fold as full a warrant of early tradition on their side, as those writers who so boldly claim it for their own novel theories. III. THE SUPERIOR SIMPLICITY OF THEIR OWN VIEW is the last argument which the Futurists allege in their own behalf, or, at least, of those which seem to require notice. It appears indeed to be a very favourite topic. Thus Mr. Maitland, in the "Attempt," p. 22: "Surely it is time that the common sense of the Christian Church should be aroused, to seek after some interpretation which may do less violence to the word of God." And in the "Second Enquiry," p. 78 :— "I believe that opinion (of the early Church) would never have been departed from, if some of the Reformers, with more zeal than knowledge, had not determined that the Pope must be . Antichrist; and as the Pope did not suit the prophecy, they resolved that the prophecy should be so interpreted as to suit the Pope." Mr. Burgh, again, in his "Advent Lectures," p. 121: "A thousand-fold more intelligible, I am bold to say, are these visions in prospect, and considered as unfulfilled, than viewed in the retrospect of the fulfilments now made for them, where all is indeed uncertainty and conflicting testimony." And in the "Lectures on the Apocalypse," p. 44 :— "Do we, indeed, part with certainty, when we leave expositions that are thus palpably uncertain and discordant? I answer not. No uncertainty could be greater than that which already exists on the supposition of their being fulfilled; and I trust that a few words will convince you, that, far from parting with certainty, the utmost clearness characterizes this vision, if we suppose it yet unfulfilled." So again, p. 54: I do "I regret to think that, as far as I know, I stand alone in these suggestions, but I am not intimidated by this reflection. not on that account doubt the truth of what I advance, feeling that I have a much better warrant than any of the expositors with which I am acquainted. I have the integrity of Scripture language preserved......depart from this, and you plunge into a chaos of allegorical and mystical interpretations." In like manner, Mr. Mac Causland, in his Preface:— "The generally admitted inconclusiveness of the expositions (of the Apocalypse), evidenced by their number and diversity, and the firm and unshrinking conviction of his own mind, as to the general correctness of his view, confirmed by a host of passages, and contradicted by none, have impelled him to send forth. the result of his inquiries. The sole object has been to unfold the simple truth as concisely as possible, while the erroneous views of other commentators have been left to sink, undiscussed, beneath what he considers the stream of true construction." And again, p. 313 :— "Under the management of the commentators who have dealt with the prophecy before us as for the most part accomplished, it has brought forth nothing but thorns and thistles, useless and unprofitable; while, under our treatment of it, as a prediction of things yet to come, we have found it a fertile region, from which the richest produce of monition and comfort may be extracted, and in the consistency of which with the sacred histories and prophecies a forcible evidence of its own and their inspiration is to be traced.” And in pp. 121, 136, on the prophecy of our Lord: “In addition to the direct evidence......the commonly received exposition involves us in inextricable difficulties and irreconcileable contradictions, which are all smoothed away by our interpretation, which, as we shall find, presents all the parts of the prophecy, harmonizing and consistent...... Thus we see that, in our interpretation, all the evangelists harmonize, and all the difficulties which have embarrassed expositors vanish." To pass by Mr. Tyso, Dr. Todd repeats the same assertion in several places, as in the first Lecture, p. 13 : "In fact, I am persuaded that the difficulties and obscurities complained of in the prophecies have a sufficient cause, in the So again, in the fourth Lecture, p. 186 :- "In opposition to these various theories, I would adhere to the literal and obvious meaning of the prediction. I believe that individual kings are undoubtedly intended that the same indi-vidual kings are spoken of throughout the prophecy—and that the division of the kingdom 'toward the four winds,' the continued contest of the kings of the north and the south, and the power of the wilful king, are all to come....... If the prophecies. have been employed as weapons of theological warfare-if, for this purpose, lax principles of interpretation have been adopted, and the sacred words of holy writ explained away, or compelled to yield to preconceived hypotheses--then assuredly the incon-sistencies and contradictions to be found in the popular interpretations are the natural results of an error common to the opposing systems the error, that the prophecies have been, or are now, in course of being accomplished." Certainly, from the strong statements of these expositors, and from the supercilious tone which one of them, at least. assumes towards previous writers, we should naturally expect remarkable clearness, simplicity, and harmony in their own views :— "Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes ?" At present I shall bring to the test, not the absolute truth, but the mutual harmony of these theories, which are advanced with so much confidence. The discrepancies of Protestant interpreters are drawn from writers nearly four centuries apart, and of several countries and various sections of the Church; and they include the application of the prophecies to the events of three thousand years. On the contrary, those which I shall adduce are the variations of only five or six contemporary writers, partly in communication with each other, working on a common principle, as they profess, of extreme clearness and simplicity, with no facts to test them, no chronology to hamper them, no application to a wide range of Providence; but the events, so to speak, invented at will, as may best suit the theory. They are also the discrepancies of those who make the discordance of previous interpreters a conclusive and sufficient argument for rejecting them all, and who are thus doubly. bound to be consistent themselves. The only materials for comparisonare, on Daniel, Mr. Maitland's "Attempt" (22 pages), Dr. Todd's "Lectures on Antichrist," one chapter of Mr. Burgh's "Lectures on the Second Advent," and part of Mr. Tyso's " Elucidation." On the Apocalypse, we have Mr. Burgh's Lectures, Mr. Tyso's " Elucidation," Mr. Mac Causland on the "Latter Days,” and more recently, Mr. Govett's "Revelation Future and Literal." The following is the result of the collation 1. The head of gold :— The empire of Babylon (Elucid. p. 13). Nebuchadnezzar in person only (Adv. L. p. 102). It"maybe" Babylon and Persia (L. Ant. p. 78, note). 2. The silver : The Medo-Persian empire (Elucid. p. 13; Adv. L. pp. 100, 181). Probably the Greek empire (Attempt, p. 5; L. Ant. p. 78). 3. The brass : The Greek empire (Elucid. p. 14; Adv. L. p. 100). Uncertain, probably not the Roman (L. Ant. pp. 4. The iron: The Roman empire, its division past (Elucid. p. 20). The Roman empire, its division future (Adv. L. p. 181; Tract No. 83). A future kingdom (Attempt, p. 6; L. Ant. p. 84). 5. The four beasts : The same kingdoms as before (Elucid. p. 15). Have a “marked identity" with the parts of the image (Adv. L. p. 102). Has "some doubt" that the three first are different from those of the image, but "does not know that we are warranted in asserting it" (Attempt, p. 89). They "cannot be identical" with the formerthere are "two fatal objections" (L. Ant. p. 76). 6. The order of the four beasts :— Successive (Elucid. p. 15.; Adv. L. p. 102). Possibly" arise contemporaneously (Attempt, p. 8). 66 Plainly asserted" to be contemporaneous (L. 7. The first beast: The Babylonian empire (Elucid. p. 17; Adv. L. p. 103). "Not impossible" it is still future (Attempt, p. 8). Certainly future (L. Ant. p. 76). 8. The second beast: The Medo-Persian empire (Elucid. p. 17; Adv. L. p. 102). |