Page images
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

representation, too, serves the purpose very | he simply turned to them; but that was to well. False statements will even be made in know what the class of expositors to which the heat and hurry of newspaper-like zeal. he belongs says, that they might be combated. But the writer cannot hurt me thus. If it Dr. Davidson has not read two consecutive be a satisfaction to him to run his head pages, he might even say one, in the two against a wall, he may do so for me. I trust volumes of the learned American. Hence all I can serve the interests of truth better than that he has written on the Revelation is his by replying to anonymous attacks in any own, as far as Stuart is concerned. . MAGAZINE.

So much for the truth of Elliott's (your corError 1. “Dr. Davidson's views of the respondent's] statements. A little more Apocalypse are not stated in his present caution, candour, and charity, would be devolume for the first time. They were put sirable on this head in the next edition of the forth in the ' Eclectic Review,' seven years Horæ,' whose redoubted author ought to be ago." This is incorrect.

ashamed of making false statements against Error 2. “ They were repeated in an ar- one who is as conscientious in the pursuit of ticle furnished for Kitto's · Cyclopædia of sacred truth as himself.” Page viii. Biblical Literature,' and are now reiterated In relation to the Germans, it is wholly with little novelty of argument." This also untrue that I am in this respect indebted to is incorrect.

them. I differ from them very materially, as Error 3. “ Dr. Davidson is chiefly indebted far as I am acquainted with them. But I have to Dr. S. R. Maitland, Moses Stuart, and the never read so many as two German comGermans." In this short sentence there are mentaries on the Revelation. Doubtless just three false assertions.

these Germans are great plagues to your corIn relation to my indebtedness to Dr. respondent and Co. They are all Infidels Maitland, I shall merely transcribe the folo | and rationalists. People who read them, lowing from the Preface to the third volume too, are no better. of the Introduction:-“ When the article in Error 4. “ The main difficulty attending question was written [the article in the this scheme, Dr. Davidson states to be, that • Eclectic,' against the year-day theory), the 'it is a principle of interpretation with these author had not seen one of Maitland's pam- expositors, that a day, in symbolical prophephlets. He knew them only by Birks's and cies, stands for a year. This principle he Elliott's attempted refutation of the view ad- affirms to be ó unwarrantable ;' and upon this vocated in them. The few words he quoted ground, he feels justified in dismissing at out of one or two of thein were borrowed once, without further ceremony, all expositors from these writers. In re-writing the article who maintain the favourite year-day theory. for the present work, the author has had be- | We do not think this a very logical or very fore him the pamphlets in question; but it critical mode of proceeding." will be seen, that the substance and argu- There are more misstatements than one in ments remain as they were. Mr. Bickersteth's these words, and in the paragraph from which statement [the same as your correspondent's] they are quoted. is wholly without foundation.” Page ix.

a. I do not say that the principle of inIn relation to Mr. Stuart, I also transcribe terpretation which takes a day for a year, is the following from the same Preface:-“With in my view the main difficulty against the regard to repeating, copying, or following continuous scheme. Stuart, in the article on the Apocalypse, b. I did not feel justified in dismissing at written for Kitto's Cyclopædia, nothing can once, without further ceremony, all expositors be farther from the truth. It was not till | who maintain the year-day theory. On the that article had been printed and published, contrary, the reader of my book will see, that that Stuart's work on the Apocalypse came I have mentioned four dificulties, besides the to hand across the Atlantic. Mr. Elliott year-day principle, lying against the con. [who had made a similar statement to your tinuous scheme. Hence I have not dismissed correspondent's] would have seen this fact it at once, without ceremony, on the ground stated, in the note to an article which follows of that principle alone. * Revelation,' by Dr. Wright, had he been c. “ The learned critic” did not persuade disposed to a little candour (see p. 714). himself that if he should succeed in refuting How Dr. Davidson could imitate, follow, or the direct arguments adduced by the advocopy, a book he had not seen, is left to the cates of the year-day theory, the whole commentator on the Apocalypse to explain. scheme of historical interpretation must be at Nor has Dr. Davidson yet read Stuart's once exploded. Your correspondent affirms • Commentary on the Apocalypse.' He has that I did so persuade myself. Obviously purposely refrained from its perusal. All not, from b. the observations now written are independent Error 5. "Dr. Davidson asserts that the of Stuart's. When he wanted to get at the Reformers had a very low opinion of the Professor's opinion on two or three passages, | Apocalypse ;' an assertion which, to adopt his own language, surprises us by its bold. problem, which few can solve." (p. 631.) ness. A few rash, unguarded expressions of Doubtless, it was not convenient for your Luther's are surely not to be cited in opposi- | adopted critic to quote these words. Wishtion to his mature and deliberate opinions.” ing to dwell on my dogmatism and dicta, he

If the writer means by "an assertion which has avoided reference to this language, lest it to adopt his own language, surprises us by its should appear too plainly that he is a oneboldness," that I have said of the German Re-sided, partisan-like writer. formers what is incorrect, (and I cannot see And now the language of my late lamented what other meaning he intends to convey), fellow-labourer, Professor Stuart, will serve as he should have proved it to be so. I stand a fitting conclusion to this paper. I leave it by the statement as one founded on fact. with your champion of the continuous scheme. Carlstadt, Zwingli, Erasmus, (who may, in “ On what grounds have you based your one sense, be ranked among the Continental opinion? Ilave you studied the book in its Reformers), Luther, doubted or disbelieved original language; sought for light on every the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse. I could side, from history and from antiquities; and, quote their words; but it would occupy some above all, have you thoroughly and simply pages to do so. Now, whoever doubts or applied to it, irrespective of any favourite and denies that the book was written by an preconceived notions about it, the established apostle, has, in my view, "a very low opinion principles of historico-grammatical exegesis? of it."

And do you even know, with any certainty, Again, the writer speaks of "a few rash, what those principles are ? If not, how much unguarded expressions of Luther's" as " not is your opinion worth, even in your own eyes, to be cited in opposition to his mature and de- when you look candidly at such a difficult liberate opinions.” Here a false impression matter as the interpretation of the book beis conveyed in regard to Luther. His early fore us? opinion and his mature opinion were identi- “ If, here and there, a self-complacent cal. He never departed from his first opinion, critic of my Commentary on the Apocalypse, which was unfavourable to the apostolic ori- | had asked himself such questions before he gin of the Apocalypse. He expressed the sat down to write his diatribe, the public opinion in milder language, in 1534, than he would have been spared a deal of à priori inhad done in 1522; but the opinion itself re- terpretation and spider-web theories. Some mained the same. All this I have stated in had written their book on the same work of vol. iï. p. 551, which, if the critic had read, John, and mine disagreed with it. Hinc illo he would not have written as he has done. lachrymo. Some had read that profound But I suppose the case to be here, as it was work of Bishop Newton on the Prophecies; with regard to my Preface. He did not read and because I did not agree with him, I must what I wrote before he rushed to the task of be in the wrong. The most confident of my criticising; and therefore, he repeated things condemning judges were, of course, those who which I had expressly shown to be false. I could not read a word of the original, and have heard that reviewers often sit in judg- would not be able to form any idea what one ment on books without condescending to read means, who talks about historico-grammatical them through; if so, it is a bad and dishonest interpretation. I have no defence to make practice.

against any such assailants." But I must conclude. I really have not

S. D. time to expose all the misstatements of your College, Manchester. chosen critic. I must therefore dismiss tho subject, and write no more about it in the

THE REVIEWER'S REPLY TO pages of a magazine. The editor may rest

DR. DAVIDSON. assured that I shall take no more notice of effusions against me the pages of his

Alleged Error 1. Magazine, with reference to my view of the That Dr. Davidson's views of the ApocaApocalypse. I am satisfied that none of the lypse are not stated in his present scheme four leading schemes of interpretation ap- for the first time, but were put forth in the plied to it is right, and have assigned my rea

“ Eclectic Review" some years ago. sons for so believing, except with regard to The following are the Doctor's own words in the Extreme Futurist, which is quite extrava- the Preface to Vol. iii. of his Introduction : gant. But I am not sure about the correct “ The dissertation on Designations of Time, view. In my opinion, Hengstenberg has ap- was inserted in the 'Eclectic Review' for Dec. proached it. I beg to repeat here what I have 1844. It is now reprinted in an enlarged said:-" To enter upon the exposition of these and improved form, without any material parts (the seven parts of the Apocalypse] is change.In that article, the Doctor's " views" beyond our province. Perhaps it is beyond were plainly indicated. our ability to unfold their meaning. To in

2. terpret the Apocalypse aright is a difficult That his views were repeated in Kitto, &c.

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

" It will be seen, that some of the observa- to make his dissertation as complete as postions on the Revelation are the same as sible. For the ready kindness evinced in this those published in an article on the book in and other matters, he begs thus publicly to Kitto's Cyclopædia ; others are very different. tender his obligations to that accomplished The writer has altered, modified, corrected, writer.”—Pref.

P. and enlarged, what he had inserted there."

4. All the “views" referred to by the Reviewer That Dr. Davidson considers the main difwill be found in the article in Kitto, notwith-ficulty attending the continuous scheme to standing Dr. Davidson's change of opinion on be, that the year-lay theory is “ a principle the date of the Apocalypse and some other with these expositors.” At p. 622, Dr. Davidpoints.

son thus enumerates " a few of the difficulties 3.

inherent in the scheme": That Dr. Davidson is chiefly indebted to a. “ It is a principle with these expositors” Dr. S. R. Maitland, Moses Stuart, and the that a day stands for a year. German writers. We shall cite Dr. David- b. “ The absence of appeal to a great part son's own language upon this point : “On of the Apocalypse as already past, in controthe one side” (of the question relating to the versy with infidels, shows that the fulfilment designations of time), “ Maitland and Burgh has not made the predictions clear." are the most able. In America, the indefati- " This scheme assumes, that one of the gable Stuart has taken up the same ground as Beasts described in the with chapter dethe former." " It will not be expedient scribes the Roman Popes, &c. . . Such to repeat all the grounds that have been so proof has been often attempted. But we are well stated by Maitland and Stuart, except in persuaded that it has failed." so far as may be demanded by complete d. “It is impossible to make out the 1260 answers to Birks and Bush."-— Introd. iii. / years' reign of Anti-Christ, &c." pp. 510, 511.

e. “Taking Elliott's interpretation of the Stuart's Hints on the Interpretation of Sixth Seal, ... every impartial inquirer Prophecy are cited, p. 516; his Commentary must reject a scheme that resorts to such on Daniel, ib., and p. 530; his Commentary methods of elucidating Scripture language." on the Apocalypse three or four times, but Our readers will judge whether the first not always with approval. Maitland is cited difficulty of the five, which alone is insisted at pp. 510, 511, 517, 526, 532, 533 bis, 535, upon at any lengtli in the dissertation (the 536, 622, 623, 624, 626; and almost always subject occupying the first twenty-eight as an authority.

pages), is unfairly represented as being his * In re-writing the article" (in the 'Eclec- "main difficulty." The others, we submit, tic') “ for the present work, the Author has are not difficulties, but mere assertions of the had before him the pamphlets in question writer's opinions. Dr. Davidson has treated (Maitland's). “But he had not seen them,” | with very little ceremony all who maintain he says, " when he wrote that article.” He this theory. knew them only by Birks's and Elliott's

5. attempted refutation. We submit that this That Dr. Davidson erroneously asserts has nothing to do with the use made of them that the Reformers (and especially Luther) in the present work. With Mr. Elliott's, had a very low opinion of the Apocalypse. Mr. Birks's, and Mr. Bickerstetli's statements, This is really the only point of importof which Dr. Davidson so angrily complains ance. in his Preface, we have nothing to do. The I. LUTHER. In 1522, at the time of connumerous coincidences between Dr. Davidson cluding the translation of the New Testa. and the American writer, which led Mr. ment, Luther had come to doubt of the genuElliott to clarge the former with being a ineness of the Apocalypse as an inspired copyist, may be the result of their being both book. Yet, in liis treatise “ De Antiindebted to Lücke and other German writers. Christo," 1521, he alludes in more than one We have never charged Dr. Davidson with place to the Apocalypse as a prophetic book; being a mere copyist. We have only given as well as in his answer to the Pope's Bull, him credit for having read the commentators dated, December, 1520. In 1528, he repub. and critics he continually cites or refers to lished an Apocalyptic Commentary written with so much familiarity. Will he disown in the fourteenth century: and in 1534, he his obligations to Lücke, Hengstenberg, and prefixed to the Apocalypse in his great others, whose works he commends?

edition of the German Bible, a brief explanaTo Dr. S. R. Maitland, indeed, he acknow- tory exposition, notwithstanding his doubts ledges peculiar obligations.

- The Author as to its apostolic authorship. In his “ Table has to thank the Rev. Dr. S. R. Maitland for Talk," which exhibits his views in later life, somo manuscript notes relating to the early there are repeated references to the Apocafathers, supposed to favour the year day lyptic predictions.-See Elliott, vol. iv. Pr. theory, of which he has freely availed himself | 424—428.

[ocr errors]


II. Bullinger, in 1537, published an Ex- , and dishonest practice” would recoil on the position of the Apocalypse in Latin, dedi. cated, as a book well fitted to supply conso

EDITORIAL REMARKS. lation, to all the exiles from France, England, Italy, and other kingdoms. He makes the

The Editor feels it to be his duty, as much Two-horned Beast to be the Papal Anti- as possible, to repress, in the pages of the Christ, the same as Daniel's Little Horn, and EvANGELICAL Magazine, the use of severe St. Paul's Man of Sin.

and contemptuous language. It is wrong in III. Bale, Bishop of Ossory, in the reign of itself, a positive subtraction from the force of Edward VI., had published shortly before, his a good argument, an offence against sound Apocalyptic Commentary, under the title of learning, and altogether unsecmly in referthe " Image of both Churches."

ence to such a matter as the right interpreta. IV. Fulke, Master of Pembroke Hall, pub- tion of the Revelation of the Apostle John. lished his “ Prelections on the Apocalypse"

We cannot see that our Reviewer, 80 in 1557.

severely complained of, has transgressed in V. Chrytræns of Wittenberg, in 1563, this way. He has neither written harshly nor published his “ Explicatio Apocalypsis," in contemptuously; and our readers must judge which he follows Bullinger for the most part, for themselves how far he has done our making the Second Beast to be Rome Pons respected friend Dr. Davidson injustice. We tifical.

think he has very fairly substantiated all he VI. Augustus Marlort's Exposition of the meant to assert. Revelation, pnblished in 1574, is professedly

We could have earnestly wished that Dr. *collected out of divers notable writers of the Davidson had consented to withdraw the not Protestant Churches; viz., Bullinger, Calvin, very kind words of the late Professor Stuart, Gaspar Meyander, Justus Jonas, Lambertus, addressed to certain critics who objected to Musculus, Ecolampadius, Pellicanus, Meyer, his theory of the Apocalypse. But as Dr. Viret."-See Elliott, vol. iv. p. 445.

Davidson has refused to do so, we must be VII. Foxe, the Martyrologist, left behind permitted, without offence, to say that the him his " Commentary on the Apocalypse," American Professor's very severe and conpublished by his son, in 1587, which is re

temptuous language has no pertinency as plete with learning and profound thought. applied to our Reviewer, who reads the Apo

VIII. Brightman's Commentary, dedicated calypse, in the original, with great care, and to "the Holy Reformed Churches of Britany, bas no mean judgment in matters pertaining Germany, and France," appeared in A.D. 1601.

to Biblical interpretation. We speak adIX. Pareus's Commentary, the substance visedly, and fear not the result. of Lectures delivered in 1608, in the Univer

We sincerely trust that those who aim, no sity of Heidelberg, was published in 1615.

doubt from honest purposes, to introduce a X. To these may be added Bishop Jewel, theory of Apocalyptic interpretation quite new who, in his Exposition of the Epistles to the in this country, will have a little patience Thessalonians, bears explicit testimony to the with multitudes of wise, learned, and holy identity of the Man of Sin and the Apoca- men, who cannot renounce their present conlyptic Two-horned Beast with the Papal Anti

victions till their reason and common-sense Christ; citing from Bernard the remarkable have been taken captive. Why should they? declaration made four hundred years before,

If the actual ainount of evidence on both “ The Beast that is spoken of in the Revela- sides of this Biblical question is to be fairly tion is got into Peter's chair."

and satisfactorily weighed, we must have Taking no notice whatever of these com- great patience and forbearance with one mentators, Dr. Davidson, after denying that another. At present, we see no sufficient Luther ever departed from his first opinion, reason for quitting the old Protestant strong. cites, as opposed to the dominant opinion in holds. To us they seem impregnable; and it favour of the apostolic authorship of the will take a great deal of liard argument to book,

Zwingle, Carlstadt, Erasmus, Haffen- shake our faith in them; or to convince 11s reifer, Heerbrand, and John Schröder.” | that such a religious system as Popery has Whether these names will bear ont the bold no express portraiture in the word of God. assertion, that “the Reformers had a very Meanwhile, after reading Hengstenberg with low opinion of the Apocalypse," our readers great care, we are stronger than ever in our will judge. Dr. Davidson supposes that the ancient beliefs. The Apocalypse is a difficult critic lad not read what he has stated at book; but Hengstenberg las by no means rol. iii. p. 551. He is mistaken; and, were

removed the ycil. le disposed to recriminate, the charge of “a bad




So, when each earthly tie has left the soul As when, at length, the last, last anchor's All but a wreck on life's disastrous tide, chain

The Christian sees, by faith's unerring light, Has loosed its hold, and left the shattered That pilot vessel whose strong anchor lives, barque

Whatever be the tumult of the waves: Drifting along, a prey to furious waves, The Captain of salvation guides its course; In the far offing faintly is descried,

And though on deck is sometimes heard the Where sky and water meet, a little speck

cry, Dancing in fitful sunbeams' silvery light, Lord, save, we perish!” soon the shivering Which proves a sail; and forth with there is barque, raised,

With tattered sails, and worsted by the storm, With breathless haste, the signal of distress, Glides smoothly on again, till safely reached Which, being answered, saves the crew from The haven of its everlasting rest ! death:

S. S. S.

Review of Religious Publications.

[ocr errors]

THE REVELATION OF Sr. Joux, EXPOUNDED book, should as soon as possible be made

FOR THOSE WHO SEARCH THE SCRIP- accessible to those who desire to possess it." TURES. By E. W. HENGSTENBERG, Doctor The devout spirit and simplicity of purand Professor of Theology in Berlin. pose which this prefatory explanation beTranslated from the Original, by the Rev. speaks, are conspicuously displayed in the PATRICK FAIRBAIRN, Author of Typology Exposition itself; and the reverence for the of Scripturc,fc. Volume the First. 8vo. word of God and the evangelical piety which

Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. 1851. characterize Dr. Hengstenberg's writings, are The circumstances under which Dr. Heng- in refreshing contrast with the cold, dry, and stenberg undertook the present work, are flippant style of many modern German critics. somewhat singular and interesting, while We bear our willing testimony to the merits they serve to account for certain peculiarities of the present work in these respects; but we in the performance. The Revelation, he says are certainly unable to subscribe to the encoin the Preface, was for a long time a shut mium pronounced upon it by Dr. Samuel book to him. That it was necessary to lay | Davidson, as being “the only one which apopen a new path, differing alike from the proaches the true scope and sense of the course pursued in the older ecclesiastical, and Apocalypse," or to thiuk with him, that it from that of the modern rationalistic school, " traces the right lines of a correct interpre. he never doubted; but his constantly renewed tation.” It was not likely, we think, that thie attempts at fresh investigations accomplished pious and learned Author should, under the nothing to his satisfaction; and he

circumstances, have excogitated for himself ccase to long for the time when an insight an exposition of critical value. The counsel might be granted him into its wonderful and comfort he sought in the practical in. depths. At length, some years ago, during a struction to be derived from studying it, he season of heavy affliction, which compelled obtained. But he set out with the idea of him to discontinue for some months his official making a discovery for himself, instead of duties, he “looked about for a rod and staff carefully ascertaining what prior investiga. that might comfort him, and lighted on the tions had ascertained; and almost at the outRevelation.” Day and night lie pondered on set, we find him taking for his guidance an it, and one difficulty vanished after another, hypothesis, or false conclusion, as “ a touchtill there remained scarcely a point of any stone,” which could not but lead him astray. moment respecting which he did not think Upon the words,“ which must shortly come that he had obtained light. And now he has to pass," Rev. i. 1, Dr. Hengstenberg says: resolved to bring out the first volume alone, « The fulfilment of what is announced in “ because the Revelation has a very close the Revelation, is here placed in the immerelation to the wants the present time;" diate future. So, also, in other passages. and be reckoned it his duty * to endeavour According to ver. 3, and ch. xxii. 10, the time that the rich treasures of counsel and comfort is near. I come quickly,' says the Lord, in which the Lord has provided for us in this xxii. 7, 12, 20; iii. 11; ii. 5, 16. These de


[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »