=

But the allusion to the controversial nature of those ex-
positions demands a passing notice. However plausible
the objection may sound in the ears of latitudinarians, it
is in reality empty and frivolous. Divine truth, as we
are plainly taught, is part of the Christian armour; and
what is the use of armour, but to be employed in con-
flict? The very purpose and intent of sacred prophecy
is to warn the Church against secret danger; and what
warning can be given without exposing unsuspected ene-
mies? An interpretation of prophecy which is not, in
some way or other, controversial, would by that mark
alone be proved spurious and deceptive.

But this interpretation, we are told, " had its origin in
three different and independent families of reputed
heretics." The argument, as thus stated, is not very
formidable. That the men who believed and affirmed
the Roman Church to be the harlot Babylon should be
reputed fearful heretics by her votaries and admirers,
is not very surprising. For such men to have been
owned as sound and orthodox Christians by the fol-
lowers of the accused system would have been a miracle
of no common órder. And when we are assured, by
an adverse authority, that the same testimony was
given by three independent families of such heretics, we
can scarce fail to be reminded of the words of Scripture
"In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every
word be established."

But "has the exposition (Dr. Todd asks) restored unity to the Church? Has it carried with it the intelligent conviction of all impartial readers of the Bible?" It may be asked, in the same tone—"Has Christianity restored unity to the world? Has it carried with it the intelligent conviction of all the nations of the earth?" It is dangerous for Christian divines to borrow their shafts against an obnoxious theory from the armoury of infi

dels. As the Gospel itself predicts the opposition it would receive, and the numbers who would reject it; so do these prophecies both imply and expressly assert, that multitudes within the Church would either slight or pervert them. Let us only give a faithful paraphrase of this triumphant inquiry, and its gross absurdity becomes apparent. "Has that exposition of prophecy, which affirms that the Church will be troubled till the coming of Christ, by a dangerous apostasy, of which Rome is the centre and head, restored unity to the Church, and put an end to the apostasy long before his coming?" An objection of this singular kind calls for no answer; it is its own best refutation.

To conclude: the Protestant system, in its first principles, has the full concurrence of the early Church; while that of the Futurists, in its very foundations, directly contradicts the early writers. Even the yearday theory, the most modern and most assailable outwork of the Protestant system, was recognized, in the two main pillars on which it rests, thirteen centuries ago, and perhaps longer; and its slow development is a necessary result of the hypothesis itself, rightly understood. We have further the direct warrant of Scripture for preferring, on this particular topic, the judgment of the later ages of the Church; and for seeking the true exposition among the persecuted, rather than among the persecutors (Dan. xii. 10). Finally, in Dr. Todd's attempt to set aside this weighty argument, the far greatest part is entirely irrelevant; his first alternative is conclusive against his own theory; and in the second, his version is inconsistent with the context, his paraphrase inconsistent with his own version, and palpably

untrue.

IV. THE STUDY OF HISTORY REQUIRED is a further objection which Mr. Burgh produces against the com

C

mon view of these prophecies. Mr. Maitland (Attempt, &c., p. 20) presents it in the germ; but in Mr. Burgh's Lectures it is formally unfolded :

"But are we so without rule and measure of interpretation? Is the word of God no rule or measure for its own interpretation? -the word of God, honestly taken, compared with itself, made its own interpreter? We are told that we must resort to the foreign aid of history-that none are qualified to interpret prophecy who are not deeply read in history-and that the Christian most thoroughly furnished with knowledge of the Scriptures must here go to commentators. But if I were called on to nameone advantage more than another which the system for which I contend has over that which prevails, I would say it is its maintaining THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE. The interpreter of prophecy must be read in history—yea, truly, in the history of the Bible; for where are the prophecies, the fulfilment of which we can only ascertain from history-of the fulfilment of which the Scripture history does not contain the record? I say, the fulfilment of which can only be ascertained from history; for of many which have been fulfilled, the fulfilment is matter of notoriety, ascertainable by observation." (Lect. Adv., pp. 133, 134; second edition).

It is difficult to reply gravely to so bold and strange an objection as this. If it be just and solid, one of these alternatives must also be true. First, that whenever God has given a prediction in his word, he has pledged himself to give us, after the event, a fresh revelation to announce its fulfilment: or else, that he has bound himself to utter no prediction, the fulfilment of which is not self-evident, without search or inquiry, to the whole Church in every following age. Now what is this but to charge God with contracting his own allperfect revelation, that he may encourage the indolenceof his people, and justify them in a careless neglect of the lessons of his providence?

Very different is the real nature of the all-sufficiency of Scripture. We have there given to us the express com

mand, “Ask now of the days which are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth." And to those who neglect this duty, which Mr. Burgh accounts so needless, the Spirit of God addresses the severe warning, "Because they regard not the work of the Lord, nor consider the operation of his hand, he will destroy them, and not build them up.'

In a second edition Mr. Burgh endeavours to remove the objections which Mr. Cuninghame had brought against these statements, by the following explication:

"He gives only three examples, and what are they? First, the destruction of Nineveh; with respect to which I have quoted his words above, which, he says, 'has been accomplished so literally, that the place where Nineveh stood is now unknown.” And if so, I ask, need we go to history to ascertain that it has been destroyed? Secondly, the rise and partition of Alexander's empire, predicted Dan. viii. 21, 22; and believing, as Mr. C. does, that the he-goat, which forms the burden of the prophecy, and which some have said denotes Popery, others Mohammedanism, is the Roman empire in the East, he is greatly indebted to history for the proof that the prophecy has been fulfilled. I, however, believe that the person denoted by this emblem (for a person, and not an empire, I believe it to denote) has not appeared, and that the connection he shall have with the kingdom of Alexander is as yet non-apparent: and this being so, I cannot feel myself much indebted to history for telling me that Alexander's empire is no more, if indeed I need its information at all for this notorious fact. And, thirdly, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans; and here again I quote his words: He might as well deny that the sun shines on the earth;' and 'we appeal to desolated Jerusalem and history to prove their fulfilment ;' with which I agree, with this exception, that I think desolated Jerusalem, without history, is sufficient, evidence." (L. Adv., second edition, p. 135).

Now, surely, it is quite as difficult for the unlettered Christian to travel to the site of Nineveh or Jerusalem, as to read a few books of authentic history. What advantage, then, is gained by this empty and unnecessary

distinction? If the unlearned Christian, unless he travel over half the world, must be thrown upon credible testimony, as to the present state of Tyre and Nineveh, why not resort to the like testimony in the case of past events? Next, if “information of the notorious fact of the division of Alexander's kingdom" can be gained without the help of history, as Mr. Burgh appears to assert, by what means is it to be acquired? Is it to be gained by intuition? or are we perhaps to receive it by a supernatural revelation? But if both these suppositions are absurd, then, without the aid of history, how can the fact be notorious, or even known at all?

But "desolated Jerusalem, without history, is sufficient evidence." Now, first, it is a curious notion of the sufficiency of Scripture, that it may borrow evidence from books of travels, and none from works of general history. Apart from this objection, however, there is another of equal weight. The assertion is untrue. The prophecy announces, not merely the desolation itself, but the means by which it should be effected, the invasion of hostile armies, with many other characters of the judgment. Desolated Jerusalem, therefore, without history, is not sufficient evidence; and the defence fails in every point.

But besides the absurdity of the general principle advanced, Mr. Burgh falls into two other great mistakes in this short passage; though, since it is a note added to correct and explain his first statements, we might expect here, if anywhere, to find marks of common accuracy in his statements and reasonings. First, he asserts that commentators have explained the hegoat to be Popery, Mohammedanism, and the Roman empire in the East. But this statement is most inaccurate. All commentators, I believe, except Dr. Todd and himself, give the same exposition of the he