position, or suggested new objections of any real weight to my own exposition, I might perhaps fairly be excused the task of dwelling here longer on any of them, and content myself by referring to my notices of several in the Appendix to my Warburton Lectures, and elsewhere. In one or other, however, of the several Chapters devoted to the review, and I trust refutation, of the chief Apocalyptic counter-Schemes to my own, (viz. primarily the wholly Præteristic and the Futuristic, and further too the Millenario-Præteristic of certain of the historic school,) fitting opportunities will occur for noticing both Mr. W. Kelly's recent Commentary, on the principle of Modified Futurism; and also Dr. Wordsworth's, and (more at large) Hengstenberg's millenario-præteristic system, conjunctively with the advocacy of it by the respected name of Bishop Waldegrave. Finally, as Dean Alford, in the Commentary on the Apocalypse in his last Volume, has commented continuously and generally unfavourably on my exposition, I have thought it well, as already said, to publish a reply to him in a separate Pamphlet.

For, in conclusion, the readers of this Historic Sketch will see that there are but three grand Schemes of Apocalyptic interpretation that can be considered as standing up face to face against each other; with any serious pretensions to truth, or advocacy supporting them of any real literary weight.-The 1st is that of the Præterists; restricting the subject of the prophecy, except in its two or three last chapters, to the catastrophes of the Jewish nation and old Roman Empire, one or both, as accomplished in the 1st and 2nd, or 5th and 6th centuries respectively: which Scheme, originally propounded, as we saw, by the Jesuit Alcasar, and then adopted by Grotius, has been under one modification, and on the hypothesis of a Neronic date of the Apocalypse, urged till quite of late alike by most of the more eminent of the later German prophetic expositors, by Professor Moses Stuart in the United States of America, and by the disciples of the German School in England; also, under another modification, and on the hypothesis of a Domitianic date, by Bossuet.-The 2nd is

See especially my review Desprez in the Appendix to my Warburton Lectures; and that of the late Mr. Beale's Apocalyptic Commentary called Armageddon, in the January No. of the "Christian Observer," 1860.

2 The bearing of Professor Fairbairn's able Book on Prophecy, not long since published, on the point in question will also come under review.

the Futurists' Scheme; making the whole of the Apocalyptic Prophecy, (excepting perhaps the primary Vision and Letters to the Seven Churches,)' to relate to things even now future, viz. the things concerning Christ's second Advent: a Scheme this first set forth, we saw, by the Jesuit Ribera, at the end of the 16th century; and which in its main principle has been urged alike by Dr. S. R. Maitland, Mr. Burgh, the Oxford Tractator on Antichrist, and others, in our own times and æra, not without considerable success: also other expositors of late, but with certain considerable modifications, which too ought not to be past over without notice.-The 3rd is what we may call emphatically the Protestant continuous Historic Scheme of Interpretation; that which regards the Apocalypse as a prefiguration in detail of the chief events affecting the Church and Christendom, whether secular or ecclesiatical, from St. John's time to the consummation :-a Scheme this which, in regard of its particular application of the symbols of Babylon and the Beast to Papal Rome and the Popedom, was early embraced, as we saw, by the Waldenses, Wickliffites, and Hussites; then adopted with fuller light by the chief reformers, German, Swiss, French, and English, of the 16th century; and thence transmitted downwards uninterruptedly, even to the present time.

It is this last which I embrace for my own part with a full and ever strengthening conviction of its truth. Of each of the other two counter-Schemes, in each of their two forms, the original unmodified and the modified, there will follow a critical review, and I hope decisive refutation, in my next Part.

1 Dr. S. R. Maitland, as before observed, and also the Rev. James Kelly and others, would have even the first Chapter refer to the distant and closing future. Others however begin the future only with Ch. iv.

APPENDIX.

PART II.

CRITICAL EXAMINATION AND REFUTATION OF THE CHIEF COUNTER-SCHEMES OF APOCALYPTIC INTERPRETATION; AND ALSO OF DR. ARNOLD'S GENERAL PROPHETIC COUNTERTHEORY.

Ir was stated at the conclusion of my Sketch of the History of Apocalyptic Interpretation, that there are at present two, and but two, grand general counter-Schemes to what may be called the historic Protestant view of the Apocalypse: that view which regards the prophecy as a prefiguration of the great events that were to happen in the Church, and world connected with it, from St. John's time to the consummation; including specially the establishment of the Popedom, and reign of Papal Rome, as in some way or other the fulfilment of the types of the Apocalyptic Beast and Babylon. The first of these two counter-Schemes is the Præterists', which would have the prophecy stop altogether short of the Popedom, explaining it of the catastrophes, one or both, of the Jewish Nation and Pagan Rome; and of which there are two sufficiently distinct varieties: the second the Futurists'; which in its original form would have it all shoot over the head of the Popedom into times yet future; and refer simply to the events that are immediately to precede, or to accompany, Christ's second Advent; or, in its various modified forms, have them for its chief subject. I shall in this second Part of my Appendix proceed successively to examine these two, or rather four, anti-Protestant counter-Schemes; and show, if I mistake not, the palpable untenableness alike of one and all. Which done,' it may perhaps be well,

It would then be my next duty to consider the chief Protestant Apocalyptic Scheme, that runs counter in its grand outline of arrangement to the one given in the Hora; (viz. that which, instead of regarding the seven Trumpets in a natural way as the development of the 7th Seal, just as the seven Vials also of the 7th Trumpet, in continuous evolution of the future, would regard the Seals and the Trumpets

from respect to his venerated name, to add an examination of the late Dr. Arnold's general prophetic counter-theory. This, together with a notice of certain recent counter-views on the Millennium, will complete our review of counter-prophetic Schemes.

Now with regard to the Præterist Scheme, on the review of which we are first to enter, it may be remembered that I stated it to have had its origin with the Jesuit Alcasar; and that it was subsequently, and after Grotius' and Hammond's prior adoption of it, adopted and improved by Bossuet, the great Papal champion, under one form and modification; then afterwards, under another modification, by Hernnschneider, Eichhorn, and others of the German critical and generally infidel school of the last half-century;3 followed in our own æra by Heinrichs, and by Moses Stuart of the United States of America. The two modifications appear to have arisen mainly out of the differences of date assigned to the Apocalypse; whether about the end of Nero's reign or Domitian's.5 I shall, I think, pretty well exhaust whatever can be thought to call for examination in the system, by considering separately, first the Neronic, or favourite German form and modification of the Præterist Scheme, as propounded by Eichhorn, Hug, Heinrichs, and Moses Stuart; secondly Bossuet's Domitianic form, the one most generally approved, I believe, by Roman Catholics.

CHAPTER I.

§ 1. EXAMINATION AND REFUTATION OF THE GERMAN NERONIC

PRÆTERIST APOCALYPTIC COUNTER-SCHEME.

The reader has already been made acquainted with the main common features of this German form of the Præterist Apocalyptic Scheme. Differing on points of detail, yet (with the exception that as chronological parallel lines of prophecy, each reaching to the consummation;) but that, as my review of it refers almost wholly to the Seals, I have thought it well on that point to anticipate, and to place my critical notice of it in the Appendix to the 1st Volume.

See p. 484 suprà. 2 See ibid. p. 501. 3 Ib. pp. 524-529. • See p. 559. I say mainly; because Eichhorn, as will be noted presently, adopts the Neronic interpretation retrospectively, with the Domitianic date. Also I say, about the end of Nero's reign, because some of the Germans prefer to date it a year or two after Nero's death. See Note p. 573. See pp. 526-529.

Hartwig and Herder pretty much confine themselves to the Jewish catastrophe, and Ewald, Bleek, and De Wette to that of heathen Rome') it may generally be described as embracing both catastrophes the fall of Judaism being signified under that of Jerusalem, the fall of Heathenism under that of Rome; the one as drawn out in symbol from Apoc. vi. to xi. inclusive, the other from Apoc. xii. to xix. whereupon comes thirdly, in Apoc. xx., a figuration of the triumph of Christianity. So, with certain differences, Hernnschneider, Eichhorn, Hug, Heinrichs, &c., in Germany;2 M. Stuart in America; and, in England, Dr. Davidson.3-In my review of the Scheme each of these two historic catastrophes, as supposed Apocalyptically figured, will of course furnish matter for critical examination; not without reference to. the Apocalyptic date also, as in fact essentially mixt up with the historic question.-But, before entering on them, I think it may be well to premise a notice,

Ist, on THE GENERALLY VAGUE LOOSE PRINCIPLE OF PROPHETIC INTERPRETATION professedly followed by the Præterists.

Considering the self-sufficient dogmatism which pre-eminently characterizes the School in question, even as if, à priori to examination; all other schemes were to be deemed totally wrong, and the Præterist Scheme alone conformable to the discoveries and requirements of "modern exegesis,” 4 (a dogmatism the more remarkable, when exhibited by a man of calm temperament and unimpassioned style, like Professor Stuart,5 and which to certain weaker minds

So M. Stuart, i. 161.

2 Eichhorn makes his Judaic division of the Apocalypse to extend into Apoc. xi.; and the Roman division only to begin with the Dragon's going to persecute the remnant of the woman's children, Apoc. xii. 18. And so too Henrichs.

i. e. until the publication of Hengstenberg's Apocalyptic Commentary in 1851, insisting on Domitianic date: my readers must bear this in mind when reading my notices of Dr. Davidson in this paper. What the evidence of common sense and clear historic testimony, as fully set forth by me, could not effect, the fact of a German Professor's advocating the Domitianic date sufficed, as by magical effect, to accomplish in Dr. Davidson.

A favourite phrase and almost argument with many of this class of interpreters. i. e. in the body of his Work. His Preface is in the undogmatic style that one might expect from such a man as Professor Stuart. Elsewhere, however, not only does he dogmatically pass sentence of condemnation upon expositions on the usual Protestant exegetic principle, (e. g. i. 161,) “ It is time, high time, for principle to take the place of fancy, for exegetical proof to thrust out assumption," but even warms into such a burst as the following: :-"In the name of all that is pertinent and congruous in prophecy, what have these (viz. a history of civil commotions, and de