opposition to Mr. Mede, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, and other commentators. I need not say that when the maintainers of this system have chosen that sort of year which they think best, they cannot at all agree from what point of time to begin their reckoning; for I have already shewn that they fix upon various periods during more than three centuries. To follow these discrepancies, which now branch off into endless variety, would be useless; but I call upon the reader to observe how far anything like a general agreement is carried beyond the one single assertion, that there is a certain period of 1260 years (of some sort or othercontaining either 360 or 365 days), and which began at some period or another either in the fifth, sixth, seventh, or eighth centuries.

Now, when I state that this great discrepancy leads me to suspect some error common to all these systems, I am not speaking I am not speaking only my own

sentiments.

What Mr. Scott has said respecting one part of the subject, I feel, indeed, to apply to all, "The different opinions of emi

66

nently learned and able men on the subject, "and the extreme difficulty which they seem "to find in making one part of their interpreta"tions consistent with the others, are powerful

arguments in my mind that they have not "fact and truth to bear them out.""

Comm, Rev, xi. 7-12,

m

Dr.

Adam Clarke, in the Preface to his Commentary on the Revelation, after specifying the various systems of interpretation which have been maintained, adds-" My readers may naturally expect that I should either give a decided preference to some one of the opinions "stated above, or produce one of my own: I

66

66

66

66

66

can do neither; nor can I pretend to explain "the book; I do not understand it; and in the things which concern so sublime and awful a subject, I dare not, as my predecessors, indulge in conjectures. I have read elaborate "works on the subject, and each seemed right "till another was examined: I am satisfied "that no certain mode of interpreting the prophe"cies of this book has yet been found out; and "I will not add another monument to the lit"tleness or folly of the human mind by endeavouring to strike out a new course. I repeat it, I do not understand the book; and I am "satisfied that not one who has written on the

66

66

subject knows any thing more of it than my"self: I should, perhaps, except J. E. Clarke, "who has written on the number of the Beast.

His interpretation amounts nearly to demon"stration; but that is but a small part of the "difficulties of the Apocalypse."

I cannot better express the opinion which has been forced upon my own mind, than in the words of a writer in the Eclectic Review;

he says "When we reflect on the number and "talents of the men who have attempted to "illustrate the visions of St. John, and the

great discordance of opinions, it would seem "as if there must be something radically wrong, some fatal error, at the very foundation of ALL "their systems of explanation, which is one 66 great cause of the mistakes and confusion "that appear to pervade them all. What this "is deserves to be maturely considered," " Whose language this is, I know not; but I wonder that the same view has not forced itself on all who have reflected on the subject. I believe, however, that the fundamental error was long ago pointed out by Bengel, and that he was quite right when he said-" He who has once laid "aside the prejudice of the year-day, will find " out the root of most of the forced interpreta"tions."。

IV. The fourth point which I would mention is the want of conviction which appears to me to exist in the Christian church, and the very little real belief which any system of interpreting the supposed period of 1260 years has obtained. Surely, if any one of these had been Aaron's rod it would have swallowed up the others by

n Vol IV. New Series. Oct. 1815.

• Introduction to the Exposition of the Apocalypse translated by Robertson, p. 147.

this time. Surely it would have wrought something like "general conviction." general conviction." Instead of

that, system after system appears-each has, perhaps, those who read it and admire its ingenuity or its learning-but, I can honestly say, that, to the best of my recollection, I have never found that any one system of interpretation had carried a conviction of its truth to the mind of any individual whom I have questioned on the subject. I have been in the habit of enquiring on this point; and I have not yet met with a person who was prepared to say of any system, "I am satisfied that it is the right one.' I frequently hear the reading of such works recommended. If I then ask the opinion of him who recommends, he tells me, perhaps, that he thinks it very ingenious;-but when I come to the point, and enquire, "Are you satisfied with "it yourself? do you rest in a conviction that "it gives the real meaning of the prophecies?" there is sure to be a change of tone-" Why,

66

really, there seems to be a great degree of 'probability about a considerable part of it"this or that part is very satisfactory-he "shews incontrovertibly that Mr. — is quite

66

wrong in his interpretation of the trumpets, "or the vials, or the witnesses-I really think "it is a very able work and well worthy of "attention." Well, but are you satisfied "that so far as it professes to give the meaning

66

of the prophecies, it does, generally speaking,

give the real meaning ?"-" Why, really, I "should think it highly probable that, in a "considerable degree, it does so-but I should "wish to speak cautiously, and, in fact, I have "not studied the subject sufficiently myself to " give a decided opinion." Now this is not the language of conviction. It is not such language as I should expect to hear from the great body of the Christian Church respecting prophecies fulfilled more than a thousand years ago, or actually fulfilling before their eyes. It is not the language which the same persons use with regard to other prophecies which they believe to have been fulfilled-such as those relating to the first advent of our Lord, to the dispersion of the Jews, to the ruin of Babylon, Nineveh, and Tyre. There is, in the Christian Church, a full and hearty conviction, that these prophecies have been fulfilled by certain facts, respecting which christians are generally agreed. The same conviction exists respecting other prophecies, with regard to the fulfilment of which the precise period or circumstances are not equally clear (such as the return from Babylon and the seventy weeks); but with regard to the prophecies supposed to have been fulfilled during the 1260 years, I can neither find a general, nor an individual, conviction of the truth of any interpretation which has yet been given. I ex