall resort to allegorizing or
spiritualizing, merely to gratify the fancy, or amuse the




DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.             29
imagination, or to allure by ingenuity in drawing supposed
resemblances.  But on this question why should there be
any doubt?  The Bible is a book of import much too
grave to be treated in this manner. God, and heaven, and
hell, and never-dying souls, are no originals for fancy pictures and amusing sketches. It is a degradation of the awful majesty of Scripture to treat it in this way.  Were I to
speak what my feelings prompt me to do, I should say, that
it is a profanation of its holy contents. When romance
and fiction and conceit and conjecture and enigma are all
mixed up with instruction of the most serious and important character which can be addressed to human beings,
what mind, that possesses a refined taste and delicate sensibility, will not be revolted and displeased with such a
procedure?
I repeat what has been already said: When God speaks
to men, hie speaks more humano, by men andfor men. Viewed in this light, the poetry of the Scriptures is poetry with
all its characteristics; the prose is prose; the genealogies
are what they purport to be; the historic narrations are
histories; the psalms are songs of praise; the proverbs are
maxims or apothegms; the plans of the tabernacle and temple, with all their apparatus, are plans for building sanctua-ries and furnishing them; prophecy is prediction; preaching is homiletic; allegory is allegory, and parable is parable. If there be any thing that is certain, as to the general principles of interpretation respecting the Scriptures,
all this is certain.  If the Bible is not to be interpreted in
such a manner, i. e. in accordance with these positions,
then we must give up all hope of coming to the knowledge
of any rules by which it can be interpreted.
It is well that the public taste is at last putting its hand
more and more upon the extravagance of days that are past,
in respect to the occult sense of many portions of the Scrip3*




30           DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.
tures. But in the department of prophecy, with which I
am particularly concerned at present, there is yet great latitude given and taken in regard to this matter.  In the
Psalms, and indeed in a multitude of passages in the Pro-,phets, the Pentateuch, and all parts of the Scripture, there
are expositors even now who defend the in6',o'ma, i. e. they
find a literal and historic sense which answered in former
days a temporary purpose, and also an occult sense, wrappedl up or involved in the drapery of the historic sense, and
discernible only when this is unrolled and laid aside. They
are serious in the belief that they have a right to interpret
in this manner; and although few will venture to meet a
discussion of the subject on the ground of simple hermeneutics, (for on this ground their cause must surely fail),
yet they appeal, one and all, to the usage and authority of
the New Testament writers, and aver, that whatever difficulties may be made out on the grounds of hermeneutical
science, as applicable to writings merely of human origin,
yet it is clear that the Evangelists and other writers of the
New Testament did admit and adopt a double sense of the
Hebrew Scriptures, and consequently, we are at liberty to
do the same.
This for substance has been so long and so often alleged, in the way of defending the occult sense of the Old'Testament Scriptures, and it is moreover, apparently, so
weighty an argument in its favor, that I must of necessity
-take it into serious consideration.
I might' remark at the outset, that were'the facts true,
in the sense in which they are usually alleged, it would not
follow of course, that we are entitled to assign an occult
sense to any and every passage of Scripture, where we may
merely of ourselves think it proper to do so. We take the
ground that the New Testament writers were inspired;
and if they were, then it is possible that they might be en



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.           31
lightened by inspiration so as to give a meaning to some
parts of the Old Testament Scripture, which is and must
be occult in itself to all who are uninspired. We may indeed now follow in their steps, in those cases where they
have given us an occult sense; we may give credit to their
authority, and so trust them as our guides; but we can go,
in such a case,. no further than they lead the way. Inspiration was necessary to reveal an occult sense to them;
and as we are not inspired, so we cannot give an occult
sense to passages which they have not explained. In the
case supposed, it was not fancy, imagination, conceit,
which led them to play upon words and to give to them
mysterious and conjectural meanings. If they have actually exhibited the occult sense in any case, it must of course
have been by virtue of light from above.
It would be gaining not a little, if even so much should
be admitted by all. Weshould then, at least, be kept within bounds very narrow, in comparison with those which
many interpreters have set up. One simple rule would
suffice; and this would be, that we must merely follow on
in the same path in which the New Testament writers
have taken the lead, and not strike out new ways or bypaths for ourselves.
But a more important view of this subject remains to be
taken: Have the New Testament writers made out, in any
case, a DOUBLE sense to the words of the Old Testament
Scriptures?
A moderate volume could be easily filled with the discussion of this question; but necessity obliges me to comprise
what I now have to say-in a few paragraphs.
I do not find but two ways in which the Jewish Scriptures are employed in the New Testament, so far as the
subject of prediction or prophecy is concerned. The first
is too plain to need any particular comment; it is where a




032          DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.
passage in the Old Testament is simply and directly prophetic, and is appealed to or cited as merely prophetic.
Such are the passages, as I must believe, cited from Is.
LIIm. Ps. II. XVI. XXII. XLV. cx., and many other places.
We need not, with Cocceius, bishop Horne, and other
writers of this description, find Christ every where in'the
Old Testament; nor need we, as has been said of Grotius,
come to the conclusion that he is to be found no where in
it. There is some middle path between these extremes.
If the Old Testament Scriptures have not' predicted a Messiah, and have not indeed often predicted him, then the
persuasion and the reasoning of Christ and his apostles, in
respect to this subject, have no good foundation on which
they can rest. If they- have foretold a Messiah, why not
leave them to speak out this great truth plainly, simply,
without any vcioYota or occult sense? For example; why,
in the second and 45th Psalms, should we suppose the coronation of David and the marriage of Solomon to be described or sung, by the first and literal sense of the words,
and then that the Messiah is obscurely hinted at in the
way of an occult sense? Is not one greater than David to
be found in the second Psalm, and greater than Solomon
in the forty-fifth'? So I must think. David was not crowned king on the holy hill of Zion; nor was he begotten of
God on the day of coronation; nor had he the uttermost
parts of the earth for his possession; nor were his enemies
broken in pieces like a potter's vessel; nor are all men invited to put'their trust in him; Solomon was not most'
mighty in war; nor did his right hand teach terrible
things; nor was his throne forever and ever; nor was he
addressed by the title God (,ri,' ); nor did his children
become princes in all the earth; nor are all people exhorted to praise him forever and ever. Truly a greater than'
David or Solomon is here. No double sense is needed;




DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.            33
none is even admissible. What advantage, in any respect,
can be gained by the admission of one?
All that can with strict propriety be said of these, and
of many other like cases, is simply, that the sacred writers
of ancient times, when they come to disclose a future king
Messiah and his extended and peaceful reign, borrow the
costume of their picture from objects then before their own
minds and those of their readers.  From David and Solomon traits of resemblance are borrowed, in order to complete the sketch of a future and spiritual king. Not mere
choice, but absolute necessity dictated this. How could
the future be disclosed, except by language selected from
that in present use, and by likenesses drawn from present
objects?  It is surely no good reason for finding a double
sense, that a prophet has undertaken to disclose the future,
by presenting it through similitudes of the present?
This leads me to consider a second method in which the
New Testament writers have cited and employed the language of the Old Testament, viz. by suggesting resemhblances between past andfidure events.
This includes all which is properly called type in the
Old Testament. Type means a resemblance of two things,
not an occult sense of words. The epistle to the Hebrews
has shown us, that many things under the old dispensation
were, and were designed to be, typical, i. e. they bore a
resemblance to objects or transactions of the new dispensation. It is through the medium of this epistle that we
come more fully to learn, that many of the Jewish religious
rites were typical. Indeed, we cannot well conceive how
it should be otherwise.  God'has no pleasure in rites,
forms, ceremonies, and sacrifices, in themselves considered,
and for their own sake. To be worthy of him, they must
shadow forth something of the future and Messianic dispensation. Thus the paschal-lamb was a type of the Lamb




34            DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.
of God which taketh away the sins of the world; the office
of the high-priest was typical of the atoning and propitiatory office of Christ; and the like as to many other things.
But in all these cases, and in all like to them, there is
nothing of a double sense to words.  The words which
describe the rites, sacrifices, or occurrences, of the ancientdispensation, are to be interpreted in their plain, usual,
historical sense; for example, the institution of the passover in Ex. xri. When this is done, an interpreter,. so far
as the exegesis of mere language is concerned, has fully discharged his duty. But another question may arise, subsequent to this, viz., Whether the things thus described do
not afford resemblances of future things under the new
dispensation?  Christ and the apostles have decided that
they do; and even more than this is apparently decided, for
they seem plainly to teach us, that many of the ancient
rites, and transactions, and persons also, were designed to
be types of good things to come.  It is this which makes
them truly -types. Surely it is not every resemblance which
fancy can draw between all earlier and later occurrence or
personage, that constitutes a type in a true and scriptural
sense.- We must limit types of this character only to such
things or persons, as were designed to afford resemblances
that might convey instruction to the ancient church.
Will any one, who believes in the divine authority of the
New Testameht, call in question the fact, that the paschal
lamb, the Jewish sacrifices at large, the high-priest's office,
and other things of the like' nature, were designedly emblems of the future? If any do question this, I am not
among the number.  But then, in all these cases of types,
there is only an emblem of the future, or a resemblance of
something future, in the things or persons of ancient days,
and no second sense to words which describe those things.
If, moreover, the Jewish dispensation was designed to be




DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.            35
preparatory to the Christian one, what less could be rationally expected, than that there would be such a significancy in many of its institutions?
On the same ground, for substance, we may place a
class of texts cited in the New Testament, which have generally been regarded as the most difficult of all. Let us
select an example which comprises in itself all the serious
difficulties that can attend the subject, in any part of the
New Testament.  In Matt. 2:'15, the writer refers to the
flight of Joseph and Mary with the infant Jesus to Egypt,
and their subsequent departure from that country in order
to go again to Palestine.  He appeals, for confirmation of
the fact that all these arrangements were under the guidance of a superintending power; to a passage in Hosea 11:
1, which says: " When Israel was a child I loved him, and
called my Son out of Egypt." As written by the prophet
this is no part of a prediction, and is not designed to be
one, but it is a simple declaration-of a historical truth.
Yet the Evangelist says, that when Jesus went down to
Egypt, and was tow be recalled from that country, that all
this was afulfilment (najiowais) of what the prophet Hosea
had said, in the passage just quoted.- What then are the
elements of this case, and of all others like to it? Simply
these; viz., that something transacted, done, performed in
former days, or any event that happened, if they found an
antitype or corresponding resemblance under the new dispensation, might be said to have a        Lnei)ootW, i. a fulfilment. But who that ever has studied the New Testament
references to the'ancient Scriptures, does not know that
the words fiulilment andfulfl have a wide latitude of meaning?  Any thing'which happened or was done in ancient
times, and which for substance is repeated or takes place
again under the new dispensation; any thing later which
presents a lively resemblance to another and earlier thing;




6  DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.
may be, and often is, spoken of as a 7rb1oacsg of that earlier
thing. It matters not, now, whether the word by strictly
critical and classical usage would bear this latitude of sense.
Enough that such is New Testament usage.
God often calls ancient Israel his child, his son, because
he was a special object of his love. The Hebrews were
exiles in the land of Egypt, they were delivered from that
state by a special providence, and brought to Palestine, the
promised land. Jesus, the beloved Son of God in a higher
and nobler sense, was an exile in Egypt, he was delivered
from this-state and brought to Palestine-and all by a special Providence. Angels interposed to accomplish his deliverance. Here then was a case, in which that Son of
God in whom he was well pleased was brought to Egypt,
ad out of Egypt, in a manner not unlike to that recorded
in ancient history.  What happened in later times, happened in a higher and nobler sense than what happened in
early times.  And might it not be said, on this account,
that there was in this case a nipojtf? It is said; and
why not justly said, and in a way full of meaning?
But even here there is no occult sense of words, in the
prophet. They are mere plain, simple, historical words.
Yet the events to which they refer, bear a resemblance to,subsequent events under the new dispensation; and on this
account the latter are named a filling up or fulfilment of
the former.  It is the want of right views as to the use of
nrjooaltg and E&n.fh5 in the New Testament, which has
misled so many interpreters of its quotations.
In a way not unlike to this last method of applying Old
Testament Scriptures, we are accustomed continually to
quote and apply maxims and sentiments from the classic
writers, without ever supposing that the passages which
we quote were actual predictions. Like occurrences or
exigencies call to mind ancient declarations or narrations




DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.            37
respecting similar events or occurrences, and those declarations are therefore cited as applicable to the latter
events. Thus, to introduce another conspicuous example,
the 69th Psalm affords the means of a striking illustration.
David here describes, in very vivid colors, the persecution
of his enemies, deprecates their malignity, and predicts
their overthrow. That his own personal enemies are here
meant, and that David in proprlica persona speaks, and for
himself, is clear from the tenor of the composition. That
David is originally and personally meant, and not Christ,
is -clear from v. 5: "0  God, thou knowest my foolishness, and- my sins are not hidden from thee." Could he
C who knew no sin" make such a confession? No; here
is the proper and original David, and here in the context are
his personal enemies. Yet in v. 9th we find the expression: "The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up;" and
this is applied by the disciples to Jesus, when he drove
from the temple the traffickers who profaned it, John 2: 17.
So again, in v. 21: " They gave me gall for my meat, and
in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink," which is applied to Jesus in John 19: 28, 29, and probably in Matt.
27: 34, 48, and Mark 15: 23.  John intimates, that when
the vinegar was given to Jesus on the cross, there was "a
fulilment of the Scriptures."  And undoubtedly there was,
in the sense already explained. There was an event like
to that in ancient times. David's bitter enemies persecuted him to the greatest extremity. They " gave him gall
to eat and vinegar to drink;" not in the literal sense, probably, but in the figurative one. But the spiritual David
was persecuted more bitterly still, even unto death. Literally even did they give him vinegar to drink mingled with
gall, Matt. 27: 34. Here was a nl.wcra~s, a filling up, a completing in a higher sense, of that which was done-in ancient
times. A more important personage was here concerned;
4




as           DOUBLE SENSE OF PRRoPEcV.
and the passage of Scripture in Ps. 69: 2], when applied
to Jesus, stands forth as a most prominent and lively description of his sufferings.
-Once more, in respect to this same Psalm; in Romans
-11: 19, Paul quotes vs. 22, 23, (with some little variation
from the original), and applies them to the state of the
Jews in his day, as descriptive of their blindness, stupidity, and unbelief. Literally and originally the descriptions
here were applied to David's enemies; but David's Son,
who is called Lord by his earthly ancestor (Matt. 22: 45),
applies them with still greater force to his own enemies.
Nor is even this all the use which is made in the New
Testament of this strikingly descriptive Psalm.  Peter
(Acts 1: 20) applies to Judas the 25th verse: "Let his
habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein." He
even adds, that the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of David,
spake concerning Judas (v. 16), and apparently he means
to include Ps. 69:25 in what was said; see Acts 1: 20, which
begins the quotation with a yrc. In the same breath, Peter quotes another passage from Ps. 109: 9, (which Psalm
is altogether of; the like tenor with Ps. LXIX.), which runs
thus: "His bishopric let another man take."  The fair
question now is: Was Judas originally meant here? The
tenor of both Psalms shows clearly that he was not. Yet
David, as king, was beyond all reasonable doubt a type of
king Messiah; and what is done in respect to the type,
may, by the usage of the New Testament writers, be applied to the antitype. The Holy Ghost did truly speak
that which is applicable to Judas, or which deeply concerns Judas, inasmuch as he hath, by the mouth of David,
spoken respecting David's enemies what is exactly and highly descriptive of Judas' character and destiny.
In all the New Testament there occur no cases of greater difficulty, than those which have now been brought be



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.           39
fore the reader's mind. He will bear me witness, then,
that I am not disposed to avoid the question which such
passages bring up, nor by any management to keep it out
of sight. If he hesitates to explain the New Testament
quotations as I have done, I can only solicit him to study
thoroughly the whole subject of quotations, and then to
take also into view the usual ancient and Jewish method
of quoting and applying Scripture, as exhibited in the
Mishna, the Gemara, and the writings of the Rabbins. If
he does not come to the same conclusion, at last, which I
have now developed, I can only say, that his views and his
modes of reasoning must be exceedingly different from
those which the great mass of well informed interpreters
have of late exhibited.
I can find, then, no warrant in the New Testament for
giving a double sense to the words of the Old Testament.
And if it be a fact that the apostles have so interpreted
the Hebrew Scriptures, it is no warrant for me, or any other
uninspired person, to interpret them in such a way, beyond
what the apostles have already done. Plainly, a meaning
not discoverable by any of the laws or principles of language, (and surely such is the'nvotoa in question), can be
discovered with certainty only by the guidance of inspiration. All short of this must be conjecture merely; and on
conjecture we cannot establish either doctrine or prophecy.
We wait then for proof, among all the mystic interpreters
of former or' latter days, of supernatural divine guidance
and illumination as to their exegesis. We are aware, that
Bengel believed he had found such guidance in respect to
the meaning of the beast in the Apocalypse whose number
is 666; but we are also aware, that his grand climacteric
of A. D. 1836 has passed by without any of the confidently expected events.  We are aware that thousands, with
incomparably less of piety and learning than John Albert




40           DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.
Bengel, have laid claim to the like, and even to greater
disclosures, through the special influence of the Spirit.
But we have still to learn, from what quarter credible testimony to such alleged supernatural aid is to come. It is
not enough that a man spiritualizes; nor even that he- is
expert and eloquent in spiritualizing. It does not suffice,
that he can make the unlearned and the lovers of fancy
and romance to stare and wonder at his talent for evoking
spirituality from any and every part of the Old Testament,
and specially from prophecy. It is-not enough, that he can
look down with scorn on those who make little or no account of claims to such gifts at the present time; or that
he contemplates with disdain a want of power to understand
the Bible in any other way than through the medium of the
intellect, and compares such persons with the devils who
believe and tremble. All this, and more of the same tenor,
has been said so long and so often, that the ear listens to,it now only as the usual monotony; and the diligent inquirer, who is resolved to make his way to his own heart
through the medium of his intellect, makes up his mind to
be included under the category of Intellectualists, whatever may be the loss of popularity which this will occasion
him among the Mystics.
With an open face then we ask: Where is the proof,
that either prophecy, or any other part of the Old Testament, or of the New, conveys a double sense? Where is
the authority for deciding what the occult sense is, or
must be? Where is the defence for trampling upon the
laws of interpretation applicable to all other books, when
we come to expound the! Scriptures? Where are we, when
we once give the rein, without control, to mere fancy and
imagination? By what wonder-working process shall we
make a genealogical table as significant and doctrinal as the
19th Psalm, or the Sermon on the Mount? By what power




DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.           41
of transformation shall the list of furniture for the temple
become as instructive to us as the ten commandments, or
as Paul's summaries of Christian morality and piety in his
epistles?
In the name of all that is grave, serious, rational, intellectual, respectful to God's eternal truth, or intelligible in
propounding the way of salvation to men, I protest against
such an abuse of reason, of the holy Scriptures, and of all
the established principles of language.  It is not enough
that men mean well, to entitle them thus to sport with the
Bible. That book is no toy for the sport of fancy and caprice. He who is in the proper attitude for hearing an address of the King of kings, is not in a frame of mind to unravel charades, and conundrums, and enigmas which are
more skilfully ambiguous than that of -Edipus. The Majesty of heaven does not expect-trifling with his messages.
Tell me not, I would say again, that the Bible can be
rendered more useful, by admitting a second or spiritual
sense. Whose office is it to mend what God has done?
To whom does it belong to supply the defects of his revelation?  Who shall decide, that he has not communicated
what he meant to communicate, and all that he meant to
communicate, by the Scripture interpreted agreeably to
the common laws and principles of language and of the human mind in reference to language? Authority must come
from above, in order to entitle any man to undertake this.
And as to those who do undertake it —what is;their rule
or limit?  The more sober among them dare not venture
to make an occult sense out of a passage, which may serve
as the basis of a single doctrine or precept. The analogy
of plain Scripture must come in aid of the second sense,
before they can even venture upon it. Of what use then
can all this spiritualizing and allegorizing be to the church?
The most to which it can lay claim is, to please the fancy
4A




DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.
and gratify the imagination.  But with what?   Plainly
with the mere ingenuity of the preacher or writer;' for this
is all which comes fairly into the account. To aim at
making God's word. more significant and profitable than he
has made it-is not an undertaking in which men should
lightly engage.
In whatever light the matter is viewed, it will not bear
the test of rigid scrutiny.  At all events, let those who
have a predominant inclination to this fancy work, go no
further than they themselves will venture to maintain that
the writers of the New Testament have led them. The
ground is too dangerous and uncertain to be occupied an
inch beyond this mark, even as the matter appears to them.
There is one simple principle that should run through all
preaching and: all expositions; which.is, that the mind of
the scriptural writer should be given as it was originally
expressed by his language.  The meaning of any book, is
simply what the writer had in his own mind and intended
to express.  This being given, the work of interpretation
is done.  For the rest, the process is easy.  Manente ratione manet ipsa lex includes the whole. So far as our circumstances and relations are like those of the persons to whom
the Scriptures were originally addressed, so far what wassaid to them  is' binding upon us; but no farther.  It is
thus that the Scriptures are indeed profitable for doctrine
to all; for all have the like relations to God, and the like
relations to their fellow beings; and nothing, therefore, in
the Bible can be a mere dead letter to us.  But to make
all parts of the Bible equally significant and instructive,
under pretence of piety and spirituality and reverence for
the Scriptures-is not this to abuse the gift of reason, and
to take away all respect on the part of intelligent men for
the advocates of scriptural religion, and to do a violence.to the laws of interpretation and to the first principles of Ilan



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.          43
guage, for which no alleged edification can in any measure
compensate? Nothing short of renewed inspiration can
make sure our footing, while standing upon such a ground
as this.
I might now quit this topic, were it not that when the
subject comes to a point like that which has now been before us, a new direction is given to it, which needs some
further attention.
When we say, that the Scriptures mean what the authors
of them  designed they should mean, we are not unfrequently arrested here by questions such as the following:
Who then is the proper Author of the Scriptures?  And
if God be that author, by his Spirit, then may we not well
suppose that the words of Scripture are more significant
than the common laws of language would allow them to be?
I will not allege, that the subject, as. presented by these
questions, is attended by no difficulties. Yet it seems to
me, after the most careful attention which I have been able
to bestow upon it, that these difficulties are not insuperable.
When God speaks to men, in the way of a revelation,
he speaks by men, and through the medium of human
language, or by symbols which are equivalent to language.
In either case, the object is to reveal something, or to teach
something. We will suppose now that he addresses them
" with the language of angels;" what revelation is in reality
made by the address?  Just as much, we may reply, as
would be made, should we now address, one of our peasants
in Hebrew or Arabic; and no more. To speak in an unknown language, without interpreting it, or furnishing means
to interpret it, is of course making no revelation at all; it
is teaching nothing.
The Bible furnishes abundant evidence that the real
mode of divine revelation is very different from this.  To
the Hebrews, Hebrew discourse was addressed; to the




44           DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.
Jews when speaking Chaldee, Chaldee discourse; to Jews
and Gentiles, when both could read and understand Greek,
Greek discourse. Why? For the simple and most cogent of all reasons, viz., that what was revealed might
be understood. But if the common laws of interpretation
were not applicable to what was said, then of course it could
not be understood. But inasmuch as the whole tenor of
the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures shows that the usual
laws of language are observed, we must have some new
and special revelation in order to authorize us to believe,
that the Bible is to be exempted from these laws. Or if a
part is to be interpreted by the usual laws of exegesis, and
a part to be exempted from them, who will show us where
the line of distinction is to be drawn between these two
very diverse portions of the divine word?  No -one has
yet solved this question. The mode of proceeding in respect to the vmd~vota  has been, that every one "has done
what was right in his own eyes."   But are we indeed left
in such a condition as this?  Are we, after all, left in the
dark; and this too, when we are launched on a boundless
ocean without rudder or compass?
There must be some very important purposes to be answered by occult Scripture, if it be indeed true that it is
in and of itself occult. Most readily do I concede, for my
own experience.teaches me every day, that many portions
of Scripture are in a measure occult to me.  But why?
Merely because I am not so familiar with the original languages of Scripture and the objects there referred to, that
the bare reading or hearing of it will suffice to make me
understand it. It is occult to me, merely and only because
I am wanting in knowledge appropriate to the right understahding. of it. But was it so dark originally, to those
who were addressed by the sacred writers? How can we
credit this?  The prophets were preachers in part. In



DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.            45
deed their main business was preaching. Prediction, in
the strict sense of the word, belongs to but quite a subordinate part of their works. Was their preaching then intelligible?  I need not stop to prove this; for the bare statement of the case does of itself make it incontrovertible.
God does not mock men by addressing them in an unknown language, and then making them responsible for
disobedience to'his commands delivered in that language.
The preaching of the prophets must have been intelligible
to their contemporaries, in the same manner as well-composed gospel-sermons are now intelligible-to the great mass
of the Christian community among us. It was doubtless
true in' ancient times, as it is now, that there were some
individuals too ignorant to comprehend all which the prophets uttered in their sermons; still it was then as it is
now, i. e. the language of preaching must have been intelligible to all intelligent people.
If now we could in all respects place ourselves in the
condition of those who were originally. addressed by the
sacred writers, we should then understand at once nearly
every thing in the Scriptures without any difficulty; just
as easily as we now understand religious instructions from
our pulpits. All the dictionaries, grammars, commentaries, and learned exegetical essays of our libraries might
at once be dispensed with; at all events we should need
them no more than we need Lowth's English Grammar,
and Johnson's Dictionary, in order to understand our common mother tongue.
So far, I think, all my readers will be ready to agree
with me. When God addresses men, in order to instruct,
or; reprove, or console, he will of course speak what is intelligible.
But there is another and somewhat different view,
which is- sometimes taken of various predictions of the Old




46           DOUBLE SENSE OF PROPHECY.
Testament, and also of the New. This is, as its abettors
allege, that they are, from the nature of the case, not only
somewhat obscure, but are in fact, i. e. they were originally, designed to be obscure. Not only are many of them
clothed in language which is highly figurative, but the diction is even of design enigmatical. God, as it is alleged,
had undoubtedly a definite meaning in his own mind,
which he attached to the language that was employed, but
this meaning was designedly veiled from men in general,
and sometimes-even from the prophets themselves.
That, when the Holy Spirit inspired the prophets and
led them to utter predictions, he himself attached a wider
and fuller and more definite extent of meaning to the words
employed, than the prophets did or could, I cannot doubt.
All the future was perfectly known to the Spirit of God.
It is, indeed, an easy matter to illustrate this. When Newton or La Place used the word sun, it recalled to their minds
all the astronomical views of that luminary which they had
acquired by study; while the peasant, who employs the same
word, means only the apparent luminary of the skies which
rises and sets and scatters light and warmth over all the
earth. But if Newton or La Place were to converse with
any persons destitute of astronomical knowledge, they
would of course employ the word sun only in a sense intelligible to them. On any other ground they could not
expect to be understood.
Like to this, now, must be the case in regard to prophetic revelation. If God reveals the future to men, then
he must speak so as to be understood. The things suggested by the words employed, are, beyond all question,
understood by him incomparably better than they can be
by men. - But the question before us is, not what knowledge God possesses, but, what has he designed to -reveal?
Now if he employs words as the medium of a revelation




IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE?         47
respecting the future, then those words are to be interpreted by the ordinary rules of language, or else there is of
course no revelation made by them. An occult sense here
is of course no sense at all.
Put the case now, for example, that Rev. xii. was unintelligible to those whom John addressed, and of course is
so to us; then what was the object in writing Rev. xII.?
Certainly not to reveal any thing to the church then, or
since; for, on the ground taken, nothing is revealed. Of
what use then are such predictions, (if we may apply such
a misnomer to them), to the church of Christ?  Surely
they can have been of no use, thus far. For what purpose
then was the Apocalypse written?  If! we may follow the
suggestions of the book, in all parts of it, it was written to
encourage and console Christians in the midst of severe
trials and fiery persecutions-to console them with the certain prospect of the triumphs of the church over all her enemies.  But what consolation or what instruction could be
derived from those parts of the book, which were intelligible neither to John himself, nor to any of his readers 
None-none! What shall we say then? Has God spoken
for no purpose?  Or has he spoken for a particular purpose, and yet in such a way as not at all to answer that
purpose? I cannot venture on such positions.
But here the subject is wont to take a new turn, which
leads us to the second topic proposed for discussion.
~ 3. PROPHECY NOT INTELLIGIBLE UNTIL IT IS FULFILLED.
There are not a few prophecies respecting which we are
told, that God has a meaning which is attached to the language employed, although it has not yet been developed.
Wlhen the events come to pass to which the prophecy relates,




48          IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE?
then, and not till then, shall we be able to understand the
words of the prediction.
I have found this sentiment echoed and re-echoed
so often among expositors of the prophecies, even by
such enlightened men as Hengstenburg, and Tholuck too,
that I have been forced upon an examination of its claims
to our credit. It has become, with many, a kind of universal menstruum, in which all the difficulties of the prophecies are solved.  When we get to the utmost limits of
our knowledge respecting them, then we are warned to include all the rest within the domain of hallowed secrecy.
In fact, some even lay claim to credit for piety, in such an
unreserved submission, as they deem it, to the divine will.
Happy do some count the lot of those, who merely wonder,
in such cases, at " the ways of God which are past finding
out."  How comfortable moreover it is, when we can not
only cover over the faults of our imperfect knowledge in a
way so creditable, but also dispense with all future effort
and trouble, which would result from pursuing inquiries
into the dark domain of the Scripture!
All the attention which I have bestowed on these views,
so common among one class of interpreters, has never enabled me to see or feel the justice or propriety of them.
Let us now suppose a case for the sake of illustration.
John, we will say, has uttered many things in the Apocalypse, which will never be understood until they are fulfilled. Let it be,-then, that 2000 years after-he has written
his book those things are to be fulfilled. The first question that we naturally ask, is: To what purpose did John
write those predictions? During 2000 years they have been,
or will be, by concession, neither more nor less than a dead
letter. The church of course is neither admonished, nor instructed, nor comforted. Why then were they written?
Was it to show that God can move in a mysterious way,




IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE?         49
and shroud himself in clouds and darkness?  There is
proof enough of this in every quarter of his works, without
a resort to such means. All heaven and earth bear witness that his ways are often past finding out. And would
he resort, then, for the sake of making this impression, to
such means as those now under consideration? The suggestion seems derogatory to his majesty and dignity. To
make a revelation-and yet that revelation (so called) be
entirely unintelligible? How can we conceive-of his sporting with the hopes and expectations of men in such a way?
To make one, moreover, which for thousands of years remains a perfect enigma to his church-is this any relief of'
the difficulty? To my own mrind, at least, it is none at
all.
But this is not the end of the matter. There is a still
more serious difficulty to be met. We are told that' the prophecy will be understood then, and only then, when the thing
predicted comnes to pass.'  Vhat then is the thing which
comes to pass? I may surely be permitted to ask this
question. What is the thing predicted? It is conceded,
that by the laws of language-no proper meaning has been,
or can be, made out from the prophecy in question. But
after 2000 years, something will take place, it'is said, to
which we may apply it. Apply what? If an event is compared with a prophecy, the only means of comparison possible is, that we first assign some definite meaning to the
prophecy, and then compare the event with that meaning.
If this be not the case, then we merely make a comparison of a known thing with one that is unknown. How then.
are we to ascertain that they agree, when we confess that
one of the two things compared is (so to speak) an un —
known quantity?  So long as it is unknown, or treated as"
unknown, we can have no means of ascertaining whether
there is an agreement, or not, in the case supposed.
5




50          IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE?
Is not this whole matter, moreover, mere reasoning in a
circle?  The prophecy (an unknown something) agrees
with the event, because the event agrees with the prophecy! Some laws of language then, after all, must first be
applied to the prophecy, in order to make out any definite
meaning; and if so, why could not these have been applied at a period antecedent, as well as now?  It seems impossible to vindicate with success any such method of reasoning-such a complete voisTEqov'rqTeov as this. A prophecy which is unintelligible by the laws of language, can
never be a revelation; nor can there ever be any certainty
among uninspired men, that it is truly and correctly understood.
It would not be proper, however, to dismiss this topic
without some additional remarks, which may aid-us in explaining the ground, why the principle in question has been
so extensively admitted, among many interpreters whose
piety and learning cannot well be called in question.
Words are the signs of things. Words, as originally
employed by a writer or speaker, designate the view of
things which exists in his own mind. But it must be remembered, that words, which have been formed by men
whose knowledge is imperfect, (and all words are so formed), cannot, from the nature of the case in many instances,
convey complete or perfect ideas or make complete representations of many things. The reason is, that there is
much belonging to most objects of which men speak, which
is not understood or known by them; and what is unknown they do not, and cannot, definitely describe. For
example; the words God, heaven, hell, soul, etc., while
they convey the definite ideas that men have concerning
these respective objects, yet do not convey to our minds
any description of that which is unknown to us, but which
at the same time belongs to these objects. There may be




IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE?          51
then, and in respect to most objects there are, many things
appertaining, which no human language describes or can
describe; and this for the simple reason, that language is
employed to describe what we do know, or suppose ourselves
to know, and not to describe that of which we have no
knowledge or conception.
It does not make against this view of the subject at all,
that there are many words which stand as signs of things
which are for the most part unknown to us. For example;
the word gravity, or the phrase power of gravity, designates a something in the earth and planets which attracts
material objects toward them, while, at the same time, we
pretend to no complete knowledge of the real nature, attributes, place, manner of existence, etc., of that something,
but only so far as the attraction just mentioned develops
them. After all, then, the words gravity, or power ofgravity, designate only so much of that something as we know,
or at least suppose ourselves to know.
So in many other cases; we see developments of powers or of substances, (as we suppose them to be), which afford us only some twilight-rays to aid us in the cognizance
of those substances and powers themselves. For example;
-electricity, magnetism, and light, are words that convey
ideas to our minds which are definite to a certain extent.
But beyond this they designate nothing specific. If these
words are still employed by any one in order to designate
a supposed something beyond our knowledge, they are, if I
may so speak, like some exponents in algebra, the mere
signs of a quantity unknown.
But we will suppose now, that some being who has a
perfect acquaintance with the substances named, employs
the same words to designate them. To these words he
may affix a meaning, of course, which corresponds with the
extent of his knowledge. But he cannot expect others,




IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE?
possessed of only an imperfect knowledge, to understand
the words in all respects as he does.
We will admit now that God, (if we may, with reverence, suppose him to employ human language), having a
perfect knowledge of all things, connects with that language many ideas unknown to us, and in our present state
not knowable to us. Still, what God knows in and of himself, is one thing; what he reveals, or designs to reveal, is
quite another. Surely no one will say, that God undertakes to reveal to us that-which we are incapable of knowing. To suppose this, would be virtually to impeach his
wisdom, his paternal kindness, and even his perfect knowledge. When God speaks to men, it is that he may be understood by them; for on any other ground he does not
truly speak to them.
It is not then all which is in his mind, that the words of
Scripture' are intended to designate. It is only so much
as may be revealed; and if revealed by words, then those
words- must bear the sense which the usus loquendi gives
them, or else no revelation is made by them.
When predictions of future and distant events are uttered, no words, it will be admitted, carl of themselves describe all which appertains to those events. God indeed
knows all.; but he does not communicate, nor does he design to communicate, all his knowledge to men. To assume that a prophecy is' designed to reveal all which the
divine mind knows respecting the event predicted, is such
an assumption as no reason or laws of language can justify.
The question -then comes fairly before us: How much
does the Holy Spirit mean to convey, by the words of any
particular prophecy? The answer is not —difficult. God
speaks by men, and for men. The prophets were inspired
by the Holy Ghost. But why? In order that they might




IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE?          53
with certainty and authority give information respecting
things past, present, or future. To give information necessarily presupposes, that they themselves possessed it.
If the Holy Spirit employs such a medium of communication, i.e. speaks through prophets,, it is plainly in order
that human language may be addressed to human beings.
The language employed, therefore, means just what the
writers designed it should mean. Every book is fully interpreted, when the exact mind of the writer is unfolded&
Were-the prophets then omniscient, even when inspired?
Plainly not. The Bible is full of evidence, that inspiration teaches only what pertains to religious truth and duty,
not the arts and sciences. And even religious truth is not
taught in a manner. absolutely complete and perfect, but
only relatively so. In our present state, we can only "know
in part, and believe in part."   "We see through a glass
darkly."  All that is now needed by us is revealed.  So
much, therefore, the prophets understood.  But if they uttered words as mere automata, which they did not themselves understand, then they neither received nor imparted
any revelation. At least, what they did not understand was
no revelation to them. And if they, even when illuminated
and'guided by the Holy Spirit, could not understand what
was imparted to them, is it reasonable to suppose that others,
who were addressed by them and were uninspired, could
understand such communications?  Surely such a supposition would be altogether unreasonable. And how can
that which is not known, and cannot be known, be called
a revelation with any propriety?
I am well aware that I shall be met here with the allegation, that the Scriptures often represent the prophets as
not understanding what they uttered, -and therefore the
meaning of their language, it is said, cannot be limited to
what they meant to say. But although this has been often,5




54           IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE?
and confidently affirmed, I have never been able to satisfy
myself that it is correct. The case of speaking in unknown
tongues, as set forth in 1 Cor. xiv., is appealed to as conclusive in favor of the position just mentioned.  But this
will not sustain the appeal. In 1 Cor. 14: 4, Paul tells us
that "he who speaketh in an unknown tongue ediJieth himself." If so, then he himself, at least, must understand the
meaning of what he utters; for what edification can there
be in unintelligible words or sounds? The unknown tongue
*which is spoken of, was unknown only to the hearers, in a
case of this nature.  Nor is it any solid and satisfactory
answer to this view of the case, that the apostle recognizes
instances, in which the speaker cannot interpret to others,
what he himself has uttered, 1 Cor. 14: 13. To be enabled
to utter things in a foreign language, and to possess the
power of readily translating that language so as to edify a
public assembly, may be, and plainly were, two different
gifts.  In some cases, as appears from  I Cor. xlv., the
same person possessed both gifts; and - the apostle directs
him anxiously to seek for both, I Cor. 14: 13. In others,
another and a different person interpreted, 1 Cor. 14: 26
-28.  The exact nature, extent, and modifications of the
gift of tongues, are matters now beyond the reach of our
thorough investigation.  But thus much seems to be quite
certain, viz., that he, "who speaketh to God," and " edifieth himself" by speaking (1 Cor. 14: 2-4), must understand what he says. The whole tenor of I Cor. xIv. goes
to show, that words not understood, and — not intelligible,
can administer edification to no one.
An. appeal is also made to 1 Pet. 1: 11, 12, as declaring
that the prophets made diligent search, in order to understand what they themselves uttered.  But I can find no
such sentiment there.  Peter says, first, that they prophesied respecting the gracious dispensation of the gospel,




IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE?           55,
v. 10; secondly, that " they searched at what [time] and
what manner of time, (ES; Z-lva j   v' xOOV Xat1Qv), the things
would take place which were the subject of revelation,"
i. e. wwhen Christ would appear, and what would be the
form and manner of his dispensation.  Tiv.a I understand
here to be an interrogative, agreeing with Xa"to'v.  If the
apostle had designed to say, that they- searched into what
things they had uttered, he would have adopted another
form of expression; or, at all events, have expressed himself thus: sis Ivra, aU no7ovY zOta6v. Even then  ivaix would
be altogether obscure, when thus separated from atlLQY.
Nor, in such a case, could it be interpreted as signifying,
that they made search in order to know the meaning of
what they had uttered, but merely after farther knowledge
respecting the subjects of which they had spoken.  This
was perfectly natural; for the subjects were of the highest
importance, and must have excited a deep interest in their
minds. As the text now stands, however, nothing more is
affirmed, than that the prophets sought to know at what time,
i. e. when, the Messianic dispensation would be ushered in,
and also to extend their information as to the form  and
manner of this dispensation; for so  S.... o. ov xaivo'Y
must mean.  It follows now  very naturally, in the third
place, that in answer to their inquiries it was revealed to
them, that only the distant future would be the period of
development. In all this there is nothing which declares
or even intimates, that the prophets did not understand
what they had uttered. The passage only shows, that they
were anxious to know the time and manner of the new dispensation.  These, at first, had not been revealed; and
even afterwards, only so much was disclosed as enabled
them to see, that a distant period was reserved for the Messianic development, so that it could not:take place in their
day.




56           IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE?
In the books of Daniel, of Zechariah, and of Revelation
which are full of symbols, the case not unfrequently occurs
where the prophet does not at first know the meaning of the
symbols presented.  Nothing could be-more natural than
this.  But in each of these books, be it well remembered,
the prophet is represented as being accompanied by his
angel-interpreter, who explains what was obscure in any
symbol.  Why this?  Why was not the symbol;left for
future explanation, to be made at some distant period?
In one case, Dan. 12: 8, the prophet declares that " he
heard and understood not."  But to what does this relate?
Evidently to what was suggested to his mind by the declarations in v. 7, where it is said, that the end of the wonders
shall be " after a time, times, and a half," and subsequent to
the complete scattering of the holy people.  Daniel now
does not inquire, like the angel in v. 6, how long ('n7n-v)
it shall be to the end of the wonders named, but he asks
what (b,7z) the end of those things would be, i. e. to what
state or condition of things they will lead, or, in other words,
what will be the sequel,' nnt.U _ If, with.one class of interpreters, we make the word nacho (latter end, after part)
to signify the same as end (yi) in v. 6, then the interrogative what (r, ) is inappropriate.  The question of Daniel,
therefore, must have respect to the- state of things at the
close of " the time, times, and a half," v. 7.  All this is
made clear by the answer which is given to the question of
Daniel in v. S. That answer is, that the result will be, to
try and purify the righteous, to exasperate and blind the
wicked, to destroy aftera few days " the abomination that
maketh desolate" (Antiochus Epiphanes), and to confer
great happiness on those who shall wait for that period and
live to see it.  At the close of all, Daniel is bidden to depart in peace or satisfied with what has been disclosed, until the end (yp,), i. e. until his end or the termination of




IS PROPH-ECY UNINTELLIGIBLE?             57
his life; just as the Psalmist says: "Make me to know
mine end (9?~.), Ps. 39: 5.  In y'ag, the article supplies
the place of the pronominal thy. And why in peace or
satisfied?  Because " he shall rest," viz. in his sepulchre;
" and stand up for his lot," viz. be raised up (s'aTlicrI8t,
the opposite of TV:>) at the resurrection of the just, in order to enter upon the glorious reward of his fidelity; and
all this 17:'- yrp., at the end of the days2 i. e. at the end
of time.  So the best interpreters agree in explaining this
verse; and the very nature of the case shows them to be
in the right.  The reward of Daniel was not dependent on
the end of Antiochus' days, or of any of the particular times
which the prophet had designated.  In other words; the
rest in his sepulchre, (which is obviously meant by ~t.l
here), was not to be interrupted or ended by a resurrection
when Antiochus should perish.   The end of the days
means evidently the same thing as the so oXA0o  of Paul, in
1 Cor. 15: 24.*
The declaration of Daniel, then, that "he understood
not," has respect mainly to consequences connected with
* All the difficulty in this last paragraph of Daniel, results from
the different meanings of the word ~~. translated end. All that
needs to be noted by an experienced interpreter, is, that this word,
like many others in the Scriptures, is employed in the way of antanaclasis, i. e. the same word has somewhat different meanings attached to it in different clauses. In vs. 6 and -9, it designates the
close of the period mentioned in v. 7; in the first clause of v. 13 it
designates the end of Daniel's life; and in the last clause of the
same verse, it signifies the end of time, i. e. of the world-period.
To an attentive and intelligent reader there can be no difficulty in
deciding upon this, because the context speaks imperiously for such
an interpretation. Parallels enough of such antanaclasis might be
offered; but this is not the propel place to pursue a discussion of
such a nature. These remarks have been made in compliance with
the wishes of some friends, who have found difficulty in interpreting Dan. 12: 6-13.




58         IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE?
the events predicted. So extraordinary were the events,
that he was astonished and filled with wonder. Very naturally does he say, therefore, that he does not know what
they can mean, i. e. what they can betoken; a declaration
the like of which we are always prone to make, whenever
any thing extraordinary fills us with consternation and
surprise.
These are the most striking examples to which appeal is
made, in order to show that the prophets were sometimes
themselves ignorant of what they uttered. I am not able
to see, how any sound argument can be built upon them.
The prophets might be, and very often were, ignorant of
either the time, or the manner, or the circumstances, or
the consequences, etc., of things or events which they predicted. No one can for a moment doubt this; for almost
all prophecies are the mere outlines of future occurrences,
not minute likenesses. With the exception of some two
or three passages, even the Messianic prophecies in general
are of this character.  How then can we reasonably suppose, that more was' revealed to the prophets than they
have expressed? I know of no proof that can be adduced,
which will show that they possessed or professed any more
knowledge of such events than they have developed.- To
attribute to the prophets all the knowledge of the gospeldispensation which may now be acquired, would not be
walking in the path which Jesus has pointed out, when he
declared, in reference to the ancient dispensation: "No
man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him,"
John 1: 18. Nor would it be giving due heed to the declaration of Paul (2, Tim. 1: 10), who says, that " life and immortality are brought to light throughithe gospel." And if the
prophets themselves possessed only a partial knowledge of
the things in question, even when inspired, surely it was not




IS PROPHECY UNNINTELLIGIBLE?          59
designed that those to whom they originally addressed the
prophecies should be more enlightened than their inspired
teachers.- What the prophets did know, they have communicated; and they have done in'this case the same
thing which they have done in all other cases, where they
have made any revelation, i. e. they have spoken in an intelligible manner what they designed to speak.
To say that many things are dark to us which they have
uttered, is only alleging our own ignorance, and is not,
and cannot be, any proof that they did not speak intelligibly to their.contemporaries.  To say that we may now understand, better than they did, the things or occurrences
which they predicted, is saying nothing to the present purpose. It is beyond all doubt true, that the man who visits
London can better understand a description of that metropolis, than one who never saw it. It is beyond a doubt
true, that, had we been present at any of the scenes recorded in ancient or in modern history, we could enter with
more interest and intelligence into the meaning of faithful
narratives respecting them. But subsequent knowledge,
acquired by readers at the time when events predicted are
or have been developed, although it may greatly aid them
in readily' understanding the predictions, can never be the
rule of exegesis. Any writing means that, and only that,
which the author designed it should mean. If the author
of any prophecy, then, had a meaning, (and who will deny
this?) we cannot help believing that he designed to impart
that meaning, and nothing more. And if, for the sake of
parrying the conclusion that would follow in this case, any
one should aver, that God is the real author of the Scriptures, still this will make no important difference. God
cannot impart all his knowledge to his creatures, i. e. he
cannot make them omniscient, because their imperfect natures render this impossible.  He imparts so much, and




60         IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE?
only so much, as the nature and circumstances of any case
require; so much as he judges to be beneficial to those
who are addressed,- or to the discipline of his church.
Nor can we rationally conceive, that he, when intending
to make a revelatioh to men through the medium of language, would employ language in any other way than in
one intelligible to them. The design in question would be
entirely defeated by such a process.
Is it not then a great mistake to suppose, after the Gospel has been in existence for eighteen centuries, and Christianity been developing itself during all that period, that the
more definite and extensive knowledge which we now have,
or which is' now attainable, is to be attributed to the ancient prophets, or is to be regarded as being comprised in
an occult way in their predictions? And yet this mistake
is every day coming before us. We are constantly meeting with books and sermons and pamphlets, which are attributing to ancient prophecies a pregnant sense that has
been occult for some three thousand years, and assigning
to them all the knowledge that we may now acquire, or
have' acquired. And all this, because Scripture must be
made to mean all that it can mean, and dark prophecy must
be illuminated, and can be explained, only by the occurrence of events predicted!
In the hands of such interpreters, it is evident that the
Bible becomes a mere mass of wax, to be moulded and
impressed in any way which fancy may dictate. And are
we indeed left thus at the mercy of every man's caprice,
at the disposal of every enthusiast's imagination? If so,
how can we hope for the suffrages of the sober and inquiring part of the community?  Men of this cast will not listen to us, when we invite them to travel with us in the
dark. We need somewhere, and we must have, some
terra fJirma; and to get possession of:this, reason, judg



IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE?          61
ment, correct taste, sound discretion, and some good knowledge of the laws of language, are absolutely requisite.
What says the same Peter, (to whom appeal is so often
made in order to show that the prophets uttered some
things which they did not understand), respecting the obscurity of prophecy?  He says, that," we have a sure word
of prophecy, whereunto we do well to take heed, as unto a
light shAiing in a dark place," 2 Pet. 1:19. A light shining! But how prophecy is a light, or how it shines, or can
shine before the events predicted are fulfilled, is a problem
that cannot be solved on the ground of those whom I am
here opposing. Instead of being: a light, much of prophecy is (or has been) mere darkness visible, one might almost
say palpable, until some future sun sheds its rays upon it.
Is this the manner of that God," the- entrance of whose
word" into the mind, as the Psalmist affirms, "gives light
and imparts understanding?,"
Many of the ancient Christian Fathers made it a prominent ground of distinction between heathen oracles and real
prophecies, that the latter were uttered by men conscious
and cognizant of what they were uttering, while the former
were announced by  cv1sLu, whose own declarations were
often unintelligible to themselves. Is not this, now,a sug —
gestion of good common sense? Why should we suppose,
that the prophets were bereft of consciousness and reason,
at the very time when they were the subjects of inspiration
and possessed a knowledge elevated above all which they
had known before? I cannot well conceive how any honour is to be done to revelation, by this way of explaining
the inspiration of its authors. What can be the advantage which any one expects to be gained?  Prediction
must be intelligible, or else it does not concern those to
whom it is addressed. The alleged obscurity in prophecy,
therefore, never could have originally existed. It -is then,
6




62          IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE 
and only then, that we can be led to suppose that it exists,
viz., when we attribute to ancient times and disclosures all
the views and information which the gospel-day has disclosed to us.
To the representations so often made, that the prophets
were like to men not conscious either of their own appropriate existence or of their own thoughts, and therefore
were mere automata by means of which prophecy was uttered, I never can subscribe. To represent the prophets
as being out of themselves, or as the mere strings of a lute
which must be struck by another in order to render a sound,
and when it does render one, is still not conscious either of
so doing or of the quality of the sound-all this, although
often said and repeated, is, in my apprehension at least, not
only unscriptural but anti-scriptural. If the prophets were
merely unconscious instruments; if, as Hengstenburg affirms, the spirit of man went out when the Spirit of God
came in; then what was it which made or enabled Jeremiah to refuse to prophesy, even when under strong prophetic influence (Jer. 20: 9); and why should he need the
most powerful constraint in. order to lead him to perform
this duty? If men, when inspired, are mere automata or
involuntary instruments, why does Paul so strongly censure the Corinthians (chap. xiv.) for abusing their spiritual
gifts?  Above all, if they are mere unconscious instruments, how can that be true which the apostle says, when
he declares, that " the spirits of the prophets are subject to
the prophets?" 1 Cor. 14: 32.  According to Paul, men
are accountable for the manner in which they exercise the
gift of prophecy. He taxes such of the Corinthian prophets as spoke in an unknown tongue without interpreting
it, with great impropriety of conduct, and absolutely forbids that they should do so any more.  He enjoins that
the unknown tongue should be interpreted; or if there




IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE?           63
sh ould be no interpreter present, that silence should be preserved.  He says " he would rather speak five words with
the understanding, [i e. which are intelligible], that by
his voice he might teach others also, than ten thousand
words in an unknown tongue;" 1 Cor. 14: 19. Why
should this, the dictate both of common sense and of inspiration, be so entirely forgotten or neglected, in the theories of many interpreters of prophecies, and of many who
have descanted on the inspiration of the prophets?  It
is as applicable to the Old Testament as to the New. It
was as unworthy of God under the Mosaic dispensation,
as under the gospel, to speak unintelligibly; and it would
seem as if nothing but the love of mystery, of something recrondite and strange, or reluctance at the labor of acquiring sufficient knowledge to explain prophecies, could ever
have led men to introduce such paradoxes as I have been
controverting, into the interpretation of the Scriptures.
To conclude this topic: How can we then subscribe to
the sentiment, that prophecy, when originally uttered, was
not only obscure but unintelligible?  The men who uttered it were inspired; and if so, did they not understand
what they meant to say?  If they did, then have they not
uttered their meaning in such a way that others can understand them?  If all this be denied, then two conclusions inevitably follow; the first, that no revelation was
made, so fair as the passages in question are concerned, to
the prophets themselves; for certain it is, that no revelation
is made to any individual who can understand nothing of
that which is communicated: the second, that others, who
were addressed by the prophets, had in fact no revelation
at all made to thema; for if inspired men did not understand
the things that were uttered, surely uninspired ones could
not understand them. Can anlly sober and reasonable man,
now, bring himself to believe in such a state of things as




64          Is PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE?
this? Prophets speak in the name of God, and men are
required to hear on penalty of death, and to give diligent
heed to what is said. Yet, from the nature of the case,
neither the prophet nor his hearers can obtain any correct
view of what is said. The church is to wait for hundreds
or thousands of years, before any true light dawns upon the
darkness of the oracles.  FuHblent alone can diffuse this
light. The treasure has been locked up, and withdrawn
from the view of all; and yet-men were bound to believe,
that it was a precious treasure, and would at some period
or other be available for use.  But no; it never is truly
available for any part of that purpose, in respect to which
it professes to have been given. It was given as a prediction-given to foretell events that were to come. Yet it is
no prediction; for it never is, or can be, understood, until
that to which it relates has already taken place.  Then, if
at last it be understood at all, it has become history, and is
not, and never has been, prediction.
Heathen gods and oracles, we might well suspect, would
affect mystery and concealment in some such way. We
know that this has been often done. But how shall we
defend the idea, that the God of truth, " the entrance'of
whose word giveth light and understanding to the simple;"
who has -made " all Scripture profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
(2 Tim. 3: 16); who has, by his prophets, uttered predictions which he declares to be " a light shining in a dark
place" (2 Pet. 1: 19); —how shall we defend the notion,
that he has uttered predictions to the ancient and to the
later church, which neither patriarch, prophet, apostle, or
martyr, could by any possibility understand?  Must we
not rather say, with the great apostle to the Gentiles:
"He that speaketh in an unknown tongue, speaketh not
unto men, but unto God?" 1 Cor. 14: 2. May we not,




IS PROPHECY UNINTELLIGIBLE?         65
must we not, insist with him, that "if the trumpet give an
uncertain sound, no one can prepare himself for the battle?"  Is it not lawful to argue as he does, and say: -' Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood,
how shall it be known what is spoken? For ye will speak
into the air." I Cor. 14: 7-9.  Nay more: "If I know
not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that
speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian to me." 1 Cor. 14: 11. And what follows from all
this, according to the judgment of Paul himself?  The
deduction is plain, simple, rational; it is this, that "if
there be no interpreter," the prophet, who was about to
speak an unknown language to the church, ought to " keep
silence." 1 Cor. 14: 28.  And yet after all this, which
stands out in the full blaze of heaven's light, we are every
day told by one class of interpreters, that the ancient prophets habitually practised the very things, which Paul first
argues down and (I might say) satirizes, and then forbids.
For myself, I hope to be forgiven, if I am slow to believe in such a case. Why should we convert the ancient prophets into " barbarians," and make them " speak
into the air?" Why should we strive to show, that they
bear a character like that of the heathen prognosticators,
the MUTrra  and Icavynt? Can we suppose an omniscient
God to resort to such expedients as these, merely in order
to impress upon men the idea of his foreknowledge and of
his unsearchableness? Nothing but conscious short-sightedness, and a feeling of inability to explain difficult passages
of Scripture, would naturally conceal itself in this way.
The thought of such mysterious and occult dealing is, at
least in my view, incompatible-with the character of him
whose name is Light and Love. Yes; " God is Light, and in
him is no darkness at all." Nor can I believe, that there is
a prophet or an apostle, from Enoch down to the evange6*




66             DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
list John, who would not each instantly say, could they be
summoned as witnesses in the present case: " I had rather
speak five words with my understanding, that by, my voice
I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an
unknown tongue." 1 Cor. 14: 9.
I will only add, that if any one will carefully peruse the
books of Commentary on the Scriptures, and the Essays
on the prophecies which are extant in our mother tongue,
he will soon find that the double sense of Scripture, and
particularly of Old Testament Scriptures which are supposed to contain predictions respecting Christ and the
church, and the unintelligible nature of prophecies both in
the Old Testament and the New respecting distant and
future events, are made grounds of interpretation in cases
almost without number and beyond credibility. It is time
that this region of mysticism  and imagination and- fancy
should be traversed.  Let us not;be overawed, like Homer's Ulysses and Virgil's Eneas, when we get into the
dusky domain of the Umbrae. No; rather let us take in
one hand the blazing torch of revelation, in the other that
of reason, and advance boldly into the so-called darkest recesses of this imaginary nether world. We shall find, after
all, that there is nothing there but Umbrae, with which we
shall be obliged to contend. And with all the show that
may be made of discontent at our coming, and of oppugnation to our advancement, by the dwellers in that region,
the light of reason and revelation will sooner or later make
them flee away, like the shadows of the night before the
morning sun.
~ 4. DESIGNATIONS OF TIME IN THE PROPHECIES.
The endless discussions and difficulties that have arisen,
in respect to these, must be familiarly known to every one




IN THE PROPECIES.                 67
who is acquainted with the interpretation of prophecy.
Merely to recount the various methods of interpreting the
designations of time, connected with the various modes of
applying the prophecies which are consequent upon these
interpretations, would occupy no inconsiderable volume.
As it is no part of my design to exhaust the subject,
I shall forbear in this case, as I have in the cases above, to
bring before the reader any thing more of the views of others,
than what may serve as a kind of basis for the question I
intend to discuss. A polemic discussion which would have
a mere private and individual bearing, is altogether remote
from my design.
In entering upon the consideration of the great and difficult subject now proposed, I must beg leaveto bring before the reader's mind some of the plain and obvious principles of interpretation, which ought to be observed in the
pursuit of such inquiries as the present.  I speak of the
subject as being a difficult one, rather because of the division of opinion among critics respecting it, and because
of the difficulty *of ascertaining historical facts in some
cases that are related to the prophecies, than because I apprehend the subject to be in itself very difficult, when simply considered without reference to any particular theory
of interpretation.  Once fully persuaded that the usual
laws of language are to be applied to the designations of
time in the prophetical books, our course is quite plain.
If the periods designated are to be understood like other
limitations of time in the Scriptures and in all other books,
then we have merely to search for events which took place
at the respective periods named, and see whether they accord with the spirit, tenor, and design of the prophecy.
When these events are disclosed, and their appropriateness
exhibited, our work as interpreters is done.
First of all, then, I would remind the reader of one of




68              DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
the plainest and most cogent of all the rules of Hermeneutics.'This is, that every passage of Scripture, or of any
other book, is to be enterpreted as bearing its plain and
primary and literal sense, unless good reason can be given
why it should be tropically understood.
A principle so plain and reasonable as this, scarcely
needs any defence. The natural sense of all words is the
original and literal one.  The very phrase, tropical sense,
or figurative sense, shows that the natural meaning of words
is to be laid aside.  But to lay this aside, there must be
good and substantial reasons.
I have spoken of the original and literal sense of words
as being the natural one. The original sense is that which
the word was coined to convey; and of course this is the
natural sense.  But many words often deflect from this, in
some considerable measure, without bearing what is usually called a tropical sense; e. g. xylvw to judge, but also to
condemn and to vindicate; G'I  to perish, but also to wander, etc. It is thus that branches and limbs, as it were,
spring out from  the main trunk, which is the original
meaning of the word; yet these, however numerous, while
they preserve merely the character of branches and limbs,,
are not employed in a way simply tropical.
When we admit the tropical sense of a passage, we do so
because, if literally understood, the subject and predicate
would not harmonize, or because a literal sense would be
frigid, unmeaning, or inappropriate.  In such cases we
assume the position, that the writer was guided by common sense, and did not mean to say what would involve a
contradiction or an absurdity, or what is frigid and inept.
For example; believing most fully that God is a spirit,
and that he was regarded by the sacred writers as such,
when we find such a sentence as the following, " God is
our sun," we say the word sun must not be understood in




IN THE PROPHECIES.               69
its usual acceptation, but in a tropical sense. And why?
Because a spirit is not, and cannot be, a sensible, material, eyer-varying, perishable object. We suppose the writer to mean, in such a case, that God is to us what the sun
is to the natural world. -He imparts life and light, and
diffuses his blessings every where and without cessation.
In all cases where tropical language is employed by the
sacred writers, it can be known by the application of some
one of the principles which I have already mentioned.
The judicious application of these, is what preeminently
distinguishes one critic from another.  Enthusiasts make
shipwreck, when they launch upon the somewhat perilous
ocean of figure and metaphor and allegory; and it needs
a cool head, and some dexterity in practice, to guide the
ship-on her right course and always keep her safe and in
perfect trim.
Without saying a word more upon this general subject,
or upon the frequency of tropical language in the Scriptures, I would suggest, with special reference to the subject before us, that of all the various ingredients of which
language is composed, and which render it capable of a
tropical use, the designations of time, space, and numbers,
appear to be the least susceptible of being so employed.
The rareness of such a usage in regard to time, all must
admit, even those who give such a meaning to designations
of time in the book of Daniel and of the Revelation.
Compared with the. number of instances in the whole Bible, in which periods of time are named, and which (as all
agree) must be literally interpreted, designations of this
nature in the particular books just named, to which a tropical or symbolical sense is assigned, are very few, even on
the ground of those- who advocate the symbolical-sense.
Perhaps we may find reason, in the sequel, to believe them
to be much fewer than such interpreters would admit.




70              DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
One thing in respect to this whole matter seems to be
very plain, viz., that if we do, in any case, give to a designation of time an import different from its usual and natural meaning, we must, in order to justify ourselves, be
moved by substantial and cogent reasons to interpret in
this manner.  If no such reasons can be given; if the
plain and obvious sense fits both the passage in which a
designation of time stands and the general aim of the writer; if facts can be pointed out which will accord with a
prediction when literally understood; and if a tropical or
symbolical sense would be irrelevant, alien from the usual
method of speaking, and in fact even against a usage which
is nearly universal; then we cannot in any way be justified,
in giving to designated periods of time a secondary or tropical sense. We are bound to interpret them in the simple
manner in which they are presented to us.
I must solicit the reader to weigh well the sentiments
which are comprised in the preceding paragraph. If -they
are conceded to be correct, (and to me it does not seem
that they can reasonably be called in question), then they
must have a very important bearing on the interpretation
of such parts of Daniel, and the Apocalypse, as have relation to periods of time.
It is of some importance, moreover, at this stage of our
inquiry, to pass in review before us the general usage of
the biblical writers in regard to numbers and designations
of time.
In respect to NUMBERS; we- may say, that there is a literal and a tropical sense of the words which designate them,
in like manner as there is of a multitude of other words.
We should not expect this, perhaps, if we reasoned about
such a case in merely an a priori way; but facts make the
whole matter very plain.
The literal sense of numbers needs no illustration.  Ev



IN THE PROPHECIES.                71
ery one spontaneously understands it.  The tropical sense
is also easily understood, but in this place it requires some
illustration.
In most, if not all, languages, usage has affixed to certain  numbers, (different ones, it may be, in different
tongues), a kind of generic idea as to quantity, instead of
the specific and definite idea which the number strictly interpreted would convey.  For example: Peter asks his divine Master how  often he ought to forgive the trespass of
a brother; and in order to put the question, whether this
should be done to any considerable extent, he throws it into-the following form: " Shall I forgive him until seven
times?" Matt. 18: 21.  The answer is. "Until seventy
times seven." Now seven times here is not designed to be
literally interpreted, for it expresses merely a considerable
number of times. In like manner, seventy times seven is
not to be literally interpreted, for here it plainly means an
indefinite number of times, or at least very many times,
i. e. so many as would equal the number of offences whatever that might be.
In the same way a large number of passages of Scripture are to be understood; e. g. "In seven troubles no
evil shall touch thee," Job 5: 19.  " Wisdom hath hewn
out her seven pillars," Prov. 9: 1.  " Seven abominations
are in the heart," [of a dissembler], Prov. 26: 25. "The
light of the sun shall be sevenfold," Is. 30: 26.  " A just
man falleth seven times, and riseth again," Prov. 24: 16.
"Thou shalt go out before thine enemy one way, and flee
seven ways," Deut. 28: 7, 25. No sane interpreter would
ever dream of construing these and the like passages of the
Bible in a literal way.  He spontaneously connects them
with the idea- of a considerable, but indefinite quantity.
Of -course he gives to the number seven, in such a case, a
tropical sense.




72              DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
In like manner the number three is somewhat often employed in the sacred writings; and occasionally the number
ten, forty, a hundred, and especially a thousand.  This last
number is employed where a quantity of time, space, etc.,
is intended to be designated, which is exceedingly great,
or immeasurably large.  Thus the Psalmist: "A  thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday," Ps. 90: 4.
" One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," 2 Pet. 3: 8.
In cases of this nature, scarcely ever does a doubt arise
about the proper interpretation of the words designating
number. When the context and the subject discussed show
that it can be no special object with the writer to designate
a definite and specific number, then the word employed to
designate it is taken in a tropical sense; and, in general,
cases of this nature are so plain that scarcely any reader
misunderstands then. In a word; the subject-matter of
discussion, or of communication, determines and defines
the nature of the affirmation respecting it.
The original reason why some numbers were chosen in
preference to others, and what that was in them which led
to such a usus loquendi, would be a curious and interesting subject of inquiry.  Bahr has cast some light on this,
in his Symbolik; but my present design renders it impracticable, even to advert to any specific reasons for the selection of this or that number for tropical use. Enough for
my purpose, that the fact of such a usage admits of no reasonable denial, nor even reasonable question.
Nothing more need be said, at present, respecting the
use of numbers in Scripture, unless it be, that occasionally
there is a shade of tropical meaning somewhat different
from that which has been already pointed out, and which
might perhaps be named symbolical. Thus seven is often
said to be the perfect number, i. e. it designates the gene



IN THE PROPECIES.                 73
ral idea of completion or perfection. Thus in Is. xi. seven
spirits are ascribed to the Messiah, i. e. he is to be furnished with such endowments as will render him a complete and perfect Saviour.  In like manner the seven spirits of God, mentioned in Rev. 1: 4, are interpreted by
some highly respectable critics.  And again, in Rev. 3: 1,
the Messiah, it is affirmed, "hath the seven Spirits of'
God;" which is also interpreted by many in the same manner as in Is. xi.  In many other passages, also, the number seven plainly denotes the idea of completion or suiciency; and when thus employed we may say, that it has a
symbolical sense, i. e. it stands as a symbol for something
which is not to be scanned by definite quantity, but by the
relation which seven may bear to some idea of quality,
i. e. completion, perfection.  It matters not, for the interpreter, whether seven in- its own nature stands related to
perfection; enough that usage pre-supposes this, and employs language accordingly.
Besides the.number seven, we may find not a few cases
of the number three which are employed much in the same
way, although it may lack something of the fulness and
completion which the number seven more naturally designates.
But let the reader beware not to extend the tropical use
of numbers to all and' any numbers of every class.  It
would be a great mistake so to interpret the Scriptures.
The usages of language confine the tropical meaning to a
few leading and specially significant numbers, such as have
been already designated.  At least such is the usage of the
Scriptures. The consequences of such a fact are' of serious import to the interpreter.  The probability is, of
course, that all numbers not belonging to that select and
limited class, are to be literally interpreted. Indeed, it is
a matter of course so to interpret them, and nothing but
7




74              DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
the most cogent reasons, drawn fiom the context, can justi.l
fy any other interpretation. In fact, even those numbers,
which are often employed in a tropical or symbolical way,
are to be thus understood only when there is good reason
to be found in the context, for supposing that the writer
meant to employ them in this way. Any other method of
interpreting the Scriptures would lead to the most arbitrary and extravagant conclusions.
From the usage which has respect to numbers, we will
now proceed to that which has respect to PERIODS OF TIME.
Here also is a literal and a tropical usage.. The first needs
no explanation; the second may be illustrated in a few
words.
It is said of Jehovah: "Thy years shall not fail." Here
the word years is not confined to periods of 360 or 365
days, but means time indefinite, which is measured, so far
as we reckon it, by years. So the word day and days are
often employed in a generic sense. Thus: " In the latter
day;" " Thy days are numbered;" " The day of the Lord;"
and other very frequent expressions of the like meaning.
So is it also with the word hour. The sum of all is, that
the specific designations of time, viz. day, days, year,
years, etc., are often employed in the generic sense of
time. In all such cases, synecdoche, i. e. a figure of speech
where a part is taken for the whole, and vice versd, is to be
found; and no figure in rhetoric is more usual than this,
in all languages whatever.
Thus it is with the designations of time, when they stand
in a simple state, unconnected with numbers which limit
them and render them specific.  But very different is the
case, when they stand connected with such limitations by
numbers.  The very fact that numerals are connected
with them, is of itself a proof that the writer means to limit
them. If there be any examples of a different usage, they




IN THE PROPHECIES.               75
can be only such as mark a period which may be symbolical,
in like manner as we have seen the numbers seven, three,
etc., sometimes to be symbolically employed. While we
concede that there are examples of this nature, yet they
are certainly very rare.  A thousand years may be, in some
passages, comprised among these examples; and possibly
seven years and three years may in some cases be supposed
to belong here. But, as it seems to me, there is much reason to doubt of this last supposition.
At all events, nothing but an imperious necessity can
justify us in explaining years or days, when accompanied
with definite numerals, in a tropical way, except the necessity of the case.  If any good and appropriate sense can
be made without resort to such an expedient, we are clearly bound, as interpreters, to abide by it.
Our way is now prepared to investigate the designations
of time in'Daniel and in the Apocalypse. And here the
designations of time are, for the most part, accompanied
by numerals;  and of course, unless some valid and satisfactory reason can be given for a different interpretation,
they are to be considered as intended simply to mark the
periods which they designate. No one, we may presume,
will call in question a principle so plain, and so obviously
the dictate of reason as this.
Let us now make the supposition, that the times specified in the book of Daniel and in the Apocalypse may all
be understood according to, their plain and obvious import,
and that when thus understood they not only accord with
the design of the writer, but are indispensable (in this
mode of interpretation) to the object which he has in view;
is there any one who can reasonably call in question that exegesis, which interprets them agreeably to the common
usages of language? Apart from all preconceived and favourite schemes of interpretation, where a particular end is




76              DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
to be accomplished by giving to numbers a symbolic sense,
no considerate man would hesitate to subscribe to such asentiment. It becomes then an imperious duty of the interpreter to examine thoroughly the nature of the case before
us, and see whether Daniel and John may not have employed the designations of time, exhibited in -their works,
in the usual and ordinary manner. And if it should turn
out, upon examination, to be matter of fact, that historical
occurrences predicted by them accord with those designations when interpreted in a simple and obvious way, who
will venture to maintain with confidence, that any other
interpretation than the obvious one is to be given to the
periods in question?  I know indeed that there are some,
who are apparently so attached to favorite methods of interpreting, that not even an argument of so plain and cogent a nature will satisfy them. Among intelligent, considerate, and impartial men, however, I am persuaded that
such an argument, if well supported, will find a patient
hearing if not a welcome reception.
The truth plainly is, that the public mind begins to grow
weary of being tossed so long on a tempestuous sea of conjecture, in regard to the meaning of Scripture.  Men of
inquiring minds wish to know what the Bible says, when
interpreted by principles of exegesis which are stable, well
grounded, and capable of an honest and open and intelligible defence. There is no end of the arbitrary and the
fanciful.  When we are once cast upon such a sea, it is
quite impossible to tell with certainty what harbour we
shall ultimately make.  Like the Corinthians who had
every man his own interpretation, the arbitrary and fanciful
interpreters of our own times scarcely ever agree; and
even if they do, whether the church derives any edification
from their views of prophecy, is a serious question indeed.
At all events, if a more sober, rational, and normal me



IN THE PROPHECIES.              77
thod of interpretation can fairly be pointed out, sooner or
later the public mind will approve of it and admit it.
Enough has been said to show, that the plain and obvious
interpretation of numbers in the prophecies is to be followed, unless there be cogent reasons for a departure from
this rule. If there be indeed such reasons, we may then
admit a tropical or symbolical sense; for so much I most
readily.concede.  But there are only two sources, so far as
I can perceive, from which reasons of such a nature can be
drawn.  The first is, analogy in other parts of the Scriptures; the second, the exigencies of the context.. Let us pursue the examination of our subject, by inquiring how the
matter before us stands in relation to each of these.
FIRST, analogy with other parts of Scripture.
It is a singular fact, that the great mass of interpreters
in the English and American world have, for many years,
been wont to understand the days designated in Daniel
and in the Apocalypse, as the representatives or symbols
of years. I have found it difficult to trace the origin of this
general, I might say, almost universal custom. Without
venturing on a positive statement, I am inclined to believe
that we may trace it mainly to the distinguished Joseph
Mede, who lived and wrote during the first quarter of the
seventeenth century. His Clavis Apocalyptica (Key to the
Apocalypse) excited much attention when it was published,
and indeed for a long time afterwards.  Many criticisms
were made upon it by the learned;- and in the explanation
and defence of the positions which he had taken in that
work, Mede wrote many comments, essays, and letters.
The learning, piety, and (in general) the sobriety of mind,
which this distinguished work exhibited, gave it great influence in the religious community in England, and eventually in America. Abroad, Vitringa and others attacked
some of its leading positions, and, as was generally con7*




78              DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
ceded, overthrew them.  Still, the influence of this work
on English commentary has been felt down to the present
hour.  Particularly is it so in regard to the subject of
reckoning'time;'the consideration of which is now before us.
Mede assumes the position, that, the days in Daniel and
in the Apocalypse are to be regarded as the symbols of
years. In his Remains on some Passages in the Apocalypse, chap. ix., he goes at some length into a defence of
this position. His chief reliance for aid to establish this
position, is on the multiplicity and continuance of events
which are predicted as standing in connection with the
periods named.- The amount of all is, that, in his view,
such'events must occupy more time than is assigned to
them, if the natural and obvious meaning of the designations of time should be admitted. He also appeals to Dan.
9: 24, as justifying his interpretation.
The former reason will be touched upon, in its proper
place. The latter plainly ranges itself under the question
now before us.
Since the time of Mede, interpreters have made additions to the stock of such analogies as will help to support
the interpretation which makes one day the symbol of a
year. Our first business, then, is to examine these alleged
analogies.
I begin with those passages on which the most. stress
has apparently been laid, down to the present time. In
Ezek. 4: 5, 6, the prophet represents himself as having re-.ceived a command to " lie upon his left side 390 days, in
order that so he might bear the iniquity of the house of Israel;" also to " lie upon his right side 40 days, in order
to bear the iniquity of the house of Judah." It is then added expressly by divine monition: " I have appointed each
day for a year," i. e. each day was the symbol of a year, in




IN THE PROPHECIES..79
regard to the duration of the time in which Israel and Judah should. be chastised.
In respect to this account of the prophet's symbolic action, we may remark, first,. that it would be absurd to suppose that the symbol should be of as long continuance as
the thing symbolized. The symbolic actions were to be
performed by one individual, and'therefore could not continue for 390 years, and after that for 40 years more. Of
course, if Ezekiel were in person to exhibit the symbols
enjoined, there was no feasible manner of doing this, except by making a short period the symbol of a long one,
i. e. a day to symbolize a year.
Whether the prophet actually performed the symbolic
actions in question, or not, is of no- consequence to the
present discussion. The representation that such a symbol
was to be exhibited, would convey the same instruction for
substance to the Jews, as the acting of it all out. We could
only say in the latter case, that the vividness of the representation would be augmented. But,
Secondly, the prophet is expressly told, in this case, that
one day is to be the symbol of a year. Why? Plainly
because it would never enter the mind of himself or of any
other man, that such could be the case, unless he were ex-,
pressly informed of it. What bearing then, in the way of
analogy, does or can this have upon the designations of
time inl Daniel and in the Apocalypse? Certainly none;
for in these books we have no information given of such a
nature. The writers never once hint at such a mode of
interpretation.  What follows, then, except that we must
interpret these books in the usual way? A special communication to Ezekiel was deemed necessary, in order to
his understanding that days would or could be the symbols
of years.  Such a communication was in fact necessary;
for nothing can be more natural to all men, than to inter



80,            DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
pret plain designations of time in the simple and usual
way. To prevent Ezekiel from doing so, the symbolic
significancy of days is a matter of express injunction.
This of course constitutes a good and adequate reason, for
adopting the symbolical meaning of the word day in the
passage before us.
But how is it with the designation of times in Daniel
and in the Apocalypse, where no such injunction or explanation is given? There can be, as it seems to me, but
one answer to this question; which is, that those times are
of course to be reckoned in the usual manner. Instead of
being aided, then, by an appeal to Ezek. 4: 5, 6, we find
that a principle is in fact recognized there, which makes
directly against the interpretation that we are calling in
question. The express exception as to the usual mode of
reckoning, which is there virtually made, goes, under such
circumstances, directly to show that the general rule would
necessitate us to adopt a different interpretation.
The same principles apply to another passage in Num.
xiv., to which appeal has more recently been made by
some with great confidence. When Moses was approaching the land of Canaan, spies were sent out to go and
search the country, and make report concerning it on their
return. They were 40 days in -executing this mission;
and when they returned, most of them gave in a bad report of the land, which occasioned great discontent and rebellion in the camp of Israel. This was displeasing to
God, and he declared that Israel should wander in the desert for 40 years, each year corresponding to one of the 40
days during which the spies had been absent, Num. 14:
33, 34.
Here now we perceive at once, that the whole is dependent on special divine appointment. Had the declaration been, that' Israel should wander in the desert accord



IN THE PROPHECIES.              81
ing to the time in which the spies had been absent,' would
any one have ever supposed that 40 years were meant?
It is conceded that they would not, in the very fact that
express mention is made, that days are to stand as the
symbols of years. Without a declaration of this import,
no one would ever have surmised that the case was such.
Now as neither Daniel nor the Apocalypse ever mentions
such a mode of counting days for years, what else can we
do, but follow the common laws of language in the interpretation of their predictions?
It should be noted, also, that both the cases above recited are dependent on and connected with the duration
of symbolic and significant actions. These actions from
their very nature must be of short continuance, in order
to be a proper means of instruction for the generation then
living; but to reason from these to cases like those in
Daniel' and John, where no symbol of the nature in question is employed, must, as one would naturally suppose, be
deemed very inconclusive and unsatisfactory by every considerate man. In Ezekiel and in Numbers, a short period
of days in which certain actions are performed, is made
the symbol of a long period in which a continued and important series of actions and occurrences are to take place.
But in the Apocalypse and in Daniel, there is merely one
simple designation of time during which future events are
to take place.
Since then the instances in Ezekiel and in Numbers are
plainly so dissimilar to those in the other books named, it
is no wonder that Joseph Mede did not venture to appeal
to them in support of his supposition. He has appealed,
however, to Daniel 9: 24; and as others have followed
him in this appeal, it will be necessary briefly to examine
this passage.
Daniel had been meditating on the accomplishment of




82              DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
the 70 years of exile for the Jews which Jeremiah had predicted; Jer. 25: 12. 29: 10. Dan. 9: 1 —3. At the close
of the fervent supplication for his people which he,.makes,
in connection with his meditation, Gabriel appears, and announces to him that " Seventy sevens are appointed for his
people," as it respects the time then future, in which various and very important events are to take place. Our
translation renders the words ~t'.: st,   seventy weeks.
But throughout the Scriptures there is, if we except three
instances in the book of Daniel, no such form as wl~y.
which means weeks. This is only and always ri.v,  or:ri~.3.   The form wtr, therefore, which is a regular
masculine plural, is no doubt purposely chosen to designate
the plural of seven; and with great propriety here, inasmuch as there are many sevens which are to be joined together in one common sum. The manner in which I have
translated the word in question, therefore, gives an exact
representation of the Hebrew original.  Daniel had been
meditating on the close of the 70 years of Hebrew exile,
and the angel now discloses to him a new period of seventy
times seven, in which still more important events are to take
place. "Seventy sevens," or (to use Greek phraseology)
"seventy heptades are determined upon thy people." Heptades of what? Of days, or of years?  No one can doubt
what the answer is. Daniel -had been making diligent
search respecting the 70 years;- and, in such a connection,
nothing but seventy heptades of years could be reasonably
supposed to be-meant by the angel. But independently of
this, the nature of the case is sufficient.  Years are the
measure of all considerable periods of time. When the angel speaks, then, in reference to certain events, and declares that they are to take place during seventy heptades,
it is a matter of course to suppose him to mean years. If




IN THE PROPHECIES.                83
he had not meant so, then some word would have been added in order to render it plain what his meaning was.
And so it actually happens, in Dan. 10: 2, 3, where he
again employs the.peculiar plural, tv.5-.  But as the period designated in the last passage has respect to a season
of fasting which the prophet had, kept, and as this could
not be a period of three years, so the writer adds, after the
words three sevens (in our version, three whole weeks), the
word wTz, days. He fasted " three sevens as to days" is
*a literal and grammatical version. This means, indeed,
three whole weeks, as our version has it; but the shape of
the Hebrew expression is different from this.
These examples render it quite plain, therefore, that
when, in Dan. 9: 24, the angel speaks of seventy heptades
he must of course be understood - as meaning so many heptades of years-490 years. He has not made days at all
the representative of years, in this case, but merely and
simply designated the number of years.  And as to chap.
10: 2, 3, surely no one will contend that Daniel fasted
twenty-one years; which must be the conclusion, however,
-if days are to-be regarded as the representatives of years, in
the writings of this prophet.  But in 9: 24, as has been
said, days are not brought at all into question. The phraseology employed (seventy heptades) is indeed elliptical;
yet it is not at all obscure, for every mind spontaneously
supplies the word years, -in such a connection.
The appeal to Daniel, then, for an example of employing
days for years, is certainly not well- directed, when made
to the passage in question. Indeed, the exact contrary of
such a usage is manifest, when we read onward only six
verses more; for in 10: 2, 3, the ground assumed would
necessarily make Daniel to say, that he fasted in the most
rigid manner for twenty-one years? The credibility of this,
on any ground, needs not to be argued against.




84              DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
Thus much for analogies in the Old Testament- Scriptures, that have respect to the modes of designating time.
Not one of the cases that have been examined, (and these
are all on which any reliance can be placed), answers at
all the end for which an appeal is made, by the interpreters
whose opinion is under examination.
But I will not content myself, in this case, with the examination of these alleged analogies.  Another duty remains; and this is, to produce examples of the contrary
mode of reckoning; examples which show, that- in prophecy, as elsewhere, the designations of time are to be understood in their natural and obvious sense, unless there is
some direction or -intimation that we must not interpret
them in this manner.
In Gen. 6: 3, God announces that the days of men, before the flood will come upon them, shall be 120 years. By
the rule of one day for a year, this would amount to 43,920
years; in which case it is not so much to be wondered at,
that the antediluvians were not moved by fear in consequence of Noah's threats. In Gen. 7: 4, God declares,
that after seven days he will cause it to rain upon the earth
forty days and forty nights.  Is this then the same as saying, that after seven years it shall begin to rain, and then
shall continue to do so for a period of forty years? In
Gen. 15: 13, it is predicted that Abraham's posterity shall
be bondmen in Egypt 400 years. Does this mean, that
they shall live there in that capacity during 144,000 years?
Gen. 40: 1 predicts seven years of plenty and seven of famine to Egypt.  Can this mean 2,520 years of each in
succession?  In Num. 14: 33 it is declared, that Israel
shall wander in the wilderness forty years. Does this mean
14,400 years?  Does not history inform us what the exact
and actual period was? In Ezek. 29: 11, 12, there is a
threat of forty years' wasting to the Egyptians. Does this




IN THE PROPHECIES.               85
mean 14,400?  In Jonah 3: 4 it is declared, that Nineveh
shall be overthrown within forty days; in Is. 7: 8 it is said,
that Ephraim shall be broken within sixty-five years; in
Is. 16: 14, that the glory of Moab shall be contemned within three years; in Jer. 25: 11. 29: 10, the period of seventy years' exile is threatened; and the like in other passages of the prophets which need not be recited; and yet
we never once even dream of putting a day for a year in a
single instance among all these cases. Why? Because we
have no intimation that the passages are not to be interpreted in the ordinary way; and nothing in the context
obliges us to think of a different mode of interpretation.
Even so I trust it may prove to be, in cases yet to be examined, and which constitute the basis of our present inquiry.
Nothing can be plainer, then, than that usage in the prophecies, as to designations of time, does not differ from ordinary usage elsewhere, If there be any cases where a
difference is' to be made out, it must be on entirely other
grounds than that of analogy. We have seen that the analogy asserted can by no means be established; and therefore we cannot appeal to it. We come then to examine,
SECONDLY, whether the designations of time in Daniel
and in the Apocalypse admit of a satisfactory solution on
the common ground of grammatico-historical exegesis.
We must begin with the book of Daniel, because, as all
will concede, the Apocalypse has followed in many respects
closely in the steps of this ancient prophet. And, which is
more important still, Daniel has twice brought into view a
famous period equivalent to 31 years=42 months=1260
days. If the use of this number of days is symbolical in
the book of Revelation, then it must be conceded as probable, that it is symbolical also in the book of Daniel; and
so, vice versa. At least the great mass of recent commen~
8




86              DESIGNATIONS OF TYIME
tators in the English world, who suppose that the same
things are predicted in both these books, cannot well avoid
such a conclusion.  It is proper, therefore, that we begin
with the 1260 days or 31 years in the book of Daniel.
We do not find this period, indeed, specifically named.
But it is virtually designated in the expression time, times,
and the dividing (i. e. half) of time. In chap. 7: 25 (which
is Chaldee), the main word is ]id; in 12: 7 (Hebrew), it is
5I.V. Both of these words are from the kindred roots vsp
and n., and mean, conformably to their etymology, a set,
fixed, or appointed time. Of course this happily designates
the year, the appointed and usual standard for the measurement of time. A time, times, and half a time, therefore,
means one year, two years, and half a year —3~ years-42
months-1260 days. This is the same period on which so
much turns in Rev. xi.-xiI.; and one cannot well refrain from believing, that the measure of time in both of
these books is designed to be the same.
What then is the actual time which is designated, in
those several passages of Daniel that have been specified?  In order to answer this question we must first advert
to the subject-matter of each prophecy, as developed by
the context.
The first passage, in Dan. 7: 25, is so clear as to leave
no room for reasonable doubt.  In vs. 8, 20, 24, the rise of
Antiochus Epiphanes is described; for the fourth beast in
7: 7, 8, 11, 19-2~ is, beyond all reasonable doubt, the divided Grecian dominion which succeeded the reign of Alexander the Great. From this dynasty springs Antiochus,
vs. 8, 24, who is most graphically described, in v. 25, as
one who "shall speak great words against the most High,
and shall wear out (destroy) the saints of the most High,
and think to change times and laws; and they shall be
given into his hands, until a time, and times, and the divid



IN THE PROPHECIES.                   87
ing of time."  The long, bitter, and bloody persecutions of
Epiphanes; his persevering efforts to abolish the Jewish
ritual, and even to extinguish the religion which the Hebrews professed, and destroy all copies of the holy Scriptures which were in their hands; are too well known as
historical facts, to need any comment here, or any specification.* The only question on which any thing needs to
* A writer in one of the periodicals of the day, who is wont to
speak with unusual confidence in regard to the- meaning of many
prophecies, quotes Dan. 7: 21, 22, as sufficient of itself to refulte all
that is said here, in respect to applying the verses specified above to
Antiochus Epiphanes. The sum of these verses is, that " the little
horn" (beyond all doubt Antiochus) "'made war upon the saints
and prevailed against them," and' the Ancient of Days came, and
rendered judgment to the saints' (vindicated the cause of the pious),
and restored-to them the kingdom' which had been taken away by
Antiochus. In other words: God appears as the vindicator of the
pious and persecuted Jews, and restores to them the rightful dominion of their country. This idea is thrice repeated in chap vIi.;
first in the account of the vision as comprised in vs. 2-12, where
vs. 9-11 are appropriated to designate the condemnation and punishment of the little horn, "whose mouth speaketh great things;"
secondly, in vs. 21, 22, as already quoted; and thirdly, in vs. 24426, which are a part of the'explanations given by the angel. Now
the writer in question, as many others have done, appears to have
mistaken the judgment mentioned in vs. 10, 22, and the dominion
given to the saints (v. 22), for the last judgment and millennial dominion of the church. How palpably erroneous this is, may be
seen by consulting Dan. 7: 13, 14, where the later coming of the
Son of Man, and the dominion which is given him, are plainly represented as subsequent to the judgment and punishment of Antiochus, as described in the preceding context. This decisive circumstance, the writer in the periodical to whom I have adverted, in his
haste and in his zeal for favorite opinions, seems to have wholly
overlooked. One who feels as much confidence as he appears to
possess, ought at least to look more carefully on what sort of ground
he is treading.
Whatever there is of obscurity or uncertainty in respect to the




88                DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
be said is: How does the result here desciibed, viz.' the
giving up of the saints and times and laws into his hands,'
fourth beast with his ten horns, as represented.in chap. vii., it is
made quite plain and palpable by chap. viI. In Dan. 8: 8 seq., the
dominion of Alexander the Great, its division among his four chief.
tains, and the rise of the little horn fiom one of these, are so plain
as to be altogether undeniable. Then the characteristics of this
"' little horn," as given in chap. viII. 9-12, are plainly the same
for substance as those given in. chap. viI. 8, 11, 20, 21, 24, 25. All
is rendered still more certain, by the repetition of the same characteristics in 8: 22-25, which, in connection with v. 21, shows very
plainly, that the "little horn" and "' the king of fierce countenance"
is of Grecian descentand rules over one of the four kingdoms into
which the empire of Alexander was divided.
All the real difficulty of the case arises from the fact, that the
Messianic dominion described in 7: 13, 14 and again in 7: 27 is
mentioned as if it were an immediate sequent of the destruction of
the little horn or Antiochus.  So far as the manner of the description is concerned, one might judge this to be the case; for no interval of time is designated, and none is necessarily implied by the use
of appropriate particles. But in cases very numerous, both in the
Old Testament and in the New, the manner of announcing the
Messianic kingdom is the same. No interval between it and earlier events is specifically designated. Yet nothing can be more erroneous than the conclusion, that no interval of time, in such cases,
is to be supposed.> It is impossible not to allow such an interval.
So here, no one could err more than to.suppose, that the,Messianic
kingdom is to follow immediately after the destruction of the kingdom of Antiochus. The simple truth is, that the writer passes from
one kingdom, restored to the ancient Jewish saints, to the description of another and greater one still future. He makes no account
of the interval of time, since he is not at all concerned, for his present purpose, with chronology.
He who does not understand this common usage of the Hebrew
prophets, must have made but little progress as it respects the study
and the knowledge of them. He who does understand it, can find
no seriousndifficulties in the case before us.
For more ample remarks on the subject of this usage, in regard
to the Messianic predictions, I must refer the reader to what is said




IN THE PROPHECIES.                89
accord with the time specified, provided the designation of
this time be interpreted by the common laws of exegesis?
The facts are these.  In the year 168 before Christ,
(usually designated by B. C.), in the month of May, Antiochus Epiphanes was.on his way to attack Egypt, and he
detached Apollonius, one of his military confidants, with
22,000 soldiers, in order to subdue and plunder Jerusalem.
The mission was executed with entire success.  A terrible slaughter was made of the men at Jerusalem, and a
large portion of the women and children, being made captives, were sold and treated as slaves. The services of the
temple were interrupted, and its joyful feasts were turned
into mourning, 1 Macc. 1: 37-39.  Soon after this the
Jews in general were compelled to eat swine's flesh, and to
sacrifice to idols. In December of that same year, the
temple, was profaned by introducing the statue of Jupiter
Olympius; and on the 25th of that month, sacrifices were
offered to that idol on the altar of Jehovah.  Just three
years after this last event, viz. December 25th, 165 B. C.,
the temple was expurgated-by Judas Maccabaeus, and the
worship of Jehovah restored. Thus three years and a half,
or almost exactly this period, passed away, while Antiochus
had complete possession and control of every thing in and
around Jerusalem and the temple. It may be noted, also,
that just three years passed, firom the time when the profanation of the temple was carried to its- greatest height,
viz., by sacrificing to the statue of Jupiter Olympius upon
the altar of Jehovah, down to the time when Judas renewed the regular worship.
I mention this last circumstance in order to account for
the three years of Antiochus' profanations, which are namnear the close of this volume, in connection with the discussion respecting Gog and Magog, and the events which will follow their
development.
8S




90             DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
ed as the period of them in Josephus, Antiq. XII. 7. ~ 6.
This period tallies exactly with the time during which the
profanation as consummated was carried on, if we reckon
down to the period when the temple worship was restored
by Judas Maccabaeus. But in Prooem. ad Bell. Jud. ~ 7,
and Bell. Jud. I. 1. ~ 1, Josephus reckons 3~ years as the
period during which Antiochus ravaged Jerusalem and Judea. There is no contradiction in this writer, however, in
case we refer each period to the occurrences which it was
designed to mark.
After all, we are. not confined to his authority for the
facts stated. The reader will find many authors referred
to, in Usher's Annals, year 168 et seq. B. C.; in Froelich's
Annales Regum Syriae, chap. on Antioch. Epiphanes,
(an admirable work); in Jahn's Hebrew Commonwealth,
and in Prideaux's Connection, etc., under the appropriate
head in each. To save time and to avoid repetition, I
refer the reader -to these- sources of information, and to
the ancient histories cited in them; most of which may
be procured with little trouble, and also are of easy access.  And in like manner, to save repetition, would I
Ihere make a reference to the same sources, as to subsequent historical facts which will be stated in the course of
this investigation respecting the book of Daniel.
No one can reasonably expect, then, a more exact fulfilment of the time specified in Dan -7: 25, than that which
history here presents.
Another passage, parallel to Dan. 7: 25 which we have
just examined, is Dan. 12: 7, where the same limitation of
time occurs, and in connection (for this I cannot doubt)
with the same individual, i. e. with Antiochus Epiphanes.
As in many other cases, particularly in Isaiah and Daniel,
an unfortunate division has been made by chapters which
greatly obscures the sense of the original Scripture, so




IN THE PROPHECIES.               91
here there is an instance of the like mistake, which is
much to be regretted. It is quite plain that Dan. xi. -and
xi-. are closely and inseparably connected, as one continued series of predictions, closing with some inquiries and
answers, the object of which is to throw light on those predictions. That Antiochus Epiphanes is described in 11:
21-45, is past all question.  The graphic historical correctness and minuteness of the description here, is even
such as can be found no where else in the whole Bible.
Porphyry, in the latter part of the third century, charged
this composition with being a prophecy post eventum;
and it must be acknowleged that it is difficult, at the
present time, when one compares other prophecies, not to
feel moved in some measure to entertain a similar view.
The reason is, that, in point of minuteness and exactness
of specification, nothing elsewhere in the whole Scripture
can be found to compare with it; so exactly, and at so
great length, does it give the history of Antiochus.
That the beginning of chap. xII. is only a continuation
of the angel's address to Daniel, is plain from a mere glance.
This address ends with v. 4; -and then commences a colloquy between two angels, designed to cast further light
on what had been said. One angel inquires of the other:
" How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?" v. 6.
The answer, introduced by an appeal to Heaven for confirmation of its truth, is, that " it shall be for a time,- and
times, and a half; apd when he shall have entirely completed the dashing in pieces (y~p) of the power of the holy
people, all these things shall be accomplished." That is,
the time when Antiochus will cease firom persecuting the
Jews and profaning the temple, or the end of the wonderful things that have been foretold, will be 3~ years from
the commencement of his most violent course; and when
he shall have been destroyed and his power over the Jews




92              DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
shall have come to an end, then will have been fulfilled
the things of which the angel had been giving information
to Daniel.  In other words; Dan. 12: 7 marks the terminus ad quem of the predictions which immediately precede it.  And that the dashing in pieces, i. e. utterly destroying or suppressing the power of the Jews, is to be referred altogether to Antiochus, no one who reads Dan. 7:
25,- and 11': 21-45, and makes comparison of them with
the annunciation here, can well doubt.  Verses 30-35 of
chap. xi. show fully what is meant in 12: 7, by dashing in
pieces the power of the holy people; and the whole shows
that the outrages of Antiochus, i. e. his final and most bitter persecution of the Jews, with their complete subjugation, is designed to be characterized here. And this, as
we have already seen, p. 89 above, lasted for a period of
3J years.
We see, then, an entire coincidence of manner and matter between Dan. 7: 25 and 12: 7.  The same time is
designated by both in the same way, and the same person
and same events are referred to in both. Of course we do
not need a re-investigation here of facts in the history of
Antiochus. The correspondence of prediction and history
is even so striking, that none can refuse to perceive it.
The only difficult question that will arise here for the interpreter, is: Whether 12: 1 —3 is to be interpreted so as to
refer it to the troubles which Judea experienced shortly before the great victory under Judas Maccabaeus which ended in the restoration of liberty to the Hebrews, and also
to the blessings consequent on their renewed liberty, thus
making it parallel with Ezek. 37: 1-14; or whether the
short passage here interposed looks forward to the more
distant future-the Messianic period and final resurrection.
Into this question I cannot enter here; nor is it important
to the object which I have in view. The passage in 12: 7,




IN THE PROPHECIES.                93
undoubtedly refers to the leading and prominent part of the
prophecy which precedes; and this plainly has respect to
Antiochus.
I am  aware that some have found a v~ovow in 7: 25,
and also in 12: 7; i. e. they have interpreted both passages as having reference to Antichrist in their secondary
sense, or to the beast which is described in Rev. xIIi. and
the sequel.'But how this can be brought about, in the
present case, I do not perceive. In regard to the passages
in Daniel, so far as they respect Antiochus, no more-than
3~ years literally understood can possibly be meant. The
utter absurdity of supposing Daniel to predict, that Antiochus himself in person should persecute the Jews for
1260 years, needs no exposure. But how 31 literal years
can be meant in the type, (as they speak), and yet this
same identical period amount to 1260 years in the antitype, i. e. Antichrist, is a problem in exegesis, that has yet
received no solution, and surely admits of no satisfactory
one. The bare statement of the whole matter is a complete refutation of the exegesis put upon the passages in
question.
I have only one more remark to make, before I proceed
to the examination of other passages.  This is, that the
reader should well note here the general nature of the limitation of time. It is not specifically designated by years,
or months, or days, but it is expressed in general language,
viz., " time, times, and a half."  The very manner of the
expression indicates, of course, that it was not the design
of the speaker or writer to be exact to a day or an hour.
A little more or a little less than 3~ years would, as every
reasonable interpreter must acknowledge, accord perfectly
well with the general designation here, where plainly the
aim is not statistical exactness, but a mere general characterizing of the period in question. We shall see reason to




94              DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
believe, in the sequel, that some 30 days more than exactly 3~ prophetic years were occupied by the disastrous occurrences under the reign of Antiochus; for in another
passage, where the exact period is probably intended to be
marked, the number of days is specifically given.
As this exact period stands particularly related to the
general designation of 3~ years, which we have already
considered, it will facilitate our inquiries to take the exact
designation next into consideration.  In Dan. 12: 11 it is
said: "From the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set
up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days."
This period exceeds the 1260 days by one month or thirty days.
That the same persecuting power is adverted to here, as
in Dan. 7: 25. 11: 30-35, and 12: 7, no one, I apprehend, will doubt, who well considers the language.  Antiochus " took away the daily sacrifice," as is here declared.
This was in the latter part of May, B. C. 168. Profane
history does not indeed give us the day; but it designates
the year and the season. As we have already seen, about
3J years elapsed, after the' temple worship was- entirely
broken up, before Judas Maccabaeus expurgated the temple and restored its rites. This terminus ad quem is not
mentioned in the verse now before us; but still, it is plainly implied. The end of the 1290 days must of course be
marked by some signal event, just as the commencement
of them is so marked.  And as the suppression of the temple-rites constitutes the definitive mark of the commencement, so it would seem plain, that the restoration of the
same rites must mark the conclusion of the period which is
designated.  The "time of the end," i. e. the period at the
close of which the persecutions of Antiochus would cease,
is distinctly adverted to in 7: 25. 11: 30-35, and 12: 7




IN THE PROPHECIES,              95
The nature of the case, in the verse before us, shows that
the same period is tacitly referred to in the words of
the speaker.
It is needless, therefore, to repeat here what has already
been set before the reader, viz. the history of the invasion
and profanation of the temple by Antiochus. No doubt
remains, that his march from Antioch to Egypt, for hostile
purposes, was in the Spring of the year 168 B. C. He
was delayed for some time on this march, by ambassadors
from Egypt who met him in Ccelo-syria. Very naturally
therefore we may conclude, that he arrived opposite Jerusalem in the latter part of May, and that there and then he
commissioned Apollonius to rifle and profane the temple.
The exact time from the period when this was done, down
to the time of expurgation, seems to have been, and is designated as being, 1290 days. In other words; here is an
exact specification of what was before designated in general
terms, in Dan. 7: 25 and 12: 7, i. e. by the words "time,
times, and an half."
Immediately connected with the passage last examined,
and standing in immediate succession, is another passage
in Dan.12: 12, which runs thus: "Blessed is he that waiteth,
and cometh to the one thousand three hundred and thirtyJive days."  The place which this passage occupies, shows
that the terminus a quo, or period from which the days designated are to be reckoned, is the same as that to which
reference is made in the preceding verse. -This, as we
have already seen, is the period when Antiochus, by his
military agent Apollonius, took possession of Jerusalem
and put a stop to the temple-worship there. The author
of the first book of Maccabees, who is allowed by all to
deserve credit as a historian, after describing the capture
of Jerusalem by the agent of Antiochus, (in the year 145
of the era of, the Seleucidae=-16S B. C.), and setting be



96             DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
fore the reader the wide-spread devastation which ensued,
adds, respecting the invaders: " They shed innocent blood
around the sanctuary, and defiled the holy place; and the
inhabitants of Jerusalem fled away;.... the sanctuary
thereof was made desolate; her feasts were turned into
mourning, her sabbaths into a reproach, and her honour
into disgrace;" I Macc. 1: 37-39.  To the period when
this state of things commenced we must look, then, in order
to find the date from which the 1335 days are to be reckoned. Supposing now that Apollonius captured Jerusalem in the latter part of May, B. C. 168, the 1335 days
would expire about the middle of Feb. in the year B. C.
164. Did any event take place at this period, which would
naturally call forth the congratulations of the prophet, as
addressed in the text before us to the Jewish people?
History enables us readily to answer this question.
Late in the year 165 B. C., or at least very early in the
year 164 B. C., Antiochus Epiphanes, learning that there
were insurrections and great disturbances in Armenia and
Persia, hastened thither with a portion of his armies, while
the other portion was commissioned against Palestine. He
was victorious for a time; but being led by cupidity to
seek for the treasures that were laid up in the temple of
the Persian Diana at Elymais, he undertook to rifle them.
The inhabitants of the place, however, rose en masse and
drove him out of the city; after which he fled to Ecbatana. There he heard of the total discomfiture by Judas
Maccabaeus of his troops in Palestine, which were led on
by Nicanor and Timotheus. In the rage occasioned by
this disappointment, he uttered the most horrid blasphemies against the God of the Jews, and threatened to make
Jerusalem the burying-place of the nation. Immediately
he directed his course toward Judea; and designing to
pass through Babylon, he made all possible haste in his




IN THE PROPHECIES.              97
journey. In the mean time he had a fall from his chariot,
which injured him; and soon after, being seized with a
mortal sickness in his bowels, (probably the cholera), he
died at Tabae, in the mountainous country, near the confines of Babylonia and Persia.  Report stated, even in ancient times, that Antiochus was greatly distressed on his
death-bed by the sacrileges which he had committed.
Thus perished the most bitter'and bloody enemy which
ever rose up against the Jewish nation and their worship.
By following the series of events it is easy to see, that his
death took place sometime in February of the year 16
B. C. Assuming that the commencement or terminus a
quo of the 1335 days is the same as that of the 1290 days
(noted on p. 89 et seq.), it is plain that they terminate
at the period when the death of Antiochus is said to have
taken place. "It was long before the commencement of
the Spring," says Froelich in his excellent work before
quoted, "that Antiochus passed the Euphrates and made
his attack upon Elymais" (p. 52); so that no more probable time can be fixed upon for his death than at the expiration of the 1335 days, i. e. some time in February of 164
B. C. - No wonder that the angel pronounced those of the
pious and believing Jews to be blessed, who lived to see
such a day of deliverance. The great enemy of their nation and their God had fallen; Judas Maccabaeus had become every where victorious; the sanctuary was now cleansed of its pollution, and pure worship was restored; the
Hebrews, moreover, had every prospect of independence
and happiness. In fact, their own kings reigned over them
for a long time after this; so that the death of Antiochus
was a most important means of securing both civil and religious liberty.
How perfectly natural such an explanation is, and how
consonant with the spirit of the Hebrews, on- like occa9




98              DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
sions, any one may see who will, consult Isaiah and John.
When the king of Babylon, the great enemy of the Jews,
falls, "the whole earth breaks forth into singing, the fir
trees and the cedars of Lebanon exult over him, Is. 14: 7,
8. When spiritual Babylon, i. e. persecuting Rome, falls,
John calls upon " heaven and holy apostles and prophets
to rejoice over her, because God has avenged them on her,"
Rev'. 19: 20.  Can it be any matter of wonder, then, that
Daniel congratulates those who should survive Antiochus
Epiphanes, and calls them blessed, i. e.- happy, when they
shall have lived to see the day in which liberty and peace,
civil and religious, are once more secure from the assaults
of such an unrelenting tyrant?
One, and only one, more period in the book of Daniel
claims our present attention. This is in chap. vIII. 14. In
the vision seen by Daniel, as related in this chapter, one
angel inquires of another,' How long the sanctuary and
the host are given to be trodden under foot,' v. 13. The
answer is-: " To two thousand three hundred clays; then
shall the sanctuary be cleansed," v. 14.
The time itself here designated has been matter of controversy; and consequently, the subject needs some remarks.
The words in our version: Unto two thousand and three
hundred days, are, in the original Hebrew, expressed in
this manner: "Unto evening-morning two thousand three
hundred."  The doubt has fallen upon  1   -. t:  eveningmorning; for some have understood it as meaning the
evening and morning z97=r, i. e. the constant sacrifice offered morning and evening, in such a way that each-of
these is to be separately included in the number 23I00; so
that, in fact, only 1150 days are in reality designated.
What increases the difficulty of deciding is, that exactly
such a phraseology no where else occurs in the holy Scrip



IN THE PROPHECIES.                99
turies. Yet there are cases- which bear some analogy to
this, in the Hebrew; there is a very close analogy also to
this mode of expression in the Greek; and the nature of
the events described in the context may help us, moreover,
to form some proper opinion in respect to the meaning of
the peculiar phrase before us.
Nothing is more common in Hebrew, than the repetition of the saime word, either in order to denote intensity
of number, power, quality, etc.; or else to denote distribution.  As specimens of the first kind, the reader may
consult Gen. 14: 10. Ex. 8: 13. 2 K. 3:' 16. Joel 4: 14;
of the second, Gen. 32': 17. Num. 17: 17. Ezek. 24:6.
Gen. 7: 9. But these usages do not bear directly on our
present difficulty; for n..'-:,  presents us with two different words; which moreover are without any conjunction between them.  On this latter circumstance stress
has been laid by some critics, who aver that distribution
is meant to be designated by the form of expression (without:  conjunction), so that in reality only half the number of days, - 1150, is meant. But on the circumstance
that the Vav conjunction is omitted, it would seem that
stress of this kind cannot well be laid. In cases where
the repetition of the same noun denotes the conjunct idea
of all, each, every, e. g. -f' -Z  -, each year or every year,
sometimes the Vav is omitted, and sometimes it is inserted; for examples of omission, see Deuft. 14: 22. 2 K. 17:
29. 1 Chron. 9: 32. Num. 9: 10; yet Vav is inserted in
Ezra 10. 14. Ps. 87: 5. Esth. 3: 4. Deut. 32: 7, and
many other cases, without any seeming difference of sense.
If any thing is to be argued from the omission of the
copula, it would seem to be, that the two words, thus
brought together, are to be considered as a kind of compound word.  So Gesenius, Lehrgeb. p. 519.  Indeed it
would be quite natural here, in case the wr;ter did design




100             DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
that the two words should be separately considered, so that
each of them should be reckoned as a constituent part of
the 2300, to put a Vav between them. Thus where absolute severalty is intended between nouns repeated, the
copula Vav is always inserted; e. g. Deut. 25: 13. Ps. 12:
3. So where the two words  p'm and:u.t come together,
and each is designed to be separately considered or counted, the copula is put between; e. g. in 1 Chron. 16: 40.
2 Chron. 2: 3. 31: 3. Ezra 3: 3. Jerome says, that, in
the case before us, "vespere et mane successionem. diei
noctisque significat," i. e. evening and morning signifies
the succession of day and night. Indeed the whole seems
plain, when referred to Gen. I., where the evening and the
morning constitute one day, Gen. 1: 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31.
That the writer had the usage in his mind which these
last cited passages develope, seems plain from the order in
which he has placed the words, viz. by making evening to
precede morning, because it began the day among the Hebrews. And in the same manner the Greeks put the two
parts of the day together, in their vvVOitsov (see 2 Cor.
11: 25), in order fully and emphatically to designate one
complete day. That this is the simple object of the expression now under examination, I cannot well doubt.
The principal support of those who regard the 2300 as designating the offerings of the morning and the evening,
and so as marking only 1150 whole days, is derived from
the supposition that'7;r: is necessarily implied before the
expression m?> Er..  Yet in v. 26 such an addition is
neither made, nor is admissible before these words. On the
whole, then, we must consider these 2300 evening-mornings as an expression of simple time, i. e. of so many days,
reckoned in the Hebrew manner.  So Gesenius., Rosenmueller, HAvernick, and others.
The tcrmlination or terminus ad quem of these is given




iN THE PROPHECIES.              101
in the closing phrase: Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
The original Hebrew here, &]7 p_7:.;, might afford room
for some doubt as to the true meaning. The word &ji,
rendered sanctuary, has no article, (we should naturally
expect one if it has this meaning); and the verb ji;:. appropriately means to justify.  But this verb also means to
put right, to restore, viz. that which is in a defective or
wrong state; and so it may not unnaturally be employed'
here, to designate the restoration of the temple or sanctuary
to its proper state or condition. This was done by Judas
1Maccabaeus, as we have seen above, on the 25th of Dec.
165 B. C. Counting back from this as the terminus ad
quem of the 2300 days, we come to Aug. 5th of the year
171 B. C. What are the events of this year, then, which
correspond to that which is said to be done from and after
the commencement of the period in question?
In vs. 9-12 of the context, we are informed of what
was to be done. " The little horn," i. e. Antiochus Epiphanes, " waxed great, and magnified itself," i. e. extended
itself, " to the host of heaven, and cast down to the ground
some of the host, even of the stars, and trampled upon them.
Even to the prince of the host did it magnify itself, and by
it was the daily sacrifice removed, and the dwelling place
of the sanctuary was cast down."  Here, it will be perceived, the aggressions of Antiochus commenced with his
attack upon the priests of the temple, called the host of
heaven, but specifically upon the high priest, who is called
the prince of the host.  These are the leading facts which
characterize the doings of Antiochus, from and after the
beginning of the 231)0 days. The profanation of the temple and the taking away of the daily sacrifice follow on,
very naturally, in the sequel. Does history present us with
any thing that happened in the year 171 B. C., which corresponds with this representation in Daniel?
9*




102             DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
Menelaus had, by his artifices and by bribery, obtained
a nomination to be high-priest in the room of his excellent
elder brother, Onias III.  Antiochus Epiphanes had promised this office to Menelaus, and he expected a large sulm
of money for bestowing it. But Menelaus, having obtained it, was tardy in the payment of the stipulated sum, and
was summoned before Antiochus in order to answer for his
delay. At his departure he substituted Lysimachus in his
place ad interim; who, being urged by Antiochus and
Menelaus, rifled the temple of its golden vessels, and sold
them in order to pay the tribute exacted.  Menelaus himself was kept in his office by Antiochus, merely because he
had promised the king still larger sums of money in the
way of tribute.  In the mean time, Onias III., the elder
brother and lawful high-priest, sternly rebuked Menelaus
for his sacrilege; and soon after, at the instigation of the
same Menelaus, Onias was allured from  his retreat at
Daphne, whither he had fled for safety after rebuking his
brother, and was murdered by Andronicus, the vice-gerent
of Antiochus who had gone to suppress a rebellion in Cilicia. The Jews at Jerusalem, being highly offended with
the profanation of the temple and the sacrilege of Lysimachus who acted under the orders of Antiochus, rose in
rebellion against Lysimachus and the Syrian forces who,protected him, and cut- off both this fraudulent administrator himself and the guards by which he was surrounded.
Well might the prophet say then of the Syrian power or
little hor n, that it mnagnifed itself against the prince of the
host.
Here commenced a series of aggressions upon the priesthood and temple and city of tile Jews, which, with occasional interruptions, continued down to the death of Antiochus, as before described.  The difference, however, between this period of 2300 days and the other periods, (viz.,




IN THE PROPHECIES.              103
"time, times, and half a time"-=1260 days, the 1290 days,
and the 1335 days), is very plain and striking.  There
were during the latter three periods (excepting at the very
close of the last), no interruptions of the tyrannical and
overbearing power of Antiochus. But any one who follows
closely the history of the whole 2300 days, will see that
frequent and somewhat long continued interruptions of active oppression took place, during the former half of this
period.  It is evidently the design of the writer, in Dan.
VIII., to characterize the whole of the violent interpositions
and assaults of Antiochus; and so he extends back his descriptions to a period which embraces the whole of his actual and grievous oppression. The tyrannical procedure,
begun (as we have seen) in the latter half of the year 171
B. C., was occasionally continued by the murder of the Jewish ambassadors at Tyre in 170; by the subsequent slaughter and captivity of 80,000 Hebrews in the same year, and
also by the profanation and rifling of the temple.  In the
year 169, Antiochus was wholly occupied with his war
upon Egypt; but in 168 B. C. Apollonius, by order of
Antiochus, took possession of Jerusalem and the temple,
after which, for 3$ years, was an entire and continued suspension of sacred rites and holy feasts.
Thus we find, upon due examination of ancient history,
that-all the times, thus far specified in the book of Daniel,
may be easily and naturally interpreted according to their
plain and obvious sense.  And inasmuch as the writer has
not given us the least intimation that they are to be otherwise interpreted, what' can be plainer in hermeneutics,
than that the obvious sense of the words which designate
time is to be followed?  If this principle be not reasonable
and certain, I know not where to find one within the whole
circle of exegesis which is.
Only one period more is named in the book of Daniel,




104             DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
viz., the so-called seventy weeks in Dan. 9: 24 —27.  It
would occupy too great a portion of the present disquisition,
to go into a minute investigation of this passage. Indeed,
it would require a volume of considerable magnitude, even
to give a history of the ever varying and contradictory opinions of critics respecting this locus vexatissimus; and perhaps a still larger one, to establish an exegesis which would
stand.  I am fully of opinion, that no interpretation as yet
published will stand the test of thorough grammatico-historical criticism; and that a candid and searching and
thorough critique here is still a desideratum.  May some
expositor fully adequate to the task, speedily appear!  In
the mean while it may be truly said, that the time specified
here is wholly unlike to any thing in the Apocalypse, and
therefore it can have no distinct bearing upon the presentdiscussion. All that is necessary to be said now concerning this passage, has already been said in the preceding
pages (p. 82 seq.); and to these I must refer the reader.
Before we take leave, however, of the book of Daniel,
to which appeal is so often and confidently made by interpreters who make 1260 days in the Apocalypse to stand
for so many years, we must advert to the references made
to the prophet in two of the Gospels, by which, it is said,
an occult or secondary sense is attributed to some passages
of his writings, which have already been explained above
as having reference only to Antiochus Epiphanes.
The passages in question are in Matt. 24: 15 and Mark
13: 14. The first runs thus: " When ye shall see the
abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel
the prophet, standing in the holy place, (let him who readeth consider!) then let those who are in Judea flee to the
mountains, etc." The second is of the like tenor: " When
ye shall see the abomination of desolation, [spoken of by
Daniel the prophet], standing where it ought not, (let him




IN THE PROPHECIES.              105
who readeth consider!) then let those who are in Judea
flee to the mountains, etc."  In this last passage from
Mark, the clause included in brackets is marked as of a
suspicious character by Knapp, and is given up in the
main by most recent critics.  Even Hengstenberg, in his
efforts to show that the prophecy of Daniel is applied in a
direct way, by the Saviour, to the destruction of Jerusalem
by the PRomans, still gives up the suspected clause in Mark;
pp. 258, 267, of his Aechtileit ldes Daniel. But with me,
the omission of the suspected clause in Mark makes no important difference.  All the copies of Matthew exhibit the
reading in question; and the testimony of one Evangelist
should be enough, for any one who believes in the'divine
inspiration of the Gospels.
The simple question before us is: Whether the Saviour
has applied the prediction in Daniel respecting the ysr.i.
w.:7' 7z (abomination of desolation) to the Romans, and thus
shown that we are not to apply it, or at least not to apply
it exclusively, to Antiochus Epiphanes?
There are three passages in Daniel, where the phraseology in question, or nearly the same, is employed. These
are Dan. 11: 31. 12: 11, and 9: 27. Hengstenburg himself gives up the two former, as being applicable, and as always having been applied in ancient times, to Antiochus.
Indeed the case is so plain, that no one can safely venture
on denying it. — He' strives however, with much earnestness, to show that the phrase in Dan. 9: 27 is that which
the Saviour quotes and applies to the Romans. But of
this many doubts might be raised. The form of the Hebrew here serves of itself to excite some doubt. It runs
thus:'zi~.7::N!E n:_ m:, which in the Septuagint is
rendered (and also by Theodotion):'E/x0 i hgv,Sfitvyauca
e6v  lI,8asos, evidently showing' a different reading of
the ancient Hebrew text, or else a palpable mistake of




10)6            DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
the translator. It can hardly be supposed that Matthew
and Mark, or that the Saviour, borrowed the simple expression Bfi6vyfa Tr?  8oyOStcog from such an almost senseless
version as that of the Seventy which is given above. In the
Hebrew just quoted, I:W.P.   is not in regimen or the construct state; nor does ~:'  assume the article, which, as
being specific, it would naturally do here if it were in the
Genitive. Every thing which respects the form, manner,
and (as I Inust believe) object, of the Hebrew phrase here,
forbids us to suppose that Matt. 24: 15 and Mark 13: 14
are built upon it. Indeed if they are, the original application of Dan. 9: 27 to the Romans might still be called in
question.  The contents of the verse seem almost irresistibly to remind us of Antiochus, as described in Dan. 7: 25.
8: 9-12. 11: 31, 45. 12: 11. I must conclude, therefore, that the: ivtvyIa Evedrrts in Matthew  and Mark
refers to Dan. 11: 31 or 12: 11; in either of which cases
the original must have designated Antiochus.
Thus much I feel compelled to acknowledge, on the
simple grounds of criticism; although the admission apparently makes against the cause which I am now advocating,
or at least it seems to concede a ntorvoix or occult sense in
the passages last referred to. Does it necessarily imply one?
The general principle of exegesis on such ground has
been discussed above, and need not be here renewed. It is
enough for the present to say, that the application of the
phraseology in question (so fari as it belongs to the book of
Daniel) to the wasting of Jerusalem  by the Romans, no
more proves that such was the original object of Daniel's
words, than the application by Matthew (in chap. uI. 15) of
Hos. 11: 1 to the exile of the child Jesus in Egypt, proves
that Hosea 11: 1 was originally aprediction respecting the
exile of Jesus.  In fact it is not a prediction at all, in
any sense, but simply a historical declaration. But then,




IN- THE PROPHECIES.             107
how natural and even appropriate for Matthew to say, that
the words of Hosea: " I have called my Son out of Egypt,"
found a.wT'qoo-ts in the sojourn of God's greater Son there,
and in his recal from that country! A certain event happened in ancient times, viz., the calling of God's Son (a
collective designation of the Israelites) out of Egyptian exile; a like event had recently taken place, when the Son
of God in a higher and nobler sense was called out of exile
in the same country.  Was there not now a raXi'coo-tS of
the ancient declaration of the prophet, such as would compel almost every mind to feel the congruity of adapting
that declaration to the recent events?
So is it, surely, with the case of Rachel weeping for her
children, as described in Jer. 31: 15, and applied by the
prophet to the exile of the Jews; while Matthew (2: 17,
18) applies it to the massacre by Herod of the infants who
were in the town of Bethlehem.
Perhaps even more than half ofthefulflments (iretosrel5),
spoken of in the New Testament, are of the like character.:Why not apply this simple and well known principle, this
obvious usage of the New Testament writers, to the passage
under discussion, in which reference is made to the book of
Daniel? I can see no good reason why they may not be
so applied. But if this be allowed, the amount of the reference in the Gospels to Daniel is, that he is appealed to
as having described a waster of the temple and city of Jerusalem in ancient times, of the like character and intention as the waster who finally destroyed Jerusalem. What
then took place had a  w7rjq;LS now, i. e. the like thing
happened in a still higher sense. And why may we not
interpret these passages, in the same way as we feel compelled to interpret so many others? In fact it seems to me,
that the Saviour, or the Evangelist, (it is difficult to say which
speaks in the passage to be cited, and it matters not for our




108              DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
purpose), appears to'have warned the reader by the parenthetic v &ra'yromv   voslzr (let Mim who readeth consider),
that the original words of the prophet were not intended to
have such an application as is made of them by the interpreters in question, but only that they described events of
altogether a similar nature.  As of old, when Antiochus invaded Jerusalem and the temple, the pious Jews fled into
the wilderness, so now, when the Roman power invades Judea with purposes of destruction, Christians should flee to
the mountains, etc.
Viewed in this light, (and I am persuaded this is the
light in which the passages before us ought to be viewed),
these declarations of Jesus do not establish the position,
that we ought not to apply the passages in Daniel according to the plain historical manner in which I have applied
them.  In vain do we seek in the book of Daniel, then,
any justification for interpreting 1260 days as meaning
1260 years; or any justification for interpreting any of
the times specified there in a manner contrary to, or different from, their natural and obvious meaning.
COME WE THEN, AT LAST, TO THE APOCALYPSE ITSELF,
Here is perhaps more difficulty than in the interpretation
of Daniel; but still we must travel in the same road as
before, and see if we can find. solutions which are satisfactory.  This I apprehend may be done, if we continue to
regard only the simple principles of interpretation.
But before we undertake to do this, I must beg the reader's attention to a few plain yet very important facts, in
regard to the tenor and object of the Apocalypse:.  I cannot here discuss the topics which I am now about to sug



IN THE PROPHECIES.                109
gest at length, nor attempt the vindication of my views by
appeal to all the minute particulars which the book of Revelations exhibits, and which might serve to confirm them,
This must be reserved for another work of a more copious'nature than the present, and where a more ample discussion than the present would naturally find an appropriate
place. I must, however, beg the reader's earnest attention
to the following suggestions, and'entreat him at least to examine and well consider them, before he decides against
the views that may be proffered in the sequel.
(I) It lies upon the face of the Apocalypse, from beginning to end, that it was written in the midst of a bitter and
bloody persecution of the church.  The writer himself is in
exile, " on account of the word of God and the testimony
of Jesus," Rev. 1: 9; and the persons whom  he -addresses
are exposed, or speedily to be exposed, to all the hardships,
perils, and temptations, which result from persecution. Of
course his object is to guard, to guide, to fortify, and toconsole Christians in such circumstances; and never did
a writer cleave more fully to his purpose, or execute it more
effectually.  The glorious rewards of those who persevere;
the speedy and condign punishment of persecutors; the ultimate and certain triumph "of the church over all her enemies; the universal spread of Christianity over the earth;
and the eternal happiness of all the faithful in the kingdom
of God above; are unfolded on the pages of the Apocalypse, and stand there deeply engraven in characters of
light. He who runneth, may read.
It follows now, from the plain and. evident intention and
object of the writer, that the book before us must consist
of matter appropriate to its design.  If we deny or overlook this, we must of course involve the writer in the charge
of having failed to execute his purpose, or of having executed it in a feeble or unsatisfactory manner.
10




110              DESIGNATIONS OF TIMIE
Should we suppose, -then, as many have done, that the
Apocalypse is a kind of Syllabus of civil history, or of civil
and ecclesiastical history, disclosing the leading events
that are to take place down to the end of time among nations and kingdoms, nothing can be-mnore plain, than that
we should assign to it an object totally foreign to what was
appropriate to the time and circumstances of both writer
and reader. I am aware that the very first verse of the
Revelation proclaims the design of the book to be, "to
show to the servants of Christ the things that must come
to pass."  But what things?' The context and sequel of
the book must answer this question.  The Apocalypse is
no dissertation de Omni Scibili. It has an appropriate and
limited object; and this is, to show the servants of God
the certain triumph of the cause in which they were engaged, and to hold out the glorious reward consequent upon being faithful unto death.
That I am correct in this position, I think no one will
seriously call in question who reads the book through,
with his mind unembarrassed by any preconceived scheme
of interpretation.' And if I am correct, how is it possible
to suppose, that the civil history of states and kingdoms,
or of the various heresies which were to arise out of the
church many centuries after the writer and ail his readers
were dead, are not only detailed in the book before us, but'that the greater part of the book is occupied by this detail?
Yet on such a supposition many a commentator upon the
Revelation has built.his system.
But I have not yet done with the declaration at the commencement of the book, that the object of the Revelation
is "to show the servants of Christ what must come to
pass."  Many, I am aware, have stopped short with this
single consideration, and endeavored to -justify their syllabus of civil and ecclesiastical history thereby. But there




IN TaE PROPHECIES.                111
is another most important circumstance attending this declaration, which needs to be noted. This is,
(2) That the things to come to pass are those, which are
SHORTLY TO COME TO PASS.
I cannot stop here to examine how often the repeated
declarations of this book to this purpose have been overlooked, or the force of them evaded by ingenious conjecture. lMost expositors have indeed made too little of these
direct and positive declarations; but a few, such as Wetstein, IHerder, and some others, have made too much.
There is a mediium; nor is it difficult, as I apprehend the
matter, to discover -what it is.  The great body of the
work appears to me, beyond any well-grounded doubt, to
have reference to events speed iy to take place, or at least
speedzily to coammezce takincg flace; for the second catastrophe is a prolonged one, as may be seen in Rev. XVI.-xIX.
A  very small portion of the work, e. g. chap. xx. xxI;,
has respect most plainly to the distant future. This is
what the nature of the case would seem to require, and
this too is what the nature of the expressions under consideration admits.  More or less than this would not be
compatible with both of these.
We must now turn our special attention, for a few moments, to the further development of the declarations in
question.  In Rev. 1: I the writer says, that God gave to
Christ the Revelation, " in order to show his servants what
should take place Ev Cr,  speedily,  Uieeily,   cky."  In 1: 3, the
author solekmnly declares, that what is written in this book
is of speedy accomplishment:'0 xatEWg r77[y', tie tine is
zear, i. e. the time when what is revealed will be accomplished.  Thus much in the prologue to the book.  The
epilogue repeats three several times the equivalent declaration: Behold oI comze quickly! 22: 7, 12, 2Q.  The conminZg of Christ is the main subject of the book; so that the




112             DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
declaration here is, that what the book contains will speedily be-accomplished.
That such must be the meaning, is evident by appeal to
similar declarations in Rev. 2: 16. 3: 11, and 11: 14. No
one can doubt, that what is said is what is meant, in these
last cases.  As little reasonable doubt can there be, if
philology is to be- trusted, in the cases just cited from the
prologue and epilogue of the book.
What tolerable meaning now canl be given, and defended on exegetical grounds, to the declarations in question,
if we suppose that the main portion of the book relates to
events some thousand and more of years then future? And
if every writer is to be permitted the liberty of explaining
his own purpose, why should we refuse to John the liberty
that we concede to all others?
But still, one more consideration is to be taken into
view, to which I have already alluded.  This is, that a
very small portion of the book, (strictly considered only
-chap. xx., for the sequel is mere expansion of a part of
this), has respect to the distant future.  So plain is this
distant future here brought into view, that no explanation
or defence of this position is needed.  Of course some
modification of the expressions, coming to pass quickly
and coming quickly, is necessary.  But here is no difficulty. The great mass of the book respects events in reality
to be completed speedily, or speedily to commence being
completed.  On these the writer dwells at length, and
spreads them out from chap. 6: 1 to chap. 19: 21. Of the
distant future he gives, even in the sequel, nothing more
than a few rapid glances. In describing the new heavens
and the'new earth he is indeed more copious; but this is
a delightfull theme, and is not properly prediction, but description which is intended for the very purpose of creating
emotion in the breast of his readers.




IN THE PROPHECIES.               113
Thus considered, all harmonizes.  We admit the full
force of the declarations, that a speedy accomplishment of
what is said, i. e. of the great portion of what is said, will
take place.  We interpret the words of the writer in a
straight-forward manner, without resort to any subterfuges,
without at all explaining awaythe writer's words.  We
extend the briefness of time for accomplishment, to every
thing in the book which in its nature is susceptible of such
an application.  More cannot reasonably be asked; less
cannot reasonably be assumed; for every writer should be
left, so far as may be, to explain himself.'(3) It would seem to follow from the positions thus laid
down, that we are at liberty, or rather that we are obliged,
if possible, to seek for a fulfilment of the predictions in the
main body of the Apocalypse, within a time which is not
far distant from the period when the book was written.  If
such a fulfilment can be found as coincides with the periods named in the Apocalypse, then what good reason
can be offered why we should reject it?  Or rather: Why
are we not exegetically obliged to admit it?
That there are some designations of time in the Apocalypse, which are to be symbolically taken, i. e. which,
though definitely expressed, are not meant to be urged by
the reader in the literal shape, all, I suppose, will concede.
For example; in Rev. 2: 10 it is said to the church- at
Smyrna, that "the devil would cast some of them into prison, that they might be tried and afflicted for ten days."
That a short period merely, but not a strictly definite one,
is here meant, will be generally admitted. If the reader
wishes to see how the scriptural writers can employ the
number ten in such a kind of way, he may compare 1 Sam.
25: 38. Neh. 5: 18. Jer. 42: 7. Dan. 1: 12, 14. Acts 25:
6, al.; where he may find examples to this purpose.  The
I 0*




114            DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
mind naturally prefers a definite time, as being more emphatic; hence ten days may well be taken for a short, but
really indefinite, period. We may compare with such a
usage the Latin sex centies (six hundred times), which, in
the like way, means a large and indefinite number of times.
It is scarcely necessary to mention, that hour of trial,
in Rev. 3: 10, means season of trial; and such is the meaning of the word hour oftentimes in the Old Testament and
in the New.
Once more; in Rev. 9: 10 it is said, that the army of
locusts from the abyss, commissioned to inflict wounds upon men like those of scorpions, " should have power to injure menfive months.". Now as the natural locust makes
his appearance about the commencement of May, and departs about the close of September, it would seem quite
plain that the writer had regard to this, in the limitation
of the period during which the locusts from the abyss
were to torment men. The design plainly seems to be, to
indicate that they shall torment them  only for a short period, like to that in which the natural locusts consume the
productions of the earth. Of course, a period strictly definite does not appear to be here designated; for plainly
such cannot have been the writer's design. We may therefore reckon this among those cases, in which the use of
numbers is to be understood in a tropical way. All attempts to show that a day for a year is meant here, would
be nugatory; for to what can 150 years in this case be applied? Equally nugatory is it to attempt the making out
of any valid proof, that the exact literal five months is here
to be insisted on. Any series of historical facts, which
would accord well with the account of the ravages of the
locusts as here described, never has been, and in my apprehension never can be, satisfactorily made out.  The
whole is poetic tropical description, intended to show the




IN THE PROPHECIES.              115
aggravated punishment which the persecutors of Christianity will receive.
But the designations of time in the Apocalypse, about
which there is any important controversy, may be found
in chap. XI. —x1., and in chap. xx. The latter, however,
stands by itself; our principal concern is with the former.
In Rev. 11: 2, it is predicted that " the Gentiles shall
tread under foot the holy city, forty and two months,"
which are equal to 3l years or 1260 days.  That Jerusa1em is here meant, the very epithet given to it (holy city)
shows; or if this should be questioned, v. 8th settles the
controversy, for it names the city as the place where our
Lord was crucified.  Besides; the temple of God that was
to be measured (11: 1), was there; and in chap. vII., the
144,000 who are to be sealed, and thus exempted from impending evils, are all selected from the twelve tribes of Israel. Declarations such as these must identify the objects
of chastisement in view by the writer, in all which he has
disclosed in chap. v. xI., viz. the destruction of the Jewish persecuting power. Jerusalem, as being the metropolis, is, as often in the Old Testament, made the symbol or
representative of the whole country or nation. The reader
needs only to be reminded, how often Zion and Jerusalem stand, in prophetic language, as the representatives
of the Jewish government, polity, land, and nation, in order to accede to the position, that the capitals in the
Apocalypse are to be considered as the symbols of the country and of the government to which they belong.
When John therefore predicts, in Rev. 11: 2, that "the
holy city shall be trodden under foot 42 months," this of
course involves- the idea, that the country of which the
holy city is the capital, is also trodden under foot. To
make their way to the capital, a foreign enemy, coming (as
the Romans did) from the north, must have overrun a




116             DESIGNATIONS OF TIMIE
great portion of Palestine antecedently to the capture of
Jerusalem. The prediction of course includes both, inasmuch as the holy city is made the representative of the
country at large.
I understand this prediction as being in substance the
same as that in Matt. xxiv., and in the parallel passages of
the other Evangelists.  The consummation is related in
Rev. xi., i. e. the consummation of the event for which
preparation had been making;  which preparation the
Apocalyptist exhibits in chap. v.-x.  Let us now resort
to history, and see what the result of an inquiry respecting
facts will be.
Previous to the final outbreak of a general war between
the Jews and Romans, there had been often repeated tumults and partial insurrections, and a state of great disquiet and insecurity for some time, but especially were all
these things greatly augmented in A. D. 66; all of which
corresponds well with the descriptions in the Evangelists
and in Rev. v.-x.  At length in Oct. of A. D. 66, Cestius, the Roman Prefect of Syria, moved by the tumults of
the Jews, laid siege -to Jerusalem, and captured the, lower
part of the city; but after a few days he abandoned this
enterprise and retreated. The unquiet state of things in
Palestine being made known to Nero at Rome, during the
winter that followed, he sent Vespasian and his son Titus,
to subdue and punish the Jews. In the spring of the following year (A. D. 67), Vespasian having collected his
troops made a -descent, early in the month of May, upon
Galilee.  The attack upon Palestine having thus commenced, it was continued thenceforth with unabated fury,
until the city of Jerusalem and temple were taken and utterly destroyed, early in Aug. A. D. 70.  And although
the war was still carried on, after this, against several
small fortresses here and there, yet it was considered as




IN THE PROPHECIES.              117
substantially at an end, by the capture of Jerusalem; and
such was indeed the fact, for Titus and the main part of
his army soon left the country.
Here then are the 42 months in question, with the variations at most of only a few days, or possibly weeks.
The time when the imperial power of Rome, i. e. Nero,
made a formal declaration of war against Judea and commissioned Vespasian and his son to'execute his hostile determination, may be fairly taken as the terminus a quo of
the Jewish war; for all that had preceded was but temporary and local insurrection on the part of the Jews, and
was resisted only by the subordinate authority and power
of the Prefect of the province. This commission appears
to have been given in the latter part of the winter of A. D.
67; for we find that Vespasian, who repaired to Antioch
after receiving it, in order to collect his troops, was not
ready to march upon Judea until some time in the month
of May of the same year. If we suppose now that the former part of February was the month when war was declared, or the commission made out, we shall find that three
years and six months elapsed, between this period and the
taking of Jerusalem  and destroying it, on the 10th of
Aug. A. D. 70.
During this period, the disciples of Christ, giving heed
to the warning of their divine Master (Matt. 24: 16-22),
fled from  Palestine, and retreated to the wilderness-country east of the Jordan; thus fulfilling, as we shall have occasion to remark in the sequel, the period of flight for safety to the wilderness, which is attributed to the woman (the
church), in Rev. 12: 6, 14.
Another (period mentioned in Rev. 11: 3 is of the same
extent as that which has already been examined, and contemporaneous with it. It was foretold by the Saviour, in
Matt. 24: 9-13, that, during the aggressive war made




118              DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
upon Judea, the; spirit of persecution against Christians
would rage in an unwonted manner, and many of his disciples perish.  Such was indeed the case.  The fury of'the Zealot-party was without bounds, when the rage of
war had enkindled all their violent passions.  Although
the great mass of Christians fled from before them and the
Romans, so as to save their lives, yet all did not and could
not retreat. Many remained in their country, faithful confessors of Christianity even unto death.  Against these
witnesses (see Rev. 11: 3) or martyrs, the great body of the
Jews are represented as arraying themselves, in Rev. 11:
3-12, and as persecuting them unto death.  For a while,
the miraculous powers of some of the Christian teachers
overawed their malignant enemies, IRev. 11: 5, 6. But at
last the faithful witnesses were destroyed. The period of
consummating their destruction is limited, however, in the
same manner as that of the subjugation of Palestine. During all the period of tRomish invasion, the spirit of hostility to Christianity was active; and yet persecution unto
death did not root out Christianity. It continued rising,
it triumphed; for " the blood of martyrs was the seed- of
the church."
The destruction of Jerusalem put an end of course to
the~ Jewish persecuting power in Judea.  Consequently
the period in which. Christianity becomes triumphant over
persecution there, is contemporaneous with the destruction
of Jerusalem.  Nothing can be more clear, than that the
period of the two witnesses is the same as that of " treading
the holy city under foot by the Gentiles," Rev. 11: 2, 3.
Two witnesses, and' but two, are specified, as we may
very naturally suppose, because "by the mouth- of two or
three witnesses every word is established."
The sum of Rev. xI. is, then, that the Romans would
invade and tread down Palestine for 31 years, and that




IN THE PROPHECIES.              119
Christians, during that period, would be bitterly persecuted
and slain; but still, that, after the same period, the persecution would cease there, and the religion of Jesus become
triumphant. The words of the Saviour in Matt. xxiv.,
compared with the tenor of Rev. xi., seem to lead us plainly and safely to these conclusions. And in these we may
acquiesce, because historical facts are before us, which
serve to show that the forty-two monthis or 1260 days are
to be understood in their plain and obvious sense.
BWe may now come to the other periods, named in Rev.
xII. xiii.  The writer of the Apocalypse here passes to
the second great catastrophe in his august drama, and
conmmences it with a proem which is regressive. The woman clothed with the sun, and having under her feet the.
moon and stars, is a symbol of the church all glorious and
resplendent in the eyes of God and all his faithful servants.
The man-child who is born, and who is " to rule all nations
with a sceptre of iron" (Ps. 2: 9. Rev. 12: 5), is doubtless
the Messiah. The dragon ready to devour him at his birth,
reminds us of Herod's attempt to massacre the infant Saviour at Bethlehem, when moved to such a deed by the
great adversary of Christianity.  Tahe child caught up unto God, is the Saviour ascended to glory.  The flight of
the woman to the desert, for 1260 days, at a period subsequent to this (comp. vs. 5, 6), is a symbol of the church
fleeing from the invading Romans and persecuting Jews,
during the subjugation of Palestine.  At Pella in the wilderness, beyond the Jordan, the Christians of Judea found
safety and freedom, Rev. 12: 6, 14. The latter of these
two verses designates again the same period'of retreat and
safety as the sixth verse, but in a different way, viz., it is
designated (after the manner of Dan. 7: 25. 12: 7) by the
expression time and times and a half a time, Rev. 12: 14.




1250            DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
When this period expires, then the church is freed from
the desolating power in Palestine; as it was, of old, freed
from the like power in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes.
The similarity of events, in the two'cases, gives occasion
to adopt the same language in respect to the continuance
of both.
Only one more period of the like extent remains. It is
that designated in Rev. 13: 5; where it is said of the beast
which rises up out of the sea, that' he should have power
to persecute during forty-two months.' Who this beast
was, we cannot, after the explanations given in Rev. xvII.,
well doubt.   The persecuting power of imperial pagan
_Rome, and specially that power as ezercised by NERO, is,
beyond all reasonable question, symbolized by the beast
described in Rev. 13: 3 seq.
The first position here, viz. that the persecuting power
of pagan Rome is symbolized, will hardly be called in
question.  But the particular reference to Nero may not
improbably be questioned; and therefore, a few words in
respect to this will not-be out of place.
To-the beast is assigned seven heads and ten horns, Rev.
13: 1. That the seven heads represent so many kings or
emperors, (for both were called flaldtit by-the Greeks),
is certain from  the explanation given in Rev. xvII. 10.
"The seven heads.... are seven kings."   But in the
language of the Apocalyptist, the beast stands not only as
a symbol of the imperial power of Rome, generically considered, but frequently for that power as exercised by some
individual king or emperor, e. g. Nero.  Such is the usage
in chap. xiII. xvii., and occasionally elsewhere.  It is important to note this; for otherwise the reader may be easily
misled.  Whenever the beast is distinguished from the
seven heads, it then is employed as a generic symbol of




IN THE PROPHECIES.              121
the imperial power; but when particular and specific actions or qualities of a personal and distinctive nature are
predicated of the beast, it designates the imperial power
as individually exercised, e. g. by Nero.
That Nero was in the exercise of this power when John
wrote the Apocalypse, seems to be quite plain from Rev.
xvii. 10: 4  "Five [kings] are fallen; one is; the other has
not yet come, but when he shall come, he will continue
but a short.time."  The Jive fallen are Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius. Of course Nero
is the sixth; and he is therefore the one who now is. Galha, who reigned but seven months, makes the seventh.
Some recent commentators indeed, e. g. Ewald, Luicke, and
some others, begin to count with Augustus, and end with
Otho; but this was not the usual- method of reckoning
among either the Romans or the Jews, (as I hope to show
elsewhere); for, that they usually reckoned in the manner
above stated, may be seenr in Suetonius' Twelve Caesars.
So also in Orac. Sybill. V. 12. 4 Ezra 12: 15. Josephus,
Antiq. xvIII. 2. 2, also xvIii. 6, 10. xix. 1, 11. Chronicon
Pascale, p. 533 (edit. Bonn.), also p. 360. And the same
is true of some other ancient writers. T. his seems to fix
both the date of the Apocalypse itself, and to designate the
individual who exercised the power of the beast, when John
wrote the Revelation.
But there are other things in the Apocalypse which
serve also to characterize Nero, so as hardly to leave room
for mistake.  Thus in chap. xIII. 3: " [I saw] one of his
heads [viz. of the beast] as it were smitten unto death;
and his deadly wound was healed." Again in the explanatory part of the second catastrophe, Rev. 17: 8, the angel
says to John: "The beast which thou sawest, was, and is
not, and will come up from the abyss, and go to destruction; and those who dwell on the earth shall wonder,
11




DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
(whose names are not written in the book of life from the
foundation of the world), when they behold the beast that
was, and is not, and will make his appearance," (raEUTaraw)
Once more in Rev. xvii. II11 -  And the be'ast which was,
and is not, even he is an eighth, and is of the seven, and
goeth to destruction."
To recount the efforts which have been made to interpret these passages, would of itself require somewhat of a
volume. I have never seen, and cannot find, but one probable solution; and that is drawn from the history of the
times, and particularly the history of what was said and
generally believed respecting Nero, during his life-time,
and even long after his death. I can give here only a mere
sketch; but this may aid the further inquiries of the reader.
It was predicted by soothsayers of Nero, early in his
reign, that he would be deprived of his office, flee his
country, go to the East, and there recover dominion, specially in Palestine.  Many foretold, that he would eventually recover the whole of his former dominion. The
passage where this is fully related, may be found in Suetonius' Nero, c. 40.
This report was modified in the course of its diffusion,
and assumed a- great variety of shapes. The most usual
one, by far, seems to have been, that Nero would be assassinated, receive a wound apparently deadly, recover from
it, and subsequently go to the East and return from it with
great power, ravage Palestine, lay waste the church, and
finally re-enter Rome with fire and sword, and avenge himself of all his former enemies.
In consequence of this, the great mass of the community, at that period, do not appear to have believed in the reality of Nero's death at the time when he was assassinated.
Suetonius has related (Nero, c. 57), that many even at
Rome, for a long time, decked his tomb with flowers, ex



IN THE PROPHECIES.              123
pecting and hoping that he would revive.  Moreover, in
consequence of such an expectation, persons feigning themselves to be Nero, appeared in several of the distant provinces, and made great disturbances.  Suetonius has told
the story of such an impostor among the Parthians; Nero,
c. 7, see also Tacitus,  [ist. I. 2. Tacitus has also told a
similar story of another impostor in Achaia and Asia Minor, Hist. II. 8. This was in the region where the Apocalypse was written, and shows that such reports must have
been familiar to John's readers.  Dio Chrysostom, (a contemporary of Vespasian), in his Oratio de Pulchritud. (p.
371) relates, that most persons supposed Nero to be still
alive.
Thus much for the belief of the heathen in general.
Nor was this belief confined to them. Christians widely
participated in it. Passages in abundance are to be found
in parts of the Sibylline Oracles, some of which- were
written about A. D. 90, and others early in the second century, which show most plainly how vivid the persuasion
was, that Nero would again make, his appearance, notwithstanding his apparently deadly wound. The reader may
find them at great length, in Orac. Sibill. IV. p. 520 seq.
V. p. 547 seq., also p. 560 seq., p. 573 seq., p. 592 seq., p.
619 seq.; likewise in Lib. VIII. p. 688 seq., and p. 693
seq. (edit. Gallaeus); all written by early Christians, and
expressive of their feelings and expectations. So in the
oldest Commentary on the Apocalypse which is extant,
viz. that of Victorinus (t 303), it is said that' Nero was
the beast who-received the deadly wound,' Rev. 13: 3.
Lactantius adverts to the opinion, in his time, that Nero
would yet make his reappearance, De Morte Persecut. c.
2.; and Sulpitius Severus, the ecclesiastical historian,
near the close of the third century, adverts to the same expectation; Hist. Sac. II 28. 11.29. Dial. II. So late as




124             DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
Augustine's time (about A. D. 400), we find the same views
still cherished, August. De Civit. Dei, XX. 19.
The question is not now, at least with me it is not,
whether the writer of the Apocalypse did himself participate in this vulgar belief respecting Nero's reappearance.
I have no apprehension that he cherished such views as
these; certainly not, if he were (as I believe) an inspired
man.' My apprehension is, that in describing the beast,
i. e. Nero, instead-of calling him  by name, (which would
have been, in connection with what he said, a treasonable
offence), he has adverted to him as the person respecting
whom the reports in question were current, and purposely
adverted to him in such a way, in order that his readers
might easily know who was meant.
Several circumstances serve to confirm this view of the
case.  After describing the beast whose deadly wound was
healed, in Rev. 13-: 3-8, he adds immediately: "If any
man has an ear, let him hear," i. e. let the reader very attentively consider who is meant in this case.  He then
subjoins: "If any one leads into exile, he shall go away
into exile;" Rev. 13: 10.  In other words:' He of whom
I have been speaking, is the individual who exiles Christians; but mark well! He shall himself speedily be exiled."  In chap. xvII., the effort to guide his readers and
put them  on their guard against an erroneous construction of his words, is- still more visible.  After speaking of
"the beast which was, and is not, and will come up from
the abyss," he exclaims: Jn2SE o vb S'0 qWy CoqlOYv, here is
a meaning which comprises wisdom."  In other words:
Some special sagacity is needed in the interpretation of
this passage.
By speaking in this way does not John show, that he
does not expect his words, i. e. his description of the beast,
to be understood as if he employed them simply to express




IN THE PROPHECIES.              125
his own individual belief, but only that he introduces upon
the scene the person of whom such things are reported,
viz., such as that his deadly wound is healed, and that he
will again resume his imperial power?
Is there any more difficulty in such a supposition, than
there is when the Saviour says to the Pharisees: "If I cast
out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them
out?" Matt. 12: 27. Is there any more, than when Jesus
speaks -of "unclean spirits as walking through desert
places, seeking rest and finding none?" Matt. 12: 43. In
both cases the popular opinion is cited, without any remark whether it is true or untrue.  The speaker had
another and different purpose in view.  So here; John's
object was secretly to intimate to his readers, who was
meant by the beast; and in order to accomplish this object, he has repeated those things which popular rumor
had spread abroad respecting him, or at least alluded to
them. But, as I have already noted, he has taken care in
each case, to give a caution to his readers how they interpret this, or what use they make of it. On any other
ground, why should these cautions be inserted in these particular places, and omitted in all the other symbolical parts
of the Apocalypse?
If the reader is satisfied, with me, that John might describe Nero in this way, it will (be easy to show him how
well the description comports with the substance of the common rumor.  According to this, Nero was to be assassinated, and to receive a wound apparently deadly, and yet to
recover from it. So says Rev. 13: 3, "-One of the heads
[i. e. Nero] was smitten as it were unto death, and yet his
deadly wound was healed."  What can be more exact?
To detail the widely diverse, contradictory, and, ineffectual
efforts that have been made to explain and apply this in a
different way, would occupy too much time here, and there11*




126             DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
fore be incompatible with my design. The most ingenious among them is that of Bertholdt, who supposes Julius Caesar (who was assassinated) to have been the head
that received the wound. But a conclusive objection to:this is; that not only was his wound not healed; but there
was not any report abroad that it was healed.  Another
conclusive objection is, that the head which was wounded is
described, in the sequel, as persecuting Christianity. This
could not- be true of Julius Caesar, who perished half a
century before the Christian era.
Common report made Nero, after reigning a while, to
disappear for some time, then to make his appearance:again, as if he had come up from the region of the dead,
and finally to perish.  So Rev. 17: 8, " The beast which
thou sawest, was, and is not,,and will come up firom the
abyss [the world of the dead, or the grave], and go to destruction."  To the same purpose exactly is the last clause
iof the verse just quoted: "Beholding the beast, that he
was, and is not, and will make his appearance, arkemeafa."
In v. 11i of the same chapter, a kind of paradoxical description is given of this same beast: " The beast which
was, and-is not, even he is aln eighth, and is of the seven,
and goeth to destruction."  This passage resisted all the
efforts of commentators, before they began to follow in
the path where the history of Nero's times led them.  Now
it becomes comparatively easy.  Nero, who at first was
emperor, then was deposed and assassinated, and afterwards was, according to general belief, to appear again,
would on his reappearance, make an eighth (~0'oos,  not
o'yoo); while, at the same time, Nero had already been
reckoned as one of the seven, and in fact belonged to them.
If'the reader will compare this part of v. 11, with the expressions "will come up from the abyss"-" HxO  -d iQTaI,
and will make his appearance"-in v. 8, he will see that




IN THE PROPHECIES.              127
all three expressions are only diverse modes of designating
one and the same thing. To say that he, "who had been
one of the seven," will be an eighth, is of course the same
as to say, that he will reappear, and stand again in his former place.  This, according to all but universal report
and belief, Nero was expected to do.
So paradoxical are all other interpretations of this passage, or so arbitrary, so conjectural, so diverse, and therefore unsatisfactory, that one is constrained to wonder how
critics could have ever acquiesced in them.  But in the
interpretation of-any book, where the reins are given without check to fancy and imagination, difficulties of this kind
are leaped over instead of being removed. 
Enough to show the probability, I might almost say the
certainty, that Nero is aimed at in this part of the Apocalypse.  This supposed, all the difficulties of the writer's
language appear to be solved, and every thing moves on
harmoniously.
We return then to our principal theme, viz. the designations of time in the book before us.
To the beast, which we have just endeavoured to describe, "is given power to do [his own will] forty and two
months;" Rev. 13: 5. The context shows that the power
and will in question have respect to the persecuting of
Christians.  Bitter and bloody was this persecution; but
it was to last only 31 years.
Turn we now to the pages of history, and we shall find
that Nero commenced his horrible persecutions of Christians, about the middle or in the latter part of Nov. A. D.
64. All agree that this persecution ended immediately on
the death of Nero; and this took place on the day that
Galba entered Rome and was proclaimed emperor, i. e. on
the 9th of June, A. D. 68. Here then is the often repeated
and peculiar period of 3- years, being only a few days of




a128            DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
excess beyond that measure of time. ~ By this small excess
of only a few days, no one of course can be stumbled; for
how is it reasonable to suppose, that in respect to a celebrated period, so often repeated and already become so
famous, a statistical exactness would or could be aimed at?
Enough that only a few days at most can be considered
as supernumerary.
Thus becomes apparent the truth of the writer's most
solemn declarations, both in his prologue and epilogue,
that the time is shortl or near, when what is predicted
will take place. It is not necessary, as we have already
seen, to suppose that these declarations, pertain to any
more than the leading and essential parts of the book; but
so much as this we must suppose, in order to elicit from
them any thing like their real meaning. The views which
I have given above, aim at interpreting the book in consistency with those declarations. They do so by appeal to
historical facts-facts which evidently accord with the
spirit and language of the book.
In order to prevent all misconception of my meaning, I
must here suggest, that' while the destruction of the beast
is by implication predicted in Rev. 13: 5, as taking place
after forty-two months, and thus relief and deliverance as
being given to the church, yet the manner in which the
second catastrophe in the Apocalypse, viz. what is contained in chap. xII —xix., is presented, makes on the whole
the distinct impression, that the first routing of the beast
or destruction of Nero, does not complete the whole of the
catastrophe. Let the reader compare the 16th chap., specially the close of it, with chap. xvnI. xix., and he will easily discern, that although the beast of John's time is destroyed, and thus the heathen persecuting power paralyzed
for a time, yet the writer evidently supposes the contest
not to be wholly at an end, but continued for a period




IN THE PROPHIECIES.            129
which he does not limit. Yet the ultimate triumph of the
church is' certain; and so chap. xix. represents it. The
great and leading event, however, which the writer had
particularly in view, viz. the end of Nero's life and persecution, was to take place speedily, in accordance with the
declarations of the prologue and epilogue, as exhibited on
p. 11 seq. above. Such a view of the subject shows us,
that an indication of the protracted contest of the church
with the beast, is not inconsistent with the language which
John has employed in the proem of his book.
On looking back and reviewing the series of facts which
have now been brought into view, it is certainly remarkable, that so many important occurrences, in the history
of the Jewish and Christian church, should be limited to
3j years or forty-two monthls. The wasting of Jerusalem
and Palestine by Antiochus Epiphanes, and also by the
Romans, continued just about the same length of time;
the bitter persecution of the two witnesses, and the retreat
of the woman (the church) to the wilderness, were of the
same extent of time; and finally the persecution by Nero
parallelizes altogether with these events, as to continuance.
No wonder then, that 31 years (i. e. half of the perfect
number seven) should have become a very common limitation of events which took place, or were supposed to take
place, within a moderate period of time. Thus in, James
5: 17 and Luke 4: 25, it is said, that in the time of Elijah " it did not rain for the space of three years and six
months;" although in I Kings 17: 1 seq. no limitation is
assigned to the time. So the Rabbins: "He [the king
of Babylon] sent Nebuzaradan, that he might lay waste
Jerusalem  three years and six months;" Eccha IV. 12.
"Three years and a half Vespasian besieged Jerusalem;"
Eccha I. 5. "Adrian besieged Bither three years and a




130             DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
half;" Ecc. II. 2. "The punishment of the antediluvians, of the Egyptians, and of the impious Gog and Magog,
in Gehenna, will be twelve months; that of Nebuchadnezzar and Vespasian will be 39 years;" Ecc. 1. 12. All
these examples, and more which might be produced, serve
to show how extensively the limitation of time now in
question was employed in ancient times.  It accorded
with the great and well known periods of devastation, in
earlier times. And such being the fact, a statistical exactness cannot be reasonably supposed to be aimed at, in
cases of this nature.  Any near approximation to the
measure of time in question, would of course be regarded
as a sufficient reason for setting it down under the general
rubric.
We have now gone through with all the designations of
time in the Apocalypse, which are the subjects of particular interest, excepting one. This is the famous thousand
years, from which the M'illennium  takes its name, and
which is predicted in Rev. 20: 4-7. Is this to be literally understood? Or is a day here to be counted for a year?
If it were allowable for an interpreter to give that meaning to words which would best accord with his own wishes, I should be altogether disposed to join here with those,
who make every day to stand for a year. Three hundred
and sixty thousand years, (for the year of prophetic diction
is, beyond all reasonable'doubt, 12 months of 30 days
each), of uninterrupted prosperity to the church-of the
church as extended over a great portion of the human
race-is a most delightful idea. And inasmuch as the
promise has been made, that " the seed of the woman shall
bruise the serpent's head," why may we not suppose that
the universal diffusion and triumph of Christianity will endure, for a period as long as this? Most gladly would I




IN THE PROPHECIES.               131
find reason, if I could, to acquiesce in such a delightful
view of prophecy. But the laws of interpretation forbid
me; and how can I repeal them?
No intimation is given by John, in Rev. 20: 4-6, that
days stand for years. The analogy of the book, if we may
trust the results to which we have already come, is against
such an interpretation.  Designations of time are, in their
very nature, the least susceptible of all parts of language,
of bearing a secondary or arbitrary meaning.  In their
own nature they are capable of but one tropical sense;
and this is where a few particular numbers are taken, by
customary usage, as the symbols- of some generic and abstract idea; e. g. when seven is taken as the symbol of
completeness or fulness, or a thousand for the idea of much,
great multitude, large quantity, etc.  Even this use is
exceedingly limited extending to only three, seven, and
perhaps ten, forty, one thousand, and ten thousand.  In all
other cases, number is simply number, literally number
and nothing else. From the nature of the case, those instances only can be excepted, where the writer or speaker
tells us expressly, that he makes a less time (e. g. one day)
the representative of a greater period (e. g. one year).
A thousand years, then, in Rev. 20: 4-6, must mean
simply what it says, or it must be interpreted as being
symbolically employed in order to designate, the generic
idea of a very long period., That the Scriptures afford
some ground for interpreting it in this latter manner, may
be seen by considering for a moment the nature of the following expressions: " The Lord make you a thousand
times as many as you are! God who keepeth covenant
to a thousand generations. How should one chase a thousand!  If there be an interpreter, one of a thousand.
The cattle on a thousand hills are mine.  A day in thy
courts is better than a thousand.  A thousand shall fall at




132            DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
thy side.  Though he live a thousand years twice told.
One man among a thousand have I found. A little one
shall become a thousand. The city that went out by a
thousand. And they sacrificed.. a thousand bullocks,
a thousand rams, and a thousand lambs; [literal, in one
sense, but having a tropical significance].  One day is
with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years
as one day."
Thus there evidently runs, through the whole Bible, an
idiom which employs a thousand as an indefinite expression to designate a great number, a large quantity; and
we act consistently as critics, if we so interpret it in Rev.
20: 4-6. But we stand on ground still more safe and
certain, if we interpret it simply in accordance with its
literal and obvious meaning.
That thefinal proportion of men who will be redeemed,
must be greater, yea much greater than that which will be
lost, seems to be made certain, by the ancient promise,
that "the seed of the woman should bruise the' serpent's
head.'.' Gen. 3: 15.  But how can this promise be true,
if, after all, Satan shall destroy the larger portion of the
human" race?   We may reasonably conclude, then, that
during the millennial period, when many of the present
causes of abridging and destroying human life shall cease,
and the means of subsistence be greatly increased, that the
world will support some twenty or more times as many
people as it now does, (which it is clearly capable of doing), and that the predominant portion of these, during all
that period, will be Christians.  I say the predominant
portion; for this is all that Rev. xx. allows me to say. Immediately after the expiration of the thousand years, Gog
and Magog come up " from the four corners of the earth,"
i. e. its distant extremities-come up " in numbers as the
sand of the sea," in order "to make war against the




iN THE PROPHECIES.             133
saints," Rev. 20: S.  Now there is not the least intimationihere, on the part of the writer, that Gog and Magog
are apostates or deserters from the Christian camp. On
the contrary, their abode is not among Christians in the
civilized and christianized parts of the world, but only
in the four corners or most distant extremities of the
world. That the number of them is said to be" like the
sands of the sea," is enough to show, that Christianity had
not yet, during the thousand years, extended to the whole
of the human race. That apostates from  Christianity,
and from true Christianity, (for surely such is the religion
of the Millennium), could at once be made of numbers so
great as are here named, is out of all reasonable question.
The thing is impossible on the ground of divine promise,
and improbable as it respects the habits and the nature of
sanctified men.
It would be foreign to my present purpose to dwell on
the question: Who are Gog and Magog? The reader
may find them, and the history of the war which they will
wage, in Ezek. xxxvlII. xxxix.  When Ezekiel and John
wrote, Gog and Magog, in the common language of the
day, were'names which imported in Palestine and in the
East, what the word Scythian did of old to the Greeks and
the Romans. They were the hordes of the northern Caucasus-region, who were regarded as barbarians and (ifI
may make use of a phrase familiar to us) as living out of
the world. By people such as these, John predicts that
the third and last great assault will be made upon the
church. It will be violent, but short. And the sequel will
be the universal reign of Christianity; for Satan will now
be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20: 10), and there will
of course " be nothing to hurt or offend in all God's holy
mountain."@
* In Ezek. 38: 2, Gog and Magog are associated with M3eshech
and Tubal; which circumstance gives us a clue to the locality of
12




134               DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
The assumption so often made that the end of the world
is immediately to follow the overthrow of Gog and Magog,
is by no means certain, nor even at all probable.  It does
those nations. There is no room to doubt that Meshech and Tubal lie near the south-eastern extremity of the Euxine Sea, or between that and the Caspian lake; see Rosenm. Bib. Geog. I. p. 240.
Ges. Lex. in verba. The country of Magog must have been somewhere in this vicinity, and most probably it lay northward among
the Caucasian mountains. So the whole current of ancient writers seems to have decided. Jerome (on Ezek. 38: 2) says, that
e; Magog means the Scythian nations, fierce and innumerable, who
live beyond the Caucasus and the lake Maeotis, and near the
Caspian Sea, and spread out onward even to India." In the same
manner Theodoret speaks; and also Asseman, Biblioth. Orient. 111
Pars. II. 16, 17, 20. The Arabian books are full of appeals to Gog
and Magog; as may be seen in Klaproth's Asiat. Magazine, I. p.
138 seq., where a large selection of passages is exhibited. Mohammed has more than once named Gog and Magog in the Coran.
In Sura XVIII. 94, he alludes to Alexander the Great as building a
high wall of brass and iron, between the mountain-passes of the
north, in order to keep Gog and Magog from making excursions
into the more southern regions. Toward the end of the world,
this wall, as he represents it, will be broken down, and Gog and
Magog will rush through, and lay waste the regions of the South.
They, with other infidels, will then all be turned into Gehenna,
and the end of the world will come. Another allusion to this same
tradition, may be found in Sura XXI. 95 seq.
In accordance with this, a Syrian Jacobite Christian, about the
same period in which Mohammed lived, wrote a poem in Syriac
hexameters, which has been published in G. Kn6s' Syriac Chrestomathy, A. D. 1807. This remarkable production also assigns to
Alexander the building of an iron wall or gates between the horthern [Caucasian] mountain-pass, in order to keep out Gog and Magog from more southern Asia. Near the close of the world the
gates are to be opened, and Gog and Magog, with countless hosts,
will overrun and destroy all the southern countries.
Facts illustrating the traditions developed by these ancient writers, may easily be stated. Russia took possession of the region between the Euxine and Caspian Seas, about A. D. 1772.  S. G.




IN THE PROPEIECIES.                  135
not follow from the fact, that John immediately proceeds,
in his prophecy, to give an account of the general judgment. All that follows from this is, that it was to John's
purpose to touch next upon this, having shown the complete and final triumph of Christianity over all enemies.
The usage of the prophets in respect to junctions of such
a nature, in their descriptions, can hardly fail to be noticed by every observing eye.  For example; in Is. II., the
Emelin, a man of scientific acquirements, was soon sent out to explore the newly acquired territory. In his book of travels, published in A. D. 1774, he mentione, that he found a high wall, with towers at short distances, and much of them in a state of entire preservation, running from Derbend, the head quarters of the Russians on
the Caspian Sea, toward the Euxine Sea, and extending, according to the universal tradition of the inhabitants of that region, entirely to the Euxine Sea. All agreed in calling this the wall of Gofr
and JMag'og.
In addition to this it should be stated, that the celebrated English
traveller, R. Kerr Porter, visited Derbend in 1819, where the same
story was told him respecting the wall in question; but accident
prevented his going to see it; Travels II. p. 520.
The reader who wishes to pursue the further investigation of this
curious subject, may consult Rosenln. Bib. Geog. I. p. 244. Ritter's
Erdkunde, Th. 1I. p. 834 seq. Bayer, De Muro Caucaseo, Opusc.
p. 94. Reinegg, Beschreibung des Caucasus, I. p. 120. See also
Rosenm. Comm, in Ezek. 38: 2.
Thus it appears, that those "Asiatic Scythians," Gog and Magog,
were a people well known in ancient times, and greatly dreaded.
We cannot suppose that either Ezekiel or John meant their names
to be literally interpreted; but so much we must suppose, viz., that
both prophets used these appellations as familiar designations of a
numerous and savage people. It is the work of destruction which
they rush forth to accomplish-the destruction of the people of
God. But they are speedily arrested, and meet with a fearful
doom. So will -it doubtless be with the last and powerful enemies
of the church, frnom whatever quarter they may come. "W When
the enemy shall rush in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord will lift
up a standard against them."




136             DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
prophet joins the coming of the Messiah, with the severe
punishment of the oppressive and luxurious Jews of that
time.  He goes sill further, and even apparently links the
one with the other by the phrase in that dlay.  Again he
describes, in most graphic language, the punishment of his
contemporaries, chap. vII. vIII., and then unites with this
description one of the most prominent Messianic passages
in the Old Testament, viz., that in chap. ix., " To us a
Child is born, a Son is given, etc." In chap. x. he gives
a copious account of the invasion of the king of Assyria,
and of his overthrow; and then he immediately subjoins a
glowing description of the Messianic and Millennial day,
chap. xI. Here only the particle i (and),= —xt in Rev.
20: 11, stands between the two descriptions, without an
intimation of any interval. With the overthrow of Idumea, in chap. xxxIv., he unites a glowing description of
the Messianic day, chap. xxxv.  In the last twenty-six
chapters of this prophet, the constant transitions from deliverance out of the Babylonish exile to the deliverance
wrought by the Messiah, cannot escape any but the most
inattentive reader.
- Thus it is in the evangelical prophet.. Have any others
followed in the same path? They have. The book of
Daniel unites with the end of the four great monarchies,
viz., the Babylonish, the Medo-Persian, that of Alexander
the Great, and that of his immediate Successors, the coming of the Messiah, yea the coming of the Millennium.
So in chap. II. vii. and Ix.  In other. prophets the same
thing is equally common, in cases of Messianic prophecy.
Well has it been said, by an acute and learned interpreter of our times, that the prophets are like those, who,
placed on an eminence, have a widely extended view of a
distant country.  But that country is one of hills and
mountains, not an extended plain. Of course they can




iN THE PROPHECIES,              137
see only the tops of eminences, and have no means of
judging how extensive are the valleys or table-lands between.  They do not undertake, therefore, to calculate
distances.  In speaking of these things, they turn the attention of their readers only to what they have seen themselves, i. e. the prominent parts of the landscape.
So with John and other prophets. Great events-the
prominences of history-are seen and described, but (for
the most part at least) not the intervals of time between.
In the case before us, the description of the general judgment
comes cfter the description of the fall of Gog and Magog,
because the writer, having now brought the church to a
state of universal triumph and security, hastens to complete
his work by pointing out the glorious rewards that will ensue, and the everlasting blessedness of the church triumphant.
My belief therefore is, that the setting sun of. our world
will be in unclouded glory.  "Its hoary head," to borrow
from a sacred writer, "will indeed be a crown of glory."
My principal reasons for this are, that the promises made to
the church and to its Redeemer; the benevolence of the
Godhead,: and the triumph of mercy over the malignity and
craft of Satan; and also the analogy of all God's purposes
and doings, in which there is always an advance toward
the highest good-all unite in seeming to require such an
interval of rest and peace and prosperity to his church.
How long this will be, how many will become sons and
daughters of the Lord Almighty, I do not pretend to know.
But so much we may believe, viz., that "the Seed of the
woman will bruise the serpent's head;" and therefore that
the number of the redeemed, from our fallen race, will at
last immeasurably exceed that of the lost.
What a consoling hope, in such a world of sin and misery
as this! Few indeed, thus far, can with any probability
12*




138              DESIGNATIONS OF TIME
be numbered among the children of God.  Every year is
sending its thirty millions to his tribunal, and has long
been executing the same tremendous task.  But is it to be
always so?  The thousand years of triumph to the church
we have seen not to be strictly universal.  Numbers as
the sand of the sea are still in the regions of Gog and Magog. And shall one thousand years only, of the reign of
Christianity thus limited, be allowed for the Redeemer's
triumph, and more than six thousand for Satan's?  Forbid it, all that is benevolent in the Godhead! Forbid it,
dying love of Jesus! Forbid it, all the precious promises
which the words of everlasting truth present, engraved in
characters of light, and elevating the hopes of dying man
to a heaven of unfading glory, filled with countless beings
made in the image of their God and Saviour!
But while I do most earnestly hope, and cannot but be-,lieve, that the close of the world's existence will be a period of great prosperity and glory to the church, I cannot
in any degree harmonize with those views respecting this
period, which apply to it the descriptions in Rev. xxI. xxnI.,
and the corresponding portions of the Old Testament prophets.  The new heaven and the new earth, in Rev. 20: 1,
is plainly not the old heaven and old earth refitted and repaired.  "The first heaven and the first earth have passed
away, and there is no more sea," Rev. 2]: 1. Peter says,
also, that " the heavens shall pass away with a great noise,
and the elements burning shall be dissolved, and the earth
and the works therein shall be burned up, arazamrwat,
shall be utterly consumned," " Pet. 3: 10.  The general
judgment, preceded by the universal resurrection of the
dead, Rev. 20: 11-15, is evidently, in the view of the sacred writers, the end of the probation-state of the human
race.  So Paul; who also informs us, that then the mediaforial office itself will be given up, so that the work of re



IN THE PROPHECIES.              139
demption can no longer proceed, 1 Cor. 15: 24 —28.
These facts being thus plainly established, it follows that
a place (so to speak) entirely new, fitted for the residence
of beings with "spiritual bodies," (as Paul calls them
1 Cor. 15: 44), is absolutely necessary. The apprehension
that the present material world is to be so improved and
modified, as to become the future residence of the blessed,
agrees neither with the future state and condition of the
blessed, nor with the declarations of the Scriptures, nor
with the most ardent hopes of spiritual Christians. No;
all true believers." are to be caught up to meet the Lord
in the air, and so shall they -ever be with the Lord," 1
Thess. 4: 17*.
But, allured by the delightful prospects of the church
which are unfolded in the Apocalypse, I am wandering
from my theme. Let us return, and briefly conclude the
present discussion, in which mere hints have been aimed at
and suggested, by a simple recapitulation of what has been
done, and the grounds on which it stands.
~ 5. CONCLUDING REMARKS.
There must be, there are, some principles applicable to
the interpretation of language, which all men are bound
to acknowledge and observe. If'this be not true, then
there is an end to all certainty in the results of interpretation, and we never can tell what the Scriptures do mean,
or what they may not mean.The reason why I have endeavored to show that the
double or occult sense of Scripture is inadmissible, is, that
if we admit it, then we must give up all hope of ever fixing with certainty upon the original meaning of many portions of Scripture, and specially of the prophecies.  If a
* See the Appendix, where this subject is further examined.




140             CONCLUDING REMARKS.
part of what'Daniel predicts, for example, must be applied
first to Antiochus Epiphanes (which is certain), and then
may be applied, as to its occult meaning, to Antichrist, to
the Pope, to Mohammed, or to all of these, then there is
an end to all certainty in exegesis, because there is no tribunal before which the occult sense can be brought and by
which it may be tried. It is because the prophecies have
been so extensively interpreted in this way, specially in
the English and American churches, that I have thought
it important to say so much on this subject. He, who understands the lengths to which this principle of interpretation has been carried, will not adcuse me of having overrated the importance of the subject.
It has also been a very common thing, even among the
better class of interpreters in some cases, to speak of some
of the- prophecies, and to treat them, as having been unintelligible at the time when they were uttered, and as coming to be understood only after they are fulfilled.  Such a
supposition of course. throws to-the winds some of the leading principles of hermeneutics; for if the language ever
had a meaning, it must have been discoverable by the aid
of those principles; and if a meaning is ever assigned to it,
it must be in accordance with these, or else it can be of
no solid worth.  An arbitrary application of language to
particular events, without support from grammar and exegesis, is conjecture, not exposition. Besides all this, such
a prophecy was at most no prediction surely, no revelaction;
for, by the very supposition, it meant nothing intelligible
before the events took place to which it relates, and therefore could make and did make no revelation at all.
It is time for the Christian church to have done with
such problems as these. — On such a ground, the Bible is
no "light shining in a dark place," as Peter affirms it to
be.  It only adds another deepening shade to the gloom al



CONCLUDING REMARKS.               141
ready spread around.  Why then should not such a principle, so dishonorable to divine teachers, and to that word
which is " a light to our feet and a lamp to our path," be
held up to view, and its deformities exposed?
As to that portion of this little work which has respect
to the times designated in the Apocalypse and in the book
of Daniel, the disputes of the present day sufficiently show
the necessity of such inquiries. I have endeavored to
walk in a straight and simple path.  My first great position
has been, that the Bible means what it -says. When it designates times and seasons, therefore, the simple and obvious sense of the words is always to be followed, unless
there is some special reason for departing from it. That
reason can be only one, viz., when the context gives us information that such a departure is to be made. This is
done in Ezek. 4: 5, 6, and in Num. 14: 34. The passage
in Dan. 9: 24 plainly, as we have shown pp. 82 seq., does
not belong to this category. Other cases than these, I am
not aware of. In all others, therefore, where no such departure from the obvious-sense is intimated, it follows of
course that we are not at liberty to depart from it. If this
be not a principle plain and certain, I know of none in the
so called science of hermeneutics.
My second aim in respect to this matter has been, to
prove that history has preserved to us such a knowledge of
facts, as will serve to show that the prophecies in question
have been fulfilled, in -their plain and obvious sense. If
this effort has been successful, then the whole subject is
at rest. The controversies of the present day, about the
Pope, and Mohammed, and the French Revolution, and
the infidel corps of Illuminati, and all like matters or persons, are things which have no specific ground or basis in
the book of Daniel or of John. Whlat John declared would
take place shortly, happened according to his prediction;




142             CONCLUDING REMARKS.
and if so, the dispute whether it is all to happen over again,
after so many centuries, cannot be a dispute of much interest or importance.  One fulfilment is enough.
Even if we should concede that 1269 days mean so many
years, and that Romanism is the object of John's predictions, yet I do not see how we can ascertain where to begin this period. The Romish church was three or four
centuries in coming into being; or rather, one might even
say with truth, that it was not consummated until the
Council of Trent. Where then is the terminus a quo?
I am aware of the usual periods to which so many refer
the beginnings of this apostacy. But they are not at all
of a nature sufficiently definitive or decisive to be entitled
to such a bad pre-eminence. It must be mere conjecture
which fixes upon the beg'inning2 of such a period for such
reasons; and of course the end must be indefinite, where
the beginning cannot be traced out with any definiteness.
The truth is, that heathen-idolatry, and that only, is characterized in Rev. xIII. seq.; and all efforts to make out
any thing different from this, must be revolting to the simple reader, who seeks merely to understand what the writer meant.
Plain as all this seems to my mind, yet I see many, and
some very sensible persons too, greatly agitated about the
end of the world, which, as many predict at the present day,
is to come in the Spring of 1843. I do not say, it will not;
for I do not know this. But I do say, that it would be well
for the public to call to mind the many predictions of the
like nature which have already been wrecked, and which
were maintained with as much learning, and as much confidence too, as present theories are.  Specially would they
do well to call to mind the notable case of John Albert
Bengel, a Prelate of Wiirtemberg, one of the best Greek
scholars and sacred expositors of the last age, and the ed



CONCLUDING REMARKS.             143
itor of the famous critical edition of the New Testament
which bears his name. His piety and talents are beyond
fair question; and sobriety, on all other subjects except
the Apocalypse, was a prominent trait of his character.
He spent the flower of his life in pursuit of the secret
meanings of the Revelation. He came to a full persuasion,
at last, that he had discovered them. He announced them
to the world; and in so doing, he says, with much modesty, that the only reason he has to doubt the disclosure of
these secrets is, that it was made to so unworthy a person
as himself. Yet, in the full confidence that the occult matters of the Apocalypse had actually been revealed to him
by the Holy Spirit, he published his book. Most devoutly does he thank God for the wonderful disclosures which
it is designed to make. The grand period as to all the
leading parts of the great drama, according to his book,
was to be consummated in A. D. 1836. If the face of the
world should not be entirely changed at that period, then
the church, as he concedes, must believe that he has been
mistaken. But that the change expected would take place,
he entertained not a shadow of doubt.
So far, this great and good man. And we-we have
lived to see 1836, and the world is still moving round the
sun, and its busy inhabitants going on much as in days of
yore.  Ve never once thought, at that period, of the Bengelian revelations; and cannot now discover the record of
them on the page of history.
Many a confident prediction, uttered by other romancers
in prophecy, has met with the same fate, and been wrecked
on the rocks whither the mighty stream of time hath borne
them. Such is doubtless to be the destiny of many others
also; and yet, all this does not seem to diminish the confidence of those who write theological romances! Be it soo




144             CONCLUDING REMARKS.
If there must needs -be euthusiasts and visionaries, (and it
would seem that there must be), why may not this department of exegetical theology exhibit its due proportion?
Once for all, however, we may beseech such interpreters
to listen to a word of caution. I will not reproach some of
them, as I might do, with the presumption of undertaking,
without any knowledge of the original Scriptures, to expound a book, which, of all others in the Bible, demands
the deepest knowledge of the original language of Scripture, and of prophetic idiom. But may I not ask, how it
came about, that when Jerusalem was to be destroyed, the
exact time was-so carefully kept back until the very eve of
its accomplishinent, from the disciples of Christ?  Mark
tells us (13: 3), that the three favourite disciples went to
Jesus, and asked him questions respecting the time of its
desolation.  He also tells us, that Jesus declared "that
time (v. 32) to be unknown, not only to men, but to the
angels in heaven, yea to the Son himself." It was only
after the Roman army was in Palestine and had begun
their task, that the time was declared to John, Rev. 11: 2.
But we may appeal to a passage still more applicable to
the present case, and which comprises more within its
grasp. The anxious disciples asked of the risen Saviour:
WHten wilt thou restore the kingdom to Israel?  It matters
not what particular thing they had in mind, i. e. whether
it was purely the spiritual kingdom of Christ, or the ecclesiastico-political kingdom which they had once been expecting. The answer is one which should be engraven on
a frontispiece and put upon the study door of every writer
on the prophecies, who indulges the expectation of being
able to point out the day and the hour of fulfilment. -It
was this: IT IS NOT FOR YOU TO KNOW THE TIMES OR THE
SEASONS, WHICH THE FATHER HAS PUT IN HIS OWN POWER, Acts 1: 6, 7.




CONCLUDING REMARKS.               145
If now,it was not for even alpostles to' know these secrets,
is it for every curious and speculating mind, that knows
little indeed either of history or exegetical science, to tell
us all about such matters? Is it not presumption to engage in such an undertaking?  God has undoubtedly determined upon the times and seasons, when all events that
respect his church will take place.  But it does not follow,.
that he has revealed this matter to us. WVe are satisfied
that-lhe has not. Why not leave to him the secret things
which he claims as his own prerogative?:Why assume to
ourselves a position, which he does not allow us to assume?
But alas! all the disappointments of writers teeming
with fancy and filled with confidence, in days that are
past, seem to have made no serious impression on the like
class of writers at the presentperiod.  As soon as ruthless
time mows down one bed of flowers with his scythe,
another is planted on their ruins, with the hope of its producing a more permanent crop.  And so it will still be.
When 1843 has passed away, and the world still moves on
without being jostled from its orbit; the Pope still issues
his decrees fromn the Vatican; the Sultan still haughtily
points to his peering minarets and to the banners of Islam;
and faithful and humble Christians are still labouring and
suffering as before-; then some more fortunate adventurer
will discover latent error in former calculations, (as recently has been done in respect to those of Bengel), and we
shall then have a new period fixed upon as the consummation-period - of all.  But this will, in all probability, be far
enough in advance to be out of the reach of the generation
who are addressed, and therefore beyond their power of
absolute denial or of decisive correction.  When this is
once done with some good degree of ingenuity, then a new
tune will be played upon the old instrument; and it will
be listened to and applauded because it is new. Thus we
13




:14L6           CONCLUDING REMARKS,,
go on, amusing ourselves from one decennium to another,
ever pursuing in fact the same phantoms, although we give
chase to them in different directions. When such pursuit
will be over it would be as difficult to say, as to fix upon
the specific period of the Millennium.
It may not be improper here to remark, that while the
exact time cannot be discovered by us, and is not (as I believe) revealed in the Scriptures, yet something may be
said in, respect to the probable period, when the general
diffusion of Christianity will take place.  My answer to the
question respecting this would be, that it will speedily take
place, when all Christians, or at least the great body of
them, come up to the standard of duty, or come very near
to this standard, in their efforts to cdiffiuse among the nations of the earth the knowledge of salvation. The divinely
appointed means will secure the end, because God will
bless them. Every Christian, then, and every society for
propagating the knowledge of Christianity, is helping to
usher in the millennial day, when they ply this work to
the best of their ability. On such a ground, the strongest
encouragement is held out to all faithful disciples.'They
may rest assured, that "their work and labor in the Lord
are not in vain."
But let us, on the other hand, suppose that a definite
time has been disclosed in the Apocalypse, or elsewhere in
the Scripture, before which it is impossible that the Millennium should commence; what encouragement could
Christians have to. engage in efforts to christianize the
world before that period arrives?; They must take every
step with the assurance that the end is unattainable. Divine decree has fixed the time, and disclosed it to thlem,
before which all means and all efforts to convert the nations must be unavailing.  The consequence of course
would naturally be, a total remission, on the part of true




CONCLUDING REMARKS.                147
believers in the divine word, of all efforts to evangelize the
world.  And can it be thought credible, that the same
voice which has proclaimed: " Go ye, and preach the gospel to every creature," has also proclaimed (and therefore
we may rest assured) that before the middle or close of the
19th- century the-nations will not hearken to it? This is
not the manner in which the great Head of the Church is
wont to deal with his servants.  He has told them, that
the times and the seasons the Father keeps in his own power.
For the' rest, they have only to obey his commands as to
proclaiming the gospel, and leave the event with him.
One thing-more I feel constrained to say, before I quit
this theme of the latter day of glory.  Whether we have
respect to the Millennium, usually so named, or to a more
prosperous period still, near the close of time, the extravagant apprehensions so often entertained and avowed respecting this season of prosperity, seem quite unworthy of
credit. The prophets have indeed employed most glowing
language, in describing the future season of prosperity;
and all they have said, will doubtless prove to be true, in
the sense which they meant to convey. But let him who
interprets these passages remember well, that they are
poetry, and are replete in an unusual degree with figurative language and poetic imagery. Let him call to mind,
moreover, that the language employed in the last twentyseven chapters of Isaiah, in order to describe the return
-from the Babylonish captivity, and the prosperity which
would ensue, is scarcely, if at all, less glowing than that
which has respect to the future prosperity of the Messiah's
kingdom. Besides all this, he must never forget that the
present stage of our existence is probationary, and therefore sin, suffering, and sorrow must be connected with it.
Are we to be told in earnest, that men will, at some future
period, be born destitute of any taint or free from  any




1.48            CONCLUDING REMARKS.
evil consequence of Adam's fall, and that they will be with-,
out sin, and need no regeneration or sanctification?  And
must we thus be persuaded to believe, that they will not
need a Redeemer too? for this would be a necessary consequence of such a state of things. Christian churches,
also, and a ministry of reconciliation, will no longer be
needed; and even all civil government may be dispensed
with!  No; we must not indulge in such visionary conceits as these.  The time will never be, so long as probation lasts, when there will not be unregenerate men to be
converted; Christians to be instructed, guided, comforted,
reproved, chastened; and therefore abundance of work
for Christian ministers.  Their labours will indeed be
crowned with success; but occasion for labour will always
be occurring.  "Whom the Lord loveth, lie chasteneth,"
is a truth never to be lost sight of, in the preparation of
sons and daughters for a state of glory. In the hands of
God, suffering and trial become the means of the Christian's highler good; and therefore we cannot expect those
means to be excluded fiom the millennial state. A great
diminution of evil of every kind we may well expect, when
the latter day of glory shall come.  But men will still be
frail dying creatures, and undergo pain and decay. They
will be imperfect in holiness, and, will.need admonition
and correction. They will still only " know in part, and
believe in part," and will need a constant process of sanctification and illumination. The visionary schemes then,
which represent the Millennium as the return of the primitive paradisiacal state, are not for a moment to be listened
to by a sober and discreet man. The state of Adam's
race is fixed and certain. A world of sin and suffering is
as sure to be their probationary habitation, as that the decree of God will stand.  Yet this same world will be the
place where his rich and abounding compassion will be




CONCLUDING REMARKS               1419
shown in the most conspicuous manner.'Glory will be
given to God in-the highest, that there is peace on earth,
and that good will is manifested to the children of men.'
It is no part of my design to utter personal reflections
or to cast reproach on those, who, in England and in our
own country, have for these many years been labouring to
excite the churches to engage in speculations respecting
the prophecies.  That many of them  are well-meaning
men, and even men of ardent piety, I should be among the
last to call in question. But John Albert Bengel -was all
this, and much more. He was a pillar of the higher order
in the temple of God. His learning and philology command homage even at the present time. Yet " the baseless
fabric of his vision has not left a wreck behind."  And so
it has fared so I apprehend it will fare-with many a vaticination equally confident with his. Why should we not
take warning, when we hear the surges roar and see the
breakers dash, to steer the good ship in a safe and more
quiet direction?
If the matter in question merely concerned a few ardent
men, prone to dive into turbid depths and seek for pearls
there, we might leave them to dive, and pass quietly along
upon our own way. But the church is assailed on all sides
with the claims of these hariolations. It has even come to
this, that the quiet and sober Christian is reproached with
a want of faith, because he hesitates to engage in them, or
to sympathize with them. Ministers of the Gospel are in
some cases looked upon with coldness, and even with disdain, because they will not preach these fanciful interpretations. It is time, therefore, for common sense and reason to rouse themselves up for action, and make sober,
honest, and thorough inquiry whether there is any good'
ground for all this excitement. There is nothing in sacred
hermeneutics that casts such a stain on English and Amer13*




150             CONCLUDING REMARKS.
ican expositors, as the character of their interpretation of
some parts of the prophets. They have no standard, no
landmark, -no compass. Every man says " what is right in
his own eyes," and then calls upon others to agree with
him. The most ingenious and fluent man is most extensively applauded; ingenious in forming conjectures, and fluent
in his mode of developing them. Thus, as we might expect, one book succeeds another with the greatest rapidity; and the public, at least a portion of it, ever thirsting
after novelty, and excited by the hope of obtaining a look
into the future, receive every new actor in this drama with
more or less of applause. How often is one compelled to
turn away from such a spectacle, with an agitated and even
mournful look, and exclaim: T/hen will the c~hurches learn
to believe what their divine Master declared, in saying to
his anxiously inquiring disciples: IT IS NO'r YOURS TO
KNOW THE TIMES AND THE SEASONS, WHICH TH:E FATHER
HATH PUT IN HIS OWN POWER!
One thing at all events must be true. If the Bible is
not to be interpreted by the common principles of language,
it cannot be interpreted at all, except by inspired men. Is
there any promise to the church of such a class of interpreters? If not, then our only safety lies in adopting and
following out the common, well-known, and well-established principles of interpretation. That these are violated by
the extravagant and unfounded views so common at the
present day, lies upon the very face of the interpretations.
The main object of this little book has been, to show how
they are unfounded, and why they ought to be so regarded.
And now I appeal to the sober judgment of every unprejudiced reader, and ask him the question: Am I not in
the right, in insisting that all designations of time should
be interpreted according to their obvious meaning, when
no good reason can be given why we should depart-from




CONCLUDING REMARKS.              151
this?  Are not the historical facts that I have adduced as
the fulfilment of events predicted, as true to the representations in the prophecies, as other fulfilments to which we
usually appeal?  If so, why should we not be satisfied
with them? Why should we persevere in looking to centuries in advance for fulfilmnent of that, respecting which it
is repeatedly and solemnly declared, that it shall take
place SPEEDILY?
Particularly would I urge one consideration here. It is
this. How could it so happen, that all the various historical events to which I have adverted as fulfilments of prophecy, and which, it must in candour be granted, look very
much like fulfilments, should have happened at times that
coincide so exactly with the times designated in the prophecies? One or two of these we might account for on
the ground of accident; but that so many events of the nature just described, should have all happened at the periods
in question, and in regular order-is a matter which carries on its very face the stamp of being connected with
prophecy.
If the sober and-considerate portion of our religious community can be persuaded to give some due attention to
this subject, and to insist on the application of sound principles to all prophetic exegesis, an important end will be
answered. If others more capable than myself, and who
have more leisure, can be roused up to pursue the investigations which are here but imperfectly commenced, and
to expose any errors, or confirm any truths, which have
now been suggested, this little book will not have been
written in vain.








APPENDIX.
STRICTURES ON THE REV. G. DUFFIELD'S RECENT
WORK ON THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST.
SINCE the publication of the first edition of my Hints on
the Interpretation of Prophecy, a new work on the Millennium, or second Coming of Christ, by the Rev. George Duffield
of Detroit, has made its appearance.  It did not come into
my hands, until the last sheets of the second edition of my
work were under the press; and therefore I could make no
reference to it, either in my preface, or in the body of my
work. It contains 334 pages 12tmo, and is occupied with the
exposition and defence of millennial views of a nature very
different fiom, and in many respects entirely opposite to,
those which are commended on p. 147 seq. above. Of course
it becamre a matter of interest to me, to know what reasons
could be given in defence of such views; and it is surely a
matter of some interest to the religious public to know, whether these reasons may fairly be deemed satisfactory.
I have read Mr. D's work with all the attention which
time has permitted. The result is, a deeper conviction than
ever of the difficulties which attend the supposition of a personal, actual, and visible descent of Christ and the glorified
saints to the earth; and of their politico-ecclesiastical dominion here. The author is very much in earnest, in his defence
of such a theory; and he has read somewhat extensively the
more recent works of those who have assayed to defend it.
He has, however, advanced but little which is really new, and
evidently depends, for most of his appeals to the Christian
fathers and other writingsof somewhat remote origin, on the
extracts which he finds in some of his favourite authors.
If the time which he has expended in such a purl'Sit, had
been spent in the direct study of the original Scriptures, he
would have shunned many an error w.-ich he has now conm



154                     APPENDIX.
mitted, and in all probability he would have greatly mollified
the incongruities in his work, which now abound to such a
degree, that any one, who reads him through carefully, finds
himself at length much more prone to he surprised and astonished, than to become offended.
It would be'entirely out of place, for me here to examine
in detail the various positions of his book.  A review extended to great length, or even a little volume, would be required in order to accomplish this.  All which 1 can now do, or
pretend to (lo, must be in accordance with the plan of the
preceding pages, that is, to give a few HINTS.
It has not been my lot to have any considerable personal
acquaintance with Mr. Duffield."  But I have always heard
him spoken of, by my brethren in the ministry, as a man of
a kind and gentle spilit, uniting the Christian and the gentleman.  It was matter of surprise to me, therefore, when; I
found him speaking of those who hesitate about devoting their
time to the study of what they deem to be obscure prophecies,
as "having reason to fear, that the charge and censure of the
Saviour for hypocrisy may be applicable " to them, and intimating that " they are not in earnest about heavenly things,"
p. 23.  He does not mean here to characterize mere scoffers
at all divine truth, but he means such of his brethren as do
not agree with him, in zeal for the study of what they deem
prophecy too difficult for them to understand.  Still, he must
doubtless be aware, that many an honest and excellent minister actually entertains such an opinion, in respect to the
difficulty in question; and -in many a case, too, the opinion
* It was not until I had written nearly the whole of the remarks
which follow, that I was advertised, through the mediumn of a
friend, that the title of D. D. had been recently bestowed on the
author of the book under review. I had every where designated
him by the usual and familiar appellation, Jir. D.; and as he has not
given to himself, in the title-page of his book, the additional appellation of D. D., I have thought it best, in reviewing my remarks, to
let the usual designation remain. I advert to this subject only to
show Mr. D. and his friends, that it is no want of courtesy in me,
which induces me to withhold his new title. As he has not made
use of it in his book, I deemed it prbbable that he did not care to
receive the proffered hdnor, and therefore would not wish to have
others treat him as if he were jealous of his rights in this respect.
The matter would not be worth adverting to, did I not wish to
avoid even the appearance of treating Mr. D. with incivility. Nothing: could be fu.rthor from my intention.




APPENDIX.                    155
is well grounded, because the person who entertains it, has
neither time nor means for pursuing the study requisite to
gain the knowledge which Mr. D. insists upon.
Again, on, p. 71, he speaks of those "who neglect the
study of the prophecies," as being "'just as incredulous and
unprepared to meet him  [the Messiah] at his second coming in glory, to establish his kingdom on earth, as they [the
Jews] were at his first" [coming]. Nay, "to the mass of
Christian ministers and professors, the coinming of Jesus Christ
in glory... will continue to prove as great a stumbling-block
as his coming in humiliation and sorrow, for suffering and
death, did to the learned doctors of the Sanhedrim, and to
the majority of the Jewish nation," p. 71. Again, on p. 265
he says, that the churches of this country "seem to be asleep
on this subject," [the personal coming and reign of Christ];
and he represents the hope and expectation of converting the
world by the usual means of grace, as "a fatal and dangerous sentiment, and a false and unreasonable and unphilosophical [? ] hope."
Throughout the work are here and there interspersed sentiments of a similar nature. At one time the opponents of
his views are negligent of the Scriptures; at another, they
are prejudiced, obstinate, bent upon peculiar hypotheses, and
swayed by their own system; then, again, they are unwilling
to follow the simnple principles of interpretation; and they
are indifferent about the glories of Christ and the saints,
Moreover, some of them are led away by Platonic and other
philosophy; and others, (particularly the author of Hints on
the Interpretation of Prophecy, pp. 395, 409), are led -away
by German neology.
In-respect to being misled by Platonism and German neology, whoever may chance to be involved in this charge, may
equitably, as I -should imagine, make an appeal, after this first
trial and sentence, to another tribunal than that of Mr. Duffield. It is quite possible, however, as I can somewhat readily believe, that they may not deem the sentence, passed on
them by him, to be of import so urgent and hazardous as to
demand. an appeal.  Be this as it may, Mr. D. himself, at all
adventures, whatever his other faults may be, will doubtless
stand acquitted, in the judgment of every intelligent reader,
and freed from  any possible charge, of being led away
either by Plato or by the Germans.




156                     APPENDIX.
It is enough merely to have hinted this topic. I pass to
other considerations; remarking only, that if Mr. D. expects
"the mass of Christian ministers and professors" to give him
the most kindly and patient hearing, (and truly he needs a
hearing both kind and patient), it is not the wisest policy to
bespeak that hearing, by blows somewhat rude and violent
upon the very ears which are summoned to listen.
His first essay, after -some remarks on the duty of studying the prophecies, is to establish hermeneutical principles;
from the application of which he expects to deduce his
whole theory in respect to times future.  His grand position
is, that all prophecy is to be LITERALLY interpreted. By literal he
means, (as he avers, p. 34), "that system which assumes the
literality, or historical reality, of the events predicted."  More
than sixty pages are occupied with illustrating and establishing this position. Often, in reading them, I have been constrained to stop and inquire: Does the author mean really to
assert, then, that all the language of prophecy is to be literally interpreted?  Most of his remarks led me, against my will,
to think that such must eventually be his position.  More
than once I began seriously to ask: And has it come to this,
now, that we are to make a beginning with the very first of
all the prophecies in the Bible, and find out by a literal interpretation what is the meaning of the prediction: 6' The seed
of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head?"
From  this dilemma, however, after a long suspense, and
not a little of doubt about the real meaning of the author,
we are at length somewhat relieved, by two chapters onJigurative, symbolical, and typical language.  Here we are at last
informed, that the prophecies must be interpreted by the ordinary rules applicable to language of a similar nature as
elsewhere employed.  In the sequel (p. 106 seq.) he informs
us, that the prophecies exhibit alphabetical, tropical, and symbolical language; and finally, in the way of appendix to this
topic (p. 136), we are told that "there is afoIurth style of language... viz. that of TYPrE."  So far as the author goes
correctly in the way of explaining ally of these varieties in
style, he produces nothing but what is to be found in the
usual principles of hermeneutics.  But it must be confessed,
still, that he has here produced, in addition to these, some
things which he may rightfully claim  as his own.  What
sort of language the alphabetical is, in distinction firom and




APPENDIX.                     157
contrasted with the other kinds named by him, I have not
been able to make out by any thing which he has said.  We
may easily distinguish between language alphabetical and hieroglyphical; but one would be put to serious difficulty, in
proving that tropical lauguage is not alphabetical; or that sym —
bolical or typical language (to assume the author's nomenclature) is not alphabetical.  In respect to these last two designations, however, we have another remark to make, which
is, that types are not language, but things; symbol is not lanlanguage, bhut thing.  Passages which present us with types,
or symbols, are, for the most part, to be interpreted, (so far
as the mere words are concerned), in a literal way; e. g. Ex..
XII., which contains an account of the institution of the passover-which passover is a type of the death of Christ.  Yet
our- author, while he says many things which are true and
obvious, in respect to trope, and symbol, and type, has also
presented many incongruities of representation, through failure " to distinguish the things that differ."  We may al —
low a writer to speak of typical language and symbolical language, in case he tells us what he means thereby, on the
ground that brevity may excuse a little, inaccuracy in modes
of expression. But a writer who makes so much to'depend
on the (establishment of specific principles of interpretation,
as Mr. D. does, or at least would seem to do, must be held
to perspicuity and accuracy in the didactic parts of his book..
About 150 pages of the work before us are occupied with
discussion respecting these matters. According to my apprehension, all that is said might have been more plainly and
profitably comprised within the compass of twenty-five pages.
But before we proceed to examine the main body of the
work, a few remarks should be made on the statement of
Mr. D.'s great fundamental principle, on which every thing
in his book turns and depends, viz. that the prophecies are to be
LITER.ALLY interpreted; and that by literal he means, that system  of interpretation "which assumes the LITERALITY or
HISTORICAL REALITY of the events predicted," p. 34.
Lest the word literality should startle his readers, he adds
the epexegetical clause' designed to be its exponent or equivalent, viz. HISTORTCAL REALITY. We will, for the moment,
accept the explanation which he gives, for the sake of inquir-.
ing into the accuracy of this fundamental position.
A historic reality is something, or (as we may say) any thing,
14




158                     APPENDIX.
which takes place, or has an actual existence, in distinction
from any thing which is merely supposed or imaginary. Now
there are as many realities in the world of mind, as of matter.  Nay, if we include within the circle of the world of
mind, the Divine Being and angelic intelligencies, we may
well say, that there are more historic realities belonging to
the world of mind, than to the world of'matter; there are
nore, and more important things, historical realities, connected
with the invisible world, than with the visible one.  How
shall we show then, that when a spiritual exegesis (as the author names'it) is given to any particular passage of Scripture,
that it does not as truly present us with a historical reality, as
when wve assign to it a meaning which has relation to external and visible occurrencies? It is easy to produce a familiar
and undeniable example.  Jesus declared to Nicodemlus, that
"' Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of
God." Now if the explanation which Mr. D. gives of his great
principle is correct, we are not to give this a spiritual meaning, but a literal one.  He cannot take refilge here in any
thing which he says about tro)es, or symbols.  There must
be a historical reality (in his sense of the phrase) in these words:
and this reality is one, according to the whole subsequent
tenor of his book, which is of a visible and sensible nature.
This is in reality a correct exposition and application of his
principle; and if so, and if (as is truly the case) this leads to
absurdity, then there is not the weight of a grain of sand in
what he brings forward to support the idea of a visible, terrestrial, fuiture kingdom of Christ.  The simple question between us and him is, not whether matter of fact or historical
reality is designated by the prophecies, butt whether the reality
belongs to the world of matter or of mind.  Vye say, to the latter-;- he says, to the former, if not exclusively, yet primarily
and principally.  Just the same question, be it remelnbered,
comes up in respect to the words of Jesus to Nicodemus.
The principle of Mr. -D.'s interpretation, which he applies to
prophecies, would make Nicodemus altogether in the right,
nay a sagacious and straight-forward exegete, when he asked
the question: " Can he enter a second time into his mother's
womb and be born " How now, on the ground of a visible
historic reality being necessarily implied, are we going to
prove that this is not the natural, yea, the necessary meaning
of the words of the Saviour?  We could not prove it. And




APPENDIX.                      159
yet we reject such an interpretation.  Why?  First, because
of the natural impossibility of the thing; and secondly, because of the utter incongruity of such a sentiment, for how
could a second and merely natural birth prepare a man for
the kingdom of heaven?  Even Mr. D. is compelled to go
along with us here, and yield assent to our reasons. But just
the same difficulties as these lie in the way of assigning historic reality to the prophecies about the future coming and
kingdom of Christ; I meanl, of course, historic reality in the
sense in which'Mr. D. employs this phrase, i. e. mundane,
visible, palpable reality.  It is impossible in the nature of
things, that glorified bodies should dwell in and belong to a
material world; and it would be utterly incongruious with the
state of perfection and glory that is promised to saints, to suppose that they are to come back from the presence and beatific vision of their God and Saviour, to a terrestrial, limited,
and degraded condition; for degraded it really is, in comparison with their heavenly state.
But IMr. D. does not appear, for a moment, to hesitate
about these matters, for any such reasons as these.  While
he is firequent and occasionally  somewhat vehement, in his
charges of unfairness and want of candour upon those who
differ froml him as to millennial speculations, and seems to
consider thenm as wilfillly shutting their eyes against the light
of truth, and as refusing to apply the plainest and most cogent rules of interpretation, he himself still takes the very
same liberties, in all parts of his system of religious belief
which are not concerned with his great subject-the very
same which he censures in them; in other words, in spite of
all his seemingly unbending system  of interpretation, he
bends every where, in case common sense bids him so to do,
provided it does not interfere with his favorite views in respect to Christ's second coming.  How convenient it is to
see a mote in a brother's eye, while a beam is in our own,
was long ago the subject of notice and animadversion; and
seldom  indeed have we met with a case, in our reading,
where this is more conspicuous than in the present.  But of
the topic thus incidentally brought to view, in these few last
paragraphs, more in the sequel.
Mr. D. has done nothing in reality to establish an intelligible rule of hermeneutics, which will essentially aid him in
his main purpose; for historical reality belongs just as much




160                    APPENDIX.
to the spiritual world, as it does to the material and visible
world.  And as a great portion of prophecy, beyond all reasonable question, has respect to the moral and- spiritual concerns of men, so we may very rationally believe, that a great
portion of it concerns the moral and spiritual world, rather
than the terrestrial and visible one.  All then is afloat, on
the ground of Mr. D.  We are compelled to leave the mnatter just where it was when we began to consider it; for we
have not acquired, by 150 pages of discussion, any new light,
nor one single principle to which appeal can be Imade, with
any success, for the establishment of his system.
Come we next to the grand outlines of the system itself,
which Mr. D. has exhibited and defended.  He has undertaken to give these inl chap. vt. p. 148. seq., and to present
them in contrast with what he calls the system of the Spiritualists, i. e. of those who believe only in a moral or spiritual
Millennium. Passing by several inadvertencies or incorrectnesses in his statements respecting the views of the
Spiritualists, and overlooking some seerning attempts secretly
to ally them with the skeptics, who expect only such a golden age as the perfectability of man will usher in, we come
at once to the very essence of Mr. D.'s LITERALISM.  We
shall give, as briefly as may be, the leading features of it, as
developed on p. 163 seq.; and give them, so far as brevity will
allow, in his own language.
(1) The literal restoration of the Jews to their own land;
which will be either introductory to, orl in the midst of, convulsions and revolutions among the European -and Asiatic
nations.
(2) An extensive conspiracy among antichristian nations,
led on by some sovereignty, which shall be the Assyrian of
Isaiah, the last form of Antichrist; and this will lead to the
great war of Gog and Magog as described by Ezekiel, and
battle'of Armageddon as set forth by John. All will issue
in the destruction of the conspirators, p. ]64.
(3) During or previous to these movements, Christ will
come personally and visibly in the air, accompanied by the
souls of- deceased saints; the bodies of these will now be
raised; while other saints, then living on the earth, will-be
transformed and caught up to meet Christ in the air.
(4) Dreadful judgments will next be inflicted on all the
apostate nations, by means of volcanic and other forces; mnys



APPENDIX.                      161
tic Babylon will in the sequel be destroyed, but not all the
nations of the earth.
(5) The saints, i. e. both those with raised bodies and those
with transformed ones, will live, for a while, in the air with
Christ, until- he shall have executed his judgments upon the
nations of the earth; thus preparing the way for the national
conversion of the Jews.
(6) While his judgments are going on, the wickedness of
the antichristian nations will come to the full; so that he
must needs now descend to execute his final vengeance, on
his. enemies.
(7)'He will come down from the air, stand on the Mount
of Olives,. and utterly destroy the hosts of the wicked; he
will change the geological structure of Jerusalem and its vicinity by a terrible earthquake, and so transform the region
as to mlake it fit fbr buildilg there the metropolis of the regenerated world.
(8) He will re-establish the Theocracy in Jerusalem, in
more than its pristine glory; the temple will be rebuilt, and
rites of worship be adapted to the dispensation; in which Jerusalem
and the Jewish nation are to stand pre-eminent among the nations, p. 165.
(9) After a series of years, all the wicked will be exterminated on the face of the whole Roman [?] earth; but there
will be distant nations unexterminated, on whom  the Spirit
will be poured out, so that nations will be.born in a day, by
means of the saints who reign at Jerusalemn; and thus the
whole worll will be brought into a peaceful and blessed-subjection.
(10) The risen and glorified saints,-in the new metropolis,
will be kings and priests for the administration of the political and religious interests of the [Jewish] nation.
(11) With the new  Theocracy will be connected a temple,
built after the model drawn by Ezekiel; and Jerusalem will
become the nucleus and centre of all political and religious
influences.
(12) Christ, after his descent to the earth, in reality will not
habitually dwell at Jerusalem, the metropolis of his worldly
kingdom, but make his appearance there only occasionally,
according to rites and at seasons appointed by him.  His
constant and habitual presence will be in the New Jerusalem,
the city which comes down from God out of heaven, where
14*




162                     APPENDIX.
there is no temple, but Christ's presence constitutes its glory,
and the delight of the risen saints.
(13) The glorious politico-ecclesiastical dominion will last
a thousand years, Satan being confined and restrained.
(14) During this period, the earth will undergo a remarkable transformation, by great geological and atmospheric
changes; so that, although men in the flesh will still die, yet
the period of youth will only be in bloom at the age of 100
years.
(15) At the end of the thousand years, Satan will be loosed,
and all the wicked will be raised from the dead. These will
constitute the Gog and Magog of John, typified by those of
Ezekiel; and these, uniting with the devil and his angels,
will make a violent assault upon the holy city, the heavenly
Jerusalem.  Divine justice will then interpose, and hurl them
all to the bottomless pit.
(16) The earth, thus freed from its enemies, will at last be
transformed into a paradise of purity and glory, the everlasting abode of all the blessed, p. 166.
In view of a theme so transporting, the author breaks out,
at the close of this representation, into an extacy; which he
also endeavours to communicate to his readers, by alternate
and rapturous expressions of his feelings both in poetry and
in prose, p. 167 seq.
Such then is the substance of the millennial system-such
the product of the conjoint wisdom and skill of its abettors;
as Mr. D. himself has told us, on p. 163. - I have made the
whole sketch in the author's own words, as I proposed to do,
with the mere exception that I have sometimes abridged
in order to compress the representation.  The Italics too are
mine, and not his.
Besides the coup d' oeil of his views which he has given in
p. 163 seq., there is another and briefer one in respect to
several parts of the scheme, on pp. 366, 367.  There is but
little difference, however, between the two, which is of any
special importance.  From this remark we may except, perhaps, the fact, that in the first sketch, the risen and quickened saints in general are represented as G" kings and priests
for the administration of the political and religious interests"
-of the new realm (p. 165); while in the second, the collected
Jews, it is said, will be the medium of reigning over all the
earth, by Christ and his saints, p. 367.




APPENDIX.                   163
The unprejudiced and simple reader will probably inquire,
with some amazement: What can be brought now, from the
Scriptures, in support of such stupendous arrangements as
these? Who can satisfy us about occurrencies, which would
seem to lie beyond any region reached by the loftiest or the
most vagarious flight that the imagination of man has ever
taken, or can take?  On the subject introduced by these
questions, something may be said in the sequel; but I must
beg leave, for a few moments, to conduct the reader in quite
another direction, in order to follow out the track of the author.
Mr. D., if we understand his views aright, is not accustomed, when he meets an opponent on the subject of the
apostolical succession of bishops, to attribute much weight to
the -authority or the opinion of the Christian Fathers.  But
here we have no less than 100 pages, almost exclusively occupied with what he calls the Traditionary History of millennial opinions; see pp. 169-267,  He denominates those
/I~ntinmillenarians, who oppose his views of the coming and
kingdom of Christ, and labours to show, that views like his
own have been entertained not only from the early ages of
the Christian church, but even from the times in which the
Hebrew prophets lived and wrote.
He commences the sketch which he has given of this subject, by a hearty approbation of the remark of Tertullian,
quoted and lauded by Faber, viz. that Whatever is first is true;
whatever is later is adulterate.  In connection with this he re
minds us, that " it is certainly a reasonable presumption, that
those who lived nearest the apostles, would be most likely to
understand the general import of their teaching and charges
and exhortations about the coming of Christ, and practically
to adopt their principles of interpretation," p. 170.
The Romish church, in their claims of hierarchy; the
English high-church advocates, in their claims respecting
apostolical succession; in short, every church, and all sects,
that build on tradition rather than the word of God-all reason in the same way; and so far as mere principle is concerned, all reason with equal force and correctness.
In what manner, now, if such a stand-point must be assumed, shall we get at the general opinions of the early ages?
We have a short epistle of Clement, in the first century, and
a few fiagments of writings besides, more or less of which




164                  APPENDIX.
are adulterated. In the second century we have Polycarp,
Hermas (probably), Justin Martyr, Tertullian in part, Irenaeus,
Athenagoras, and some fragments of others, either disputed,
or mostly of little significance.  Now  what is-the character
of the exegesis in most, I might say, in all of these writings?
Much of it is such, confessedly, as would not stand a single
hour's examination, by the test of fair and established hermeneutical principles.  I could easily prove this, even ad nausea-m, if time and the patience of my readers allowed.  But
as- to such as need proof, I may refer them to such histories
of interpretation as are designated abundantly in Morus, in
E rnesti, in Meyer, and indeed in the works of all recent authors who have undertaken to write the history of interpretation.  The early patristic exegesis is, even to a proverb, not
only often extravagant and unsupported by solid principles,
but sometimes even ridiculous.  The Jesuit with his seven
sermons on 0! the preacher who drew out the 82d particular of resemblance between the horses in Pharaoh's chariot
and the bride, i. e. the church, scarcely exceeded what may
sometimes be found even in Justin Martyr, Terttlllian, and
Irenaeus himself.
These simple facts, no man well-read in regard to this
subject will venture to deny.  What now shall we make of
them?  That such exegesis is traditionar? in the good sense
of this word, and is derived from prophets and apostles?
Away forever with such a supposition!  6 "Quodcunque mihi
narras sic-incredulus odi!"  God's eternal an(d awful word
must not be degraded by the conceits and dreamy visions and
egregious puerilities of minds, either unenlightened, or enthusiastic beyond the bounds of moderation, or fully and earnestly engaged in the pursuit of ignes fatui.
Who does not know-at all events, who that has read the
Fathers for' himself does not know-that although sincere
and ardent Christians, as most of thellt doubtless were, their
minds, in many respects, were rude and uncultivated? They
emerged, at least most of the earlier ones, from the midst of
heathenish darkness.  They became, we will say, sincere and
earnest Christians. - But all the double-sense exegesis which
they had been taught to apply to Homer, and Pinclar, and
others;- all the mysticism which they brought with them fiom
the heathen schools-were insensibly carried along by them
into the reading and expounding of the Scriptures.  They




APrENDIX.                    165
designed no wrong, by their fancifiul and extravagant exegesis. They only gave what they deemed to be innocent play
to their fancy and imagination.  But in this play they indulge
quite too often for us to follow them. Religion cannotmust not be degraded by puerilities, which make it contemptible to a man of cultivated minid and taste.  And I antl bold
to assert, that from Clemens Romanus, down to a period later
than the beginning of the third century, there is not a single
patristical work, of any considerable extent, in which may
not be found conceits and puerilities, that would make an intelligent scholar of fourteen years of age in our Sabbath
Schools, who has been well instructed, blush to be regarded
as producing or indulging.
Those advocates of tradition, who stand aghast at the greatness and the sacredness of the works of the Fathers, will
doubtless lift up their hands in token of astonishment, at the
boldness, or rather (as they will namle it) the presumption, or
the heresy, of such a sentiment as this.  Well-I shall endeavor to bear it with some tolerable composure. I have
heard the like of this in days that are past, until it has ceased to be an object of any great dread.  But one thing I
have to say-and I wish them to mark it well-let them be
careful how they challenge the proof of my assertions. I
have read with my own eyes. I judge, therefore, for myself. I can prove to any reasonable man, what I affirm.
And before I dismiss the'subject of these strictures, I promise them some specimens, of what I have here alluded to, in
respect to traditionary stories and interpretations, which will
enable them to judge for themselves, whether I have not pronounced a sober judgment in relation to this matter.
Let us, for a moment, turn our attention to the condition
of the early Christian readers of the Scriptures; specially to
those who were brought up as heathen. Who instructed
them in the principles of interpretation?  The apostles, and
other missionaries preached; and the Spirit of God came
down and converted multitudes. But conversion' did not
impart intellectual education.  Their habits, their learning
(what little they had), had been of a heathenish cast.  Time,
pains, right instruction, habitude of study, must all concur to
form the rational exegete.  Hence the early ages of Christianity give us noble specimens indeed of temper, feeling, right
and warm affections, benevolence, beneficence; but as to the




166                    APPENDIX.
interpretation of difficult passages of Scripture, language can
hardly describe how puerile much of it is.
Still, I must say a word, to prevent any mistake here in
respect to my opinion of the early fathers.  Some of themn
were men of distinguished talents.  In other circumstances
of training and education, they would have shone conspicuously.  They were, at least many of them, men of good faith;
credible witnesses of facts; worthy of deference even as to
opinions, when their superstitions and their visionary fancies
were out of the question. WVhoever despises them, or disregards their testimony as to simple matters of fact, shows himself plainly to be a prejudiced or an unskilful.judge.  But as
to their interpretations of prophecies which were dark, or difficult to minds untrained in the Scriptures-they are most of
them  among the last to which we ought to think of appealing.
Having said thus much on the general principle in question, I shall pass over the whole of Mr. D.'s hundred pages of
patristical traditions, with merely a few more suggestions.
He first refers us to the Jewish Rabbies, and even to the
Zend-Avesta, at a period antecedent to the Christian era.
Next, John the Baptist, the Saviour, and the writers of the
New Testament, are all made to contribute something to establish his Millennium.  Then come Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tatian, Clement of
Alexandria, and many others, some of which have not even
left behind them any certain relics of their writings. All
these are made by Mr. D. to give testimony in favour of his
cause; or, (which he seems to regard as being equally in his
favour), they do not give testimony against it. In this way
he goes on until he comes down to a later aoe. Nor does
he omit, even here, to trace out his traditionary history.  But
the fathers who were opposed to the millennial views in question-Origen, Dionlysius of Alexandria, Jerome, Augustine,
and indeed most of the other distinguished fathers-he slips
over with slight notices, or with some little effort either to
make them indirectly contribute to his purpose, or else to
parry the force of their strokes, and diminish the value of
their opinions.
There is nothing-or almost nothing-which cannot be established firom the Fathers, in such a way.  There is scarcely any absurdity in exegesis or theology, which some of them




APPENDIX.                     167
have not uttered or patronized.  It is the most convenient of
all possible methods of arguing, to appeal to tradition; for
there is no sect, and no enthusiast, which may not find some
prototype among the ancients.
I have observed, specially of late years, in my reading, that
those always seeml to rely most heartily upon the Fathers, who
feel themselves to be most deficient in the power of establishing any thing directly from  the Scriptures.  So did not
the first Protestants.  THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE SUFFICIENT
AND ONLY RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE, is the basis of all
true Protestantism.  Whoever builds on any other basis, will
find, sooner or later, that he has built upon the sand.
Mr. D. gives us, with nlo very sparing hand, extracts from
a number of the Fathers; but he takes, for the most part,
what he finds already selected for a purpose like his own,
and leaves out what he would not wish to bring forward.
Even in most of the passages cited by him, the evidence in
favour of his scheme is rather of the constructive kind.  Papias, probably Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, and a few others, were, no doubt, real Millenarians, in a
sense somewhat resembling that in which Mr. D. is a Millenarian.  The same is true of a few others; but they are mostly obscure men. I respect many of them, because they were
sincere.  I cannot but respect the talents of such men in particular as Tertullian and Irenaeus. A more impassioned soul
of or;atory than Tertullian'exhibits, can scarely be found in
the circles of any age or nation.,His style is indeed rough
and unpolished.  His idioml, even barbarous. But sparks of
celestial fire burst forth on every occasion where his feelings
are excited; and he breathes out the very soul of glowing
eloquence.  Irenaeus too was learned, for his time, sober for
the most part, solid and judicious.  Yet there were points
in respect to which he became as it were a childish listener
to fiction and conceit, and where, as we shall see by and by,
the most incredible extravagancies were no obstacle to his
faith.
We have done with the Fathers, for the present.  WVe
come then, at last, after ranging through 266 pages, to the
BIBLE itself.  In respect to this I readily concede, in accordance with Tertullian, Faber, and M.11. D. (see p. 163),
that whatever isfirst is true, i. e. that whatever was originally
inserted and comprehended in the Scriptures, is true.  In a




168                    APPENDIX.
qualified sense I also concede, that whatever is later, is adulterate, i. e. understanding this to mean, that whatever uninspired men have added to the Scriptures; or made to assume
the place of them, is spurious and of no binding authority.
But how can any considerate man possibly concede, that all
the views and interpretations of the Scriptures, which belong
to the early Fathers, are true and unadulterate?  In sobel
earnest, it is impossible to believe this, without abandoning
reason and common sense.  It is impossible to do so, without degrading the Scriptures. Uninspired men are never infallible; and the early Fathers belong most manifestly to this
class.
Let us go at once then to the Bible itself.  Mr. D. opens
his argument in favour of his scheme firom this, by appealing
to the much controverted passage in Acts 3: 21, which
speaks of " the heavers receiving Jesus Christ, until the times
qf the restitution of all things, &%q  Xqt6rcW Q TroxaTaaTXLOswS
7TrYIwV."  These times he assumes, as we might expect, to
be the very times so largely set forth and insisted upon in
his millennial theory. The- heavens are to conceal the Saviour, and hide him from our fleshly vision, until the conmencement of the Millenniunm; and then they are to render
him up, and he is to become visible- again to the eyes of men
on earth.  " fHere," Mr. D. says, " there can be no questioning of facts by any one who admits as truth... the testimony of the apostle."  A little farther on he remarks, that
" it is of essential consequence, if possible, to enlist this text in
favour of this [his] view."  To his own satisfaction he has
made this possible.  Without adverting, now, to the various
mistakes in criticism which the process of Mr. D.'s reasoning
here developes, it is enough to say, that every thing depends,
of course, on the meaning of XqovaY L'0xoarao-rea, aew, rendered in our English version, times of restitution.  This our
author of course considers as declaring in fiavour of his views
of restitution, i. e. in favour of the transformation of things
in general at the commencement of the Millennium.   The
sinmple and literal mneaning of arroaoxaTt(raots is restoratiol,
i. e. the putting of any thing which has been injured, has decayed, or is worn out, into a renewed and good condition.
It is undoubtedly true, that Peter might have employed this
word, in case he had believed in the same Millennium which
is advocated by Mr. D.; but it is equally plain and true, that




APPENDIX.                      169
if he had a moral and spiritucal Millennium in view, he might
appropriately employ it, just as the apostle (Rom. 12: 2. Tit.
3: 5) speaks of the renewing of our minds.  TWhen the Saviour speaks of spiritual regeneration,  he calls it being born
again. He does so, because language furnishes him with no
more appropriate and significant means of indicating the nature and consequences of a change of heart.   Nicodernus,
hlowever, could understand hin only in the carnal and material sense; and this I take to be exactly what Mr. D. has done
with the words of Peter. The language of this apostle, afterall, may be easily explained.  In the first creation, God made
all very good.  Order and harmony held joint sway over all
his dominions.  Satal and sin, and sinning angels and men,
have destroyed and disturbed this harmony and order. When
the great period of man's probation and the process of redeering sinners shall be cornpleted -when (as Paul says)
the end cometh-then all will be restored.  "A new heavens
and a new earth" will arise, by the mighty power of God
and the Redeemer, wherein will dwell righteousness, and righteousness only.  Nor does this at all involve the final and universal salvation of all impenitent men, and of the devils also,
any more than the restoration of order and peace throughout
the domains- of an earthly prince, after a great and dangerous
rebellion, necessarily implies that all the rebels should be retained in his kingdoin and pardoned, instead of their being.sent into remote banishment and exile.  Such plainly are the
times of restitution to which Peter alludes.  It would, in fact,
he just as conlgruous to interpret being born again literally, as
it would to apply the text in question to the terrestrial, "geological and atmospherical transfortlmations" to which Mr. D.
applies it.  I aver this in all sincerity and earnestness, because, (as I shall attempt to show in the sequel), the kingdomn of Christ, and the restoration which he is to introduce,
are essentially and fundamentally of a moral and spiritual nature.  Of course, if this be true, such an exegesis as Mr. ID.
gives of the passage, is altogether incongruous and inappropriate.
In proof that Peter refers very properly to',the holy
prophets" as predicting the restoration pleaded for, Mri. D.
refers us (on p. 277) to nearly every one of them, for passages
of the like tenor with that in Acts 3: 21; that is, as he expounds them. How easily are objects magnified or the colour
15




170                     APPENDIX.
of them changed, when we look through a glass appropriate
to produce these effects.  If we can only forget that we are
using a magnifying glass, or one which has a stain upon its
surface, we may believe that we see every thing with our
own proper eyes.  And this is what Mr. D. has succeeded in
completely doing, while inspecting the numerous texts which
he has enlisted into his army.
Having thus disclosed the fundamental principle of Mr. D.,
by the aid of which he summons help to his cause from the
Scriptures; and having advertised the reader by what means
all texts come to be shaped so as to suit his purpose; I must
content myself, for the rest, with merely giving, for the most
part, a list to the reader of the passages on which he places
his main reliance.
These are Dan. 7: 7, 8, 19-25. Matt. 24: 50. 1 Thess. 4:
14 -17. 5: 1-6.   Here "the descent of the Lord:froim
heaven, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump
of God; the resurrection of the dead, and Christians being
caught up to meet the Lord in the air;" are all applied to
the coming of Christ before the Millennium, i. e. at the commencernent of it; and so of all other remaining texts.  In
various ways lie lays under contribution, 2 Thess. 2: 5-7.
Rev. 19: 11-21. Is. 63: 1-6. Ezek. chap. 38. 39. Rev. 16:
14-16. 14: 14-20. 1: 7. (The author every where quotes
this book by a new title, viz. Revelations.) Zech. 12: 9 12.
Matt. 24: 30. 26: 64. Mark 13: 26. 14: 62. Luke 21: 24-27.
I Tim. 6: 14. 2Tim.: 10. 4:1, 8. Tit. 2: 13.   A  few
other passages are incidentally quoted; but the main reliance is on these.
Specially and at length does he argue the point, that 2 Thess.
2: 8, which speaks of the " man of sin being destroyed by the
breath of the mouth and the brightness of the appearing- of Christ,"
admits of no other than a strictly literal sense, p. 310 seq.
For myself, after turning this matter round and round, in order to view it on every side, I have not been able to make out
what the breath of the mouth, in a strictly literal sense, is, of a
being which at most has only a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15: 44,
comp. Phil., 3: 21 ); for such must be the case in respect to the
body of Jesus in the world of glory. Nor alm  able to see how
brightness (in the original, rrlopavEml), in the strictly literal
sense, can destroy either the man of sin, or any other man.
It might put out their eyes, if carried to a certain extent; but




APPENDIX.                      171
this would not be to destroy them.  And las to this last word,
destroy, if all the rest of the verse is strictly literal, of course
this part of it is so.  The consequence then is inevitable, that
when Christ comes, the man of sin and his adherents are to
be annihilated; for nothing less than this can meet the full
and literal import of the word A  ~aQ2Cdft, destroy.
Such are the Scri ptre-proofs. Next comes the effort by
Mr. D. to remove the great stumbling-block to his system,
viz,. the day of judgment, and the coming of the Son of Man, when
this (lay shall be ushered in.
MAatt. 25: 31 —46 stands apparently  nnu ch in his way;
more, as he thinks, than any thing in the Scriptures.  Hence
32 pages (p. 336-367) are occupied with efforts to remove
the obstacles which this presents.  The surm  of his results
is as follows: (1) The nations in the flesh, and such only as
have persecuted the Jews and the church (p. 364), are to be
gathered, judged, and destroyed; and this judgment is to last
through centuries, (p. 366). (2) No resurrection of the wicked
precedes this judgment, but only the resurrection of saints.
(3) Christ, with the saints, who are his messengers, is to come
literally,:and the bodies of the latter being united to their souls,
they are to be employed in arranging and governing the new
terrestrial kingdom.
Comment, on my part, upon this effort of Mr. D., (and it is
his principal one), need be but short.  (1) Christ himself
says, that "he will come in his glory, with all his holy angels,
when he is about to sit upon his throne of judgment, Matt.
25: 31.  Mr. D. says that he will come with all his saints,
thus making ayy.' oL (angels) to mean holy men or saints.
(2) Christ says no more about the resurrection of the bodies
of saints here, than he does about that of sinners.  He says,
in trulth, nothinlg of either; knowing, of course, that the mass
of' his hearers took the resurrection for granted.  (3) Christ
says, that all nations are to be gathered before him; Mr. D.,
that only persecutors of Jews and Christians are to be judged,
and these while in the flesh.  (5) The separation of the two
parties-sheep and goats-is affirmed by Christ to be complete, universal, and of eternal duration, vs. 32, 46; Mr. D.
makes it the work of centuries, a long and difficult and gradual process, and finally extends it only to persecutors of Jews
and Christians.
Many other difficulties in the way of Mr. D.'s scheme here,




172                     APPENDIX.
it would be easy to suggest.  But enough.  Hee contradicts
directly the assertions of the passage in Matthew respecting
all nations; he violates the idiom of the Greek by making
angels into saints; he foists into the account just so much,
and no more, of the doctrine of the resurrection as suits his
own purpose; and hle inakes the piocess (and of course the
punishment) a mere temporal and terrestrial matter. Besides
all this, lie continues the connection of the sheep and goats
for centuries, after a final and eternal separation is assertel by
Christ to be made.
What shall we say now to such argumentation as this?
It would be difficult to find in anly or all the adventurous
works on the prophecies which have hitherto made their appearance, any thing which exceeds this, either in boldness of
assertion, or in unfounded and pres rumptuous cliticism and
philology.
The remainder of the work is occupied with discussion
respecting the seasons and the signs of Christ's coming.
As to the latter; all that is said in Scripture with respect
to his coming in order to destroy Jerusalem, and coming to
vindicate his church, etc., is applied by him, with little exception, to the antemillennial coming of Christ, and applied in
what he names the literal sense.  On this method of construing the Scriptures, no more need here be said; after what
has already been said in the preceding pages.
As to the time of his colning,  Mr. D. is not quite positive.
Whoever wishes to see how singularly one can grope about,
who does not distinctly know the whence or the whither of his
course, may consult p. 386 seq. Mr. Miller, in the jutdgment
of Mr. D., has not quite proved his point, respecting the cornming in 1843, (p. 389); but somewhere between 1843 and 1847
will be marked, according to our author, " by very clear and
decided movements in God's providence," preparatory to the
great epoch; ib.   The famous era of 1260 years he nlakes
to have ended in 1792-(p. 406); yet the Millennium has not
come.  It seenms therefore to be rather dependent on the
great period of 2300 years (Dan. 8: 14); and these he has arranged in the most convenient manner possible.  They mnay
have commenced in the year B. C. 536, or 51S, or 457, or 456,
or 444, or 434; and of course they may end in A. D. 1764,
1782, 1843, 1856, or 1868.  So then, the g eat crisis, although
not arrived, still draws nigh. Twenty-six years more, at most,




A.PPENDIX.                    1783
and then we must all go up, at least once in a week (so Is.
66: 23 decides), to worship in the antitype of Ezekiel's temple at Jerusalem!
If any thing could be strange to the reader, in the way of
exegetical development, after what we have already seen,
one might think it passing strange, that after expending about
150 pages to prove the necessity of interpreting the prophecies literally, Mr. D. should every where, without even the
semblance of an apology or justification, convert all the dayperiods of the prophets, so far as his purpose demands, into
year-periods.  Where now, we are constrained to ask, is the,
strenuous zeal for literality?  Not a trace of it seems to be
left.  The difficulty which doubters have about a day as
meaning a year, is not even noticed, much less removed.
How convenient such a power of metamorphosis!  From
one stage or form of development to another the author moves
on, now vehemently urging the absolute and indispensable obligation to construe every expression literally, and then winking every thing of this nature entirely out of sight, or trampling
it under his feet. How convenient, too, to have the choice out
of six different periods, as to the time when the august drama in question is to comlence! The latest of these periods
may come, perhaps, even during the life-time of our author,
and he himself may see what he believes to be the salvation
of God with his own eyes.  But if not, then he will at least
be out of the way of critics and commentators, who might
be disposed to point their finger at some of his wanderings,
or to remind the public of certain faux-pas made by him.
He is, in this respect, somewhat more prudent and wary,
than the men of April 3d, A. D. 1843. In respect to these,
if I can be allowed for a moment to interfere, I would respectfully suggest, that in some way or other they have in all
probability made a small mistake as to the exact day of the
month when the grand catastrophe takes place, the FIRST of
April being evidently muh much more appropriate to their arrangements than any other day of the month.
A short chapter closes the work, the object of which is, to
prove to skeptics, that the events which the scheme of the
author supposes will take place, are neither beyond the power of God, nor even, in many respects, aside fiom the physiological constitution of the natural world.  The suggestions in general which are made here, might, with some little
15*




174                     APPENDIX.
modification and correction, be well and truly nmade in regard. to the future changes in the natural creation, which the
Scriptures in reality announce.   Some of the particular:changes, however, which Mr. D. expects, I cannot find to be
predictecd in the Bible, and verily believe that they are not
to be found there by any fair process of interpretation.
The reader will now call to mind, since I have come to
the close of Mr. D.'s book, that I have left, without alny spe-:cial remarks hitherto, the main constituent parts of ihis
scheme, as exhibited on p. 160 seq. above. I did so, because
I deemed it better on the whole, to make what few remarks
I have to make upon these constituent parts, after the close of
-a general survey of his book, than to interrupt that survey by
*any intermediate discussion. I must now request the reader,
therefore, to turn back and reperuse the leading features of
the scheme in question, as exhibited on the pages named
above, or in the work itself, in order that he may be enabled
1more readily and accurately to judge of the remarks which I
shall now subjoin.
In a general point of view, there are several complaints
which a reflecting man, who insists on some good degree of
perspicuity and co1ncinnity in theological and critical matters,
may be disposed to make of Mr. D.'s statements.
First, there is a WANT OF EXPLICITNESS in respect to various important things, important at least to satisfy the reader,;in regard to the author's views and system.
In No. 8 of the representation made above, it will be seen
that Mr. D. assumes not only the restoration and literal re-turn of the Jews to Palestine, but the reestablishment of what'he calls the theocracy there, the re-building of the temple after
Ezekiel's model (chap. 40 —48, comp. also No. lI above), and
the institution of "rites of worship adapted to the dispensation in which Jerusalem  and the Jewish nation are to
stand preeminent among the nations."  Observe how guardedly this is expressed.  He does not speak out and say plainly, that the Levitical ritual of sacrifices, and offerings, and cerernonies, is to be reinstated; because this would be neither
more nor less than a point-blank contradiction of what the
author of the epistle to the Hebrews has affirmed and taught
-at large.  And yet a theocracy and rites qf worship cannot fairly mean, in the idiom  of theologians and critics, any thing
less than this, although tile hasty reader may not, perhaps, at




APPENDIX.                     175
first view discern it.  But still, bold and uncompromising as
the author usually is, in his assertions and theories, he likes
not to appear flatly to contradict an Epistle, which is mainly
occupied with taking down and removing that very building
which Mr. D. covertly endeavors to rear up and adorn anew.
In so many words, plain and unequivocal, the Old Testament
repeatedly and in a great variety of ways, (I mean of course,
when it is literally interpreted as Mr. D. would have it in other
cases), (leclares the renewal of the Levitical rites, in connection with the return of the Jews. Thus in Is. 66: 18 —24, after
a declaration that the Jews will be gathered to Jerusalem
out of all nations, the context immediately adds: "I will
take of them  for priests and Levites, saith the Lord," v. 21.
So in Ezekiel, chap. XLIV. and seq., all the special ordinances
for the priests, people, princes, and strangers, are detailed;
all the land of Canaan is apportioned, all the ritual offerings
and sacrifices are prescribed with the greatest minuteness;
and even the very measures of the city, temple, and possessions of the Levites, as also the names of the city-gates, and
every thing of this nature, are all drawn out with exactness,
like the diagram of a building or of a plot of ground; so that
any doubt as to what is to be the fuiture ariangement of all
these matters is out of the question on the literal ground of
Mr. D.  He cannot surely refuse to acknowledge this, after
he has so frequently referred to this very sketch of Ezekiel,
as exhibiting the plan of the future Jerusalem.
Scores of passages might be cited firom the Old Testament
Scriptures, all of which are of the like tenor.  The reader
may justly complain, therefore, that Mr. D. has not explicitly
developed the full mneasure of his convictions here; or at
least, has not honestly advertised his reader of the inevitable
consequences of his scheme of interpretation.
Again;- Mr. D. has told us (No. 12), that " Christ will not
dwell habitually at the Jerusalem" re-built upon the site of
the ancient metropolis of Judea, but " in the New Jerusalem
which comes  down fiom  God out of heaven,' and that he
will visit the first Jerusalem here named only " according to
rites and at seasons appointed by him," i. e. (as I must understand him) at the times of the usual fasts and feasts instituted
after the example of the ancient theocracy. But he does not
tell us, first, where, on this nether world, the New Jerusalern
from heaven alights; nor, secondly, does he tell us explicitly,




176                    APPENDIX.
who live there, besides Christ; nor, thirdly, what sort of intercourse or relation subsists between the heavenly-derived city
and the earthly one. In No. 10, he represents all the risen
and glorified saints as " kings and priests in the new earthly
city, by whom the political and religious interests" of the
new kingdom are to be managed. On pp. 366, 367, he
seems to tell us, that the collected and converted body of
the Jews are to perform this work.  This apparent discrepancy has already been adverted to above; and I introduce it
here, merely because it is a matter rather too important to his
system, to be left in such a floating condition.  If the saints
are to be with Christ, who dwells habitually in the New Jerusalem which is from heaven, how can they be at the same
time living in the earthly Jerusalem, and governing the
world there? If all the saints are to govern, then who are to
be with Christ in the heavenly Jerusalem?  If only the Jewish saints are to govern, then the Gentile ones, living in the
heavenly city, will enjoy much greater privileges than the
children of Abraham. One wishes to know, at least, in what
light the author views this subject.  But he wishes in vain,
for all is floating, varying, and of course uncertain.
The list of difficulties oil the ground of imperfect and unsatisfactory development might be easily swelled so as to
comprehend many more particulars.  But I have aimed only
at specimlens. Let us proceed to another view of the representation which we have set out to examine. This is,
Secondly, that THERE ARE MANY APPARENT INCONSISTENCIES AND INCONGRUITIES in the scheme of Mr. D., both theological and critical.
I shall not attempt to reduce the catalogue of them to any
rigid order, nor to render it complete. To make it complete
would indeed occupy more time and space than can now be
spared.  But the following things seem plainly to belong to
the subject in question.
(1) On p. 163, thefirst act in the great drama is the restoration of the Jews to their own land; but on p. 366 seq., we
have an account of " the saints raised" amid the scenes of destruction that have been going on, as sent forth, after all this,
to gather in and convert the Jews.  If now it be said, that
the expressions on p. 163 allow possibly of a consistency in
this particular; yet, at all events, p. 163 seq. represents the
Jews as restored before the judgment and extinction of the




APPENDIX.                     177
wicked nations and the resurrection of the saints, while p. 366
represents the restoration of the Jews as after these events.
(2) No. 2 informs us, that a great conspiracy among the
antichristian nations will lead to the great war of Gog and
Magog, and the battle of Armageddon; but according to
No. 15, Gog and Magog are only the wicked, who are raised
from the dead after the close of the Jilillennrium. I am aware, that
the author has once intimated, that Ezekiel's Gog and Magog
are only typical of those in the Apocalypse.  But in other
places, he has represented the new earthly capital and tempie as built after the model of Ezekiel, and spoken of the
whole prophecy of Ezekiel as having a literal fulfilment.
Now nothing can be plainer, than that the war in question,
and the temple, and city, in John, are of the same significance,
and copied after the same model, as those in Ezekiel.  If so,
then the things predicted in the one cannot precede the Millennium, and those foretold in the otherfollow it,
(3) Whatever the author may say, to reconcile his scheme
here on nmere typological grounds, another thing is very clear,
viz., Mr. D. represents the Gog and Magog spoken of by John
in the Apocalypse, as consisting of only the wicked raised from
the dead, (p. 166 and No. 15 above); while John himself represents these same enemies as coming upfi'om the four corners,
i. e. the farthest extremities, of the earth, Rev. 20: 8. And are
there no wicked men, then, who are buried elsewhere than
in these extremities, and who must be raised up, at the end
of the world?
(4) In No. 3 we are told, that the saints with their resurrection-bodies, and the saints caught up to meet the Lord in the
AIR, will dwell in the airy region for a series of years undefined, while the process of exterminating antichristian nations
is going on. In what part of the Scriptures is it revealed,
that Christ dwells, or will dwell, in the air?  The Bible allots to Satan this place of residence, before his confinement
during the Millennium, Eph. 2: 2. 6: 12, where Y T6o75g rzovcaviotls seems plainly to mean the aerial regions.  The air is
a new abode of Christ and the saints.
(5) When Christ and his saints descend fiom the air upon
mount Olivet, " to change the geological structure" of the region and fit it for the new city (No. 7), and the earth is to
"undergo great geological and atmospherical changes" (No.
14), do Christ and his saints also undergo a new transforma



178                     APPENDIX.
tion, in order to fit them for terrestrial abodes? Or can such
bodies as they have live equally well in heaven, or in the air
above, or on the world below?
(6) There are some serious difficulties in respect to the nations to be destroyed at Christ's coming.  At one time, it is
the antichristian nations and mystic Babylon (pp. 164, 366);
at another, those only who have persecuted Jews and Christians (p. 366).  Are not idolaters, then, of the heathen world,
antichristian?  Or if all are to be destroyed who are opposed
to Christianity, who are the nations left, that are to be born in
a day by means of the saints at Jerusalem? No. 9.
(7) One representation informs us, that all the wicked on
the face of the whole Roman earth are to be exterminated
after a series of years (p. 165); what part and how much of
the earth will be Roman, at the beginning of the Millennium?
(8) The new temple at Jerusalem being " the nucleus and
centre of all religious and political influences," and all the
nations of the earth being united to it, (p. 165 and No. 11),
in what way are all the inhabitants of the earth, or " all flesh,"'
to "4 go up fi'om one new moon to another, and fiom one sabbath to another," in order to worship there?  For so Is. 66:
23 assures us they will do, if interpreted by the rules of Mr. D.
(9) Mr. D. has given us no clue, by which we can discover
how long it will take to convert the nations, that are unconverted at the time when Christ and the saints descend; nor
how much time will be occupied with destroying all the
wicked living upon Roman ground; but be this sooner or later,
when it is achieved, what object in particular is to be gained,
by the saints' dwelling any longer, either on the larth at large,
or in the political metropolis?   Their work is done; and
why should their terrene residence be any longer protracted?
(10) The Bible tells us, in many places, that all Christians
will be made kings and priests to God; if literally so, then
who are to be the subjects, after all men are converted and
become Christians? When all are kings, who are to be ruled?
(11) What is the use of the offerings to be made at Jerusalem during the Millennium?  The apostle has told us, that
Christ, by the offering of himself, has forever accomplished
all which is to be or can be accomplished, by any offerings
whatever.
(12) The apostle Paul tells us also, that Christ has " broken
down the middle wall of partition" between Jews and Gen



APPENDIX.                     179
tiles, " making of twain onE new man, Eph. 2: 15;" what
then is the design, object, or end, of keeping up a distinction
between Jew and Gentile, through the millennial period?
Paul never separated the churches under his care into two
parts; why must there be a separation of Christians during
the Millennium?  And what is the object in gathering all
the Jews into Palestine?
(13) How are all the nations of the earth to make their offerings on feast-days, in one temple, or to be accommodated
in one city?
(14) In 1 Thess. 4: 17, we are told, that the saints who are
alive on the earth, at the time of Christ's coming, "will be
caught up to meet the Lord in the air, and so be ever with
the Lord."   This is not to be understood as designating the
place of their abode, but of their meeting.  Their abode will
be in Paradise, where Christ is; Luke 23: 43. 2 Cor. 12: 4.
Yet Mr. D. tells us, in some places, that while the saints all
descend and live in the new earthly Jerusalem, (in other
places his representation is dubious), Christ " will habitually
live" in the new  heavenly Jerusalem, (No. 12).  How are
these differences in opinion between Mr. DI. and the apostle,
to be reconciled?
(15) John tells us, that the new Jerusalem is to be 12,000
furlongs in circumference, i. e. 375 miles square, and of the
same height, (Rev. 21: 16); how many of the saints, (if indeed they are to be at all with Christ here), can be furnished
with suitable dwelling-places in such a limited city, dwellingplaces accommodated to the bodies which they have under
the new order of things? And in respect to the height of the
houses, viz. 375 miles, in what way is daily, hourly, momently access from the streets to the uppermost apartliients,
and egress from the latter, to be accomplished?  These are
fair questions; for, on Mr. D.'s ground, the literal construction must be followed out; and this gives us material houses
and apartments, and heights and distances reckoned by actual measurements; and, of course, the inhabitants must be
of a quality adapted to their abodes.
(16) On what grounds are we to satisfy ourselves of the
habitual intercourse between glorified saints with spiritual
bodies, (so the apostle, 1 Cor. 15: 44); and men in the flesh
with material ones?  How are the glorified, immortal, incorruptible saints, to dwell in material cities and houses, and




180                  APPENDIX.
govern men in the flesh? In what manner are they to preach
to them, act with them, rule over them, and manage all political as well as religious matters?
(17)- According to Mr. D., men will be only entering upon
their youth when they are 100 years old, and of course very
few will die during the Millennium; but in respect to those
saints who do die, what is to becomre of them? Are they to
go into the heavenly or the earthly Jerusalem? Are they to
be provided with resurrection-bodies, or are they to go away
into a separate state, i. e. the heavenly world?  He has told
us nothing about a resurrection of the bodies of saints, after
the commencementof the millennial period; what then is to
become of the bodies of such as actually die after that time?
And what of the bodies-of all the saints who are living at the
end of the world?
(18) In the final assault on the new earthly Jerusalem, by
Gog and Magog, i. e. by the wicked raised fromn the dead,
(leagued with evil spirits), how is the war to be conducted
by beings with spiritual bodies, (for resurrection-bodies must
be of such a nature), against material cities and men in theflesh?
Or against the New Jerusalem, if, as Mr. D. once intimates,
that is to be the object of attack?
(19) John in Rev., and Ezekiel in chap. 38 and seq., have
made the war of Gog and Magog to PRECEDE both the judgment day and the construction of the new heavenly Jerusalem; Mr. D. has made the same war to FOLLOW them; which
is in the right?
(20) On pp. 166,367, Mr. D. represents the earth as purged
and redeemed, andl " placed back again anmidst the heavenly
worlds," and made the final paradise of all the ransomed of
the Lord.  He says nothing of its dimensions being enlarged.
How many then of the Redeemer's "countless throng" canll
dwell upon it?  What are we to suppose of their modes of
living and acting, in such a narrow space?  And to what
heavenly worlds is the earth to be like? If the spiritual heaven.
where God dwells is meant, what need of a netv heaven, when
one is already provided?  If (as Mir. D.'s language implies)
the starry worlds are meant, then we must of course assume,
that the future and final world of the blessed is to be nmaterigal.  Yet Paul assulmes, that " flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of God " (1 Cor. 15: 50), for the evident reason
that that kingdom is NOT material.




APPENDIX.                      181
(21) Mr. D. makes the phrase kingdom'of God, almost without exception in the New Testament, to, mean the visible
and millennial reign of Christ on the earith before- its final
transformation, p. 162. - He-also makes thei resurrection of the
saints, and the only one which he has taught us to expect, to
precede the Millennium. But he has omitted to urge I Co'r. xv..
in favour of his scheme-a passage which contains the most
extended and graphic acountl of the resuirection of saints to
be found in all the Bible'; -an accountj moreover; of their
resurrection only.  This looks very- suspicious.'What is the
common reader to do with this chapter, on' the ground of
Mr. D.?  Not a word about the wicked here; and of course,
according to him, not a word about a.'resurrection at the end
of the world. Yet Paul here asserts that it takes pilace at that period. But how now comes this matter about, in' resl)ect to the
scheme of Mr. D.? The question, as I apprehend -it, may be easily solved; but I truly regret to -be obliged to give any account
of the matter, since I must seem to accuse Mr. D. of want of
candor and fairness.  Nothing can be plainer; than that two~
important parts of his system  cannot be made to meet and
coincide with Paul's view. Paul says, that " flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God."  Of course Paul sup-.
poses that kingdom in which the saints will live after, the
resurrection, to be of a nature which is incompatible with the'
residence of material bodies. - Yet Mr.D. makes the kingdom
of God to be of such a nature, that unnumbered'millions of
men in the flesh dwell in it for a thousand years; yea, what is
more still, of such a nature that, for a long time, the wicked
and the righteous dwell in it mixed together.  Again; Paul,
as before remarked, puts'the resurrection of saints at the end
of the world, 1 Cor. 15: 24; but Mr. D., before the Millennium.
The one half is not yet told —but enough. Such a tissueof incongruities and inconsistencies: has -rarely made its appearance before the world, at any period since the days of
Jacob Boehmen and Immanuel Swedenborg. How it is possible for any sober and'educated man,'in possession of his
reason, seriously to believe, and earnestly to defend such
things as these, I confess myself unable to see.  Mr. D. often.
-very often-complains of the want of faith in those who
differ firom him. I think no one of his opponents will prefer~
a complaint of this nature against him; I mean, of course,
a want offfaith in the sense in which he would regard or de16




182                    APPENDIX.
fine it. It is difficult to read Tertullian, without feeling that
the strength of' his faith (alias credulity) is one of the most
conspicuous of all his qualities. But the agonizing throes of
this virtue (if you will so name it) in him, even when wrought
up to such a height as to force from him the famous Credo
quia impossible est, is but a faint prototype of the faith of MrA
Duffield.
I must not quit the repulsive task in which I have been engaged, without laying before the reader, in the briefest manner possible, some HINTS in respect to the principles which
nmust be adopted in the interpretation of the Scriptures,
where they speak on subjects of such a nature as has now
been under consideration.
All language is formed by men primarily in reference to
objects perceived by some of the senses. It is the mass of
men who make and use language.  The conceptions originally conveyed by it, are therefore such as the mass of men
canl entertain.
When men come, in process of time, to reflect and generalize, and thus attain to abstract and mere intellectual conceptions, they seldom, if ever, invent terms wholly new to
express them.  For example; understanding, comprehension,
perception, idea, imagination, and terminology of the like character in all languages, are employed as qualified or tropical
words, when applied to the operations of the mind, all of them
hlaving originally a meaning connected with views or feelings
occasioned by objects of sense.
So it is in respect to the invisible world, and all the beings
and objects that belong to it. They are not objects of sense
to us. When we attain to a knowledge of them, therefore,
ill any way, either by reflection or revelation, we are compelled, by the poverty of language, to speak of them in terms
that belong to language introduced to designate our ideas of
sensible objects.  God is a spiritual and rational being. But
we speak of him more humano, i. e. as if lie were like ourselves.
The Bible speaks of his face, and hands, and arms, and eyes,
and ears, and mouth, and feet  of his anger, and revenge,
and hatred, and love, and pity, and repentance; of his sword,
and bow, and arrows, and quiver, and shield; and so it seemingly attributes to hirn almost every thing that can be predicated of man. It even goes upon adventurous ground, as we
should naturally think, at times, and speaks of his espousing




APPENDIX.                      183
the virgin, the daughter of Israel, of his being married to her;
and the Lamnb too has a Bride, who comes to the wedding in
splendid and glorious apparel.  So it is, also, in respect to
angels; and so as to heaven, and hell. Angels are furnished
with attributes analogous to human ones; heaven is like an
Eden, with its rivers, and trees, and palaces, and feasts; hell
is a ike of fire and brimstone, or a pit of perpetual darkness,
or a gloomy prison house; and so of all the objects of the invisible world.
All this, now, is not facly or poetry.  It comes not from
the desire to employ trope and metaphor in the way of ornarnent or rhetoric.  It comes from  the necessities and the
poverty of human langruage; which was not originally formed
in view of such objects.  It is not therefore adapted literally
to express them.
What now would Mr. D., or any advocate of the visible
and terrestrial kingdomr of Christ think, should any reader of
the Scriptures insist that all such language is to be literally
interpreted?  They would at once pronounce him to be bereaved of reason.   Wbhy?  Because spiritual objects of the
eternal and unseen world cannot be the same as the material ones, fiom  which language has taken its origin.  Of
course, a tropical use of words, at the foundation of which
some analogy real or supposed lies, is the only use which
can be supposed or sanctioned, in cases like these.
So, in the next place, it is with objects in the spiritual, i. e.
mental, moral, and intellectual world. For the most part our
language is and must be tropical.  Thus the spiritual change
by which a sinner becomes a child of God, is spoken of as
new birth, as a resurrection, as a new creation.  None of these
designations, of course, can be literally interpreted.  If they
should be, they would contradict each other, and contradict
experience.  Of course we interpret them in a tropical way.
Yet this does not prove that they are not employed to designate" historical facts."  It is as much a matter of fact, and of
history, in respect to a Christian, that he has been born again,
as that he has been physically and naturally born.  No one
need to doubt here, nor to reason as Nicodemnus did.
Thus f'r we are on plain and beaten ground. Let us now
advance a step further.
All the prophecies respecting the appearance of the Messiahl are invested with the costume of figurative language.




184                    APPENDIX.
The predominant characteristics in the Old Testanlent are,
that he is to be a King, to- reign over Israel, and subdue all nations; to be surrounded by every object that will exhibit
and render impressive his power and his magnificence; he
is to sit' on David's throne, and reign for ever and ever.
Ps. II, XLV, LXXII, CX, and a multitude of passages in Isaiah and other prophets, all hold the 1M'essiah up to view in
such a light as this.
What now did the Jews think and say, when he made his
appearance among them in a lowly condition, as "a man of
sorrows and acquainted with grief?" They thought it impossible that he couldi be the Messiah.  They said that he
was an impostor. They despised, neglected, persecuted, crucified him, because he did not appear in the manner and
condition which they believed were predicted by the prophets of their nation; and they believed thus, because, like
M'r. D., they interpreted the Scriptures literally.
This, then, is the very same mistake, so far as interpretation
is concerned, which Mr. D., and all who harmonize in opinion with him, are now committing.  They must needs have a
literal exegesis of all passages of Scripture which relate to
the fitume kingdom of Christ. So said and thought the Jews.
And because the Messiah made his claims only to a spiritual
dominion, they would not receive him. And because Christians in general believe' in only a filture spiritual reign of
Chiist on earth, Mr. D. and others reject the views which
they entertain, and treat them with disregard or even with
contumely. Such is the parallel which- is now fairly before us.
~A sober man, well versed in the language of Scripture,
will easily perceive and acknowledge, that of necessity the
ancient prophets spoke as they did of the filture coming of
Christ in the flesh, and of the kingdom which he was about
to set up.  Their representations must be borrowed, in order to be understood, filom objects before the minds of their
hearers or readers, with which they were familiar. All the
mysteries of prophetic diction, if any there are, are easily unfolded by such considerations.  The prophets took it for
granted, that in speaking of a spiritual Redeemer, and of his
kingdom, their language must be spiritually interpreted.
Why now, in speaking of the advanced and more comnplete state of the same kingdom, should not the same prophets, or the New Testament writers, employ language in a
similar way? I can see, or feel, no rational objection.




APPENDIX.                     185
This brings us to our ultimate point. Is the kingdom of
Christ essentially moral and spiritual?  And must, therefore,
all descriptions of it be interpreted in a manner that comports with this fundamental principle?
THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS SPIRITUAL.  So the Saviour has
most explicitly declared: "The kingdom  of God cometh not
with observation; neither shall they say, Lo here! or lo
there! fbr behold, TILE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN You," Luke
17: 20, 21.  So says Paul: "The kingdom  of God is not
meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the
Holy Ghost," Rom. 14: 17.  So said Jesus to Pilate: "MY
KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD... my kingdom is not from
hence," John 18: 36.
The whole tenor of the Bible declares this to be true.  It
lies on the very face of all its requisitions, commands, and
promises; on the face of the qualifications insisted on with
respect to all who can belong to it.  What must be done,
that a man may enter it or belong to it?  Ie must undergo
a spiritual change?  WThat mlust he do in order to remain
faithful to his allegiance?  He must combat and conquer his
spiritual enemlies.  What lzust one do in order to attain its
highest rewards?  " Without holiness no man shall see the
Lord;" and. "the pure in heart shall see God."  The battles
of Christ's servants are " not with flesh and blood, but with
principalities and powers, even wicked spirits in the aerial
regions," Eph. 6: 12.  Christ's comning to extend and cornplete his kingdom, is no more evidence that his kingdom is
visible and an object of sense, than his coining to set up his
kingdomn  at first, is an evidence that this kingdom was then
visible.  Christ himself assumed a visible appearance then,
only that he might take on him our nature and die for sin,
Heb. 2: 9, 14.  When he appears a second time, there is
no necessity of assumling such a naliture; he will appear, i. e.
he will give manifest tokens of his presence, only for the
purpose of salvation-salvation spiritzual, not temporal; Heb.
9: 28.  The characteristics demianded of his servants, their
rewards, and the punishment of his enemies, all combine to
show that his kingdom is spiritual.
If' then I am asked, why I give a spiritual exegesis to all those
passages that respect his filture reign on earth, my answer is,
that I do it for a reason like that which leads me to explain
all the anthropopathic expressions concerning God and the
16*




186                    APPENDIX.
future world in a spiritual manner, i. e. because any other
exegesis -would be utterly opposed to the well known and certairi nature and condition of the Me-ssiaiic reign.  The kingdom of God cometh not with obseirvation; it is spiritual, internal~ molal,.  Tlie happiness for which it prepares men, is of
this character; and therefore the preparation itself nmust be
congruous and appropriate.
In fact, one might just as well appropriate and assign all
our bodily;qhalities to spirits, as appropriate to Christ's kingdomn the qu'alities of'a temporal, earthly, visible kingdom.
No principle whichli belongs to the science of herineneutics'is better established than this, viz., that language is always to be reogarded as TROPICAL, when, if literally interpreted, it
ibould irdke a sense absurzd,.frigid; incongruous, or inconsistent
with the context or nature opf things.  Now Mr. D.'s literal int'erpretdatioli of many passages leads to some or all of this;
and'therefore I cannot admit it.  On the other hand, when
these passages are interpi'eted analogically with other parts
of the Bible which -have respect to the Messianic developmeht and'work, nothing but consistent and rational views of
Christ's kingdom are the result.  I cannot hesitate which of
these methods of interpretation I- atn to follow.'The consequence of all this is, that I feel just as well satisfied, that the predictiois respecting the future state and
~prosperity of Christs kingdomrn  are to' be spiritually interpreted, as I do'that the declarations of Scripture respecting the
hands' feet; eyes, ears, mouth, etc:, of the divine Being are to be
spiiitnally interpr'eted.  We- must give to these latter declarations a' sense, Which w-ill make them compatible with the
well-known nature of spirits.  And in just the same way,
and for reasons;:equally cogent, we must interpret the expression's respecting Christ's future kingdom in a spiritual way.
Our exegesis does not dispense with facts in such a case; nay,
it is bauilt on facts that respect the nature of Christ's kingdom,
anid it presiupposes facts in regard to it which I may well say
a ie mol'e real and permanent and immutable, than any facts
in iespect to an ear1thly kingdom that is visible, palpable, and
politico-ecclesiastical, possibly can be.
Let:us assume for a momentthe other position, and see some
of the conseqtiences. Glorified saints, with spiritual bodies, will
ieave tlhe heavens and come down to earth, mingle with saints
and sinners in theeflesh, partake of their occupations, and man



APPENDIX.                      187
age their concerns. The Redeemer must quit, for a long time,
the throne of glory in the heavens on which he is seated, to
preside in and reign over a city or kingdom  on earth. It is not
possible to conceive of such a condition, either in respect to
him or the saints, Without feeling that it is a condition of ezile.  In "the presence of God is fulness of joy, at his right
hand are pleasurees forevermore."  There only "can we see
and know, even as we are seen and known."  Elsewhere all
is mutable, perishable, and comparatively unsatisfactory. The
Bible gives us no intimation, that when the glorification of
saints is once begun, it will. be thus interrupted.  Nor is
there any object to be achieved by all this, which may not
be equally well accomplished without it.  According to Mr.
D., a great portion of the nations unchristianized will suffer
excision, ator soon after, the coming of Christ.  The work
of' converting the rest is to be speedily' accomplished, when
the Jews are gathered in-and What then remains still to be
achieved?
The literality, moreover, which ourl autho r proposes for
our guide, must of necessity introduce boundless confusion
and darkness.  Guided by this, we must decide, that David
in propria persona will be raised up, and be the literal king,
yea king forever, of the Jews; see Ezek. 37: 24, 25.  Another Sacred writer, if interpreted by the sane rule, will oblige
us to believe, that the king Messiah, after his coining, will in
his own person make literal war; that he will bring home to
his palace many captive princesses; that he will wed one of
these, and retain the others in his Ha'rein; and that his own
literal progeny will be kings and princes in all the land; for
all this the 45th Psalm of necessity obliges us to believe, when
interpreted in the literal way.  In the millennial day, too,
the wolf and the lamb will literally dwell together; the leopardl shall lie down  with the kid; the little child shall lead
the calf, the young lion, and the fatling; the cow and the
bear shall feed together; the lion will eat straw like the ox;
yea, the very hills shall break forth into singing, and the trees
of the field shall clap their hands; see is. xi. and Lv. 12.
In my own view, Mr. D. has no right to' refuse the literal
exegesis of all these passages; because, following his own
example in other cases, we are fairly entitled (not to say necessitcted) so to explain therm.  Much less can lie refuse the
following consequences, (several of which, indeed, he has ex



188                    APPENDIX.
pressly admitted and even insisted upon), viz., the rebuilding
of a literal temple at Jerusalem; the resumption of the ancient ritual and priesthood; the monthly and weekly flocking
of all nations to worship there, Is. 66: 23; the universal sulbjugation of the Gentiles to the Jews as tributaries and servants,
Is. 61: 6. 60: 5, 11, 12, 16. 49: 22, 23.
But enough.  What end now, we may well ask, is to be
answered by all this? Paul has undertaken, more than once,
to show that Gentiles are as really and as much the children
of Abraham, as Jews; Rom. iv. and Rom. 3: 29, 30. Gal. 3:
7-14. lHe tells us that "the wall of partition is broken
down," Eph. 2: 14. Who then is to build it up? Who is to
show me, if I am a Christian, tlhat I amu not entitled, in every
proper sense of this word, to as many privileges as any of the
Jews?  Paul, John, Christ himself, the Old Testament also,
speak of all the children of God as being made k7ings and
priests, and being entitled to a crown of glory.  If then all
Chrlistians are to be kings and priests, who are to be the servants and underlings of the Jews? The whole assumption, and
all that is built upon it, is in direct opposition to the great first
principles, to the fundamental and constitutional arrangements, of the Christian system. Yea, the assumption, in its
very nature, is not merely un-scriptural but anti-scriptural.
It is in fact a real defamation of the free, glorious, and all
pervading grace of the Gospel.
Has any man ever yet made out even a tolerable account
of the end to be subserved, by the reassembling of the Jews,
and the reinstitution of the Mosaic ritual? Sacrifices are no
more needed; are no more acceptable.  The time has come,
when neither in Samaria, nor yet at Jerusalenm, are mnen to
worship God. He seeks other worshipperms. But beyond this;
the Jewish nation now amount to considerably more than
three millions of people. How are these to settle down and
subsist in Palestine, with all their descendants? Death is
rarely to occur in tile Millenniumn, according to Mlr. D. The
period of youth is-in bloom at the age of 100 years. Then
surely the Jews must double every 10 years (for they are a
most prolific race); and in a single century they will at least
number three thousand millions.  Are these all to live within
the apportionmnents of Ezekiel as drawn out in chap. XLVIII.?
Besides; to what number are they to amount, provided they
increase in the same ratio for 1,000 years?  Aind whete are




APPENDIX,                     189
they to live? All the planets, and suns too, of ten solar systenms, would not hold them.   On the very face of it, then,
such a theory exhibits, enstamped upon it in high relief, the
inscription of absurdity.
Why does Paul, who has said so muchl about the restoration
of the Jews in Rorn. XI., say not a word about their literal retum rn? Why does the Saviour, John, Peter, say nothing of
this matter? The obvious answer seemns to be: Because they
thought nothing of it, and believed nothing in it.  It is all
built on assumptions contrary to the very nature, soul, and
spirit, of the gospel-dispensation, and subversive of the gloriousfireedom and equality of the sons of God.
At all events, the exegesis that proves the literal return of
the Jews and the earthly Messianic reign, must, if consistent,
admit the literal David to be king, the Levitical priesthood and
sacrifices to be renewed, and that all men must go up, even
from the most distant parts of the earth, every Sabbath to Jerusalem, for the purposes of worship.  There is no stopping
short of this, without entire and absolute inconsistency. And
I will only add, that whatever proves too much —too much
in such an immeasurable degree-proves NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING.
Let any man of common sense, either educated or uneducated, open his Bible now, for a single moment, at Jer. xxxIII.
Here, beginning with v. 15, he finds the coming of the Messiah most clearly foretold.  What follows?  That a son of
David shall sit on the Jewish throne forever;: that priests and
Levites shall offer' burnt-offerings, and kiudle meat-offerings,
and do sacrifice forever.  All this, too, is to take place with the
most absolute certainty.  "The covenant with day and night"
shall be sooner broken, than this covenant, vs. 15-22. Here
then, according to the scheme of interpretation before us, we
must give a literal exegesis; and of course we mtust find visible and palpable historic facts in this representation. Christ,
then, did not come, according to Paul, to abolish, but to reform and complete, the ritual of Moses!
There is no avoidance of such a conclusion.  The son of
David, here, must of course be a son in the ordinary acceptation of that word; and priests and Levites and offerings and
sacrifices must all be literally understood; and all these must
be eternal.  I have only to add, then, that a man may as well
ask me to trample under fobot the epistle to the Hebrews, and




190                     APPENDIX.
with this a large portion of the New  Testament also, as to
ask me to believe in such a scheme of interpretation.  No.
principles of hermeneutics can be sound, which  make the
Bible to contradict itself; none can b'o sound, which degrade
the glorious liberty of the children of God under the Gospel,
into a state which Paul most significantly names "a yoke of
bondage," and again, "' a bondage tander the elenments of the world,"
Gal. 5:2. 4:3.
But it is time to withhold my hand, if I intend to preserve
the character of HINTS, for this little work.  And although it
were easy to say things that would occupy as much space as
Mr. D.'s treatise, I hope it is not necessary.  At all events,
it does not come within may present design.
The reader must not for a moment suppose, that the leading features of Mr. D.'s scheme are new, or the product of
long continued and accurate investigation, on his part, of the
Scriptures.  They are far fromn this. Changes have been
rung upon the same tocsin, ever since the close of the first
century.  Papias, whom  Eusebius thinks to be somewhat
shallow, seems to have been a pretty full believer in the visible coming and kingdom of Christ. Then we hlave (probably)
Justin Martyr; and, as I have before mentioned, near the
close of' the second century, Tertullian and Irenaeus.  Lactantius wrote part of a book on the subject of the Millennium,
at the beginning of the fourth century.  Ever since that period,' although sometimes there were long intervals, individuals have made their appearance as advocates of the like sentiments.  In Germany and Switzerland, since the Reformation, not a few writers of the same class have appeared; but
it seems to have been reserved for England to be the nmain
field to produce such a crop.  For some 30 or more years
the number of such writers has been on the increase. Some
of them  have equalled, or perhaps even outdone, 5Mr1. Duffield himself. In our own country also, we have occasionally
witnessed some phenomena of the same kind.  David Austin
at one time led the van; and an impetuous and magniloquent
leader he was.  He was so full of the faith, as actually to
build a store-house, upon the wharf at Newhaven, 250 feet
long, for the service of the Jews, as a place of deposit when
they should embark for Palestine.  Finally, however, Mr.
Austin made quite a speculation out of the store-house, by
selling it for Gentile use.  Mr. Duffield has indeed, so far as I




APPENDIX.                      19t
know, built no edifice of timber and clap-boards, like Mr.
Austin; but he has been long and busily engaged, in my
humble opinion, in building castles in the air, more magnificent, it must be confessed, and more imposing to the sight,
than Mr. Austin's fantastic edifice, btt destined, beyond all
reasonable doubt, and at no very distalt- day, to something
less honourable than even Gentile occupation.
Sed-manum cohibendam. There is no end of the history
of such efforts.  Corrodi has drawn it out to four volumes;
and yet has told his story tersely and briefly too, in his Geschichte des Chiliasmus. The curious may easily consult him,
if they want further satisfaction.
The reader will remember that I have promised him, more
than once, some specimens of opinions, among the early advocates of the visible and personal reign of Christ on earth,
during the primitive ages of Christianity.  He will also call
to mind, that Mr. D. has occupied nearly 100 pages in giving
us the traditionany history of the Millennium; being desirous
to persuade us, that the ancients, who lived nearer to the:apostolic age than we, must better understand the meaning
of the New  Testament Scriptures.  On this appeal to the
Fathers I have already made some strictures, and do not intend here to resume the topic.  My intention is merely to lay
before the reader some delicate morsels of "traditionary history," which will enable hlim  to judge for himself, whether
what is early, is of course credible and authentic.
I begin this exhibition with a simple reference to Lactantius, in the first quarter of the fourth century.  In his Institutiones, Lib. VII. ~ 14 seq., he has exhibited his views at length.
He draws from  Hystaspis, from the Sybilline Oracles most
copiously, and from the Apocalypse; and thus he makes out,
for filture time, a paradisiacal state of the world, by interpreting the Scriptures now literally and then figuratively, and
sometimes both ways in the same passage, just as suits his
favorite object.  He is rhetorical, and visionary, and -very
imaginative; but he still shuns many of the absurdities into
which Mr. D. has fallen.
Tel rtullian has given us only one short paragraph in Lib.
III. advers. Mlarcionem, ~ 24.  In this he tells us, that he had
written a book De Spe Fidelium, in which all his views about
the Millennium were exhibited.  But this is now lost.  Still,
in the paragraph above referred to he tells us, that the resur



19-2                     APPENDIX.
rection of the just is gradual, during the 1,000 years;' and that,
at the end of the world,' the present earth will be destroyed,
and the saints be changed into angelii: substance, and transported to heaven.  For'one I. deep]y regret the loss of his millennial hook.  It would be in itself an interesting, if not a
complete, history of early opinions on this subject.
As to Justin Martyr, even the text of the so-called millennial passage in him, and. th'only one,. (Dial. cuin Tryphone,
p. 306 ed. Colon.), is not settled.  The' probability seems
rather to be, that'he was-a Millennarian.  Buthliis views are
no where given at large.  What he has given, amounts to
mere hints.
Irenaeus is the. storerhouse from which I shall select the
material for the closing part of the, entertainment, (I would
hope that what I select will, be for the instruction too), of my
readers.  At the close of his great work Cohtra Haereses, Lib.
V. c. 33. ~ 33-36 he has given us his argutents fromi Scripture in support of a visible and terrestrial reign, the ingatliering of the Jews, etc., Here, for the inost part, so far as he
quotes Scripture, he quotes the sarne passages which Mr. D.
also produces, and interprets them  in the same literal way.
On these I need not dwell, since enough has already been
said in relation to this subject.
But there are one or two pieces of "traditionary history"
presented by the venerable Irenaeus here, to which. I amn
earnestly desirous of drawing the attention of my readers, and
specially of all who may be in any way advocates for the traditionary authomity of the Fathers.  I shall thus, by exhibiting'
these, redeem the pledge I have given, to furnish the reader
with son.e specimens of patristical interplretation and. tradition. I ought, moreover, to produce these, in jlstice to mys'elf;
and in confirmation  of my views respecting the conceits. and
superstitions of the Fathers. Mr. D. has indeed careflilly suppressed the specimens which I am about to produce.''The
reader will, however, be at no loss in conjecturing the reason
of the suppression.
The invaluable relics in question are selected by Irenaeuis, as
lie himself tells us, firoDm the fourth book of Papias, an auditor
of the apostle Johns and a most diligent and eager collector
and recorder of traditionary sayings. The book of Papias was
entitled Aoyihov xvoetalnX X(V ieeYatg, i. e. Narratives of;our
Lord's Sayings.  The book itself has perished; buFt Eusebius




A rPPENDIx.                  193
and Irenaeus have preserved some relics; and through the
latter, I am enabled to present my readers with a portion of
them.
Papias says, that the specimens in question were gathered
by him fiom persons who were auditors of the apostle John;
and that John assured them, that he himself heard Jesus,
when speaking of his future and visible kingdom on earth
and its abundance and fruitfulness, make the following declarations:
"A. grain of wheat will [then] produce 10,000 heads; and
each head will yield 10,000 grains; and each grain will yield
ten pounds of clear fine flourt; and other fruits will yield seeds
and herbage in the same proportion.  And all the animals,
which subsist on the productions of the earth, will be peaceful and. harmonious, and obedient to man with the most en —
tire subjection." Iren. V. c. 33. ~ 3.
So much for the nutriment of those, who are to live in the
new Eden which is hereafter to arise. But they will need
drink, as well as food. Of this Papias, it will be seen, is by
no means unmlindful.  The provision, according to him (Iren.
c. 33. ~ 3), will be made in the following manner:
" The days will come, in which vines will grow, each having 10,000 branches; and on each branch, 10,000 clusters of
grapes; and in each cluster, 10,000 grapes; and each grape,
when pressed, will yield 25 metrelae (tssradaieSt) of wine. And
when any one of the saints shall take hold of a cluster of
grapes, another [cluster] wvill cry out: I amn a better cluster,
take me, and on nay account give thanks to the Lord."
The 25 metretae, which each grape is to yield, amount to
about 209 gallons; and the amount of the produce of a single grape vine, therefore, is something more than one hundred
and eighty thousand BILLIONS of gallons.  Here then is somewhat ample provision for drink in the days of the temporal
and visible reign of the Messiah.  It would seem, indeed,
that the promise to the disciples, that, at some future period,
they should no more hungel, and no more thirst, is to be fulfilled with an amplitude that they never could have even
dreamed of. O ne vine on each of the Continents, will make
a reasonable supply at least, for all the inhabitants; and the
people of those days will need to give themselves very little
trouble about carrying on agricultural labours.
Alas! however, for Temperance Societies, and specially for
17




194                     APPENDIX.
Washington Temperance Societies, who inhibit all kinds of
intoxicating drink! Their day will soon be over, when the
Millennium  of Papias and Irenaeus is come; and this, as Mr.
D. expects, is already near.
Bu]t, trifling apart, (and in fact these are matters too grave
to trifle with, when one can help it), what are we now to say
of "early traditionary history" respecting the visible kingdom
of Christ? And what about the authority and correctness of
those, who lived even very-near to the time of Christ and
the apostles?  Irenaeus produces the express declaration of
Papias, that auditors of the apostle John assured him, that
John himself had related to them declarations of the Saviour
made in his (the apostle's) hearing-viz. the declarations that
have been exhibited above.  Here, then, I take my stand,
and ask the advocates and defenders of traditionary and patrislical histories and legends, one and all, whether twe are in
sober earnest to believe in. such putid fables as these, that would
dishonour the brain of even the Rabbies who assert, that
when Adam was created, his head touched the north pole
and his feet the south?  If not, then where is the tribunal,
before which these and all other tiaditions' are to be tried
and judged?  It is only THE REVEALED WORD of God.  THE
SCRIPTURES ARE THE SUFFICIENT AND ONLY RULE OF FAITH
AND PRACTICE.
Mr. D. "will probably declare, that he has nothing to do
with these extravagant and foolish conceits of Irenaeus and
Papias.  Doubtless he thinks it meet to reject these.  But
still I say: "1 Mutato nomine, de TE fabula narratur." He has
broached conceits not a whit behind these fables in point of
extravagance; he brings forward, and gravely and earnestly
commends to the reception of the Christian public, fancies,
extravagancies, puerilities, contradictions-and these in respect to subjects of the gravest nature too-even more improbable and more revolting to the simple-hearted reader of
the Scriptures, than the grain or the grape-sto7y of father
Papias.
E ND.