performed, uninviting to the reader; and therefore, however necessary, it has very rarely been encountered.

It appears,' says bishop Hallifax, from the most superficial view of the Apocalypse, that it is made up of Two component parts.' These parts essentially differ in point of size, of subject, and of importance. The one is comprised within the three first chapters, and consists of epistles to seven of the most eminent of the Asiatic churches; the other, occupying the nineteen remaining chapters, foretells the fortunes of Christianity, and the most memorable events and revolutions which were to happen in the world.

On the three first chapters, which are merely introductory to the main body of the Apocalypse, it is not necessary that the attention of the reader should be long fixed. As the apostles,' says Dr. Johnston of Holywood, addressed their epistles to some particular church or person, so John addresses this book to the seven churches which were then in Asia Minor.-As John was in a state of banishment, this book might have been soon destroyed by his persecutors, had it remained in his own custody; and, at any rate, it would not have been of use to the servants of God, if it had not been communicated to them. It was therefore proper that he should address it to some Christian church or churches; and to none was it more natural for him to have done so than to those in Asia Minor, for he had resided for a considerable time at Ephesus, and superintended the church there, which was one of them, and all the seven were at a small distance from the island of Patmos, where he wrote this book.' Thus also a wise precaution was taken to preserve it in existence and purity to succeeding ages. Lodged in several different churches, it was not very probable, that all the copies of it should be destroyed, or that so many churches should conspire to corrupt it by interpolations of their own3°. That the epistles to the seven churches of Asia are not prophetical, as some have sup

30

posed, it would,' says bishop Halifax, 'be easy to shew from the most convincing arguments,,; an assertion to which I subscribe without hesitation.

'The first thing required in expounding the Apocalypse,' says the prelate whom I have just named, 'was to settle with exactness the order and connection of the constituent parts; and that not by the help of an arbitrary hypothesis, taken up at pleasure, but from principles, existing in the work itself: the next step was to distribute the several visions, agreeably to this arrangement, into different sets, distinguished by the name of synchronisms.' Now this has been done by Mr. Mede, as the bishop and all competent judges are ready to admit, with the most meritorious industry and the most happy success, though at the same time it must be acknowleged, that this great man, with all his care and slowness of deliberation, has fallen into some errors. The very nature of these synchronisms,' I now resume the quotation from bishop Hallifax, requires, that in looking out for facts to answer them, our search be restrained to particular periods of time, beyond and out of which we are not at liberty to recede32. To the same purpose bishop Hurd. 'The knowlege of this order is a great restraint on the fancy of an expositor: who is not now at liberty to apply the prophecies to events of any time, to which they appear to suit, but to events only falling within that time, to which they belong in the course of this pre-determined method. And if to this restriction, which of itself is considerable, we add another, which arises from the necessity of applying, not one, but many prophecies (which are thus shewn to synchronise with each other) to the same time, we can hardly conceive how an interpretation should keep clear of these impediments, and make its way through so many interfering checks, unless it be the true one33.'

31 P. 233.

32 P. 324.

33 Vol. II. p. 130.

If it be asked, whence is there more darkness in the book of Revelation than in the Jewish prophets, I answer that, in a great degree, it results from the continuity of the symbolic form; and if I am farther questioned for the ultimate reason, I reply that this difference was obviously proper. The ancient Hebrew prophecies, being proposed to a people undistinguished by their literary acquirements, and no long time before their accomplishment, were little likely to have their meaning prematurely penetrated; but the predictions of the Apocalypse, had they not been of a darker texture and of a more intricate method, would have been decyphered at a period much too early; since they were to be transmitted to the examination of many successive centuries, and not a few of them were to remain unfulfilled, till long after the invention of printing, and the introduction of genuine criticism, should have greatly facilitated their interpretation.

That the papal power is threatened with destruction in the Apocalypse is, however, stated with such clearness, as to admit of no ambiguity. This is a point upon which the Protestant commentatators are sufficiently explicit and sufficiently copious. But on the various unaccomplished predictions of St. John against many of the kings of the earth, they are brief, cautious, and reserved. Conscious that in various places of his comprehensive prophecy great political events are foretold 34, long have they been accustomed to touch all these parts with a very tender hand 35; and the consequences, which necessarily flow from their true import, some among them have been ready in a great degree to disclaim, either from a desire of displaying their ingenuity in the spiritualising of texts, or from a fear of

34 Dr. Tho. Goodwin (p. 22.) conceiving that the Apocalypse consists of two great divisions, says. it is certain, that the subject of both prophecies are the fates and destinies of the kingdoms of the world.' In ch. X. the angel of the vision says to St. John, thou must prophecy before many nations and kings, that is,' says Dr. Goodwin, about kings.'

6

35 Such has been the conduct of commentators in general. That some. of them have spoken with tolerable plainness, my quototions will shew.

incurring the formidable charge of political heresy. Dr. Henry More, a learned divine of the church of England, aware that the prophetical books of Daniel and of John are in a considerable degree of a political and revolutionary nature 36, in discussing this point, has shrunk from the fair investigation of the question, and was afraid to treat it on its only proper grounds. Willing to evade it, he attached to it ideas which no man can seriously be supposed to hold: he supposes it to be maintained, that the sole tendency of these sacred books is to excite the overthrow of the established governments; and, having framed this perverse statement of the argument, he denies, without any hazard of contradiction, that the study of the Jewish, and of the Christian, prophet, primarily tends to the production of such consequences. Some,' says he (in the preface to his Synopsis Prophetica) have a conceit, that the searching into prophecies, especially those of the Apocalypse and of Daniel, tends to nothing else but faction and confusion, to the trouble and dissettlement of the affairs of Christendom, and to the hazard of the subversion of states and kingdoms.' 'But,' adds the doctor, it is very rashly and unskilfully spoken,' to assert that the search into these prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse tends to nothing but tumult and sedition.' To him, on the contrary, the prophetic visions of St. John appear friendly to the prerogative of secular princes"; and he repeatedly exults in having so explained them, that they shall no longer seem to yield encouragement to persons to tumultuate against their lawful sovereigns.'

36 Grotius, appearing to be fully apprised of this, in his enumeration of the unjust causes of national hostility, has written one section purposely to prove that the fulfilling of scriptural prophecies is no sufficient reason for entering into a war. Book II. ch. 22. sect. 15. of his learned work

on the Rights of War and Peace.

37 Notwithstanding all that the doctor has professed in his preface, I apprehend, that he has been forced, in the course of his own commentaries, to embrace some interpretations, altogether hostile to secular princes. VOL. I.

F

But if the Apocalypse does contain predictions hostile to tyrants; if it does afford encouragement to those, who now combat, or shall hereafter combat, under the banner of freedom; I am furnished with no sufficient reason, why these predictions should remain unexplained, or why this encouragement should be cautiously withheld.

In the preface to his Paralipomena Prophetica, Dr. More renews his complaint; and observes, that some interpreters of Daniel and the Apocalypse had joined with the ruin of Antichrist, the abolishing of monarchy,' supposing, I apprehend, that they would sustain a contemporary destruction. To the comments made on chapters II. and VII. of Daniel he probably in particular alludes. Now since most, if not all the commentators, infer from these chapters, that the European monarchies will at length be destroyed, probably some of the writers, pointed at by Dr. More, might, because it is evident from the prophetic scriptures that the world will continue to exist long after this time, and because mankind must still continue to live under some form of government, therefore with confidence conclude, that the voice of prophecy plainly intimates, that, in the place of monarchies, republics shall every where be established. If the opponents of this learned expositor maintained such a conclusion, we shall cease to wonder at the warmth which he sometimes discovers, when touching on this subject.

To comment on the Apocalypse, so as to please the ruling powers, has long been a task of no small difficulty. In the time of Dr. More, to represent even the Roman pontiff as Antichrist was an unpopular doctrine. Mr. Mede 'had exerted,' says bishop Newton, more learning and sagacity in explaining the prophecies, and in fixing the true idea of Antichrist, than perhaps any writer in any age. But perhaps for this very reason he was looked upon with an evil eye, and (to the disgrace of the times) obtained no preferment.' Indeed it was esteemed a mark