mitted that the proof in justification of this rendering of orav τελεσωσι την μαρτυριαν αυτών, in Apoc. xi. 7, was in my former editions unsatisfactory, and, as Mr. K. says p. 197, fairly liable to objection, it will not I trust be found so any longer in the present edition. If I mistake not, the rendering is established on a firm basis. See my Vol. ii. pp. 411–420.

5. On Apoc. xi. 19, Mr. K. speaks of it as "extraordinary that I should say that vaos, or temple, is sometimes used more largely of the whole, including the altar-court; stranger still that I should cite Apoc. xi. 1, 2 in proof, seeing that the altar and the outer court are so expressly distinguished there," i. e. from vaos. Much more extraordinary surely is it that Mr. K. in so writing should have identified the temple's altar-court with the Gentile outer-court; and overlooked the fact that in Apoc. xi. 1, 2, referred to by me, all that is within the vaoc is expressly spoken of as measured including the altar and altarcourt, while the Gentile court alone is excluded as without the vaoç.

6. At p. 287, objecting against my statement in reference to Apoc. xvi. 13, that three frogs were the old arms of France, Mr. K. says that "natural history comes in as an awkward witness against my statement; the fact being that the arms of France were, according to the Encyclop. Metropolitana, three toads, not three frogs." Now the extract from the Encyclop. Metropolitana, which Mr. K. here cites from my book to justify his objurgation, is only one out of six explanatory and justificatory authorities. In the other four the device is spoken of as a frog, or three frogs. So Typotius, Upton, Schott, Garencières. Says the last, in explanation of the line, "Roi, rétirant à la rane et à l'aigle," "By the eagle he means the Emperor, by the frog the King of France:-for, before he took the flower de luce, the French bore three frogs." Elsewhere, I find, (agreeably with the double generic value of the Latin rana,) it is described indifferently as a frog, or toad. It is only Court de Gebelin and the Encyclop. Metropol. that speak distinctively of the device as a toad or crapaud.2

So Jubinal, sur les anciennes Tapisseries. "Sur les bannières Françaises, de même que sur la casaque de Clovis, on voit pour armories des crapauds, ou des Grenouilles.Cette dernière circonstance demande une explication. On sait que, selon nos anciens chroniqueurs, avant que les fleurs de lys eussent été apportées du ciel à Clovis, trois crapauds étaient les armes de nos ancêtres. Voilà pourquoi Nostredamos appelle le roi de France l'héritier des crapauds; et pourquoi Jean Naucler a écrit que Clovis portait dans son écusson de trois grenouilles de sinople en champ d'argent."

2 I observe that Dr. Hales in his Chronology, though not giving authorities for it

7. At p. 246, Mr. K. insists on the right translation of eveσTŋkev in 2 Thess. ii. 2 being "is present;" not as in our English authorized version, and as in the Horæ, "is at hand." At p. 92 of my Vol. iii., in this Edition, my readers will find the point more fully argued out than before; and the latter rendering of the word, I may unhesitatingly say, on the grounds of Greek criticism fully justified. Let me only here ask Mr. K. the question how he supposes the Thessalonian Christians could have believed that the day of the Lord was then actually present, when putting together the two facts, 1st, that they knew from St. Paul's former Epistle that the primary event of the day of the Lord would be the gathering of Christ's saints, both the dead and the living, to meet Christ in the air; 2ndly, that neither themselves nor even St. Paul had thus far been made the subjects of that promised blessed rapture? Will Mr. K. be agitated by the idea of the day of Christ having begun, so long as he is conscious that neither on himself, nor any of his most honoured Christian friends, has the change taken place?

§ 3. THE PATRISTIC VIEWS OF PROPHECY MAINLY NON-FUTURIST.

In all questions as to the intent of Scripture prophecies, the truth must of course be inferred from examination primarily of those prophecies themselves; and then in comparison, of the historical events to which reference may have been made, as an actual fulfilment of the prophecies. Hence, in my preceding controversial critiques on the views of the various prophetic schools that differ fundamentally from me in the interpretation of the Apocalypse, I have confined my arguments within those limits; and avoided as much as possible all reference to the early Fathers. The opinions, however, which they held on these subjects cannot but be most interesting to us: and I have therefore from time to time in the earlier parts of my work made passing allusion to them; and also formally set them forth in the two first Sections of my History of Apocalyptic Interpretation. But it strikes me that it may be well, ere concluding my work, to add yet a few further remarks about them, in sequel to the two last critiques. In discussing the Futurist

like myself, speaks of the old French device as three frogs, just as I do. So in his Vol. ii. p. 169 and Vol. iii. p. 625.

See especially my Vol. i. pp. 229-233, 389-394.

2

From p. 276 to 336 suprà.

schemes it may have been remarked that the Futurists make appeal to the early Fathers not infrequently, as if of one mind with them in the view of Scripture prophecy; more especially on the prophecies concerning Antichrist. So Drs. Maitland and Todd: so the Oxford Tractator: so last, but not least, Mr. C. Maitland: who, indeed, claims credence for his scheme as "apostolic," because of its being "primitive;" and affirms its primitiveness, as being that of all the early Fathers. Now in my recently concluded History of Apocalyptic Interpretation I have shown in a general way, that the early Fathers, and the modern Futurist School expositors, are by no means so much in accord as the latter would represent to us. But on the Fathers' view of Antichrist's religious character I have scarcely entered. I purpose therefore now to supply that omission: and, after premising just summarily, and by the way of reminiscence, whatever other main points in the patristic views have been already set forth by me in contrast with futurist views, then, and in regard of the great subject of Antichrist's religion, to state the early Fathers' very different notions from those of the school in question, fully and at large.2

I. As to the general points of difference in prophetic views between the one and the other, already stated by me, let me note six more especially.

1. That the early Fathers expected Antichrist's manifestation to follow speedily after the breaking up of Rome's empire;-such a breaking up as Jerome thought, he saw beginning through the agency of invading Goths: and had no notion whatsoever of ages intervening between that event and Antichrist's manifestation, during which the symbolic Beast of Daniel and the Apocalypse was to lie dormant; so as the Oxford Tractator would have us believe.3

2. That, in referring this event and consequent change to Daniel's symbolic statue, as prefiguring it, they distinctly expected that there would be an answering therein to the passing of the iron legs of the 4th or Roman empire into its second and last form of the ten-toed feet, part iron, part clay: and had no notion whatsoever, either of those iron and iron-clay legs and feet of the statue not representing the Roman empire in its two successive forms, so as some Futurists

1 Briefly alone in Vol. iii. Part iv. iii. 2.

2 I include in this review the Fathers of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, down to Jerome and the Goths. See pp. 615-617 suprà.

like Drs. Maitland and Todd would have it, and that there was to be supposed a great break in the statue at the knee-joint between the brazen thighs and iron legs, in token of many unrepresented centuries, from after the great expected disruption of the Roman empire nor again, in accordance with Bellarmine and Mr. Barker's theory, that the iron legs, distinctively, above the ankle, would then still continue to represent it, just as before the disruption; or, as Mr. C. Maitland, the integral part alone of the iron-clay feet, between the ankle and the toes.

3. That, while expecting Antichrist's duration in power, after his manifestation, to be 1260 days, literally, they also preserved among them the idea of the year-day principle being one legitimately referable to prophetic periods: (so Cyprian, Theodoret, Tichonius :)' so that the principle might be considered applicable, not without patristic sanction, to the great prophetic periods of Antichrist, should the course of historic events afterwards furnish occasion for it.

4. That, in explaining the Apocalyptic prophecy, such an idea as that of the Lord's day in which St. John was in the Spirit meaning the great future day of judgment, into which he was then rapt by the Spirit, together with the seven Churches of Asia addrest by him, seems never to have entered into their imagination; nor that of the Apocalyptic prophecy overleaping at once, and altogether, the time of the Christian Church preceding them, and time then present :that, on the contrary, they expressly explained its earlier figurations as mainly figuring events of the time from St. John to themselves, and of their own times then current; 2 the 1st Seal depicting the progress of the gospel, as it had been progressing from its first promulgation; the 5th Seal the persecutions under which Christians had previously suffered, and were even then suffering; and so on.

5. That a Christian sense was generally assigned by the primitive Fathers of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, not only to the other Judaic symbols of the Apocalypse, but to its sealed Israel :—and,

6thly, as to Antichrist's political origin, and seat of empire, that though in some way Jewish and at Jerusalem, it would yet be some way Roman, and at Rome, also.4

II. Next, as to the patristic views of ANTICHRIST'S RELIGIOUS 1 See pp. 308, 332 suprà. 2 See ibid. Vol. i.; also p. 302 suprà.

See p. 308 suprà.

4 pp. 307, 308 suprà.

CHARACTER :—and on this, 1st, as regards the religious apostasy that was to introduce him; 2ndly, as regards his religion afterwards.1

3

1st, then, the preparatory apostasy.-I say preparatory apostasy; for the Fathers considered the apostasy prophesied of by Paul, not without good reason, to be the #podpoμos or preparative of Antichrist, as well as that which Antichrist on his manifestation would, as it were, sum up in himself, as its professor, inculcator, and head. And as to its nature, while preparing for him, instead of anticipating with Dr. Maitland that it would be "a falling away from all profession of Christianity, into open blasphemous and persecuting infidelity," what find we? I find Irenæus, after heading his general sketch of heretics, (heretics that were to be regarded as precursors of Antichrist,) with note of their wearing the garb of Antichrist's Apocalyptic associate, the wolf in sheep's clothing, prominently setting forth their making a Christian profession, and their often inculcating their tenets under falsified words of Scripture; or, where Scripture failed, asserting a peculiar unwritten tradition committed to them as their authority. I find Clement of Alexandria, about the end of the 2nd century, objecting to Tatian and other heretics of the time, who on principles of asceticism, and as a Christian virtue, inculcated a rule of continency and celibacy, that in thus " forbidding to marry," contrary to the liberty allowed in Holy Scripture, (so entirely does his view of that prophetic clause agree with the common Protestant interpreta

1

I here gather up the scattered notices on the subject already given in the two first Sections of my History of Apocalyptic Interpretation.

"The

2 Justin Martyr calls Antichrist & Tηs aTooтaσlas aveρwжоs. Op. p. 336. (Ed. Colon.)-Cyril (Catech. xv. 9) calls the apostasy πродρоμos AvтixpiσTov.—Irenæus (v. 25) speaks of Antichrist as "diabolicam apostasiam in se recapitulans." The Tractator (p. 11) writes on this point in accordance with the Fathers. man of sin is born of an apostasy; or, at least, comes into power through an apostasy: or is preceded by an apostasy; or would not be except for an apostasy. So says the inspired text," i. e. 2 Thess. ii. 3, 7, 8.

3 "The early Church conceived of the apostasy as an actual departure, not merely from the purity of the Christian faith by professed Christians, but from Christianity itself; a falling away from all profession of Christianity into open, blasphemous, and persecuting infidelity." Maitland on Antichrist, p. 2. He had just before said: "The opinions which I here attribute to the early Church were held, I believe, by all Christian writers until the xiiith century." Ib. p. 1. And so too the Oxford Tractarian, p. 16; also Todd, Burgh, and others. At p. 623 et seq. suprà, I have noted, and tried these views by the test of Scripture.

4 Lib. i. ad init. 46

Lupos ob externum ovillæ pellis integumentum haudquaquam, agnoscentes; . . ut qui eadem loquuntur, sed non eadem sentiunt." Also i. 13.

"Falsantes verba Domini mendacium abscondunt sub verbis Scripturæ." So i. 1. 6. And iii. 2; "Non enim per litteras traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem." So saying, when convicted from the written Scriptures; "cum ex Scripturis arguuntur."