view of things, may naturally employ the statements of the Revelation emblematically, while supposing their true interpretation to be yet unattainable, and thus they accord with the position which was actually occupied by the Fathers.

The structure, however, of the Apocalypse so decidedly requires it to be treated as the prediction of some continuous and specific series of actions, that its employment merely as a storehouse of illustrative imagery can never satisfy the conscientious student of Scripture. And hence have arisen the other two systems of interpretation, which, without shutting out that use of the Revelation which was made by the Fathers, have yet superadded to it a further and continuous meaning. These are the Antipagan and Antipapal schemes of interpretation. Of these two the Antipapal has always been the popular one in England; and its popularity has been increased at the present day, by a certain pompous missive from the Flaminian Gate. Not that its present mode of proceeding is quite as preposterous as when the Puritan writer, Brightman, maintained that the angel with the sharp sickle, and his associate who had power over fire, (Rev. xiv. 18,) were Cranmer, and his unprincipled abettor, Cromwell; or that the angels who poured out the three first vials, were Queen Elizabeth, Chemnitz the Lutheran, and Lord Treasurer Cecil. The absurdity of identifying a prophecy of world-wide significance, with the transitory fortunes of the interpreter's single country, is so palpable, that we are at a loss to parallel it in the present day, except with Mr. Elliott's ridiculous interpretation of the third frog, which he considers to be Tractarianism, in consequence of the perpetual coaxation or reiteration of its sentiments. There was more fun, and really not less reason, in the suggestion of a worthy old clergyman in the last generation, who maintained that the three frogs were the Bible Society, the Church Missionary Society, and the Jews' Society, because they went hopping over the face of the earth.'

Had Mr. Elliott lived at the time of the Bangorist controversy, he would probably have added the limping gait and slimy touch of Hoadley, to the croaking of his innumerable pamphlets, as a reason for identifying him with one of the apocalyptic frogs. Such follies almost justify the strong expressions which Züllig uses respecting a work of this character. We may say with honest self-congratulation, that in Germany such a book could hardly have been produced by any one who 'had enjoyed a classical education; by any one at all indeed, 'except some worthy contemplative shoemaker, who had screwed himself up into a prophet, by studying the musty anti-papistical 'revelations which he had bought at Rag-fair.' (Züllig, vol. i. p. 149.)

The four schools of prophetic interpretation, then, are the Patristic, the Futurist, the Antipagan, and the Antipapal. We shall say but little of the two first, as considering that the other two rather add to than contradict them, and that the real contest lies between the two last. And our conviction is, not only that the Antipagan view can be very plausibly made out, but that the Antipapal may be shown, to the satisfaction of any fair inquirer, to be utterly irrational and selfcontradictory.

We are unaware that this is to do what Lord John ought in consistency to have done in the year of Papal aggression,-to take the bull by the horns; and we are prepared for such equivocal compliments as Sheldon received from old Prideaux the Divinity Professor, when he ventured upon the astounding assertion, then heard for the first time since the Reformation, that the Pope was not Antichrist. Quid, mi fili, negas Papam esse Antichristum?' Sheldon answered, Etiam nego.' Dr. Prideaux replied, Profecto multum tibi debet Pontifex Romanus, et nullus dubito quin pileo cardinalitio te donabit." But truth is truth,

6

6

whatever may be said of it; and if our readers will give us a little of their attention, we feel persuaded that we can show them that the predictions of S. John have as little to do with the Bishop of Rome, as the cardinal's cap with which Sheldon was threatened, with the mitre of Canterbury which he afterwards wore so worthily.

Our first objection against the Antipapal school of interpreters is, that they substitute human conjecture for Divine inspiration. We are unwilling to use hard words, but we are at a loss to express our feeling of the irreverence as well as the rashness of such a proceeding. The true meaning of the Bible is the Bible,' as Dr. Wordsworth rightly says; and therefore to assign a meaning to words, which in themselves they have no tendency to bear, is to make the word of God of none effect by our traditions. Whatever authority of this kind may be supposed to reside in the Church at large, when acting under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, it is clear that no such authority can be claimed by individuals. Yet this is the very principle upon which the Antipapal interpreters have avowedly proceeded. They cannot pretend that the Pope, or the Church over which he presides, is expressly mentioned by S. John; but they take upon them to determine the intentions of the Holy Ghost by mere conjecture. It is rightly remarked by Mr. Clissold, that this is a course which ought not to be taken by any persons who cannot lay claim to inspiration. Mr. Clissold's theory we cannot enter; though replete with information, and evidently the work of a sincere and diligent

Into

man, it is built, as we believe, upon a system of fables. Until the commission of Swedenborg has been first demonstrated, on what principle can his communications be accepted? But if the interpretations of Swedenborg are rejected, because he claimed an authority which he could not show himself to possess, why should those of Elliott or Cumming be entitled to greater credit? But it may be said, are the images of Holy Scripture without meaning, or at least are we to reject all which are not distinctly explained? And would not such a rule militate equally against the Antipagan, and the Patristic mode of interpretation? We are far from saying that many statements, pertaining to both these schools, are not open to the objections which we have taken. But we shall show, in the sequel, that the Antipagan system is not equally liable to such a complaint with the Antipapal; and the Patristic does not deal so much in interpretation as in application. To say nothing of the rule of Church authority, to which it is always subordinate, its very principle is rather to use the images of the Apocalpyse as illustrations of God's dealings with his Church, than as a continuous prophecy.

Again, it would be going too far to say that human study and inquiry, when not exceeding the analogy of the faith, and referring continually to the guidance of the Spirit, and the authority of the Church, have no office in the interpretation of the word of God. That which is complained of, is, the lawless spirit which subjects Scripture to itself, instead of being subject to Scripture. For example, when Our Lord predicts the dangers which threatened Jerusalem, He goes on to say: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be 'darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be

1 At the end of the second volume of Mr. Clissold's work will be found an explanatory paraphrase of the Apocalypse, according to Swedenborg. Mr. Clissold's own work is intended to show that the interpretation thus given of the emblematical language of S. John accords with that which has been given by other writers. So far this would only justify him in saying that Swedenborg had as good a right to conjecture to what events the emblems thus explained were likely to refer, as Mr. Elliott, or any other writer. But then he rests the application of the emblems on Swedenborg's own claim to inspiration. (Preface, p. 21.)

As to Swedenborg's own work, its tendency follows naturally from his principles. His system, as most ably described by Möhler in his great work on Symbolism, was a reaction against that gross mass of errors, the Lutheran theory of justification. This, therefore, was the evil against which he supposed the Revelation to be mainly directed. He keeps, indeed, to the popular Protestant view of supposing papal Rome to be Babylon; but he makes the beast from the sea to be the laity, who hold the doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the law,' and the beast from the land to be their clergy. Again, in the locusts, and the horsemen from Euphrates, instead of seeing the head of a Saracen or a Turk, he sees that of a Solifidian. Horses in vision mean visionary reasonings in regard to the doctrine of justification by faith alone.'-(Clissold, vol. ii. p. 347.)

"shaken.' Now, these are images so familiar to the Hebrew prophets, that we seem to have authority for interpreting them of some great disasters which were to trouble the political heavens, soon after the destruction of Jerusalem. And, therefore, when these things are described as happening under the sixth seal, there appears to be a justification for the view taken by most interpreters, that this seal refers to those troubles which followed that great judgment on the Jewish people. If it be said that this is a conjectural interpretation, we answer, that it is only a filling up of some details, the main outline of which has been given on authority. It is like the visions of Joseph and Daniel in the Old Testament, in which an authori tative command settles the general meaning of the imagery.

And hence we derive the principles which we would apply to prophetic interpretation. Its main application and ultimate intention ought always to be derived from some competent authority. We should have no right to apply Daniel's vision of the four beasts to four empires, or to understand ten kings by the ten horns, unless the angel had supplied the interpretation. When this main point is given, we may safely observe how well the notion of a wild beast accords with the character of a heathen empire; and that the horn, an image of strength, is a meet emblem for a king. We may go further, and when we find Daniel asserting these kingdoms to have arisen in succession, we may understand them of those four principal sovereignties which in their order have possessed the earth. But we require such an interpretation to set out with; we have no business to fix upon an event at random, and to declare that it was in the intention of the Spirit, because it seems to us to tally with some unexplained image of Holy Writ. This would be to wander into pure conjecture, and to do violence to the word of God.

Our complaint, then, against the Antipapal system of interpretation is, that, beyond any other on record, and to a degree so monstrous as to outrage the common sense of mankind, it has led to this irreverent dealing with Holy Scripture. Let us take a few specimens at random, from the most approved of the works before us. That we may gain a readier hearing, we will abstain from touching upon those which in popular opinion refer more immediately to the Pope, because we have observed the name of that personage to act on many English readers as sulphur does upon bees; it produces an intellectual syncope, which renders them the prey of the first invader.

We turn, then, to the sixth chapter of the Revelation, where we read that an angel cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth; and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their

'voices. And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, 'I was about to write; and I heard a voice from heaven saying 'unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders ' uttered, and write them not.'

So far as the Apostle is our informant, then, we can know nothing of that which these thunders declared, because he was forbidden to write them. But his commentators are more communicative. They appropriate the Apostle's thunder to some purpose, and it bears an important part in the systems both of Mr. Elliott and Dr. Wordsworth. The first is naturally embarrassed with that which is an obvious difficulty to all the Antipapal interpreters, that the Revelation contains no images which they can readily identify with the Reformation. Mr. Elliott, therefore, is obliged to make an emblem of the Reformation out of the angel who set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth. Sea and earth, according to his own acknowledgment, are to be taken in this book as emblems; but here, on the contrary, it is necessary to the purpose to take them literally-so they stand for "insular England," and "continental Christendom." (Elliott, p. 444.) But as this is a small basis on which to rest the argument, the roll of the thunder comes in as a reserve. The thunders were not to be written. Why not? Plainly they must have been bad thunders. Now, who is the bad thunderer? Obviously the Pope. And this accounts for the number of the thunders, for they would naturally re-echo from his seven hills. So then these thunders were the bull against Luther, and thus we have a demonstration that the angel must have been intended to represent the Reformation.

The thunders are just as important to Dr. Wordsworth also, though to his ears they convey a different sound. It appears to be part of his theological system to make Holy Scripture contain, not only a proof of its own inspiration, but literally a list of its own contents. It was very important,' he says, 'that the Church should receive an assurance concerning the number of the books of Scripture. S. John was the fittest 'person to give that; and no place so fit for it as the Apoca'Îypse.' (Wordsworth, p. 123.) Now, we have no doubt that this want has often been felt by those who wished to do without the Church's authority; but it was reserved for Dr. Wordsworth, not only to be so ingenuous as to confess, but so ingenious as to remedy, the difficulty. His confidence on the subject leads him into one singular contradiction, which we can only account for by remembering that a volume of sermons is not likely to have the unity of a continuous treatise. In p. 111, he tells us that S. John's Apocalypse was 'prior in composition to his Gospel;'