^ 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 REESE LIBRARY 
 
 OF THK 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Aaessiofis No.^-^A^^ Shelf No 
 
 %¥ • ^ 
 
r-^ / 
 
 / 
 
 
 ^'■■' . • ,»m\ 
 
 W #%v fi^^f^ M^m^^rC '^"^ 
 
.. * * 
 
 i* 
 
 ..#• 
 
 'Ai 
 
 # 
 
MILLEMRIANISM DEFENDED; 
 
 REPLY TO PROF. STUART'S 
 
 STRICTURES ON THE REV. G. DUFFIELD'S RECENT WORK 
 ON THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST/' 
 
 IN WHICH 
 
 HE former's false ASSUMPTIONS ARE POINTED OUT, AND THB 
 FALLACY OF HIS INTERPRETATION OF DIFFERENT IMPOR- 
 TANT PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE ARE BOTH PHILO- 
 LOGICALLY AND EXEGETICALLY EXPOSED. 
 
 t^^w.j: 
 
 GEO. DUFFIELD, 
 11 
 
 TKtTOa OV XHJ! 
 
 " I scarce ever kne 
 own, but he was more imp: 
 He could argue against the 
 one who is afraid of his scheme." 
 
 CHTJBCH or DSTBOIT. 
 
 in divinity, a contrivance of his 
 tgfefLt fundamentals of Christianity. 
 ■^ ' with more temper, than against 
 
 NEW- YORK : 
 
 MARK H. NEWMAN, 199 BROADWAY. 
 
 1843. 
 

 -m^ 
 
 EIntered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1843, by 
 
 MARK H. NEWMAN, 
 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District 
 
 of New-YoLk.- 
 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 Chap. I. Introduction 1 
 
 II. The tone and spirit of the "Strictures" - 12 
 
 III. Prof. Stuart's sketch or review of the Disser- 
 
 tations --.--_- 20 
 
 IV. The absurdities and dilemma into wliich his 
 
 definition of Historic Realities has led him - 37 
 
 V. A specimen of his Logic . - _ _ 5t 
 
 VI. A specimen of his Unfairness and Sensitiveness 53 
 
 VII. Inexcusable errors in his statement of the grand 
 
 outlines of the Literal System of prophetic 
 
 interpretation ------ 57 
 
 VIII. His remarks about the authority of the Fathers 61 
 IX. His strictures on the Scriptural Argument - 71 
 X. His summary process of getting rid of the Argu- 
 ment 83 
 
 XL His adroitness in evading a Main Question - 83 
 
 XII. His charges of the want of Explicitness - 113 
 
 XIII. Flis charge of " apparent Inconsistencies and In- 
 
 congruities" ----_- 122 
 
 XIV. Prof S.'s remarks on his principles of Interpre- 
 
 tation 146 
 
 XV. His final notice of the Fathers and others - 177 
 
NOTICE. 
 
 The Publisher deems it but justice, both to the Author and 
 himself to state, that the delay in the publication of this work, 
 beyond th« time announced for its appearance, was a source of 
 mutual disappointment, entirely owing to accidental circum- 
 stances over which neither of them had any control. 
 
 New York, June, 1843. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 For Daubcny, page 12 line 14 and page 15 line 12, read Daubuz 
 Page 34, last line, for ofnential things, read essential thintr. 
 Page 94 line 27, for reverts, read resorts. 
 
p 
 
 The following pages have been prepared, and are pre- 
 sented to the public under many embarrassments. Pastoral 
 duties and engagements, and interruptions incident to the 
 pastoral office, place a minister settled among a numerous 
 flock, at great disadvantage, compared with him, who is free 
 from the cares and labours attendant on preparations for 
 the Sabbath, and week-day services, and other unatoidable 
 demands on his time. The remoteness, too, of the region, 
 where the author dwells, — especially at this season of the 
 year, — the distance being by reason of the state of the wea- 
 ther and roads, threefold greater than in the period when 
 navigation is open, — of necessity caused delay ; and gave 
 public and more favourable opportunity, for the publication 
 to which this is a reply, to make its impression, and to pur- 
 sue its way without any thing to counteract it. Add to this, 
 the great reputation, the high station, the commanding in- 
 fluence possessed by, and the almost prescriptive right of 
 authoritative judgment in such matters extensively conceded 
 to, the Professor of Biblical Literature in the Theological 
 Seminary at Andover, might predispose some to think, it 
 were rash, presumptuous in the extreme, for one who had 
 received such severe castigation to attempt to rejoin. Beside, 
 there are not wanting indications of the danger, which he is 
 
6 PREFACE. 
 
 apt to incur who happens to be singly brought in conflict 
 with one whose dicta are laws, and who by reason of his 
 position wields an amount of influence enough to overpower, 
 or at least to terrify. 
 
 The Author of the following analysis, freely confesses, 
 that all these things have been present to his thoughts, and 
 that he has felt the fearful odds, with which he ventures to 
 contest the opinions of one, who so long has contributed to 
 mould the minds, to form the taste, to direct the studies, 
 and to stamp his own character on so large a portion of the 
 educated and effective Evangelical Ministry in these United 
 States. But truth has claims, superior to all those of per- 
 sonal consideration ; and it has demanded a defence against 
 " the Strictures" recently published by Professor Stuart, 
 on the Author's work entitled " Dissertations on the Pro- 
 phecies relative to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ." So 
 far as the personal interests of the Author are concerned, 
 they would readily have been confided to the care of Provi- 
 dence; but being set for the defence of the Gospel, it is not 
 left optional with him to remain silent. The reader will 
 judge whether Prof. S., or the Author of the Dissertations, 
 adheres most closely and implicitly to the sure and unerring 
 word of God. 
 
 The spirit and style of " the Strictures," have determined 
 the method of reply. Violence was attempted ; and it can- 
 not be repelled without indications of resentment. Resent- 
 ment is very different from vindictiveness ; and under certain 
 circumstances is imperiously demanded. For the perfect 
 freedom of speech, and liberty assumed in canvassing the 
 
I 
 
 PREFACE. W 
 
 arguments of Prof. S., as well as in expressing his convic- 
 tions and views, alike of the truth in general, and of the 
 logic and language of his censor, the Author has no apo- 
 logy to make. To Prof. S. as a brother and Christian 
 minister, and biblical professor, he cheerfully concedes^ and 
 renders all the respect, that may be due. Nor does he har- 
 bour one thought or feeling, inconsistent with Christian and 
 social good will, or that would embarrass in personal inter- 
 course with him. 
 
 He regrets the haste with which Prof S. has written, and 
 his evident determination to turn to ridicule, and to consign 
 to contempt the views he undertakes to censure. He would 
 have much preferred, a calm, grave, kind, and courteous 
 investigation and interchange of thought. It was in this 
 spirit and temper that the Author of the Dissertations ex- 
 pressed, his dissent from some of Prof S.'s positions, and 
 made assertions touching the exegetical views dropped in 
 the *' Hints," which he had hoped he would have met and 
 shown his ability to maintain. 
 
 Prof S. evidently felt himself challenged ; and having 
 chosen his weapons, it has not been left wholly optional 
 with the Author of the following pages, in what manner to 
 reply. Whatever of severity there may be thought to be in 
 the reply, the reader is assured that it has been induced by 
 no personal pique or ill-will, but by the full consciousness 
 of there being nothing, either in disparity of age or station, 
 in mutual relations to each other, and to the church of God, 
 or in reciprocal obligations, to impose any other restraint 
 than courtesy and Christianity dictate upon the freedom of 
 
8 PREFACE. 
 
 speech, — in expressing dissent from his views, — in exposing 
 the falsity of his charges, and the fallacy of his reasonings, — 
 and in maintaining and vindicating what the Author be- 
 lieves, — more firmly than ever, after a careful analysis of 
 the Strictures, — to be^ the plain and simple truth of the 
 sacred Scriptures. 
 
 Detroit, Nov, 29, 1842. 
 
 ,^i. 
 
,, V- of TDK ' 
 
 REPLY TO THE " STRICTURES " OF PROFES- 
 SOR STUART. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 A plain unsophisticated reader, after having quoted the 
 following words of Professor Stuart, viz. " I have read 
 Mr. D's work with all the attention which time has permit- 
 ted,'^^ remarked, " this is but a poor way of bespeaking 
 confidence, and plainly intimates his conviction, that a mere 
 casual attention to the subject is all which he need give." 
 Whether the remark be true or false will appear in the 
 sequel. 
 
 In undertaking a defence of myself, I have no apologies 
 to make, nor complimentary bows with which to approach 
 and to introduce myself to the learned professor. I have' 
 ever despised flattery. As a plain man, I speak what I 
 believe to be the truth, with all plainness, even though it 
 may at times be disagreeable. This one thing, however, 
 I wish to be distinctly known, — that I neither regard 
 Professor S. as a scholar and biblical critic to be infallible, 
 nor concede to him any right, by his authority, or ipse dix- 
 it, as " PROFESSOR, in Andover Theological Seminary," — 
 whether sole, associated, of all science and literature, or 
 of any particular branch, I cannot tell from the title he 
 appends to his name — to sit in judgement as umpire in 
 criticism, theology, philology, prophetical interpretation 
 2 
 
 1/ 
 
 ^ 
 
10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 or scriptural exposition. By the force and conclusiveness 
 of arguments must his opinions, as well as any other man's, 
 be established. 
 
 I feel somewhat reluctant to judge of his spirit and in- 
 tention ; yet cannot help remarking, that, from the very 
 commencement to the close of his " Strictures," and by 
 the very modest title he has given his own production, 
 the impression has been made, that he felt the dignity of 
 the professor to have been somewhat offended and design- 
 ed to castigate the bold or impudent striplhig,* that dar- 
 ed to call his opinions in question. It is perhaps natural, 
 or at least reasonable to expect, that one, who has so long 
 sat in " Moses' seat," and been accounted by multitudes 
 an Oracle in biblical matters, should have been startled at 
 the distant sound of dissent from, or condemnation of, 
 some of 'his favorite positions. I am not therefore sur- 
 prised, nor have I any ground to complain, that Prof. S. 
 should have felt himself urgently called to notice the 
 work which has received his " Strictures." 
 
 In reference to his views, — expressed in his " Hints on 
 the interpretation of prophecy" — relative to the slaying of 
 the two witnesses, and their lying dead in the streets of 
 Jerusalem, I had stated, — that he had assumed as his 
 guide, in the exposition of the Apocalypse, certain posi- 
 tions which had not been proved, — and that he had assert- 
 ed other things to be so very obvious as not well to be 
 denied, which, however, have actually been denied^ and the 
 denial supported by argument^ of both which facts 1 did not 
 think it probable that he was ignorant. I had also stated, 
 
 * A malignant effusion, signed E., in a late political gazette, 
 published in Newark, N. J., while it breathes the adoration of 
 some poor satellite for the " old giants in philology and sacred 
 lore," and denominates the author of the Dissertations " a youth- 
 ful aspirant," advising him to tarry at Judea till his beard be 
 grown, betrays alike the ignorance, servility and malignity of 
 the writer. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 that his explanation, of the predictions relative to the two 
 witnesses and the septimo-octavo head of the apocalyptic 
 beast, especially of the latter, afforded a striking specimen 
 of prophecy being rendered so unlike the fulfillment as to 
 make it difficult to say, whether it is not even more ridic- 
 ulous, than vague and fanciful. See " Dissertations on 
 the prophecies," pp. 395, 409. These things I confess 
 demanded his attention. I intended and hoped, that my 
 averments here, would make him feel the necessity of 
 fortifying his exegesis with other considerations than he 
 had adduced,— with arguments j^roriw^y it to be correct, 
 rather than suppositions that " John might describe" things 
 in this or any other way. — It is the business of an expos- 
 itor to show what the writer actually did mean, and not 
 what he might mean. I felt that Prof. S. here was great- 
 ly in fault ; and cannot resist the impression, that he has 
 actually inverted the true order to be pursued, by doing 
 what he has virtually but falsely charged against me, viz. 
 theorizing or assigning a j^ossift/e meaning, and then search- 
 ing for arguments to make it appear plausible, instead of 
 analysing both the language, and the entire context, and, 
 irrespective of all theories and preconceived notions, en- 
 deavoring to ascertain what the writer did mean. I shall 
 recur presently, and more particularly, to his mode of in- 
 terpretation. My object in adverting to it now, is mere- 
 ly to bespeak the reader's candid attention, while I in- 
 quire, whether the assertions above stated, call for and 
 justify, the tone and spirit, betrayed in the Strictures — 
 a few things charac^ewsti(^T^f wHeh 4 shall designate. 
 
 ^ o 
 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 u 
 
 THE TONE AND SPIRIT OF THE "STRICTURES/'' 
 
 1. He has sat in judgment on what he supposes to have 
 been my mode of exposition, and my means of access to 
 the writings of the fathers ; which latter, whether true 
 or false, does not affect the merits of the subject, but be- 
 trays a willingness, if not a desire, to make the impression, 
 that I have been indebted entirely to the labors of " fa- 
 vorite authors." "He has read," says he " somewhat 
 extensively, the more recent works of those who have 
 assayed to defend," what he calls " the theory" of "a 
 personal, actual, and visible descent of Christ and the glo- 
 rified saints to earth, and of their ecclesiastico-political do- 
 minion here." 
 
 What he means by " more recent," I cannot say, but 
 presume he will not class Mede and Daubeny, Sir Isaac 
 and Bishop Newton among the more recent writers, who 
 believed that the true interpretation of the prophetical 
 Scriptures, sanctioned the expectation of Christ's person- 
 al visible coming. Why has he limited the range of my 
 reading .'' and chosen to insinuate, that I have quoted wri- 
 ters I have not read.'' To say the very least this is 
 an uncourteous attempt at the very commencement of his 
 strictures, to prejudice the minds of his readers, by person- 
 al detractory insinuations. This attempt he has support- 
 ed by representing me as bringing forward a " theory" 
 and laboring to prove it, by the " more recent works of 
 those who have assayed to defend it." 
 
 In so saying, he has entirely mistated the whole object, 
 design, and character, of my work. I have brought for- 
 ward NO THEORY at all ; .but have undertaken to institute 
 
TONE AND SPIRIT OF THE 
 
 13 
 
 an inquiry and an investigation, as to what is the true and 
 proper meaning of the Sacred Scriptures, when they speak of 
 the coining of Christ and of the dominion of the saints ? It 
 is wholly a question of fact, whether the application of 
 correct and admitted principles of interpretation will not 
 bring out, as their only true and proper meaning, the idea 
 of Christ's personal visible coming with his glorified saints 
 before the Millennium ? I have just as good a right to 
 call his views a theory as he has mine ; yea, much better, 
 since he brings them with him to the Bible, confessedly 
 preconceived ideas — and seeks to make its language sup- 
 port them. I have not brought any preconceived views 
 to the Bible, but have gone to the Bible to learn what it 
 means, in the language which it holds on this subject. I 
 entertained once, in common with Professor S., the views 
 of the millennium which he himself has given, only with 
 this exception, that I did not claim to pass 50 much to the 
 account oi '^ poetry^"* as he has done. See Hints, p. 142, 
 1st ed. But I have been forced, after a long and careful 
 study of the scriptures, as well " in the original" as in our 
 English text, to abandon them, because untenable on Er- 
 nesti's principles of interpretation, now generally admitted 
 to be correct. This does not look so much like theoriz- 
 ing as if I had done what Prof. S. has, to use his own 
 term, first assigned a " supposed" meaning, and then un- 
 dertaken to support it. See Hints, p. 122. Whatever 
 prejudice therefore, he may have sought to excite against 
 me, or odium against the doctrine of Christ's personal vis- 
 ible premillenial coming, by calling it a theory, he has on- 
 ly betrayed, how loosely he expresses himself. While he 
 has failed to fasten that convenient charge of speculation 
 and theorizing on me, his own language proves himself to 
 be much more obnoxious to it. 
 
 2. He has distinctly and formally charged me with neg- 
 lecting the study of the original scriptures, and insinuated 
 2* 
 
14 
 
 TONE AND SPIRIT OF 
 
 something bordering on plagiarism, — another uncourteous 
 attempt to weaken his adversary by exciting prejudice 
 against him, " He has" says he " however, advanced but 
 little which is really new, and evidently depemis, for most 
 of his appeals to the Christian fathers and other writ- 
 ings (?) (rather solecistical) of somewhat remote origin, 
 on the extracts which he finds in some of his favorite au- 
 thors. If the time which he has expended in such a pur- 
 suit, had been spent in direct study of the original scrip- 
 tures, he would have shunned many an error, which he 
 has now committed, and in all probability he would have 
 greatly mollified the incongruities in his work, which now 
 abound to such a degree, that any one who reads him (?) 
 through carefully^ finds himself at length much more prone 
 to be surprised and astonished than to become offended." 
 That certainly is not the professor, as his own confessedly 
 hurried perusal oi the bookj (the aw/Aor of the book he has 
 never read) and the severity of his attempted castigation 
 prove. 
 
 Were I disposed to retaliate, I too might insinuate 
 and quote various rumors about Gesenius and other " fa- 
 vorite authors" of his, for " extracts" not acknowledged, 
 but I leave such matters with that noted lady whose word 
 is not often entitled to credit, regretting that his want of 
 courtesy here, renders me apparently uncourteous in re- 
 pelling his coarse insinuations. Wholesale charges of er- 
 ror, and incongruities, without specification^ and to a de- 
 gree even of surprise, astonishment, and " ad nausaum," 
 might justify a little resentment, but I wish to cherish all 
 possible bonhomie even in quoting the trite remark that 
 " they who live in glass houses should take care how they 
 throw stones." Seneca's advice somewhat paraphrased is 
 applicable here, as the sequel may show 
 Alium silere quod voles, primus sile. 
 Be silent and do not assail 
 Where foes of you may tell the tale. 
 
THE " STRICTURES." 15 
 
 WTiat does Prof. S. know about the time I have or have 
 not " spent in the direct study of the original scriptures ?" 
 And where is the modesty in supporting this suppositi- 
 tious charge of neglect in this matter, by wholesale alle- 
 gations of errors, which, but for this neglect, he some- 
 what condescendingly says, 1 most probably would have 
 shunned, thus arrogating to himself, special praise and 
 protection ? — particularly, when he either knows, or ought 
 to know, that some Hebrew and Greek scholars, who can 
 lay as lofty claims to erudition and knowledge of the ori- 
 ginal scriptures, as he can himself, such a^Mede and 
 Daubeny, have advanced the very same ideas wnich I have 
 only historically stated in the general outline of Millenna- 
 rian vi^ws, but which he has chosen to set forth and rep- 
 rimand as my inconsistencies ? 
 
 Quod non vetat lex, hoc vetat fieri pudoT. 
 
 That which the law stoops not to blame 
 Should not be done from very shame. 
 
 3. He has flagrantly misrepresented me, and done me 
 great injustice, by his too obvious attempt to fortify him- 
 self behind the clerical ^ esprit du corps j"* as though I had 
 become the accuser of my brethren, and charged thern 
 with hypocrisy, &c. so contrary to what he says he always 
 heard to be my temper. " It has not been itiy lot" he 
 says, '^ to have any considerable personal acquaintance 
 with Mr. Duffield. But I have always heard him spok- 
 en of, by rny brethren in the ministry, as a man of kind 
 and gentle spirit, uniting the christian and the gentleman. 
 It was a matter of surprise to me therefore, when I found 
 him speaking of those who hesitate about devoting their 
 time to the study of what they deem to be obscure prophecies., 
 as * having reason to fear, that the charge and censure of 
 the Saviour for hypocrisy may be applicable' to them, and 
 intimating, that * they , are not in earnest about heavenly 
 
16 TONE AND SPIRIT OF 
 
 things.' p. 23. He does not mean here to characterize 
 mere scoffers at all divine truth, but he means ^uch of his 
 brethren as do not agree ivilh him, in zeal for the study of 
 what they deem prophecy too difficult for them to under' 
 stand.''^ App. p. 154. 
 
 Now, with all due respect, as becomes "the christian and 
 the gentlemen," I beg leave to say, I have done no such 
 thing. This is his version of the matter : his construc- 
 tive charge. I refer any and every candid reader to the 
 context which he thus interprets, and confidently antici^ 
 pate acqujiipl from this grievous accusation. The reader 
 will find, by turning back to p. 18 of the Dissertations, 
 that I am endeavouring to answer a very common objec- 
 tion against the study of " unfulfilled prophecies, in gener- 
 al, and not this or the other special prediction, which 
 brethren may think " too Sifficult for them to understand." 
 The objection is, " that while the study of the prophecies 
 already fulfilled may be proper and useful, that of the proph- 
 ecies unfulfilled is bo'h useless and dangerous ^ Of course 
 the remarks apply to none other but this one particular 
 class of persons ; I do not say whether clerical or lay, but 
 mean both as the language shows. For the objection is 
 offered alike by both, occasionally. I have also quoted 
 the language of one, whether clerical or lay I know not, 
 but one who belongs to the Editoral corps, a class of per- 
 sons that do virtually contribute, 'and some of them claim 
 a right, to form and controul public opinion ; and I have 
 said, that such language, especially the spirit of the ob- 
 jection quoted, deserves reproof, for reasons stated and 
 drawn directly from the word of God, setting forth, first 
 the divine obligation, imposed on us all, to study unfulfil- 
 led as well as fulfilled prophecy, and next its indispensa- 
 ble necessity in order rightly to understand the promises 
 of God given for our support and consolation. 
 
 Having thus stated the objection, and quoted the Ian- 
 
THE " STRICTURES." 17 
 
 guage of the Editor of the Boston Recorder, — who he is I 
 know not, — in proof that it is a real objection and not a 
 man of straw, — and having shewn its dangerous tendency, 
 and utter fallacy, when brought to the test of God's word, 
 I have asked, " Now, after all this, what shall we think of 
 those who will tell us unfulfilled prophecy needs not to 
 be studied — is of no use, but dangerous— till the events have 
 fulfilled them ? Assuredly such instructors deserve reproof, 
 and to be sent back to their Bibles, themselves to study, 
 more carefully, lest they should mislead others. They 
 have reason to fear that the charge, and censure of the 
 Saviour, for hypocrisy may be applicable ;" and in pooof 
 of this statement, I have shown that it was the very cir- 
 cumstances of the Pharisees' neglecting prophecy, on 
 which the Saviour founded his charge of hypocrisy 
 against them. My remarks apply wholly to the persons 
 whom I have described, and particularly quoted, not to 
 those whom Professor S. has spen fit to describe for me,^ 
 and tell the world I mean. By no law of interpretation 
 has he the right to put on my language the construction 
 he has, and to work it up into an attack upon " many an 
 honest and excellent minister ^^^ who does not agree with 
 (me) in zeal for the study of what they deem prophecy 
 too difficult for them to understand." I have admitted, 
 that some unfulfilled prophecies are difficult to be under- 
 stood, but affirmed, that that is no reason why they should 
 not be studied, much less why all unfulfilled prophecy 
 should be neglected. 
 
 My remarks apply only to those who fall in the latter 
 class, whether ministers, editors, laymen, or professors. If 
 Prof. S. interprets the language of his Bible, as he has 
 done mine, he certainly needs to be sent back to learn some 
 of the first principles of " Hermeneutics." What I have 
 asserted from p. 18 to 23, I now assert again, without the 
 least fear of Prof. S.'s attempt to rob me of any reputation 
 
18 . TONE AND SPIRIT OF 
 
 I may have had for a kind and gentle spirit : remarking 
 only, that by the very same rule of interpretation, which 
 has helped him to excoriate this grievous charge against 
 me, he may stamp the charge, of being an accuser and de- 
 nunciator, agajnst any and every minister of the gospel, 
 who will prove and enforce the precepts of the gospel in 
 their plain and obvious import. I must say, that there is 
 a weakness in this attempt so like the subterfuges and cry 
 of men of the world, which ill comports with my previous 
 ideas of Prof S's. courtesy, and " Hermeneutics " both. 
 Prof S, would share most largely in the (;ensure and con- 
 demnation, he seeks to dispense to me, were his own meth- 
 od of interpreting language and construing charges appli- 
 ed to himself. Besides those from the " Strictures " that 
 will fall under notice, I refer the reader to passages in his 
 Hints, which he may find on pp. 63, 127. It ill becomes 
 a writer, himself so sensorious and dogmatical, to make 
 such charges ; but it is one among the many proofs we 
 meet, of the readiness of men to accuse others of what 
 they themselves are guilty. 
 
 His referenc'es to pages 71 and 265 of the Dissertations 
 are of like character. I challenge him to produce any 
 thing from the whole book, taken in its proper connection^ 
 that will justify such charges, and such a resort to the 
 argumentum ad invidiam as the following, " At one time 
 the opponents of his views are negligent of the scriptures ; at 
 another they are prejudiced, obstinate, bent upon peculiar 
 hypotheses, and swayed by their own sj'stem ; then again 
 they are unwilling to follow the simple principles of in- 
 terpretation ; and they are indifferent about the glories of 
 Christ and the saints. Moreover, some of them are led 
 away by Platonic and other philosophy ; and others par- 
 ticularly the author of Hints on the Interpretation of 
 Prophecy pp. 395, 409, are led away by German Theolo- 
 gy.'^' App. p. 155. His zeal or something else must have 
 
THE " STRICTURES." 19 
 
 greatly affected the medium of his vision, before he would 
 have magnified my legitimate objections against the alle- 
 gorizing or spiritual system of interpretation, into charges 
 against my brethren and himself ; or conscience must have 
 been at work, — one of the two. His remarks about my 
 being exempt from any " charge of being led away either 
 by Plato or the Germans," I accept as a compliment, not- 
 withsjtanding the sneer, which they were designed to ex- 
 press, cannot be concealed, ill becomes him, and is be- 
 neath notice. 
 
 What I have specially affirmed of his explanations of 
 certain prophecies, I shall notice in another place. I am 
 truly surprised to see my arguments and objections, in ref- 
 erence to a system of interpretation^ construed into invidi- 
 ous defamation of my brethren, which " blows somewhat 
 rude and violent upoi^ the very ears which are summoned 
 to listen !!" He must needs have the power of Proteus 
 that can transform tilings at this rate. 
 
 Omnia transformat sese in miracula serum. 
 
 His power of universal transformatipn 
 Is marvellous indeed to admiration. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 HIS SKETCH OR REVIEW OF THE DISSERTATIONS. 
 
 1. He represents me as attempting, — through 150 
 pages of a work, which in the very third sentence of his 
 " Strictures," he typographically or otherwise, errs in 
 stating " contains 334 pages 12mo." nearly one half of 
 the whole according to his shewing, — " to establish her- 
 meneutical principles ; from the application of which (I) 
 expect to deduce (my) whole theory in respect of times fu- 
 ture." p. 156. I notice the error just mentioned, in proof 
 of the desultory attention he must have given either to 
 the Dissertations, or the proof sheets of his Strictures, and 
 how happily for him the error helps to give force to his 
 general survey of the book. One half of a book devoted 
 to establish hermeneutical principles by which to deduce 
 a theory ! ! ! This is construction with a vengeance. I 
 utterly deny his allegation. 
 
 The impression which his language actually makes, and 
 I have a right to believe it was designed to make, is, that 
 I have labored, through a long, tedious, and unnecessary 
 detail, requiring great patience to read, in order to estab- 
 lish some new or peculiar principles of interpretation, by 
 which to make the Bible teach a preconceived idea of the 
 Millennium. I have done no such thing : and isay of 
 Professor Stuart, that if he had given all the attention 
 which time would permit to the book, he has not given, 
 either time or attention, sufficient to be able to state its 
 object or its argument. I have advanced no new princi- 
 ples of Hermeneutics whatever : but have brought into 
 view two different systems of interpretation, which have 
 
HIS SKETCH OR REVIEW OF THE DISSERTATIONS. Si 
 
 obtained and exerted an influence on the exposition of 
 Scripture, and specially compared and contrasted them. I 
 have attempted a regular analytical investigation of the im- 
 port of Scriptural prophetical language, relative to the 
 SECOND COMING OF Jesus Christ. Prcviously, and indis- 
 pensably necessary to that investigation, became the distinct 
 apprehension and adjustment of the true principles of inter- 
 pretation recognized and established in the Scriptures them- 
 selves. Will Professor Stuart object to this? Why then 
 should he attempt to disparage an effort made in a work in- 
 tended for all classes of readers, and especially for those 
 unacquainted with the science of hermeneutics, to give a dis- 
 tinct and intelligible idea of the features, principles, and 
 results, of two very different systems of interpretation, by 
 which divines and professors have conducted their exposi- 
 tion of the Scriptures ? Must no one entrench on what he 
 may claim to be his province, par excellence^ as biblical 
 " professor in Andover Theological Seminary ?" Has an 
 attempt to make the whole subject intelligible to the com- 
 mon reader — especially when the original form of the work 
 was Lectures prepared for a popular assembly — and to strip 
 it of all pedantic technicalities, been rendered altogether un- 
 necessary by professor Stuart's class-book for his students, en- 
 titled " Elementary Principles of Interpretation," translated 
 from the Latin of Ernesti, with notes of his own and ex- 
 tracts from others 1 If he thinks so, there are multitudes 
 who do not. 
 
 What I have attempted, in four chapters, to do, is to ena- 
 ble the reader to understand the difference between the two 
 systems designated, and to decide for himself which shall be 
 adopted. This I have done, first, by arguments adduced, 
 and, in the next place, by meeting and guarding against some 
 common misapprehensions and misrepresentations as to what 
 the one system, in contradistinction from the other, really is. 
 Professor S. may think that twenty-five pages would have 
 
 3 
 
22 HIS SKETCH OR REVIEW OF 
 
 sufficed for the whole, instead of 115, not 150 as he has 
 said, p. 157. But diffuse in his style of writing as he is 
 himself, it does not seem to have been enough to enable him 
 to understand, either my language, or that of Ernesti, which 
 I have quoted. Whether the fault is in me, or in the pro- 
 fessor, will presently appear. 
 
 I have done no more than to unfold and endeavor to esta- 
 blish the very same system of interpretation ^ which Ernesti 
 has defined and advocated, and which Professor S. has him- 
 self zealously asserted and vindicated. I defy him to pro- 
 duce a single passage from the whole book, which will au- 
 thorize him to make the statement he has done, in order to 
 produce the impression he evidently designed to do, that I 
 have sought to establish any new or peculiar hermeneutical 
 principles of my own, by which I expected to deduce my 
 whole " theory" as to future times. A writer who can pre- 
 fer charges at this rate, and so misstate the object and argu- 
 ment of an author, ought to be very careful that he does not 
 himself present " many incongruities of representation," 
 through failure " to distinguish things that differ." His whole 
 attempt is to turn into derision what he had not been candid 
 enough to state distinctly and accurately — no doubt aware 
 that with most of readers, ridicule has more force than 
 reason. 
 
 Discit enim citius, meminitque libentiiis illud, 
 Quod quis deridet, quam quod probat et veneratur. 
 
 For quickly we discern, 
 With ease remember, and with pleasure learn, 
 Whate'er may ridicule and laughter move, 
 Not what deserves our best esteem and love. 
 
 2. He has made a false issue, and put up a man of 
 straw of his own creating, which he sets fire to, and demo- 
 lishes, with most wonderful dexterity and self-complacency. 
 " His grand position," he says of me, " is, that all pro- 
 
THE DISSERTATIONS. 23 
 
 pJiecy is to be literally interpreted." The reader would 
 suppose that I actually advanced a position, in these terms ; 
 and I cannot resist the impression, that he meant it should 
 BE so UNDERSTOOD, I defy him to produce any passage 
 showing that I have advanced such a bold and unqualified 
 proposition, or that I have, directly or indirectly, afforded 
 just occasion, for him or any one else, so to state, what he 
 calls, my grand position. He does indeed quote, in a sup- 
 pressed and garbled form, what I have said, defining the 
 general system, not of my excogitation, but long known in 
 the church, and denominated literal in contradistinction 
 ixom the mystic ox spiritual. ^^ Hy literal " he means, (as 
 he avers, p. 34,) " that system which assumes the liter ality or 
 historical reality ^ of the events predicted." He means that 
 the reader shall understand, that I, as well as himself, re- 
 garded this last proposition as identical, with what he had 
 stated my *' grand position" to be, and when he says that 
 " more than sixty pages are occupied with illustrating and 
 establishing this position," he errs most egregiously, from 
 the fact. The two propositions are not identical, and canf 
 not, by any efforts of exegesis, be tortured into entire resem- 
 blance, 
 
 I might here leave the question with the intelligent 
 reader, confident that he will never identify my language, 
 which Prof. S. quotes, with his statement of its meaning. 
 I feel that I should but insult the understanding of the 
 reader, were I to attempt to show the difference between 
 *' a system that assumes the historical reality of the events 
 predicted," and ^^ ?i position \hdX all prophecy" — he means, 
 and can mean nothing else than the language in which all 
 prophecy is delivered — " is to be literally interpreted." He 
 must be incurably blind indeed, that cannot see the radical, 
 immutable, eternal difference, in the very nature of things^ 
 between a position and a system, events and language. But 
 I feel also, that with all the reputation I may have for a kind 
 
251 HIS SKETCH OR REVIEW OF 
 
 and gentle spirit, it would be making too great a demand 
 for the sacrifice of self-respect, to submit to such a version 
 and explanation as he has given, of what I have, in common 
 with very many writers, styled the literal system of interpre- 
 tation, and defined and explained at some length. Prof S. 
 is obnoxious to severe and deserved rebuke for the part he 
 has acted here. For he has not only attempted to confound 
 things essentially different, notwithstanding he so rightfully, 
 but nevertheless magisterially, talks about and demands, 
 yea, insists, that I must be " held to perspicuity and 
 accuracy in the didactic part of (my) book ;" but he has ac- 
 tually, and deliberately, twice stopped short, in the midst of 
 the same sentence, and withheld from the reader, an essen- 
 tial idea in the definition or description which I have given 
 of the literal si/stem of interpretation. Pp. 156, 157. 
 
 My language is, " by the literal we understand that 
 system which assumes the literality, or historical reality, 
 of the events predicted, and resorts to the grammatical in- 
 terpretation of the language of prophecy, to determine its 
 meaning." He may contend with whom he pleases, in op- 
 position to the position he has attributed to me, and fight 
 with all the chivalry of Sancho Panza against the wind- 
 mill, but none of his thrusts or darts reach me. It is the 
 creature of his own brain, and none of my positions, against 
 which he directs his weapons. 
 
 In the sixty pages of which he speaks, I have quoted 
 Ernesti frequently, and at great length, Dodwell, Vitringa, 
 &/C., in illustration and explanation of the system of inter- 
 pretation to be adopted, and from which he will not himself 
 dare to dissent ; and having done so, in six not sixty pages, 
 I have devoted the balance of the sixty, to four distinct, in- 
 dependent, and extended arguments, proving it to be the 
 correct system, in doing which, I have even quoted Pro- 
 fessor S. himself When therefore he mirthfully says, 
 " Often in reading them I have been constrained to stop 
 
THE DISSERTATION».\\ . * "^ ^ ^ "^ flU^ tp   
 
 and inquire, Does the author mean really to^^afct/'^ljBn, thai? h. , 
 all the language of prophecy is to be literally interpreted?* J^ 
 Most of his remarks led me, against my will, to think that 
 such must eventually be his position. More than once I be- 
 gan seriously to ask : And has it come to this now that we 
 are to make a beginning, with the very first of all the pro- 
 phecies in the Bible, and find out, by a literal interpre- 
 tation, what is the meaning of the prediction : " The seed of 
 the woman shall bruise the serpent's head?" I say, therefore, 
 that when he thus speaks, I will not remark on the unseemly 
 entendre in the words italicised, nor even declare what I 
 think of his interrogations, for I perceive, that he literally 
 thinks he is inflicting severe blows on me ; but I refer him 
 to pages 100 and 101 of the Dissertations, where, if he had 
 read with ordinary attention, he might have learned, that he 
 was fighting against a man of straw and not against me, — 
 and where too, he will find a portrait drawn, of a certain 
 class of spiritual interpreters, which will exhibit his own 
 image and enable me to return his compliment. 
 
 Mutato nomine, de te 
 
 Fabula narratur. 
 
 Change but the name, of thee the tale is told. 
 
 3. He has indulged very fi-eely in certain hypercriticisms, 
 on my language, which deserve but a moment's attention. 
 Having disproved his own allegations, and proved himself to 
 have misrepresented and distorted my language, by acknow- 
 ledging that I have produced " nothing but what is to be 
 found in the usual principles of hermeneutics," he adds : 
 " But it must be confessed still, that he has here produced, 
 in addition to these, some things which he may rightfully 
 claim as his own. What sort of language the alphabetical 
 is, in distinction from and contrasted with, the other kinds 
 named by him, I have not been able to make out, by any 
 thing which he has said." App. p. 156, 157. His object is 
 to sneer at the word alphabetical, and to tell the world, as 
 
2& 
 
 HIS SKETCH OR REVIEW OF 
 
 he evidently thinks, that it is " a novelty of (my) own." In 
 so saying and meaning he has only displayed his own igno- 
 rance. I have no apology to make for this charge, since 
 truth requires me to speak plainly ; I am not the first who 
 has used the word alphabetical to designate the literal or 
 plain style of speech or language, in contradistinction 
 from that which is symbolical and figurative, just as the 
 style of writing in alphabetical letters stands opposed td' 
 pictorial and hieroglyphical characters. More than half a 
 century since, Johnson in his exposition of the Apocalypse 
 thus made use of it ; and his clear discriminating mind and 
 profound judgment as an expositor entitle him to equal re- 
 spect with Prof. S. Other writers too have employed it in 
 this sense. But even, if I had been the first to use it, as he 
 verily but ignorantly believes, I have so distinctly and accu- 
 rately defined my meaning, that I am utterly amazed at his 
 professions of inability to apprehend it. I have said, " Al- 
 phabetical language is the plain ordinary style of speech, 
 which men employ to state or to set forth simple matters of 
 history, and unemhellishedhy figurative expressions J^ I have 
 also referred to examples in the Apocalypse, of this style of 
 language, and quoted Ernesti's explanation of the thing, 
 though he does not use the term. If after all this plainness 
 and precision Prof. S. remains dull of comprehension, it is 
 not my fault ; and I may felicitate myself as did the cele- 
 brated Dr. Mason in like cases, that while under obligations 
 to speak plainly and intelligibly, I am under none to pro- 
 vide understanding. 
 
 Professor S. says that tropical language, and also symboli- 
 cal and typical, may also be called alphabetical, and so they 
 may, using the term in a generic sense : but I have used it 
 in a specific sense to denote that plain style of speech which 
 is wholly devoid of any figurative embellishment whatever. 
 When used in the generic sense, it is in contradistinction 
 from hieroglyphics, which are writings, inscriptions or pic- 
 tures, and the diiference is as distinct as between language, 
 
THE DISSERTATIONS. ^' 
 
 or words uttered or written and pictorial or hieroglyphical 
 marks or signs. Professor S. does not seem to have noticed 
 this distinction ; but has employed expressions, which I have 
 never, to my recollection, met in any accurate and good 
 writer, who has treated on these subjects. He says, " We 
 may easily distinguish between language alphabetical and 
 hieroglyphical.'' I defy him to do it. There is no such 
 thing as hieroglyphical language. There are marks, signs, 
 pictures, inscriptions, styles of writing, that are hyeroglyphi- 
 cal, and they may speak to the eye what words do to the 
 ear. They may be deciphered and interpreted, but strictly 
 and properly they are not language, or they cannot be ex- 
 pressed by appropriate sounds or names, nor do accurate 
 writers so express themselves. 
 
 His own remarks about types, which, he says correctly, 
 are not language, but things, apply to hieroglyphics with 
 much greater force, than to symbols and types. He at- 
 tempts, by calling it my " nomenclature," to throw odium 
 on me, for employing such expressions as symbolical lan- 
 guage, typical language, and charges me with " many incon- 
 gruities of representation through failure to distinguish the 
 things that differ." I have not invented these forms of ex- 
 pression, so as to entitle them to be designated as my nomen- 
 clature. They are to be found in the best writers. I have 
 given no occasion for him to make the following remark, as 
 though I had confounded '' things that differ," viz. " In re- 
 spect to these last two designations, however," (he means 
 symbolical and typical language,) " we have another remark 
 to make, which is, that types are not language, but things, 
 symbol is not language, but thing J' Any tyro knows this. 
 I have never said or intimated that they were. Nor do the 
 phrases about which he affects so much fastidiousness imply 
 it. I have — in common with " more recent," and more re- 
 mote authors, with Daubuz and all that since his day have 
 treated of symbols and types — used the expressions he criti- 
 cises, just as any and every plain reader would understand, 
 
3^ ' HIS SKETCH OR REVIEW OF 
 
 viz., SYMBOLICAL LANGUAGE denoting the language which 
 designates or expresses symbols, or "things used as signs or 
 representatives of ideas ;" and typical language, the lan- 
 guage which designates or expresses types, or those things 
 that God appointed, and to which he gave significance, as 
 shadows or representations of what he intended to be made 
 known. In view, therefore, of these criticisms about " a 
 little inaccuracy in modes of expression," I am willing to 
 submit it to every candid reader, whether the Professor's 
 admonition about " perspicuity and accuracy," would not be 
 much more appropriate from me than from him. 
 Sic soepe intereunt aliis meditantes necem. 
 So those who deadly hate to others cherish, 
 By their own schemes are often made to perish. 
 
 4. He has, disingenuously, defined my language to suit 
 his own purpose, and instead of the plain, popular, ordina- 
 ry sense of the expressions, and in which he could not but 
 perceive they were used, has given them a high philosophi- 
 cal or metaphysical import. He seems himself to question 
 the propriety of his own definition, but satisfies himself that 
 it is possible to give my words such a meaning, and then 
 adopts it, as the crucible into which he will cast my " funda- 
 mental position," as he calls, and erroneously states it, and 
 by which he will put its accuracy to the test. ^'A historic 
 realiti/," says he, " is something (or as we may say), any 
 thing which takes place, or has an actual existence, in dis- 
 tinction from any thing which is merely supposed or ima- 
 ginary. Nay, if we include within the circle of the world 
 of mind, the Divine Being and angelic intelligencies, we 
 may well say that there are more historic realities belonging 
 to the world of mind, than to the world of matter ; there are 
 more, and more important things, historical realities, con- 
 nected with the invisible world, than with the visible one." 
 App. p. 157, 158. 
 
 This, I confess, is ingenious, and as it is the " great fun- 
 damental principle, on which every thing in his (strictures) 
 
THE DISSERTATIONS. St 
 
 turns and depends," a few remarks must be made on his 
 statement of it. I deny, however, its correctness, and in- 
 sist that it will not stand the test of sound criticism. I have 
 no need, however, for a crucible of my own invention, nor 
 to resort to definitions of my own, philosophical, metaphysi- 
 cal, or otherwise, by which to try it. I appeal to the Eng- 
 lish Lexicographers, and the uniform use of language, or as 
 Professor Stuart would say, the usus loquendi. Historical, 
 or historic, is the adjective formed from the noun history, 
 and means of or belonging to history. I write for plain 
 readers, and must insist on subjecting the language of the 
 Professor of Sacred Literature, since he writes in English, 
 to the English standards, by which to judge of its correct- 
 ness. History is not " existence," either simple and ab- 
 solute, i. e. as he has it, " actual^^ or " in distinction from 
 any thing which is merely supposed or imaginary . 
 
 Professor S. will not find a solitary quotation in Richard- 
 son's English Dictionary in which the word is used in the 
 sense he gives it, viz., actual existence, simple entity. How 
 would the plain reader stare to be told by Professor S. that 
 God is History, the angels history, the planets, stars, suns, 
 and material universe history ? And yet, according to his 
 metaphysical definition of "historical reality," they are! 
 
 Here, doubtless, he will say, that he uses my own words, 
 and that I am responsible for the absurdity, not he. He 
 evidently thinks, that he has fairly turned the argumentum 
 ducens in absurdum, against me. But he is greatly mistaken. 
 I have nowhere said that literality, as an attribute or 
 feature of prophecy, is identical or synonymous with histori- 
 cal reality, in his sense, that is, abstractly, absolutely speak- 
 ing, as simple existence. He has indeed represented me to 
 have so said. But when I have defined the literal system 
 of interpretation, as applied to prophecy, and said that it as- 
 sumes " the literality," &lc., I have explained it, in what he 
 calls " the epexegetical clause, designed to be its exponent 
 
8C^ HIS SKETCH OR REVIEW OF 
 
 or equivdent," — to be the " historical reality of the events 
 predicted." Why did Professor S. suppress these important 
 and essential words, and represent me as identifying Uterali- 
 ty and historical reality in the high metaphysical generali- 
 zation, or, to speak more logically, absolute sense '? He 
 has done it, to try the correctness of my position by showing 
 its absurdity, but I have only spoken of events or occur- 
 rences, so transpiring as to be, or to be capable of being, 
 made matters of history, in the common and proper sense of 
 the word, that is, events visibly occurring in this world, or 
 externally manifesting themselves. Beyond this I deny that 
 prophecy takes its range : he cannot prove the contrary ; and 
 it is a position of essential moment to be apprehended by 
 every faithful interpreter of prophecy. His disingenuousness 
 in shifting the meaning of the phrase historical reality, and 
 perverting my idea, — the only proper idea of its meaning, — 
 I shall presently declare. But I must first attend, a little 
 further, to the true meaning of the word history. 
 
 It does not denote mere science, abstractly considered, 
 any more than it does existence. It is true that it is a Greek 
 word, '^IffTOQLu, which lexicographers derive from iaimg, 
 science, knowing or having knowledge ; from iaauOai, to 
 know ; but as it has been adopted, in both the Latin and 
 English languages, it means the knowledge of things donCy 
 of deeds or facts, also the tale or narration of them, the re- 
 lation, the record of them. " Historical realities" therefore 
 are the real events of history, according to the plain, 
 obvious, established, authorized use of language. This be- 
 ing the only legitimate meaning of the expression, — and that 
 it is so, I appeal to Tyndall, Bale, Ralegh, Usher, Tillot- 
 son, Bates, Gibbon, Beloe, Warburton and others, whose 
 authority is far beyond the excogitated and novel definition 
 of Prof S. — the answer is at hand and obvious, when he 
 asks, ** How shall we show, then, that when a spiritual ex 
 egesis (as the author names it) is given to any particular 
 
THE DISSERTATIONS. 31 
 
 passage of Scripture, that (?) it does not as truly present us 
 with a historical reality^ as when we assign to it a meaning 
 which has relation to external and visible occurrences?" 
 App. p. 158. That answer is, that matters, simply and ex- 
 clusively intellectual, or spiritual, are not matters of /a's^or- 
 ical record at all ; nor can they be. They may indeed 
 have a veritable existence, but that existence can only be- 
 come known to us by some external, sensible manifestation. 
 Beyond such manifestation history does not go. God, and 
 the angelical intelligencies, only become the subjects of 
 history, as they, in some external, visible, or sensible way, 
 event or occurrence, reveal themselves. It is an abuse of 
 language to call them " historical realities," absolutely inde- 
 pendent, or exclusive, of such manifestations. 
 
 The example, which Prof S. quotes, and which he pro- 
 nounces " undeniable," does not help him out of his meta- 
 physical fog. " Jesus," says he, " declared to Nicodemus 
 that except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom 
 of God." " Now if the explanation, which Mr. D. gives of 
 his great principle is correct, we are not to give this a 
 spiritual meaning, but a literal one. He cannot take refuge 
 here, in any thing which he says about tropes, or symbols. 
 There must be a historical reality (in his sense of the 
 phrase) in these words ; and this reality is one which is 
 of a visible and sensible nature." App. p. 158. Here is the 
 proof of his disingenuousness. He shows, in the last sen- 
 tence just quoted, that he did accurately and fully appre- 
 hend the idea I intended to express by the phrase " historical 
 reality of the events predicted." But he assigns another, 
 and unjustifiable, meaning to the words " historical reality " 
 viz., simple existence, and then thinks, by using my mean- 
 ing of the phrase, and the only proper one, to shut me up 
 to the necessity of denying the doctrine of the necessity of 
 regeneration ; or if he means the fact of regeneration, he 
 has expressed himself very loosely and unintelligibly. 
 
32^ HIS SKETCH OR REVIEW OF 
 
 The doctrine of the Necessity of Regeneration, which the 
 Saviour's language, as quoted by Prof. S. leaches, is an in- 
 tellectual proposition, having reference wholly to a spiritual 
 subject. He however would fain cut me off from all oppor- 
 tunity of retreat to the analogical import of the words 
 " horn again,'^ expressing the nature of that change which 
 the Saviour doctrinally taught to be necessary. I must take 
 the phrase literally , as Nicodemus did, and wonder and in- 
 quire with him, how a man when he is old can enter a 
 second time into his mother's womb and be born? 
 
 Now the disingenuousness of this thing appears first, in 
 his confounding " things that differ." Abstract theological 
 truth, exclusively doctrinal propositions, matters simply of a 
 " spiritual nature," — I mean here, and so must and does. 
 Prof. S., intellectual, angelic, spiritual realities or existences, 
 — totally disconnected from external manifestations, are not 
 events, deeds, facts, things done, of such sort as to become, 
 or to be capable of being made, matters of historical record 
 or narration. Consequently they want an essential feature 
 of the system of prophecy — are indeed radically different 
 from it. For prophecies, — of which only I speak, using the 
 word in its specific import, as Prof S. must know, are strictly , 
 and properly predictions, and have, as I affirm, uniformly^.' 
 and invariably, a reference to events which externally or 
 visibly, and sensibly manifest themselves. Beyond this he 
 has no right to press my language or "fundamental posi- 
 tion," at least, until he shows, that I have not assumed a 
 correct idea or definition of prophecy or predictions, or that, 
 according to his assertion, simple abstract intellectualities, — 
 mere spiritual existences that do not and will not manifest 
 themselves by any external, visible, or sensible acts or 
 revelations, — fall within the range of prophecy. This I defy 
 him to do. Prophecy is adapted to our complex state of 
 existence as spiritual and corporeal beings, dependent for 
 our 'knowledge, as well on our senses as on our intellectual 
 
THE DISSERTATIONS. 99, 
 
 perceptions and abstractions. The theatre for its great and 
 glorious, and final developments and fulfilment, lies wholly 
 on this globe, — in events and scenes to occur here, and to 
 occur, in such manner, and manifestations, as to be per- 
 ceptible by sensible creatures or mortal men. I challenge 
 him to disprove this to be the fact, and to prove that intel- 
 lectual spiritual verities, which never externally and sensibly 
 manifest themselves, either are or ever can be the themes 
 of prophecy. Yet has he either not discerned, or refused 
 to recognize, the difference ; and has applied his construc- 
 tive import of my " fundamental position" on the subject 
 of the interpretation of prophecy, to themes of an abstract, 
 theological, intellectual, spiritual nature. It is ungenerous, 
 unjust, thus to confound " things that differ," by insisting, 
 as he has done, that doctrinal truths are historical 
 events, and therefore, that in the explanation of the former, 
 I must be debarred from all reference to the tropical import 
 of language, and be compelled to interpret metaphorical 
 expressions literally. When Prof S. will prove, that Pro- 
 phecy and Theology are identical, then, but not till then, 
 can he crowd upon me the absurdities he has imagined. 
 
 The SECOND proof of his disengenuousness, which I notice, 
 appears in his imperfect and distorted statement, of what he 
 calls my " fundamental position." I have said that the lite- 
 ral system of interpretation, which applies to prophecy, "as- 
 sumes the literality or historical reality of the events pre- 
 dicted, and resorts to the grammatical interpretation of the 
 language of prophecy to determine its meaning J' P. 34 of 
 Dissertation. Professor S. needs not to be told, that the 
 grammatical interpretation — which I have affirmed must be 
 resorted to in order to determine the meaning of prophecy 
 — does NOT prohibit the application of the rhetorical and 
 other rules appropriate to tropical, symbolical, or typical 
 styles of language, when such language is employed by the 
 prophets. I have quoted Ernesti and Vitringa, and given 
 
34- HIS SKETCH OR REVIEW OF 
 
 an example, and amply illustrated this point, so that no one 
 can fairly and legitimately charge me with teaching — or my 
 " fundamental position," as I state it, with implying — that 
 the language of prophecy is to be interpreted literally 
 in Professor S.'s sense, viz., by the entire rejection and con- 
 tempt of tropes, symbols, types and figures of speech. See 
 pp. 35-37 of Dissertations. 
 
 I have shown also, that the habits of speech, founded on 
 the very laws of human thought, according to which men 
 express their ideas tropically, or by means of symbols and 
 types, must and will be respected by the grammatical inter- 
 preter. What these are, I need not now state, having done 
 so in the Dissertations. I have used the following language 
 when purposely attempting to correct the misapprehensions 
 existing, in reference to the literal or grammatical interpre-- 
 tation, as applied to the prophecies, ** That it does not reject 
 the tropes of speech, and rhetorical embellishments of style, 
 but interprets the meaning of the prophets, always by the same 
 rules of exegesis that would be applied to the same kinds of 
 composition/' and that it "requires a careful attention to the 
 different styles of prophetical language, for the purpose of 
 applying the appropriate rules, by which to ascertain their 
 import.'' See Dissertations, pp. 99, 105. 
 
 Professor S. must have read with great carelessness or 
 haste, to have allowed himself so to misrepresent and distort, 
 what he calls my " fundamental position," as to charge me 
 and it with the absurdities he seems to think he has nailed •' 
 to it, like some dead, hideous, frightful owl, which he has 
 shot, and exposed, to forewarn all others of what they may 
 expect from his rifle, if they will not become alarmed, 
 but will dare to venture near his premises. 
 
 I have said other things, yet more explicit, if possible, 
 and expletive of the system of " literal or grammatical in- 
 terpretation" as applied to the prophecies ; especially this 
 one of sential things, which he has, most prudently and 
 
-e-;-,'**"*-- THE DISSERTATIONS. 35 
 
 earefully, kept entirely out of view, not having even alluded 
 to it once in the whole of his strictures, viz., that it '' care 
 fully searches for the great and leading themes of prophecy 
 which gives shape, character, and import to the entire sys- 
 tem, and applying to them the rules of philosophical and 
 biblical exegesis — the principles of grammatical construction 
 and interpretation, — determines whether they are to be in- 
 terpreted literally or allegorically T Professor S. seems to 
 have had it in his view, nevertheless, when he attempted to 
 make the impression, that prophecy ranges, as well in the 
 abstract *' world of mind" as in " the world of matter" — 
 among simple intellectual or spiritual existences, and exter- 
 nal sensible realities, or as he says correctly, when speaking 
 of historic realities, " in the sense in which Mr. D. employs 
 this phrase, i. e. mundane, visible, palpable reality." He 
 cannot charge me with unfairness and disingenuousness 
 here ; for, if he did not mean to intimate, that prophecies, i. e. 
 predictions, relate as well to simple intellectual or spiritual 
 verities, which do not externally manifest themselves, i. e. 
 find not their accomplishment in " mundane, visible, palpa- 
 ble reality," as to those that do, then all his attempt to put 
 my " fundamental position," relative to the interpretation of 
 prophecy, to the test, is perfectly abortive. I speak only of 
 prophecy, affirming and teaching, that it finds its accom- 
 plishment in real historical events, " mundane, visible, pal- 
 pable reality," as he knows. 
 
 If prophecy does indeed enter the regions of abstract in- 
 tellectual and spiritual existences, lying without and wholly 
 separate from this world, and not externally, visibly, palpa- 
 bly manifesting themselves in this mundane sphere, then I 
 acknowledge, that I am altogether at fault, and shall ever 
 despair of knowing, not only what is the fulfilment, but 
 even what is the nature, of prophecy. But if it does not, if 
 its theatre is this world, and not another, then, all that Prof 
 S. has said about " historic realities'^ including within the 
 
36 HIS SKETCH OR REVIEW OF THE DISSERTATIONS. 
 
 circle of " the world of mind," the divine Being and an-, 
 gelic intelligences, as they exist, — he means independently 
 of external sensible manifestations, if he means any thing to 
 the point, — is to no manner of purpose. That it does not, 
 I once more affirm. If he means to say it does, I charge 
 him first with holding and teaching a very vague, mystic, 
 unmeaning, undefinable, absurd notion of the nature of 
 prophecy ; and second, with great disingenuousness toward 
 me, in applying my fundamental position in a region, to 
 which, according to its very terms and the essential nature 
 of prophecy, it is totally inapplicable, and also in putting a 
 forced and perverted construction on part of my language, 
 directly in the very face of, and contrary to what I have 
 stated to be the appropriate rule of interpretation, and what 
 I have assumed and taught to be the nature of prophecy. 
 
 In his attempt to represent me as teaching absurdity, he 
 has assumed too great a license, and having sketched his 
 picture of monstrosities by putting things out of their proper 
 elements, 
 
 Qui variare cupit rem prodigaliter unatn, 
 Delphinum sylvis appingit, fluctibus aprum. 
 
 He tries, with monstrous wonders to surprise, — 
 In the broad forest bids his dolphins play, 
 And paints his boars disporting in the sea. 
 
 But in so doing, he has rendered himself obnoxious to the   
 very charge he brings against me. The reader's attention is 
 requested, therefore, in the next place, to 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 DEFINITION OF HISTORIC REALITIES HAS LED HIM. 
 
 1. It has led him to turn his own weapons against himself. 
 Having defined " historic realiti/" to be something or any 
 thing which takes place or has an actual existence, in distinc- 
 tion from what is merely supposed or imaginary ; having 
 shewn, as he thinks, that God and angelic intelligencies, all 
 existence in " the world of mind," are such, and, having 
 taken my sense of " historic reality" as something ** which 
 is of a visible and sensible nature," to force me, for consis- 
 tency's sake, to deny the necessity or spiritual nature and 
 reality of regeneration, or " being born again," he says : 
 " This is in reality a correct exposition and application of 
 his (my) principle ; and if so, and if (as is truly the case) 
 this leads to absurdity, then there is not the weight of a 
 grain of sand in what he brings forward to support the idea 
 of a visible, terrestrial , future kingdom of Christ." App. 
 p. 158. 
 
 I must confess, that when I read this, I felt somewhat of 
 his amazement whom the story reports to have gone to wit- 
 ness a juggler's feats, and having seen him, by an unlucky 
 turn in the brandishings of his sword, cut off his own head, 
 gravely inquired, "What will he do next]" He certainly 
 has, by one dexterous coup de main, demolished, not mine, 
 but his own fundamental position. 
 
 According to his bold, unqualified definition of *^ historic 
 reality " whatever has existence is such, whether reveal- 
 ing itself by external sensible acts or manifestations, or not. 
 All that it needs to make it such, as he teaches, is, that it is 
 not a fiction — merely imaginary ! ! I wonder if the fictions 
 of the imagination, according to his very showing, have not 
 
38 PROFESSOR STUAKt's DILEMMA 
 
 as veritable an existence as any other acts in *' the world of 
 mind ;" — unquestionably, just as veritable as the acts and 
 operations of the mind that imagined them ; but they are 
 not realities after all, and every man of plain common sense 
 vi^ould smile at Professor S. were he to call them such, be- 
 cause, forsooth, they lie within " the world of mind." This 
 is one awkward and absurd result of his principle. 
 
 It will not do for Professor S. to say he means, that 
 simple spiritual existence, or entity, is capable of becoming 
 matter of historical record. This I do not deny ; for it may 
 make known both its existence and actings by external 
 sensible manifestations, as God and angelic intelligencies 
 have done. My assumed idea of historic reality, which is 
 the common and authorized idea, does not exclude the 
 Divine Being and angelic intelligencies, or even the new 
 birth, from becoming matter of historical record, since they 
 do externally and sensibly manifest themselves ; but I insist 
 upon it, that it is only as they do so manifest themselves, that 
 they either are, or that we are capable of making and re- 
 garding them as historical realities. Existence, ipso facto, 
 forms not an historical reality. It does but furnish the 
 subject, theme, or material, which may become history by 
 its manifestations. I challenge Professor S. to deny it. 
 
 Neither will it do for him to say he means only, that the 
 acts of the Divine Being, and of angelic intelligencies, and 
 the fact of the new birth, are as proper subjects for history 
 as any other acts and facts. This I do not deny : but at the 
 same time I affirm, that just as in the case of simple exist- 
 ence, — it is only as such acts and facts do manifest them- 
 selves externally and sensibly, that they are, or that we are 
 capable of making or regarding them as historical realities. 
 
 The actings of our own minds may manifest themselves 
 to ourselves, through our own consciousness, and recorded in 
 our memory, they become part and parcel of the private per- 
 sonal history of our own being, known to ourselves. But they 
 
IN DEFINING HISTORIC REALITIJ 
 
 
 can never become matter of history to others, e^re^tas mi 
 
 body forth in some sensible expression or manifestation. sJJi ^ 
 
 In like manner, it is only as the acts of the Divine Being, 
 and of angelic intelligencies, as regeneration, and other spirit- 
 ual realities, embody themselves in some external, sensible 
 manifestations, that they become subjects of historical re- 
 cord. This Prof. S. cannot deny that he knows, and did 
 know, to be what I mean by historical reality ; for he has 
 virtually acknowledged it. He must therefore have meant 
 it to be understood by his readers that his idea of historical 
 reality was totally and radically different from mine, — some- 
 thing that takes place, or has an actual existence altogether 
 independent of any external, visible, sensible manifestations. 
 If this be his idea, then he is driven to the absurdity of main- 
 taining, that we can have some intuitive, mesmeric knowledge, 
 shall I say, of God and angels, and spiritual realities, which 
 do not reveal themselves to us by any external manifes- 
 tations : and, if so, how perfectly unnecessary must have 
 been all the external manifestations of Deity, and the subli- 
 mer and more wonderful displays made in the Incarnation 
 of the Son of God— '' God manifest in the flesh"! But 
 if he does not so mean, and admits, that it is just as God, 
 angelic intelligencies, spiritual realities, " or, (as we may 
 say,) any thing which takes place, or has an actual exist- 
 ence," i. e., some act or event, some being or fact, " in the 
 world of mind," body forth in some external manifesta- 
 tion, — or, in other words, pass into the sensible world, we 
 can have any knowledge of them, so as to make it matter of 
 historical record, " then there is not the weight of a grain 
 of sand, in what he brings forward, to support " his defini- 
 tion of historical reality, and the fundamental position, on 
 which his spiritual interpretation of prophecy rests. It is 
 all mist or smoke, from which he attempts to bring light. 
 In a very different sense from what Horace says of Homer, I 
 may use his words, and say of the Professor, 
 
 Si 
 
40 PROFESSOR Stuart's dilemma 
 
 Non fumum ex fulgore, sed ex fumo dare lucem 
 Cogitat. 
 
 He thinks, not with smoke, to shroud his glory bright, 
 But, from dense smoke, to radiate the lurid light. 
 
 2. His metapTiysical definition of " Jiistoric reality' ' has 
 led him to reject, utterly and forever, the idea of a future 
 visible terrestrial kingdom of Christ. I have already quo- 
 ted his language, but again bespeak the reader's attention to 
 it. " There is not," he says, " the weight of a grain of 
 sand to support the idea of a visible terrestrial future 
 kingdom of Christ." I would not willingly misinterpret his 
 language, nor take advantage of any looseness of expression, 
 dropped in the haste with which he evidently wrote, to mis- 
 state his idea. So extraordinary, at first sight, did the above 
 language appear, that I felt persuaded he must mean my 
 idea, as he would call it, of the future kingdom of Christ, 
 which, I confess, is distinctly, fully, avowedly, that of a king- 
 dom both visible and terrestrial; if by terrestrial he means 
 what I do, and the word imports, of, on, or belonging to 
 this planet earth. On a more careful consideration, how- 
 ever, I find that he has not only made the assertion absolute, 
 by the use of the definite article, but that his whole argu- 
 ment chimes, exactly, with the natural and obvious import 
 of his language. Nay, more, he has actually challenged an 
 issue on this very point. " The simple question," says he, 
 *' between us and him is, not whether matter of fact or his- 
 torical reality is designated by the prophecies, but whether 
 the reality belongs to the world of matter or of mind:" (the 
 italicising is his own.) We say, to the latter ; he says, to the 
 former, if not exclusively, yet primarily and principally." 
 App. p. 158. 
 
 It would seem, from his pointing, that while he cautiously 
 and correctly admits, that my idea of the kingdom of Christ 
 does not exclude the dominion of Christ from the minds of 
 men, however it assumes its terrestrial visibility, he would 
 
IN DEFINING HISTORIC REALITIES. 41 
 
 not be understood to teach or think, that the kingdom of 
 Christ passes beyond ** the world of mind" into any external 
 visible revelations or manifestations. If this be his idea, I 
 undoubtedly am not as obnoxious, as he thinks I am, to his 
 rebuke, for what he calls " some seeming attempts secretly 
 to ally them (the Spiritualists) with the skeptics, who ex- 
 pect only such a golden age as the perfectibility of man 
 will usher in." App p. 160. There is a much greater ap- 
 proximation in his idea of the kingdom of Christ, to the 
 rhapsodies of Th. Parker about the transient and permanent 
 in Christianity, than I had supposed ever would be made by 
 one so sound and Evangelical in his Theological views as I 
 regard Prof S. He certainly differs from the common pre- 
 vailing notions of the Spiritualists about the Millennium, as 
 being the season of universal peace, prosperity, and domi- 
 nant influence oi the Church of God, by means of the gospel 
 in its power and successful influence, and during which, her 
 organization in its simplicity and purity, assumes a terrestrial 
 visibility — both which ideas they consider appropriate to 
 the kingdom of Christ, even though they deny His own 
 personal visible presence on the earth. 
 
 I will not venture to say, whether Prof. S. actually and 
 formally dissents from this ; nor whether he denies the visi- v 
 ble Church to be the kingdom of Christ, — which is the cur- 
 rent idea among commentators ; but I confess, that after 
 reading the averments I have quoted, and comparing them 
 with his views of the Millennium expressed in his Hints on 
 the interpretation of prophecy, pp. 141 — 143, 1st ed., I am 
 utterly at a loss to know, from any thing he has said, what 
 his ideas of it are, and whether they are not as widely dif- 
 ferent from the great mass of those with whom he ranks 
 himself, as from those who believe in the Saviour's visible' 0^ 
 coming. 
 
 But perhaps he will say, that the words, viz., " if not 
 exclusively, yet primarily, and principally," are intended to -^ 
 
42 PROFESSOR BTUARt's DILEMMA 
 
 qualify his own implied idea, that the kingdom of Christ 
 must ever be invisible, as it belongs to " the world of mind," 
 as well as mine about its terrestrial visibility. What then 
 becomes of his first unqualified assertion ? But let us see 
 how it will help him. Either he thinks, and means to teach 
 the idea, that the kingdom of Christ belongs to " the world 
 of mind" " exclusively ,^' so as to be devoid of terrestrial 
 visibility, or only " primarily and principally," yet not so 
 as to be devoid of terrestrial visibility. If he means the 
 former, as his language, argument and connection of re- 
 marks intimate, he contradicts the whole tenor and specific 
 statements of the Bible. The kingdom of Christ, of which 
 I spoke, as predicted in the Scriptures, is not an invisible 
 dominion belonging " exclusively" to " the world of mind." 
 I refer him to 2 Tim. iv. 1, where Paul charges Timothy 
 " before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the 
 quick and dead at his appearing and Jiis kingdom^ — The 
 one is just as visible as the other, and this earth too is the 
 theatre for the manifestation of both. If Prof S. does not 
 like the translation, — at being somewhat obscure and unin- 
 telligible in this connection — I have no objection, that he 
 translate it more exactly, and render naja m relation to, in 
 respect to, concerning, so as to designate what was in fact 
 the subject of Paul's charge, " his own (Christ's) appearing 
 or epiphany, xr/v tnicpavsLav avxov and his own kingdom." The 
 use of the definite article tov before Xoyov in v. 2, and t^? 
 before ahiddag in v. 4, deserves his particular attention : 
 and I commend the whole charge, from v. 2 to 5 inclusive, 
 to his careful regard, lest by denying the terrestrial visi- 
 bility of Christ's glorious kingdom at his appearing, he 
 may, if he does so, be fostering the very state of things 
 which Paul said would arise, during a future season xuLQog 
 when men will not endure this jtjg wholesome doctrine, 
 but shall turn away the ear from this rijg truth, and shall be 
 turned to fables Tovg fiv&ovg, i. e. as I might add, the alle- 
 
/ 
 
 IN DEFINING HISTORIC REALITIES. 48 
 
 gorical, mythic, spiritual interpretation, introduced by their 
 teachers to suit their tastes; and facts would prove the truth 
 of the prophecy. The appearance and kingdom of Christ, 
 which is everlasting, occur together; and so the angel 
 taught Daniel vii. 27, 22, 13, for any thing to the contrary 
 that Prof S. in his Hints has been able to show. 
 
 But even denying the appearance of Christ, and admitting 
 the Spiritualist's view of the Millennium to occur when '' the 
 kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdom of our ^ 
 Lord and of his Christ, and He shall reign forever and 
 ever," according to prophecy, it will unquestionably be 
 visible and terrestrial. A mere dominion over " the world 
 of mind" will not at all suit this description. It must body 
 forth in some visible, palpable display. If Professor S. means ^ 
 to say that it will not, he is contradicted by the Scriptures in 
 their plain and obvious import. He is referred to Mai. iii. 
 1-4 : i. 11 : Zech. xiv. 4-11 : Hag. ii. 6,7, compared with 
 Heb. xii. 26-29 : Zeph. iii. 8-17 : Heb. iii. 3-6 : Nah. i. 
 5-8 : Mic. v. 4-15 : iv. 1-7 : Obad. xvii. 21 : Amos ix. 11- 
 15 : Joel iii. 16, 17 : Hos. i. 10, 11 : ii. 14-23 : Dan. vii. 
 27: Ezek. xxxviii. 19-23 : xxxix. 21,22: Jer. xxv. 30-33 : 
 Isai. Ixiii. 1-6 : Ixii. 1-7 : Psalm ex. Ixxxix. 19-37 : 2 Pet. 
 iii. 10-13: IPet. i. 4,5,7-13: Heb. ix. 28: 2 Thess. ii. 
 1-8 : i. 7, 8, 9 : 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17 : ii. 19 : i. 14 : Eph. 
 i. 10 : Rom. viii. 17-19. Let him spiritualize and alle- ^r 
 gorize as he may, he must outrage every principle of inter- 
 pretation that claims the sanction of common sense, be- 
 fore he can get rid of the grand leading prominent truth, 
 the future appearing of Jesus Christ, and the futurity of His 
 glorious visible kingdom to be established on this globe. ^ 
 
 If, however, he means to be understood, according to the 
 latter construction of his language, that is not to deny the ter- 
 restrial visibility of Christ's kingdom altogether, but only to 
 say, that it is not "primarily and principally" a visible ter- 
 restrial kingdom, he gives up the very question on which he 
 
44 
 
 has made an issue ; or rather, there is no room for the 
 question at all, whether it belongs to the one or the other — 
 "the world of mind," or '* the world of matter" — for it ac- 
 tually, and by the very terms of his admission, belongs to 
 both, and cannot be disparted from either. It is this union 
 which makes it matter of history. Will Professor S. say 
 how much, or how little, of its visibility, is necessary to 
 render it capable of becoming matter of historical record ? 
 It matters not whether he goes to the extent that I believe 
 the Scriptures do, or not. If it is in any degree visible, it 
 belongs not wholly to " the world of mind ;" and if so, 
 what becomes of his distinction ? It is of no use to him. I 
 care not whether he says it belongs ** primarily and princi- 
 pally^^ to " the world of mind," for so I believe, and so 
 teach ; but I affirm that it is only as it becomes externally 
 manifest, i. e. visibly or sensibly bodies forth into " the world 
 of matter," that it either is an '* historic reality," or can be- 
 come the subject of historical record. Simply, exclusively, 
 as intellectual, rational or spiritual, it maybe reality, in dis- 
 tinction from what is " supposed or imaginary," but not an 
 *' historical reality." Just so, the new birth may be a reality, 
 and as such invisible, occurring in " the world of mind," ac- 
 cording to Professor S.'s nomenclature. But it is only as it dis- 
 plays itself in external, sensible, or visible acts or evidences, 
 so as to be discerned and reported among men, that it can 
 ever become an '' historical reality." I deem it, therefore, 
 altogether unnecessary any further to answer his interroga- 
 tory, viz., " How now, on the ground of a visible historic, 
 reality being necessarily implied, are we going to prove that 
 entering a second time into the womb and being born, is 
 not the natural, yea, the necessary meaning of the words of 
 the Saviour ? We could not prove it." He has his an- 
 swer. Just by the same rules, by which we tell when an 
 expression is a metaphor, and when it is not. He might 
 have read it in the Dissertations, pp. 109, 111. Nothing 
 
IN DEFINING HISTORIC REALITIES. 45 
 
 that I have said contravenes or supersedes it. All he has 
 said, in answer to it himself, just amounts to this, and no 
 more : and so, after talking most grandiloquently about 
 " the world of mind," and " the vforld. of matter," and un- 
 dertaking to tell us, most condescendingly, how to know 
 when an expression denotes a reality in the one or the other, 
 he puts us off with the old, trite, stale, simple rule, that 
 every tyro in rhetoric has learned, how to tell when an ex- 
 pression is metaphorical ! ! ! 
 
 Quid dignum tanto feret hie promissor hiatu ? 
 Parturiunt monies ; nascetur ridiculus mus. 
 How will the boaster hold this yawning rate ? 
 The mountains labored with prodigious throes, 
 And lo ! a mouse ridiculous arose. 
 
 3. If Prof S. means any thing more than this, then his 
 definition of " historic reality,^' has led him to violate a fun- 
 damental principle of interpretation, and to lay a foundation 
 for scriptural exegesis, wholly untenable and dangerous. 
 Ernesti, as I have shown. Dissertations, pp. 34, 35, has 
 taught us, that the true system of interpretation, *' adheres 
 to the words, and directs us to comprehend things, through 
 the medium of words, and not words, through the medium 
 of things." The mystic, spiritual system, which he con- 
 demns, he says, "philosophizes rather than interprets, and 
 prefers to be metaphysical rather than grammatical, or as it 
 is uncouthly expressed, real rather than verbal." He means 
 to say that scriptural language must not be interpreted by 
 any preconceived, metaphysical, or philosophical notion of 
 the nature of the thing. 
 
 I have given examples of this sort, and shown even by 
 the help of Prof. S. himself, the pernicious use, which has 
 been made of Scripture, by employing a preconceived notion 
 of the theological, spiritual, or recondite nature of the thing, 
 as the key to unlock the meaning of the words. See Disser- 
 tations, pp. 36-45. 
 
 4 
 
46 PROFESSOR STUAHt's DILEMMA 
 
 I shall now quote examples from Prof. S. of the violation 
 ofthis very essential principle. Here are two. "It is impossi- 
 ble," says he, " in the nature of things, that glorified bodies 
 should dwell in, and belong to a material world : and it 
 would be utterly incongruous with the state of perfection 
 and glory, promised to saints, to suppose that they are to 
 come back from the presence and beatific vision of their 
 God and Saviour, to a terrestrial, limited, and degraded 
 condition ; for degraded it really is, in comparison with 
 their heavenly state." App. p. 159. How does he know? Let 
 him prove his assertion. I will not attempt to conjecture 
 what ideas Prof. S. has of the nature of glorified bodies, or 
 whence he has obtained the knowledge on the subject which 
 makes him judge so boldly and degmatically of the impossi- 
 hility of their dwelling in and belonging to a material 
 world. He must have some private sources of information, 
 with which the world is totally unacquainted. For I con- 
 fess, that as to my knowledge about the matter, I have never 
 heard, read of, or been referred, by any individual or book, 
 to any other book, man, woman or child, that knew or 
 could declare a whit more than I do myself on the subject, 
 which is just nothing at all! 
 
 But this much I do know, as a matter of unerring history, 
 that our Lord Jesus Christ, in his glorified body, did dwell for 
 about forty days in this material world, somewhere among the 
 mountains in Galilee, in habits of intimate and familiar con- 
 verse with his apostles, yea, and did also eat before them, 
 who were mortal men, in the fiesh. See Acts i. 3: Matt, 
 xxvi. 32 : Mark xvi. 7 : Luke xxiv. 41 — 43. I wonder 
 if Professor S. can explain all this historical reality to 
 belong to "the world of mind?" He need not attempt 
 to tell us that our Saviour's raised body was not his glo- 
 rified body, nor talk to us of Paul's tropical expression, 
 ** spiritual body," as though it were literally a third body he 
 received at his ascension, for Paul will contradict him by 
 telling him, in that *' most extended and graphic account of 
 
IN DEFINING HISTORIC REALITIES. 4^ 
 
 the resurrection of the saints," that " it is sown a natural 
 body, it is raised a spiritual body." 1 Cor. xv. 44. 
 
 I know also, as matter of historical reality, that the glori- 
 fied body of Elias, and Moses too, — I care not whether Pro- 
 fessor S, will give the latter a glorified body, or only spirit, 
 it was undeniably something living, moving, speaking, and 
 visible, displaying itself externally and sensibly, — both did 
 come from whatever place they dwelt in before and appeared 
 in this material world and conversed with Christ, in the pre- 
 sence and hearing of his apostles, while yet in the flesh. 
 Matt. xvii. 1 — 9. If the glorified bodies of Christ and of Mo- 
 ses and Elias could dwell in and belong to this material 
 world for forty days, or fo7'tr/ minutes, — and that they did 
 Professor S. dare not deny, — it is perfect nonsense, a mere 
 old womanish conceit, for him to tell us that " it is impossi- 
 ble, in the nature of things, that glorified bodies should dwell 
 in and belong to a material world." He may laugh as he 
 pleases at my faith ; but with such facts as these, in disproof 
 of his philosophy, or metaphysics, or conceits, about " the 
 nature of things," he is not going to laugh me out of it. I 
 therefore return his compliment, not in the miserable bung- 
 ling manner in which he has attempted to quote Horace, 
 see App. p. 164, in language which outrages the bard, and 
 which a moment's attention to prosody, would have reproved 
 his memory for having forgotten the hexameter measure; 
 but in Horace's own words. 
 
 Quod cunque ostendis mihi sic, incredulus odi. 
 
 Whatever of this sort you state 
 
 1 do incredulously hate. 
 
 He may talk, and dream, as he pleases, about its being 
 utterly " incongruous with the state of perfection and glory 
 promised to. the saints," that they should " come back from 
 the presence and beatific vision of their God and Saviour, 
 to a terrestrial, limited and degraded condition ;" but in so 
 doing, he only betrays his ignorance of Millenarians' faith. 
 
48 **PROFEssoR Stuart's dilemma 
 
 They believe and teach no such thing. Wherever Christ 
 is, " there is fulness of joy and pleasures for ever more." 
 There, too, is the spot where the redeemed desire to be. 
 The apostles, when they had but the transfiguration of their 
 Saviour before them, conversing with Moses and Eli as on 
 the mount, — a mere representation of the real glory to 
 come, — were overjoyed, and wished there to dwell. Paul 
 desired to depart and be with Christ. That was heaven 
 enough for him. To be with Christ is the consummation of 
 heaven's felicity ; heaven, without it, would be drear and 
 desolate to the ransomed soul. The redeemed and glorified 
 saints attend His presence. It is joy, glory, triumph, ineffa- 
 ble bliss and delight, to be where He is ; whether it be 
 where He now is, or where He shall be when He returns to 
 earth. No Millenarian, whose writings I have ever read, 
 teaches the idea of returning to a degraded state. Professor 
 S. evidently thinks that any state on earth cannot but be a 
 degraded state, compared with the heavenly. Whatever it 
 may be, provided the glorified saints shall be associated with, 
 related to, or dwell on, this material globe or any other, he 
 assumes it must be far inferior. Here he begs the question. 
 Proof, proof is demanded. Let him eclaircise his ideas of 
 the heavenly state a little. I insist upon his giving some- 
 thing scriptural here, and will not be put off with the cry of 
 tropes and figures, analogical language, &:.c. &-c., and after 
 all left in utter darkness and ignorance of where heaven is, 
 and what it is — whether it is a state, a sphere, a vast con- 
 cavity, an ethereal medium, a something utterly, absolutely, 
 eternally separated from the material universe. I will not 
 allow him thus to assume a philosophical, metaphysical, mys- 
 tical, poetical, or any other idea of heaven, which the Bible 
 does not teach, and then make it the key, by which to unlock 
 the meaning of scriptural language ; and having done so, 
 undertake to judge of the impossibility of this or the other 
 thing, directly in the very teeth of undeniable facts. 
 
IN DEFINING H^DRIC REALITIES. 4^ 
 
 I know nothing more about the heavenly state, on which 
 we shall enter at death, nor does Prof. S., than that what- 
 ever or wherever it is, it is where Christ is — and where those 
 ransomed spirits that enter it enjoy conscious peace, rest 
 and joy, in their Lord and Saviour. He and I, if we would 
 die in peace, must both die in faith, like all the ancient wor- 
 thies. If we would enter there, we must commit our souls 
 into the hands of the blessed Jesus, assured that with Him 
 they are safe, and that He will do all things right — but trust 
 Him fully and implicitly. It has not pleased Him to give 
 us any specific information as to the locality, employments, 
 or any thing else in detail about the heavenly state, at least 
 until the day of the resurrection of our bodies. For all 
 the intervening period, we must trust Him with the most im- 
 plicit and incurious faith, like the child that nestles in its 
 mother's bosom in the midst of darkness. Doubtless it will 
 be " joy ineffable and full of glory ;" but the promises of God, 
 that reveal our glory and triumph — the predictions that place 
 before us a new Heaven and a new earth — the objects of 
 hope and gladdening expectation, direct us to a glorious 
 epoch or crisis in the affairs alike of Heaven and earth, even 
 the day of our Redeemer's coming in the clouds of Heaven, 
 for the resurrection of the bodies of the just. When this 
 occurs, the vision of hope opens. It is the hour of adoption, 
 the hour of victory, the realization of our hopes. Paul did 
 not expect his " crown of righteousness" till that day — the 
 day of Christ's appearing. Peter did not expect his crown, 
 either, till that day ; 1 Peter v. 4 ; nor the possession of his 
 inheritance, incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not 
 away, though reserved in heaven, till the consummation of 
 that salvation which was ready to be revealed in the last 
 time, the time when his faith would be found unto praise, and 
 honour, and glory, — at the appearing of Jesus Christ. 1 
 Peter i. 3-7. 
 
 Prof. S. has much to do in the way of biblical exegesis 
 
50   PROFESSOR Stuart's dilemma, etc. 
 
 aftd logical argumentation, before he will be alloweJf to^ale 
 some things for granted, and to pronounce, by their help, 
 others to be impossible, as he has done. Yet, on this slen- 
 der, baseless, visionary, unjustifiable assumption, and beg- 
 ging of the question, he founds his whole system of exposi- 
 tion, and fortifies himself, planting his artillery, as he thinks, 
 on some solid foundation, whence to hurl his missile inter- 
 rogatories and charges of inconsistencies against the faith 
 he ridicules, and which Millenarians entertain by virtue of 
 the promises and predictions of Christ. But if he proves 
 any thing, he proves too much. His bow outshoots the 
 mark. 
 
 Nee semper feriet quod cunque minabitur arcus. 
 Nor always will the bow, though fam'd for art, 
 With speed unerring wing the threatening dart. 
 
 I pass by the charges which Prof S. prefers against me 
 in p. 159 of his App., for vehemence in accusing " those who 
 differ from me as to Millennial speculations," of " unfair- 
 ness and ^want of candour," of " wilfuHy shutting their 
 eyes against the light of truth," of " refusing to apply the 
 plainest and most cogent rules of interpretation," and yet 
 taking myself the very same liberty I censure in them. I 
 have done no such thing, and challenge him to the proof, — 
 even the miserable constructive proof on which he relies ; 
 averring that he will find nothing in the Dissertations to 
 support such accusations, on any principles of construction 
 that obtain among candid and honourable men. Before, 
 however, I notice the next general topic in his strictures 
 deserving attention, I present to the reader, 
 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 A SPECIMEN OF PROF. STUART S LOGIC. 
 
 He says, pp. 159, 160, " Historic reality belongs just as 
 much to the spiritual world, as it does to the material and 
 visible world. And as a great portion of prophecy, beyond 
 all reasonable question, has respect to the moral and spiritual 
 concerns of men, so we may very rationally believe, that a 
 great portion concerns the moral and spiritual world, rather 
 than the terrestrial and visible one." It is for him to prove, 
 by other arguments than such sophistry, that prophecy 
 refers to any thing exclusively and absolutely spiritual, 
 totally disconnected from this terrestrial visible world, and ^^ 
 from external sensible manifestations. Because a great 
 portion of it relates to the moral and spiritual concerns of 
 men dwelling in this terrestrial visible world, themselves 
 part and parcel of it, it does not follow that therefore it 
 belongs exclusively to " the world of mind," and does not 
 find its fulfilment on this terrestrial visible globe, — unless 
 indeed, he can show that men are no part of this world, 
 mere spirit, — and that their moral actions and interests are 
 not as really and truly mixed up with, or embodied in, 
 external sensible transactions as in mere intellectual ratio- 
 cinations. Had he done so there would have been more 
 appearance of logic, in this his grand conclusion, than at 
 present. But the manner in which he shifts the meanings 
 of his terms, and brings out his conclusion without any 
 show of equilibrium, or balancing of import, or comparing 
 between the subject and predicate, by his middle term, 
 would deserve and receive rebuke were it the production of 
 a youth exhibited to his professor. His argument reduced 
 
 8* 
 
 /^ 
 
52 
 
 to syllogistic form, with its terms specifically stated — accord- 
 ing to his own meaning, runs thus : 
 
 TVhatever belongs exclusively to the world of mind — the 
 immaterial, invisible, spiritual state of existence, independent 
 of any external sensible manifestations — is an historic reality 
 capable of being made the subject of prophecy. 
 
 But prophecy , at least a great portion of it, has respect to 
 the moral and spiritual concerns of men. 
 
 Therefore a great portion of prophecy concerns the moral 
 and spiritual world, rather than the terrestrial and visible 
 one, Cluod erat demonstrandum, and so by inference first 
 " all is afoat on the ground of Mr. D." I protest against 
 being overflown and launched from the stocks in this style. 
 Professor S. may find himself afloat in the world of mind, or 
 between it and the world of matter, in some balloon of his 
 own invention, but neither do my principles in the interpre- 
 tation of prophecy, nor my exposition, carry me out of, or 
 beyond, this terrestrial visible world as the proper and exclu- 
 sive theatre of prophecy. 
 
 In review therefore of this whole critique of Prof. S., by 
 means of his definition of historic reality, and of his attempt 
 at the severest censure, I have been forcibly reminded of the 
 fable of Phcedrus, de Vitiis Hominum, of the faults of men : 
 
 Peras imposuit Jupiter nobis duas : 
 Propriis repletam vitiis post tergum dedit, 
 Alienis ante pecus supendit gravera. 
 Hac re videre nostra mala non possumus ; 
 Alii simul delinquunt, censores sumus. 
 
 Jupiter gave to every man a sack, 
 
 To hold his faults and carry on his back. 
 
 Another one Jove gave, which from his breast, 
 
 Hung heavy with his neighbor's faults oppressed. 
 
 On this account man never can behald 
 
 His own, but can his neighbor's faults unfold. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 A SPECIMEN OF PROF. STUART's UNFAIRNESS AND SENSI- 
 TIVENESS. 
 
 J^ Passing by," says he, " several inadvertencies or incor^ 
 rednesses in his statements respecting the views of the 
 spiritualists, and overlooking some seeming 7 attempts secret' 
 ly ? to ally them with the skeptics, who expect only such a 
 golden age as the perfectibility of man will usher in, we 
 come at once to the very essence of Mr. D.'s literalism." 
 Such insinuated charges may pass with those who believe 
 Prof. S. to be infallible, or who concede to him the right to 
 pronounce judgment without rendering a reason. But spe- 
 cijications are demanded, and justice requires them to be 
 given. They are the more necessary, too, because, in 
 making them, he might possibly unfold, a little more dis- 
 tinctly than he has done, his own views, that form the stan- 
 dard by which he judges. Let him attempt to particularize, 
 and he will find more difficulty than he is aware of 
 
 I have referred to authorities, and quoted the language 
 of those who have expressed the more common and popular 
 views of the Millennium. If Prof. S. accounts them inad- 
 vertencies and inaccuracies, be it so. The matter must be 
 adjusted between him and those who belong to the same 
 general class of interpreters, but do not believe just as he 
 does. I refer to the N. Y. Evangelist and other periodicals, 
 in proof of some of the disagreements which I have said ex- 
 ist among spiritualists. Prof S. dare not deny, that there 
 are various shades of belief among them. Does he mean to 
 charge me with " inadvertencies and incorrectnesses" 
 merely because I did not make his views the standard, with 
 which to compare tj^.^ij^i^^on prevailing noti^tp ^^th^ 
 
54> A SPECIMEN OF PROF. STUARt's 
 
 Millennium 1 I prefer Buck as authority here. At best this 
 is a cowardly method of attack, just like the Parthian's : 
 
 Miles sagittas et celeretn fugam 
 Parthi. 
 
 The Parthian soldier ever wise, 
 Dans his arrow and quickly flies. 
 
 A manly accuser would have made his specifications. 
 
 And as to my secret attempt to ally the spiritualists and 
 skeptics, the reader will judge, when I state, that, so far 
 from my having had any secret design of this sort, Prof S. 
 has not even hinted at the true object of the general out- 
 line, which I have given of the two systems of interpreta- 
 tion in the particular views detailed. This was to unfold 
 the very different results obtained by the two systems of in- 
 terpretation. I have shown that both the spiritualist and 
 literalist agree in certain general facts, such as the coming 
 of Christ, the resurrection of the saints, a day of universal 
 judgment, a Millennium and a kingdom of glory incon- 
 ceivable and eternal ; but that " they differ greatly as to 
 the import of these facts, and the time, order, and manner 
 of their occurrence." See Dissertations, p. 150. In present- 
 ing the views of the foimer, I notice some varieties in their 
 belief, and further show, that, adopting the very same sys- 
 tem of interpretation, others, such as Unitarians, Universal- 
 ists, &/C., have advanced opinions very diverse from those 
 reputed orthodox. 
 
 Prof S. displays great sensitiveness at this, calling it a 
 secret attempt to ally them. Strange sort of logic, by the 
 by, must it be to which he resorts to sustain such imagin- 
 ings 1 But what must have been his sensitiveness when he 
 learned, as he has by this time, that on the basis of his ** Hints 
 on the Interpretation of Prophecy," some Universalists have 
 congratulated themselves on his approximation to them, and 
 to their way of explaining the Scriptures? The "Univer- 
 
UNFAIRNESS AND SENSITIVENESS. 55 
 
 salist," a paper published in Connecticut, supporting thei 
 doctrine of universal salvation, says, after the most extrava?! 
 gant panegyric, " really we were not prepared to expect that 
 he (Prof S.) could take such liberal, and even Univer salist 
 grounds, in the interpretation of Scripture, and defend them, 
 with such openness and boldness, as he has done, in the work 
 before us (viz. Hints, &c.). We do not say it, for the sake 
 of saying it — we say it because we believe it is true, when 
 we affirm that the " Hints on the Interpretation of Prophe- 
 cy," if received, and we believe they must be, as based in 
 truth, will produce a great and almost total change in the 
 popular interpretations, not only of the prophetic writings^ 
 hut of the whole Scriptures, and that this change will lead 
 men to favor, if not to agree with, the views which Univer- 
 salists entertain on these subjects. Certain we are, that 
 Prof Stuart, in this work, comes nearer to Universalists, in 
 their views of the topics discussed, than any other writer of 
 his school in this country, and that he has taken out of the 
 hands of the opposers of our faith, many of the props with 
 which they are endeavoring to keep up the old castle which 
 they are living inJ' When I wrote the chapter which has 
 called forth the indications of Prof S.'s sensitiveness, his 
 Hints had not been published, so that I could not have had 
 him in view, nor attempted secretly to ally him with the 
 skeptics or Universalists. And indeed, in reading his 
 appendix, I was surprised at his charge ; because, though 
 seeing the tendency of some of his modes of interpretation 
 and exposition in the Hints, yet suspecting that I might pos- 
 sibly err in my estimate of them, by reason of having so 
 recently received his unmerciful castigations, I feared to 
 allow my own mind to trace the line of his path, for the pur- 
 pose of seeing how near he actually did approach them. My 
 conscious innocence in this matter made me the more 
 amazed, but my surprise and amazement have all ceased. 
 The reason and occasion of his sensitiveness are now appa- 
 
56 A SPECIMEN OF PROF. STUAET*S UNFAIRNESS, ETC. 
 
 rent. His grievous complaints against me are now intel- 
 ligible. 
 
 Cluid tristes querimonise 
 
 Si non supplicio culpa reciditur'? 
 
 But wherefore does he thus complain 
 
 If Justice wears her awful sword in vainl 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 INEXCUSABLE ERRORS IN PROFESSOR STUART S STATEMENT 
 OF THE GRAND OUTLINES OF THE LITERAL SYSTEM OF PRO- 
 PHETIC INTERPRETATION. 
 
 1. He has studiously avoided all statement of, or allusion 
 to, the great point at issue between the Spiritualist and the 
 Millenarian, and which gives shape and character to the mean- 
 ing of the predictions, relative to the Millennium, viz., 
 whether, according to prophecy, it is a New Dispensation as 
 miraculously to be introduced by God, as have been all the 
 former dispensations of His Grace 1 or whether it is to be a 
 mere expansion, progressive or sudden, and improvement of 
 the present Evangelical Dispensation, by the universality of 
 the extent to which, and the increased efficiency with which 
 the Gospel shall be preached ? The Spiritualists ^cnera?/y, 
 and among them Professor S., assert the latter ; — theMillen- ^ 
 arian the former. 
 
 The latter denies, that the commonly received and ill-de- 
 fined idea of the day of judgment being exclusively a sim- 
 ple judicial trial — the holding of a grand court of general 
 assizes, or of oyer and terminer and general jail delivery 
 for the universe, of sinners and malefactors — is the scriptu- 
 ral idea of the day of judgment. On the contrary, it is 
 affirmed that the scriptural statements on the subject, inter- 
 preted by the established rules of exegesis — which prohibit 
 any preconceived idea of the nature of the thing — set forth 
 the day of judgment as a Dispensation which shall be intro- 
 duced by the personal, visible presence of God, as literally, 
 and really, and visibly on this terrestrial globe, as ever was y 
 the Paradisiac, Adamic, or Antediluvian, Patriarchal, Sinai-// 
 tic, or Evangelical dispensations before it. This I have dis- 
 
58 INEXCUSABLE ERRORS IN 
 
 tinctly brought into view, when giving the general outline 
 of the two systems of interpretation referred to. 
 
 / Prof S. has not done the Millenarian views of Bible 
 truth here, the justice even to drop a hint on this point. 
 On the contrary, he has assumed two ideas, both of which, 
 I, in common with others, deny, and the proof of which I 
 demand at his hands, viz., 1. That the Millennium is but 
 the enlarged prosperity and improved condition of the moral 
 and spiritual world, by means only of the present, though 
 extended, instrumentalities, institutions, and influences of a 
 preached gospel. 2. That the day of judgment is merely a 
 short and limited season for the exercise of Heaven's judi- 
 ciary powers in passing sentence on the character and con- 
 duct of each individual of the human race, and disparting 
 or dissevering mankind, absolutely, entirely, and eternally 
 from any material world whatever, especially the redeemed 
 of the Lord. Every thing I have stated relative to the Mil- 
 lenarian views of the day of judgment being a new and 
 glorious dispensation of Heaven's rule or dominion, in and 
 during which other than judiciary powers will be exercised, 
 he has most carefully shunned, and refused to declare. He 
 can tell whether it was for this purpose he has abridged, as 
 he hints, the statement. He says *' abridged," that he may 
 " give as briefly as may be, the leading features of it." But 
 I say, that so far from this being correct, he has contrived 
 to exclude the grand leading and essential feature alto- 
 gether — the very point on which the issue turns, between 
 the system he advocates, and the Millenarian views of 
 Bible truth. 
 
 ^ 2. He has stated ideas to have been asserted by me, which 
 he will not find, either directly, or by fair implication, in 
 any thing I have written, nor in the Millenarian writers to 
 whom I have referred. From all appeal to them, however, he 
 is cut off. His concern is with me ; and I charge him with 
 having, without foundation, attributed sentiments to me, 
 
PROF. Stuart's statement. dw 
 
 which I have nowhere expressed, I do not mean to im- 
 peach his veracity, as though he would knowingly do such a 
 thing ; but he has unwittingly done me this injustice. He 
 is concerned to account for it, and not I, that he may yet 
 retain the confidence of his readers in him as a reviewer 
 and reporter. 
 
 Under the head (9) p. 161 of App. he makies me to teach 
 ** that nations will be born in a day, by means of the saints 
 who reign at Jerusalem.'^ I have done no such thing, 
 directly or impliedly, but referred this result to " the abun- 
 dant and mighty influences of the Spirit of God" — His 
 *' powerful effusions," — and stated that the fact of their new 
 birth would evidence itself, " by their thorough conversion," 
 and by their " cordial submission to the dominion of Heaven 
 by means of the saints.^"* Surely he did not mean to per- 
 vert my language at this rate, as though in affirming " the 
 dominion of Heaven by means of the saints," I taught 
 ** that nations will be born in a day by means of the saints 
 who reign at Jerusalem ! 1 ! 
 
 Under head (10) he has represented me as teaching it to 
 be part of the Millenarians' faith, *' that the risen and glo- 
 rified saints, in the new metropolis (he means the earthly 
 Jerusalem), will be kings and priests for the administration 
 of the political and religious interests of the (Jewish) na- 
 tion." I have not done so. I have taught that the raised 
 saints, according to the Millenarians' views of the prophe- 
 cies are the governmental agencies, who shall be employed 
 for the administration of the political and religious interests 
 of the nations. By a misprint of the singular for the plu- 
 ral (which the context will clearly show is what must have 
 been intended). Prof S. having totally misapprehended what 
 I had previously said, might naturally have supposed that 
 I meant the Jevvish nation pre-eminently or exclusively, and 
 that therefore the raised saints must have their abode in 
 *' the new metropolis" of Jerusalem, as he calls it. 
 
60 INEXCUSABLE ERRORS, ETC. 
 
 I may here take occasion to say, that there are various 
 typographical errors which, owing to the circumstances un- 
 der which the Dissertations were published, escaped correc- 
 tion, either when passing, through the press or in an errata- 
 sheet afterward, but which I regarded so trivial as to be 
 capable of being corrected by the intelligent reader himself. 
 But conceding to Prof. S. all the advantage which he may 
 claim from the use of the singular instead of the plural, no- 
 thing that I have written authorizes him to represent me, as 
 giving the raised saints their local dwelling in the earthly 
 Jerusalem, the new metropolis, to be inhabited by the de- 
 scendants of Jews in the flesh. If he knows not and I 
 have said not where the raised saints will dwell with Christ, 
 or what will be the site of the heavenly city, that is no 
 reason why he should put them in Jerusalem. 
 
 In the sketch which he has " abridged" he shows that he 
 may claim the merit of having, in some sort, profited by the 
 hints which Horace has given the writer, who, to be successful, 
 should imitate Homer and hurry to the object he has in 
 view, or the impression he would make, by dexterously 
 leaving out this and falsely introducing that, so as to give 
 the whole the greatest effect. 
 
 Semper ad evenlum festinat, et in medias res, 
 Non secus ac notas, audilorem rapit, et quae 
 Desperat tractata nitescere posse, relinquit ; 
 Atque ita mentitur, ni veris falsa reraiscet, 
 Primo ne medium, medio ne discrepet imam. 
 
 But to the grand event he speeds his course, 
 And bears his readers with resistless force 
 Into the midst of things, while every line 
 Opens, by just degrees, his whole design. 
 Artful he knows each circumstance to leave 
 v; Which will not grace and ornament receive ; 
 
 Then truth and fiction with such skill he blends, 
 That equal he begins, proceeds and ends. 
 

 CHAPTER vra. Nfc^ZrS^p^.^^. 
 
 PROF. S.'S REMARKS ABOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE FATHEHS.'"''''^ 
 
 He either thinks, or evidently designed to make the im- 
 pression, that I have brought forward the wildest conceits, 
 which can have no show of warrant for them in the word of 
 God, and have therefore neglected to make any reference to 
 the Scriptures for them, but have resorted to a very appro- 
 priate source — the "patristic writings," as he calls them, 
 whence any thing, however visionary and absurd, may find its 
 counterpart. " The unprejudiced and simple reader," he 
 says, " will probably inquire, with some amazement : What 
 can be brought now from the Scriptures in support of such 
 stupendous arrangements as these ? Who lean satisfy us 
 about occurrencfes (?) which would seem to lie beyond any 
 region reached by the loftiest or the most vagarious flight 
 that the imagination of man has ever taken or can take ?" 
 App. p. 163. 
 
 Here are two questions to which I am very happy to give 
 plain and direct answers. Prof S. could not but have 
 learned, that I intended not, and did not propose, to enter 
 into a scriptural investigation of any of the points in detail 
 embraced in the outline which he has abbreviated. I stated 
 on the 162d page of the Dissertations, the general views I 
 entertained myself, no farther than what I proposed in the 
 volume to confirm by Scripture. At a future period, the 
 details might undergo investigation by the aid of Scripture. 
 I am not, therefore, to be charged with visionary specula- 
 tions, unsupported by Scripture, because I have neither 
 myself affirmed them, nor attempted to prove them from 
 Scripture, in the volume published, but only stated some of 
 the points or facts believed to be taught in prophecy by dif- 
 ferent Millenarian writers who had pursued their investiga- 
 tions farthest, giving at the same time their names, and 
 
62 
 
 those of their works which the curious or interested reader 
 might consult. Has Prof. S. read them ? He certainly 
 ought to have done so before he, a biblical instructor, asked, 
 as though the thing were impossible and incredible, what 
 could be brought from the Scriptures in support of such 
 *' stupendous arrangements ;" stupendous as indeed they are. 
 He will see, if he consults them, what can be produced. 
 
 He is not at liberty to assume the impossibility of there 
 being any source of information on such points. Admitting, 
 to the fullest extent of his meaning, that these things origin- 
 ally lie " beyond any region reached by the loftiest and 
 most vagarious flight that ihe imagination of man has ever 
 taken, or can (unaided) take ;" if God has aided their minds, 
 and predicted by the mouth of the prophets, that these or 
 such like stupendous events and scenes shall take place, 
 here in this world, in the progress of its history and of the 
 scheme of redemption, will Prof. S. dare impertinently to 
 inquire, " Who can satisfy us about such occurrences ?" 
 A God, of omniscience and infallible prescience, can do it, 
 and do it perfectly. The only questions, at all appropriate, 
 are. Has He so spoken ? Does His language by the pro- 
 phets, when fairly and truly interpreted, lead the mind to 
 such conceptions? and was it meant to do so? 
 
 This I have said is a fair and legitimate topic for investi- 
 gation, and imperiously demanding it The Christian public 
 will no longer be put off by the dogmas of the schools, the 
 dicta of professors, the decretals of the Sorbonne, or any 
 other theological authorities. The demand is made, and 
 expressed in a thousand directions : Let us have the Bible 
 testimony on this subject plainly and faithfully interpreted. 
 Let us have God's word and not man's philosophy. I hold 
 that it behoves us to meet the demand. If we have assumed 
 things that are denied, and affirmed to be incapable of 
 proof, we are bound to investigate them, and to see whether 
 they can be supported by solid argument. If our interpre- 
 
AUTHORITY OF THE FATHERS. 6^ 
 
 tations of Scripture have been contrary to the sound and 
 stable rules of interpretation, let us correct them ; but not 
 claim, on the authority of names or schools, professors or 
 synods, to teach what we cannot by sober, just, and veri- 
 table exposition, show to be the word of God. 
 
 I apply the remark to the Fathers also, and admit with 
 Prof S., to the fullest extent, all that he says about the 
 character of much of their exposition of the Scriptures, 
 " the double-sense exegesis which they had been taught to 
 apply to Homer, and Pindar, and others ; all the mysticism 
 which they brought with them from the heathen schools," 
 " their conceits and puerilities," &c. &c. He need not on 
 this subject have waxed so wrathy, and threatened so mar- 
 vellously. Such expressions as the following are by no 
 means in good taste ; nor do they add any dignity to the 
 Professor. " But one thing I have to say — and I wish them 
 to mark it well — let them be careful now they challenge the 
 proof oi^ my assertions. I have read with my oion eyes. I 
 judge, therefore, for myself I can prove to any reasonable 
 man, what I affirm." App. p. 165. On reading these terrific 
 coniminations I could not but think of Homer's enraged 
 Achilles : 
 
 €1 5' aye int^Vj Tteigrjaaif ha yv^coai xal o'lbs' 
 Alxpd zoi aif^a neXaivov SQcorjaei neqi dovQi. 
 
 Bullet this first invasion be the last: 
 
 For know, thy blood, when next thou dost invade, 
 
 Shall stream in vengeance from my reeking blade. 
 
 Professor S. has admitted, notwithstanding his gascon- 
 ade, all I wish or ask from him to sanction the use that I 
 have made of the Fathers. " They were," he says, '* at 
 least many of them, men of good faith, creditable witnesses 
 of facts ; worthy of deference even as to opinions, when 
 their superstitions and their visionary fancies were out of 
 the question. Whoever despises them, or disregards their 
 
64> PROF. Stuart's remarks about the 
 
 testimony as to simple matters of fact, shows himself plainly 
 to be a prejudiced or an unskilful judge. '^ -^PP- l^^. I 
 have quoted them not as authority, not in support of opin- 
 ions, not even disproof oi Millenarian views of prophecy, but 
 in proof of " the views entertained by the early Fathers, (in 
 which they) expressed their understanding of the Scriptures 
 on this subject, (viz. of Christ's pre-millennial advent,) and 
 as valuable historical testimony as to their principles of in- 
 terpretation." Prof. S. has done me injustice in intimating 
 that I have referred to them for " their interpretations of 
 prophecies which were dark." I have done no such thing. 
 I have cited them as witnesses in relation to this point of 
 fact, whether the faith of the Church, in the apostolic days, 
 and in the first and beginning of the second centuries, — 
 when it is confessed on all hands that it was far less per- 
 verted and polluted, by a double-sense exegesis, and a mys- 
 ticism brought from the heathen schools, than towards the 
 close of the second, and in the third and subsequent cen- 
 turies, — did or did not embrace the personal, visible, pre- 
 millennial advent of Jesus Christ. I suppose Prof. S. would 
 admit it to be a perfectly legitimate inquiry, whether the 
 faith of the Primitive Church, in the same period, embraced 
 the justification of the sinner by faith in the righteousness 
 of Christ, without the deeds of the law. Where is there 
 greater impropriety in the former than in the latter in- 
 quiry ? And what condemns the evidence of their testimony, 
 more in the one case than in the other ? 
 
 If Prof. S. means to say that I have appealed to tradition 
 as '' the most convenient of all possible methods of arguing," 
 and like any and every sect and enthusiast which " find some 
 prototype among the ancients," have gone to the Fathers 
 for mine, he charges me unjustly and without show of evi- 
 dence. He says, " I have observed, specially of late years, 
 in my reading, that those always seem to rely most heartily 
 upon the Fathers who feel themselves to be most deficient in 
 
AITTHaRITY OF THE FATHERS. 65 
 
 the power of establishing any thing directly from the Scrip- 
 tures. So did not the first Protestants." Has he forgotten 
 that Luther made his appeal to the Fathers, and did it most 
 invincibly in his dispute with Eckius, in reference to the 
 faith of the primitive church ? I admit the sufficiency of 
 the Scriptures, as ** the only infallible rule of faith and 
 practice ;" but I deem it to be interesting, important, valua- 
 ble information, to know what was the faith of the Fathers 
 and Martyrs, and those holy men that lived nearest the days 
 of the apostles — i. e. what they embraced, not as opinion, 
 but as facts revealed to our faith. 
 
 -*' I have carefully discriminated, as Prof S. might have 
 seen, see Dissertations, p. 174, ** between what were mat- 
 ters of faith, simple statements of their belief founded on 
 the word of God — and what were conjectures, and opi- 
 nions founded on their inferences." Now having been so 
 careful to define my object, in referring to what I called 
 ** traditionary history,'^ not . " traditionary authority^' or 
 opinions, and having as carefully distinguished between 
 .tnere matters of conjecture, and the faith of the church, I 
 cannot account for the obliquity of Prof S.'s apprehensions, 
 in undertaking to represent me as giving " with no very 
 sparing hand, extracts from a number of the Fathers ;" 
 taking, ** for the most part, what he finds selected for a 
 purpose like his own, and leaving out what he would not 
 wish to bring forward." I have hard work to muster up 
 charity enough to prevent me from giving a plain name to 
 such representations. Were I alone with him I should do 
 it in the application of the Saviour's rule, and demand 
 Christian satisfaction. I have affirmed, and referred to the 
 Fathers in proof of the historical fact, that the faith of the 
 primitive church embraced the personal, visible pre-millen- 
 nial coming of Jesus Christ ; — that there is not one of the 
 early Fathers whose works are extant, and who have ex- 
 pressed their views or faith on the subject of the Millennium 
 
66 PROF. Stuart's remarks about the 
 
 and of Christ's second coming, who have not so stated it — or 
 by fair implication assumed it ; — and that none of the Fathers, 
 yea, none down till after the Reformation — however differ- 
 ing from the Chiliasts, by which name a numerous class of 
 writers were called, many of whom sensualized the faith of 
 the primitive church, — ever advanced, for all that I can 
 ascertain, the idea of such a Millennium as Prof S. and 
 those of his opinion adopt, until about the days of Whitby, 
 who gave it as a new hypothesis, — whether having excogi- 
 tated it himself, or suggested by Spener's '^ Hope of better 
 times to come," and the controversy with Pfeiffer and Neu- 
 man, I will not inquire. I had nothing to do with picking 
 out, and leaving this or the other opinion of this or the 
 other Father, on any subject. I was only concerned with 
 their evidence as witnesses, to the faith of the church. If I 
 have incorrectly quoted them ; if I have not stated the facts 
 ,,as they are ; and if,, in one or two cases, where the evidence 
 I admit was " rather of the constructive kind," I have not 
 rightly construed the meaning, — let Prof S. show it. 
 
 In view of the object I proposed therefore by the testimony 
 of the Fathers, the reader will be able to form a correct 
 judgment of Prof. S.'s candour and spirit, when after hav- 
 ing given a list of names, and having stated what I have 
 done myself in pursuing the chain of testimony, — that some 
 have left behind them no certain relics of their writings, 
 he says, " All these are made by Mr. D. to give testimony 
 in favour of his cause; or (which he seems to regard as 
 being equally in his favour) they did not give testimony 
 against it. In this way he goes on till he comes down to a 
 later age." App. p. 166. This is mere caricature, totally un- 
 becoming Prof S. 
 
 But what follows is even worse : " Nor," adds he," does 
 he omit, even here ( i. e. in a later age), to trace out his 
 traditionary history. But the Fathers who were opposed to 
 the Millennial views in question — Origen, Dionysius of Alex- 
 
AUTHORITY OF THE FATHERS. 67 
 
 andria, Jerome, Augustine, and indeed most of the other 
 distinguished Fathers — he slips over with slight notices, or 
 •with some little effort either to make them indirectly con- 
 tribute to his purpose, or else to parry the force of their 
 strokes and diminish the value of their opinions." App. p. 
 166. This is injustice and misrepresentation. ^y 
 
 In tracing the history of the faith of the church, relative 
 to the coming of Christ and the Millennium, I have said, that 
 the evidence is direct and strong in the first two centuries, 
 that it embraced the fact of the personal, visible, pre-mil- 
 lennial coming of Christ — that toward the close of the 
 second century there grew up a style of interpretation which 
 seriously affected the unity and simplicity of the church's 
 faith, and the philosophical exposition of the Scriptures ; — 
 that this style of exposition may be detected first in Pautce- 
 nus, " the Stoic philosopher," Clemens of Alexandria his 
 pupil, Justin martyr and others until Origen, who gave form 
 and system to what I have called the spiritual or allegorical, 
 in opposition to the literal system of interpretation ; — that 
 from that time forth the Millenarian faith began to disappear, 
 from causes which I have stated, especially through the influ- 
 ence of Dionysius of Alexandria the disciple of Origen, 
 having quoted Eusebius and Mosheim in proof of my state- 
 ments ; — that two conspicuous opposers of this faith were 
 Caius and Dionysius, the former rejecting the Apocalypse 
 altogether, and the latter, according to Eusebius' showing, 
 virtually, if not formally, doing the same thing ; — that just 
 as long as the primitive church retained her greatest simpli- 
 city of faith, the personal pre-millenial coming of Christ was ^ 
 one of the items of her belief; — that the very first evidences 
 of dissent from this faith appeared, among those who attempt- 
 ed to unite philosophy with Christianity ; and that after pre- 
 judices had been excited against it by the gross sensual gloss, 
 which certain heretics had given to the Millennium, so direct- 
 ly at variance with the Gnostic philosophy, its first opposers. 
 
68 
 
 more successfully to overcome it, denied the canonical author- 
 ity of the Apocalypse. Notwithstanding all this, I have 
 shown also that traces of this faith are to be met with in 
 subsequent ages, and even in the writings of those M^ho op- 
 posed the sensual Chiliasm of the heretical Cerinthus, and 
 others. 
 
 As to to the '* opinions'' of Origen, Dionysius of Alexan- 
 dria, Jerome, Augustine, &c., they have nothing to do with 
 the simple matter of fact I was stating about the faith of the 
 primitive church, in reference to the coming of Christ and 
 the Millennium, and the occasion and manner of departure 
 from it when the church became corrupted by philosophy 
 and vain deceit, and an allegorical style of interpreting the 
 sacred Scriptures. It is utterly in vain for Prof S. to at- 
 tempt to condemn me for not giving the views and opinions 
 of those who were " opposed," he says, " to the millennial 
 views in question," (of course he means the personal, pre- 
 millennial coming of Christ,) but I say, to the sensual Chiliasm 
 of Cerinthus, &C., often confounded with the primitive faith. 
 Their opinions on many subjects were vague and ill defined. 
 I had no concern with them as an historian ; nor did the 
 nature and structure of my argument require that I should 
 even state them. It is enough for me to say, as I did, that 
 the common prevailing notions of the Millennium, in a season 
 of great moral and spiritual improvement, and of glorious pros- 
 perity to the church of God for a thousand years before the 
 coming of Jesus Christ, was no part of the faith of the pri- 
 mitive church, nor of the church for centuries, nor even of 
 the men whose opinions Prof S. represents me as studiously 
 and artfully attempting to conceal. I challenge him to show 
 the contrary to be the fact in the period referred to, or any 
 proof of a spiritual Millennium like his own for centuries af- 
 terward. 
 
 My reference " to the Jewish Rabbles, and even to the 
 Zend-Avesta, and my remarks as to the style of speech 
 
AUTHORITY OF THE FATHERS. €9 
 
 adopted by Christ and his Apostles, Professor S. has also 
 wholly misrepresented, by concealing their true and avowed 
 design. I stated that the plain grammatical interpretation 
 of the prophecies, especially of Daniel, gave rise to such an 
 idea of the kingdom of God, as that which Millenarians, from 
 the promises and predictions of Scripture, expect at the visi- 
 ble, personal, pre-millennial coming of Jesus Christ; — that 
 such an idea actually did start in the world, cotemporane- 
 ously with the writings of the prophets, and may be traced 
 down through two channels : First, the Jewish traditions 
 and the rabbinical writings expressing the faith of the 
 Jewish church ; and second, the corruptions of Scripture 
 and plagiarism to be traced among the Gentiles ; — and that 
 while the Saviour and the Apostles adopted the very same 
 technical expressions, the same style of speech, and, in the 
 case of the Apostle Paul, almost the identical ideag and lan- 
 guage of the tradition of the house of Elias, and never de- 
 fined their terms, or deemed it necessary to apprise their 
 hearers, that they assigned a different meaning to them than 
 what they imported, according to the plain grammatical sense, 
 they never, in one solitary instance, so taught or expressed 
 themselves, as to convey the idea of there being a great 
 period of one thousand years of spiritual prosperity in reli- 
 gion, and the church of God, j^nor to Christ's personal, visi- 
 ble, second coming. 
 
 Prof S, has not even touched or hiiited at the argument. 
 AH this dust and mist about the fathers' crudities, puerilities, 
 &,c. &c., ai-^ just nothing to his purpose. The question is 
 a question of fact, whether the primitive church did not 
 embrace the Millenarian faith, and whether they did not do so, 
 on the basis, not of superstition and puerile conceits, but of 
 Scripture promises and predictions received and understood 
 upon the principles of grammatical interpretation, the prin- 
 ciples, in other words, taught and sanctioned by Ernesti and 
 Prof. S. himself? No presiding or inspiring genius of inter- 
 
 5 
 
W PROF. STUART S REMARKS, ETC. 
 
 pretation, at Andover, no tutelary god or saint, that may 
 have the special care of her beloved Professor, will be allow- 
 ed to rescue him from the contest here, as Homer's Venus 
 did Paris : 
 
 'Peta fidtf i»6rs ^sog ' ixdlvxps ^ aq rjsQi noll^. 
 
 The queen of love her favoured champion shrouds 
 (For gods|can all things) in a veil of clouds. 
 
 
 
?t'(^''ii:-...t*if   i.t% 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 PROF. STUART S STRICTURES ON THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 
 
 He first misstates the point of the argument, I adduce 
 from the Scriptures, by saying that it is brought forward 
 *' in favour of his (my) scheme" — the reader would suppose of 
 course, that " my scheme" embraced all that he has exhib- 
 ited of the general outline. Do Prof S.'s dialectics, and his 
 sense of justice and propriety, admit of this? The argu-^ 
 ment is expressly, specifically, and avowedly this, — that the 
 plain principles of grammatical interpretation, applied to the 
 prophetical Scriptures, prove the second coming of Christ to 
 be personal, visible, and pre-millennial. I have quoted Acts 
 iii. 20, 21, and stated analytically according to the grammat- 
 ical interpretation, the facts which the verse affirms, totally 
 irrespective of the precise import of certain expressions con- 
 tained in it, whose meaning is afterwards to be determined. 
 Prof S. has not denied that what I state to be the facts 
 affirmed in these verses is correct : nor will he. He has, 
 nevertheless, misquoted my language. For what purpose 
 I cannot say : but when I say, referring directly to what I 
 state are the facts asserted in Acts iii. 20, 21, as follows : 
 *' There can be no questioning these facts by any one who 
 admits as truth — supported by sufficient evidence — and 
 receives in the simplicity of faith the testimony of God," 
 Dissertations p. 269, he, by leaving out certain words and 
 parts of the sentence, makes me assert in general, some- 
 thing unintelligible, viz : "■ Here," Mr. D. says, '' there can 
 be no questioning of facts by any one who admits as truth 
 . . . the testimony of God." App. p. 162. 
 
 My object is to direct attention, pointedly and specifically, 
 to the main question that will be raised from this passage 
 
72 
 
 PROF. STUART S STRICTURES ON 
 
 in relation to the facts it affirms, by those who believe the 
 Bible to be the word of God, viz., what will be the time of 
 Christ's coming, so far as this passage declares it. This 
 was the question proposed to be disiMissed ; and in order to 
 answer it, by the aid of this passage, I have undertaken a 
 full and careful philological examination of its terms. Prof 
 S. would blow dust into the reader's eyes at the very outset, 
 and then refuse to let me speak for myself, by misquoting 
 and garbling my language. 
 
 Next he seeks to excite prejudice, both against me, and 
 especially against the argument, by the most unwarrantable 
 misstatement and perversion of my language. He says, "A 
 little further on he remarks, that ' it is of essential conse- 
 quence, if possible, to enlist this text in favour of this (his) 
 view.^ " My language is, " Of course it is of essential con- 
 sequence, if possible, to enlist this text in favour of this 
 view," and the context will show any child who will read it, 
 that the view contemplated was not mine, for I had not sta- 
 ted mine, but that of Mr Faber, and the author of " Mo- 
 dern Fanaticism Unveiled," who attempted, by criticisms, one 
 in one way, and another in another, to show that the times 
 of restitution spoken of, and consequently the second advent 
 of Christ, do not occur till after the Millennium. It was just 
 the opposite view of mine. I will not say what I think of 
 such misrepresentation and perversion of my language, nor 
 can I devise an excuse for him. I can readily see, however, 
 how it must prejudice the reader's mind, who takes all Prof 
 S. says on trust. 
 
 His third attempt is to put me down by his " ex cathedra" 
 condemnation, for " mistakes in criticism^' " Without ad- 
 verting now (and I may add ever after) to the various mis- 
 takes in criticism which the process of Mr. D .' s reasoning here 
 develojpes," (wonderfully guarded, obscure and ambiguous 
 expression !) "it is enough to say, that every thing depends, 
 of course, on the meaning of xQovoov aTzoxataatdasoav, ren- 
 
THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 
 
 n 
 
 dered in our version, times of restitution ;" just v/hat I have 
 said. '' This our author of course considers, as declaring in 
 favour o^ his views o^ restitution^ i. e., in favour of the trans- 
 formation of things in general at the commencement of the 
 Millennium." App. p. 168. He does not say, as a matter of 
 veritable fact, that I have made mistakes in criticism, but 
 " the process of my reasoning has developed them !" Now, 
 if the reader will turn to the Dissertations, pp. 271, 272, he 
 will perceive, that I have introduced the criticism of the 
 author of " Fanaticism Unveiled," who finds it necessary to 
 give a meaning to the adverb a^iQi, until, that will corres- 
 pond with his dating of the times of restitution after tne 
 Millennium. I do but vindicate the reading of the English 
 version, and the plain, popular meaning of the word until. 
 Professor S. does not say whether the "mistakes in criti- 
 cism" are mine, or the author's I refer to. He is very cautious 
 in the use of his language. If he means that the mistakes 
 are mine, it behooved him to point them out. I call upon 
 him to do so, and to explain, if he dare, the passages I have 
 quoted and referred to, according to the criticism I have 
 shown to be fallacious. If he means that the " mistakes in 
 criticism^' are those of the author of " Fanaticism Unveil- 
 ed," I have but developed them in the process of my argu- 
 ment, as he states ; but it ill becomes him to write with such 
 looseness and ambiguity, and virtually take advantage of his 
 own wrong, to make his reader condemn me, as though he, 
 the great critic at Andover, had detected at a glance my 
 mistakes. There is nothing manly in this, to say the least. 
 But perhaps he refers, also, since he uses the plural, to 
 the other criticism, which "the process of (my) reasoning 
 has developed." This relates to the meaning of the Greek 
 word dTTOnaTaataaig, translated restitution. The criticism is 
 Mr. Faber's, who says that the word denotes not " the act of 
 resettling or restoring all things, but the completed result J^ 
 I have denied that this is the meaning of the word, and de- 
 
14f PROF. 
 
 fended the plain and obvious grammatical import of the 
 phrase ." times of restitution," which is the time or season 
 when that act takes place, or series of acts which com- 
 mences the specific work of restoration. Whether he means 
 the " mistakes in criticism" are those of Mr. Faber or my- 
 self, he has prudently left doubtful. It would have been 
 much more manly to have spoken out plainly, than in such 
 a covert and cowardly manner taken all the advantage he 
 might wish against me, by an '^ ex cathedra" condemnation, 
 exciting prejudice against my argument. 
 
 As to the simple meaning of the word aTToyMtdaraaig, 
 Professor S. agrees with me, in translating it restoration ; 
 but whether restoration in the sense of Mr. Faber, so as to 
 include the final, perfected result — the actual accomplish- 
 ment of all the things spoken of by the prophets, or, as I 
 have said, according to the general import of verbal deri- 
 vative nouns formed from the second person of the perfect 
 passive, the act or process o/* restoration of all things spoken 
 of by the prophets, which should be the date of the com- 
 mencement of the times of restitution, he has not conde- 
 scended to express himself Does he mean that this is *' the 
 mistakes'?" He admits " that Peter might have employed 
 this word, in case he had believed in the same Millennium, 
 which is advocated by Mr. D." Of course Professor S. is • 
 not prepared to condemn our English translation, and my 
 defence of its meaning, by reason of any " mistakes in criti- 
 cism," which /have made as to the meaning of this word 
 dTtoxaTciataaig. 
 
 But Professor S. has added that " it is equally plain and 
 true, that if he (Peter) had a moral and spiritual Millen- 
 nium in view, he might appropriately employ it, just as the 
 apostle (Rom. xii. 2 : Tit. iii. 5) speaks of the renewing of 
 our minds." App. p. 169. That is, he uses the word met- 
 aphorically ; or, if Professor S. prefers it, analogically, 
 about which import of words, we shall have more to say in 
 
THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 19 
 
 the sequel. Now it is important, essential, that the import 
 of Peter's expressions, should be definitely settled. Prof. 
 S. has no more right than I have, by general reasonings and 
 a priori deductions, or preconceived notions of the nature of 
 things, to do so. The Bible here must be its own inter- 
 preter. 
 
 The simple import of the word ano^iardataaig I will admit, 
 for the sake of argument, will not do it : and for the same 
 reason I will admit further, that the form and derivation of 
 the word may not definitely and absolutely settle its meaning, 
 so far as to determine whether it denotes the act and process 
 of acts, or completed result and accomplishment of the res- 
 toration of all things, &/C. I might, indeed, in support of 
 the meaning which I say it has, agreeably to the analogy of 
 Greek terms so derived, refer Prof. S. to Aristotle, lib. II. 
 chap 3, Rhetor., where he will find three words of like deri- 
 vation, denoting the act of doing : and as he may plead that 
 naTaataoig and aTToyiaidazaaig differ in their shade of import, 
 and that the preposition dno here gives the word the in- 
 creased import of actual accomplishment, and quote Whitby 
 and Lightfoot, as authority, I might refer him to Matt. xvii. 
 11, the only place in the New Testament where the verb 
 is applied by Christ to John the Baptist, " Elias indeed 
 first Cometh, and he shall restore all things — aTzoxaTaGz^aei 
 Ttdvza — certainly not in the sense of accomplishment, for John 
 the Baptist did but commence the publication of the king- 
 dom approaching, and introduce, according to Prof S.'s 
 opinion, those new moral influences which were to issue in 
 the transformation or restoration of all things. 
 
 But let this pass : and let us confine our attention to Pe- 
 ter's own language. He did not depend alone on the simple 
 meaning of the word dnoaardaTaaig to express his idea. 
 Prof. S. therefore shall not resort to any general reasonings, 
 or theoretic, philosophical, or preconceived notion of the 
 nature of things, to decipher Peter's meaning ; especially. 
 
76 PROF. Stuart's strictures on 
 
 as he admits the word *' might" mean what I say it does, 
 provided Peter had intended to express the idea which I say 
 he did. Peter has given us two clews to his meaning. First, 
 whatever the restoration — act, process or accomplished result 
 — may be, it was something that should mark or characterize 
 a predicted period yet future in Peter's day. " And he shall 
 send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you. He 
 ?hall send to you this (of whom he had spoken v. 13) Jesus 
 Christ previously heralded-a;ro(yr£/ljy r or TTQoy.BynqiGiiHOv vfjin' 
 'Irjaovv Xqigtov — see Winer's Gram., pp. 89, 90 — whom the 
 heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, 
 &c., aiQi XQOvcov aTToxataatdaeag, 6lc. Prof S. knows, 
 agreeably to the just remarks of Winer in his Grammar, pp. 
 103, 106, that 'j^Qormv, the times, is emphatic ; — a definitely 
 marked period. Now Peter, according to the plain and na- 
 tural and grammatical import of his words, says, when that 
 period arrived, God would again send Jesus Christ, him that 
 had been previously heralded; for the adverb a/^r cannot mean 
 during, according to the criticism I have shown to be incor- 
 rect and untenable, as though the sending of Christ would 
 not occur till afte?' the completed result of the restoration. 
 Peter's use of the word )^q6v(ov, times, proves that this cannot 
 be his meaning : cixQi, in this connection, cannot mean either 
 during, or till after, but till the times, that is, the commence- 
 ment of them, according to the plain and ordinary use and 
 import of the adverb in such connection. 
 
 In the next place, Peter has given us a second clew to his 
 meaning, by characterizing the times to which he referred^ 
 as those in which would eventuate the restoration " of all 
 things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy 
 prophets since the world began." Just as we talk of the 
 times of the reformation, referring to that whole period dur- 
 ino- which the measures commenced, and were prosecuted, 
 which secured the reformation of the church, so Peter has 
 his eye on certain times of restoration, that is, the times dur- 
 
THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 77 
 
 ing which those act^ and measures should occur, which 
 would effectually and fully restore all things — the restoring 
 times. 
 
 Whether the relative pronoun which, Ktv, refers to yQovojv, 
 the times, or to TZQaffidtoiv, understood, the all things, I 
 care not to determine. Prof S. may interpret it either way, 
 as he pleases, so as to make it read either of which times God 
 hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the 
 world began, clti aiwvog, from the beginning of the age 
 or dispensation, or of which all things God hath spoken by 
 the mouth of his holy prophets, &c. It amounts to the same 
 thing in the end, take it either way. The idea is, that the 
 times of restoration would be characterized by the actual 
 accomplishment of all the things, which all the prophets had 
 said, should occur, in the way, or work, of restoration. 
 
 In a certain sense, all the measures adopted by God, 
 from the very fall of Adam, may be said to possess this 
 character ; but Peter is speaking 0)f some times and things 
 beyond his day — things yet fiiture when he spoke, and of 
 which all the prophets had predicted. To determine what 
 these times and things are, we are referred to the prophets ; 
 not to this or the other, but to all. They are times and 
 things of which they have all in common spoken. I have 
 referred to passages in the Scriptures from Noah down, 
 and, to quote Jude, I might say from Enoch down, to prove, 
 that the times of restitution, — especially the glorious advent 
 of the Lord for his work of righteous judgment, and resto- 
 ration of all things to their original pure and happy condi- 
 tion, — have been spoken of by all the prophets; i. e., suf- 
 ficiently general and universal, to authorize, according to 
 the common modes of speech, such language as Peter uses. 
 I have done so to ascertain Peter's meaning according to 
 the clew he has himself given to it ; and yet Prof S. in the 
 most sneering and contemptuous manner, without even 
 attempting to disprove, in one instance, the general point 
 
 5* 
 
78 PROF. 
 
 for which the references were made, ^ or to expose their in- 
 appropriateness, allows himself to hold the following lan- 
 guage : " Mr. D. refers us (on p. 267) to nearly every one 
 of them (the prophets) for passages of the like tenor with 
 that in Acts iii. 21 ; that is, as he expoujids them." I have 
 given no exposition of them at all, but allowed the reader to 
 do it for himself " How easily," adds Prof S. " are ob- 
 jects magnified, or the colour of them changed, when we 
 look through a glass appropriate to produce these effects. 
 If we can only forget that we are using a magnifying glass, 
 or one which has a stain upon its ^ surface, we may believe 
 that we see every thing with our own proper eyes. And 
 this is what Mr. D. has succeeded in completely doing, 
 while inspecting the numerous, texts which he has enlisted 
 into his army." App. p. 169, 170. 
 
 If it should so happen that I was looking through the very 
 glass which Peter was holding up, and following the very clew 
 that he gave me, then what shall we say of the Professor's 
 sneer ? It lights where he would not have it. And to vin- 
 dicate himself, he is bound, and I hold him responsible to 
 prove, that I have used any coloured, or magnifying, or other 
 glass, than just the very one which Peter gave his hearers, by 
 means of which to understand his meaning. The Professor's 
 dicta are no authority with me. 
 
 Nee me tua fervida terrent 
 Dicta, ferox : Dii me terrent. 
 
 Impeiuous accuser ! I dread not your rod 
 Of fervid objurgation ; but I fear my God. 
 
 If I have erred, in a careful analysis and attempt to inter- 
 pret Peter's language by the help of Peter's own reference, 
 let Professor S. point out the error ; but let him not think to 
 do so by such efforts. 
 
 I meet him now on the ground he has laid out for him- 
 self He defines the meaning of the word dno-AardaTacig, 
 
THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. %9 
 
 restoration, to be " the putting of any thing which has been 
 injured, has decayed, or is worn out, into a renewed and good 
 condition." App. p. 168. I dissent from his definition. He 
 will not find it in any good lexicographer. On the supposi- 
 tion that Peter had a moral and spiritual Millennium in view, 
 he says, Peter " might appropriately employ it, just as the 
 apostle (Rom. xii. 2 : Titus iii. 5) speaks of the renewing 
 of our minds;" App. p. 169; or, as he has added, as the 
 Saviour, — speaking of " spiritual regeneration, — calls it be- 
 ing born again." If he meant, that the same reason for 
 Christ's language applies also to Peter's use of his, then he 
 says that Peter used the expression dTzo-AardaTaaig, restitu- 
 tion or restoration, " because language furnishes him with 
 no more appropriate and significant means of indicating the 
 nature and consequences of" the change. " Nioodemus," 
 he adds, " would under-stand him (the Saviour) only in the 
 carnal and material sense ; and this I take to be exactly 
 what Mr. D. has done with the words of Peter." App. 
 p. 169. 
 
 Now in answer to this, I say that the idea of restora- 
 tion, restitution, involves more than that of renewing. A 
 thing may be entirely renoyated, and there be no restoration 
 at all. The government of France was renovated in 1830, 
 when Louis Philippe was made king of the French, but 
 there was no restoration of the dynasty of Napoleon or any 
 other. So it is in the case of regeneration — where is the 
 restoration there? Restoration, restitution, implies the 
 idea of something being brought back, and put in its place, 
 which had been lost or taken away — something strengthened, 
 healed, or placed in a state of security again, which had 
 been weakened, diseased, or perilled, and brought back to a 
 former healthy and safe condition. No such thing can in 
 truth be said of the sinner born again. He is a " new 
 creature, old things are passed away, behold all things are 
 become new." Holiness, spiritual life, the image of God, 
 
80 
 
 or whatever else we please to call it, cannot be said to be 
 restored to us miserable sinners, who are born again, for 
 we never had it. It is communicated, — we are created anew 
 in Christ Jesus, his workmanship ; and to talk of restora- 
 tion, is totally out of place, unless, indeed, we speak of man 
 generically, that is, of human nature abstractly, when we 
 may say correctly enough, comparing his fallen with his 
 former state, the image of God, lost in Adam and by his 
 fall, is restored in regeneration, and so lost and fallen man 
 may be said to be restored to God ; but to say that the sin- 
 ner born again is restored, using the word as descriptive of 
 his character, and make it synonymous simply with renewed, 
 is to speak loosely and improperly. I refer Professor S,, for 
 the meaning of the English word restoration, to his English 
 Dictionary ; and for the meaning of aTioxaidataeig, to Ro- 
 binson's Translation of Wahl's Greek Lexicon, that he may 
 correct his definition. Its primary and proper meaning is, 
 that of placing any thing back into a former state, and so 
 Peter understood and used it, as his reference to the pro- 
 phets shows, for they speak of the recovery of this lost and 
 ruined world back to its primitive, holy and happy state. 
 
 Even Prof. S. himself is forced to abandon his own defini- 
 tion. He 'tells us of the original good condition of this 
 world — of the order and harmony that dwelt in it, till " Satan 
 and sin, and sinning angels and men, destroyed and dis- 
 turbed " them : — " all veri/ good^ Next he tell us that " a 
 new heavens and a new earth will arise by the mighty 
 power of God and the Redeemer, wherein will dwell right- 
 eousness, and righteousness only.^' Whence he has obtained 
 this last idea of righteousness only, I do not know ; — not 
 surely from his Bible ; but no doubt he means it to be under- 
 stood tropically in all its looseness, and so we let it go. All 
 the rest is good and true, morally, spiritually, and logically, 
 and allegorically too, if he chooses; but I add also strictly 
 and literally. It is a " literality" or " historical reality," 
 
THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 81 
 
 according to my definition and meaning of the phrase : — all 
 of it, as far as history goes, i. e. as it is already real matter 
 of fact, has eventuated in this material world — has demon- 
 strated itself to be external, sensible reality, or terrestrial 
 visibility. I therefore affirm, that what remains to be ac- 
 complished, will do the same. Two of the most signal, 
 noticeable, and stupendous results and tokens of the destruc- 
 tion and disturbance of the original order and harmony in 
 this world, according to the sacred Scriptures, were God's 
 cursing of the earth for man's sake, so that in sorrow he 
 should eat of it all the days of his life, and it should bring 
 forth thorns and thistles for his toil and vexation. Gen. 
 iii. 17 — 19; and ** the geological and atmospherical trans- 
 formations" wrought in it by the deluge. These were both 
 literally matters of fact, matters of veritable history. Now, 
 however great may be the moral and spiritual renovation of 
 mankind, even though I admit, — which I am perfectly free 
 to do, along with Prof S., — that " the kingdom of Christ, 
 and the restoration which He is to introduce, are essentially 
 and fundamentally of a moral and spiritual nature," yet the 
 restoration will not be complete, unless the world, this globe, 
 be placed back into its original good condition, in all the 
 harmony, order and blessedness reigning in it, when it was 
 first invaded, and these things disturbed and destroyed, as he 
 says, by " Satan and sin, and sinning angels and men." 
 The redemption and restitution will not be perfect, till under 
 Christ, " the second Adam," all things moral, spiritual, 
 social, geological, atmospherical, physical, be brought 
 back to the same original good condition in which they were 
 under the first Adam. Where then, I ask, is there any 
 thing incongruous in saying just what Prof S. has done, 
 but in a much wider and more varied extent of import : — • 
 " When the great period of man's probation, and the process 
 of redeeming sinners shall be completed, — when (as Paul 
 says) the end cometh — then ALIi wit-l be restored." The 
 
82 PROF. Stuart's strictures, etc. 
 
 incongruity and inappropriateness do not consist at all in the 
 things themselves — they are all order and harmony, perfect 
 and glorious — but in Prof. S.'s perceptions, who looks at 
 them through the coloured glass or concave lens of his own 
 metaphysical or philosophical idea of " the world of mind," 
 which makes '' historical realities" lose their external form, 
 diminish, and become evanescent and volatile as thought 
 and spirit. He has said something about seeing motes in 
 others' eyes, but himself exemplifies the remark of Terence : 
 
 Aliena ut melius viJeant, et dijudicent 
 Cluam sua ! 
 
 With how much keener and severer eye 
 Men others' faults, and not their own, espy. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 
 ^mif"''''"^ 
 
 PROFESSOK STU art's SUMMARY PROCESS OF GETTING RID OF 
 THE ARGUMENT. 
 
 The proposed distinction, which Prof. S. has made be- 
 tween " tlie world of mind" and " the world of matter," 
 and discovery of it as a principle for the interpretation of 
 prophecy, may be called his chef d'cRuvre, He uses it on 
 all occasions as the universal solvent — le grand ceuvre, the 
 philosopher's stone — and it operates at his bidding like some 
 concentrated sulphuric acid, to melt down and utterly dis- 
 solve the argument of his opponent, " Having thus," says 
 he, *' disclosed the fundamental principle of Mr. D., by the 
 aid of which he summons help to his cause from the Scrip- 
 tures ; and having advertised the reader bi/ what means all 
 ^ra^s come to be shaped so as to suit bis purpose, I must 
 content myself for the rest, with merely giving, for the most 
 part, a list to the reader of the passages on which he places 
 his main. reliance." Then follows '^ the list,'' in the midst 
 of which he makes the remark, that those previously cited, 
 *' are all applied to the coming of Christ before the Millen- 
 nium, i. e., at the commencement of it; and so of all other 
 remaining texts." App. p. 170. His readers will be sur- 
 prised, when told, that in Chap. 10 of the Dissertations, pp. 
 276-290, there is a regular argument, founded on the gram- 
 matico-historical interpretation of Dan. vii. 7-25, the ob- 
 ject of which is, to show, that as Daniel has described the 
 coming of Christ to exercise avenging judgment on the 
 several constituent parts or regal dominions into which the 
 fourth beast, or the Roman empire that succeeded to the 
 Macedonian or Grecian, was to be divided, and especially 
 the peculiar and formidable power that should rise up 
 
84 
 
 among them, answers to the papal dominion, and " to give 
 the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the king- 
 dom under the whole heaven to the people of the saints of 
 the Most High, whose kingdom is to be an everlasting king- 
 dom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him ;" so the 
 little horn, symbolical of popery, is to continue undestroyed 
 until the Ancient of Days comes, and judgment shall be given 
 to the saints of the Most High, and the time come that the 
 saints possess the kingdom. The conclusion is stated in the 
 following words, viz., " As popery, and the Roman empire, 
 are both to be destroyed together, before the dominion is 
 given to the saints ; and as they are both to continue till 
 the judgment shall sit, and Christ shall come in the clouds of 
 Heaven, so His coming must be before the Millennium,^' 
 Dissertations, p. 286, unless indeed popery and the secular 
 oppressive dominion of the fourth beast are to exist during 
 the whole period of the Millennium. 
 
 In presenting this conclusion, I have said, that there are 
 but two ways of avoiding it ; one is, to say that the coming 
 of the Son of Man spoken of by Daniel, applies to his ascen- 
 sion, as Maclaurin affirms ; the other, that Daniel does not 
 describe a personal visible coming of Christ to judgment, as 
 Faber and others affirm, both of which I have shown are alto- 
 gether inadmissible. I have not, it is true, gone into any 
 elaborate attempt at exposition, nor advanced reasons, at 
 each step, in support of what I have given as the meaning of 
 this prediction of Daniel ; because I did not deem it at all 
 necessary for the presentation of the argument, inasmuch as 
 the exposition advanced is what the generality alike both of 
 spiritualists and literalists, have conceded to be the true in- 
 terpretation, fulfilled and verified to the very letter by histo- 
 rical events. Not to mention the views of Jerome, Cyril, 
 Witsius, Hurd, Woodhouse, I might mention the names of 
 Mede, Cressner, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Faber, 
 Cunninghame and others. But I am not disposed extensively 
 
GETTtNG RID OF THE ARGUMENT. 85 
 
 to adduce arguments in support of what has been settled, by 
 some of the ablest and best critical scholars and expounders 
 of prophecy, whether Millenarian or anti-Millenarian ; espe- 
 cially since Prof S. has not condescended to present one 
 item of proof for his own opinion, nor taken the first step to 
 meet and answer the arguments of Mede, Sir Isaac New- 
 ton and Bishop Newton, and others on this subject. He has 
 begged the question in the most unblushing manner, and 
 spoken with a confidence, I know not how to reconcile with 
 the slightest knowledge of the arguments of the above named 
 profound scholars and expositors. " In v. 24," says he, " refer- 
 ring to the 7th chap, of Daniel, " the rise of Antiochus Epipba- 
 nes is described; for the fourth beast in vii 7, 8, 11, 19-26, 
 as all MUST concede, (!!!) is the divided Grecian dominion, 
 which succeeded the reign of Alexander the Great." App. p. 
 83. 
 
 This is one of the things which I have said in the Disser- 
 tations Prof S. takes for granted, as though they had not been 
 and could not be denied. He must first meet Bishop New- 
 ton's* sturdy objections to this gratuitous assumption, be- 
 fore we shall feel under any obligations formally to review 
 and reply to his dogmatic comment on this chapter in his 
 Hints, pp. 83—85. 
 
 It is enough for me here to say, that Prof S. renders the 
 subject of chronological prophecy perfectly ridiculous. He 
 has adopted the old interpretation of apostate Jews, approved 
 of by apostate papists, and demands, with astonishing ef- 
 frontery, that we shall see the predictions of Daniel relative 
 to the 1260, 1290, 1335, and 2300 days, all fulfilled in the 
 history of Antiochus Epiphanes during so many literal 
 days, when for the life of him he cannot make one of the 
 periods exactly agree with the events, and confesses it too; 
 yea, worse, would have us believe that, notwithstanding the 
 
 ^WW^^^' * See his Dissertations, Di XV. 
 
86 PROF. Stuart's summary process of 
 
 prophet has given us statistically the number of //^era? days, 
 we must not suppose that a statistical exactness ivould or 
 could be aimed at !!! He talks of Antiochus springing from 
 the dynasty of Alexander the Great ! App. p. 83. He might 
 just as well and properly talk of Queen Victoria springing 
 from the dynasty of Augustus Caesar. Antiochus was the 
 seventh monarch in succession from Seleucus Nicator, one of 
 Alexander's generals, who did not succeed to Alexander at 
 all as monarch of the Macedonian empire, but who com- 
 menced a dynasty of his own, or formed a kingdom of his 
 own, in Syria — being one of the four new kingdoms into 
 which the Macedonian empire was divided. A writer who 
 is himself so inaccurate, who fails so egregiously in dis- 
 crimination, cannot perhaps be expected to be more accu- 
 rate in his interpretation of the prophecies. Precision is 
 essential. Let Prof. S. ponder this, before he again affects 
 to be surprised how such men of giant intellect as Mede, 
 Sir Isaac and Bishop Newton and others, yea, the whole 
 body of commentators, for a long period, should have under- 
 stood these periods to be symbolical and not literal days. 
 
 He may therefore learn from these remarks, a solution of 
 what he has affected to think so " passing strange, that after 
 expending about 150 pages to prove the necessity of inter- 
 preting the prophecies literally (a misstatement I have already 
 noticed, and totally inexcusable, because actually if not art- 
 fully deceptive), Mr. D. should everywhere, without even 
 the semblance of an apology or justification, convert all 
 the day periods of the prophets, so far as his purpose de- 
 mands, into year periods. Where now, we are constrained 
 to ask, is the strenuous >zeal for literality ? Not a trace of 
 it seems to be left. The difficulty which doubters have 
 about a day as meaning a year, is not even noticed, much 
 less removed. How convenient such a power of metamor- 
 phosis ! From one stage or form of development to another, 
 the author moves on, now vehemently urging the absolute 
 
GETTING RID OF THE ARGUMENT. 87 
 
 and indispensable obligation to construe ci>ery expression i.itE' 
 RALLY, and then winking every thing of this nature entirely 
 out of sight, or trampling it under his feet." App. p 173. 
 
 Prof S. either designed, or he did not, to make the impres- 
 sion that I have advocated the literal interpretation of the 
 language of the prophets — " every expression," as he has it — 
 totally inattentive to, or regardless of the different styles of 
 speech employed by them, and of the grammatical or rhe- 
 torical rules appropriate for their interpretation. If he did, 
 he has been guilty of a deliberate and wanton offence 
 against the rules of honour and propriety ; and if he has 
 attentively read the Dissertations from p. 99 to p. 147, his 
 offence possesses still greater turpitude, and is one for 
 which it is not my province to call him to account. If he 
 did not so design, then has he written with the most cen- 
 surable looseness, so as to convey ideas contrary to truth 
 and injurious to me. 
 
 After what I have already said, the reader is abundantly 
 able to discriminate between what I have advocated, and 
 what Prof. S. has represented me to have done, so that I 
 need not here repeat it in repelling his sneers. I have not, 
 it is true, entered on the discussion of the meaning of the 
 prophetical day, because I have indeed assumed, en passant, 
 the days noted in several of Daniel's predictions to be sym- 
 bolical. Because I have not seen any thing from Prof S., 
 nor any of those with whom he coincides, which rendered 
 it necessary to adduce the arguments long since presented. 
 Sir Isaac Newton, in one page and a half, has pointed out 
 thirteen particulars in which the predictions in the 8th chapter 
 of Daniel, as referred by Prof S. to Antiochus Epiphanes, is 
 shown to be utterly false and inapplicable. The historical facts 
 are perfect antipodes to the prediction, if we must apply it 
 to Antiochus. See Sir I. Newton's Observations on Daniel, 
 pp. 123, 124. The argument in proof of symbolical days, 
 i. e., years, being meant in the numbers mentioned by Dan- 
 
iel, need not here be much extended, nor is it at all neces- 
 sary, in defence of the arguments I have advanced for the 
 second coming of Christ, to defend it. A day is sometimes 
 used in prophecy for a year. See Num. xiv. 34 : Ezek. iv. 
 5, 6. It is worse than hypercritical to say that in Ezekiel the 
 acts only, and not the days, were symbolical — God speaks 
 of the days particularly as symbolical. This done once is 
 sufficient proof that it may be again. Nor is it necessary, 
 after the symbolical character of a day has been established, 
 particularly to say as at the first a day is put for year, any 
 more than that God should tell us every time when he uses 
 metaphors and symbols. The judgment and observation of 
 men are sufficient to determine when it is literal, and when 
 symbolical. If the events described are of such character 
 as could not, in the ordinary course of things, have happened 
 during so many days, they must be regarded as symbolical. 
 Especially must this be the case, when, as in all Daniel's 
 numbers, it is absolute matter of fact, that no events what- 
 ever have ever yet proved them to be literal days. Other 
 arguments adduced by the great mass of commentators, 
 whether spiritualists or literalists, have not been set aside by 
 any thing that Mr. Maitland, Prof S., or his German authori- 
 ties have advanced. 
 
 Here, by the way, I may remark as conveniently as any- 
 where else, that as Prof. S. in his Hints refers the reader to 
 Bengel, whom he justly praises for his learning, as a speci- 
 men of sad wandering in his interpretation of chronologi- 
 cal prophecy, it is worthy of notice, that like Prof. S. he 
 rejected the symbolic day, departing from the track of com- 
 mentators generally. Vitringa was more cautious, but 
 Bengel adopted, by a most singular arithmetical process, a 
 period which he deemed was the medium between the literal 
 days and the year days, and called a XQ^'^^^> ^^^ prophetic 
 time, &/C., and having thus obtained his data, brought out 
 the crisis in the year 1836. Bengel in this did but afford 
 
GETTING RID OF THE ARGUMENT. 89 
 
 one specimen out of many of the danger of resorting to 
 mere notions and reasonings, instead of the plain, pointed, 
 explicit showing of the Scripture. His errors in his dates 
 require but little attention to correct. Does his mistake 
 here prove him mad — or will even Mr. Miller's mistake 
 disprove the truth of prophecy ? 
 
 Besides, it was not necessary for the argument, with 
 which only I was concerned ; since if the prophetic day 
 be not symbolical of a year, but is to be understood literally, 
 and Daniel's time, times and dividing of time, mean three 
 literal years and a half, his language only directs us for- 
 ward to an event yet future, when the little horn — having 
 worn out the saints, in accordance with the predictions about 
 the slaying of the witnesses, and the last phase of Anti- 
 christ, the personal Antichrist, which goes into perdition — 
 shall have the saints and times and laws entirely in his 
 hands for three years and a half. So far, therefore, as the 
 argument is concerned, nothing is said about the symbolic 
 day or year of days, because unnecessary. For if the little 
 horn of the 7th chapter ha« not been proved to be Antiochus 
 Epiphanes, but means popery, as I have taken it, in com- 
 mon with most Protestant interpreters, whether it is to last 
 1260 years, or only reach a crisis in it^ last terrible and 
 tyrannical stage of its existence, or both, as events may 
 show, continuing for three years and a half, its destruction 
 should be accomplished by the coming of the Son of Man. 
 Here is the point of the argument, and to this point Profes- 
 sor S. should have directed his attention, if he" would have 
 either faithfully represented the views of his opponent, or 
 preferred reason to ridicule. 
 
 If the time, times and dividing of time be three and a 
 half literal years, they are yet to come. For neither he nor 
 any other commentator has arithmetically, logically, and 
 demonstrably shown, that they have as yet been fulfilled. If 
 he had adduced arguments to confirm his exposition, they 
 
90 
 
 might be met ; but it were folly to volunteer objections, 
 after the arguments, of Mede, Newton and others, and the 
 almost " universal custom" of commentators, as Professor S. 
 admits, with nothing but his assertions, and attempts, in the 
 loosest manner, to accommodate the language of Daniel to 
 the history of Antiochus Epiphanes — and after it has been 
 shown, by Bishop Newton, to he far, very far, from being 
 exactly correspondent, which even Professor S. himself is 
 constrained to admit, being therefore necessitated to explain 
 Josephus's apparently contradictory statements. App. p. 85. 
 It will be time enough to add any thing further on this point, 
 when he produces something like argument in support of 
 his assertions and conjectures. 
 
 If, on the other hand, they are years or symbolical days, 
 in number 1260, they are not yet run out, so that, take it 
 either way, the argument is not affected. Under another 
 head, when speaking of the signs of Christ's coming, I have 
 glanced at this subject, for the purpose of showing how im- 
 proper it is to speak positively with regard to dates, as some 
 have done, giving a variety of periods, adopted by those 
 who have believed the prophetic three and a half years to 
 have been 1260 years ; but, at the same time, expressed my 
 doubts, and dissent, for reasons stated from those who be- 
 lieve and teach that the witnesses have been slain, and who 
 express themselves vaguely about the personal Antichrist, 
 intimating, as my opinion only, that the rise of Antichrist in 
 his last form, and the slaughter of the witnesses, may yet be 
 future ; so that the three years and a half may yet have the 
 literal fulfillment they never have had to this day. But Pro- 
 fessor S. has jumbled this up with the argument from Daniel 
 vii. 7-25, and has taken occasion to make himself and his 
 readers merry at my expense, as though I had fixed dates, 
 and might ere long, should I happen to live a while yet, have 
 the finger pointed *' at some of" (my) ^' wanderings," and 
 the public be reminded of " certain y«Mx pas made by me," 
 
GETTING RID OF THE ARGlfMJ 
 
 if not be classed with Mr. Miller and others, \vho?c dates ho ^** 4 
 has not correctly stated, but whom in gross pucril^ wit, he, , t^*. 
 
 very unbecomingly for himself and his subject, would sty}» — ^ 
 
 April fools. "^ 
 
 And here, by the way, in noticing his remarks about time, 
 he stands chargeable with another misrepresentation, as in- 
 excusable as any that have gone before it. He has assigned 
 a decisive date, as taught by me for the coming of the 
 Saviour, and that too but twenty-six years hence, when on 
 the very next page I have stated expressly, that however near 
 we may think it to be, the range of time may be seven times 
 greater, for any thing that we can tell.* The reader will 
 form his own comment on such treatment of an argument. 
 
 * Since writing the above I have seen Prof. Stowe's pamphlet on 
 the grolindlessness of what he calls Millennial Arithmetic, evidently 
 aimed against Mr. Miller's views arid calculations. Mr. Miller's cal- 
 culations I have no doubt are erroneous in many respects. His Chro- 
 nology certainly is replete with error ; and his assumptions in some 
 cases equally so, as for example when Ire makes the cleansing of the 
 Sanctuary identical with the coming of Christ, and the visions of the 
 7th and 8th chapters of Daniel to be the same. I have regretted that 
 Mr. Miller has been so confident in his assertions and his exposition ; 
 and having read all he has published for many years past, have never, 
 in any respect whatever, been led to the conclusions, of the truth of 
 which he seems himself to be so fully convinced. But I regret also, that 
 he should be opposed in the way and spirit he has been : and partic- 
 ularly that Prof Stowe should have dropped some of the remarks he 
 has in his pamphlet. He has said that all writers on the subject of 
 chronological prophecy have "assumep," that the forty-two months, 
 or a rime, times and a half, are so many years as there are days 
 in these periods. Some may have done so. I confess that I did in my 
 Dissertations, because my subject led me not into the discussion of 
 that point, because the argument rendered it unnecessary, and be- 
 cause I had been satisfied with the proofs adduced by Mede, Newton, 
 Faber and others. Theij do not assume it. Their arguments may 
 not be conclusive, but their inconclusiveness should be shown. Pro- 
 fessor Stowe has not done so. Nor has he, as I think, proved that 
 these are definite numbers used merely to denote a definite or limited 
 
92 PROF. Stuart's summary process of 
 
 His representation of it is of a piece with his assertion, 
 that I " everywhere quote the Apocalypse" by a new title, 
 viz. Revelations. When I quote it, it is as he has done 
 himself. When I refer to the hook and speak of it, I fre- 
 quently, not " everywhere ^^^ use the plural, in common with 
 many authors, to express the number and variety of the re- 
 velations God made to the Apostle John, and which are 
 embodied in it. 
 
 In the eleventh chapter of the Dissertations, the attentive 
 reader will find another argument, founded on the strict 
 grammatico-historical interpretation of 2 Thess. ii. 1 — 12, 
 (not ii. 5 — 7 as he has it,) showing that the coming of 
 Christ will be pre-millennial, or cotemporaneous, with the 
 destruction of popery. Other passages of Scripture are in- 
 
 peiiod. All times referrciJ ^ o in prophecy are of necessity definite ar 
 limited, whether a number is used to express them or not. It is a 
 very easy thing to tell when round numbers are used, in which the 
 speaker does not intend to be understood to speak exactly, arwl when 
 statistical numbers and dates ate used, where he does. Daniel's 230Q 
 evening-mornings niust be understood as statistically or chronologi- 
 cally exact, if ever any numbers can be ; or else the angel did not an- 
 swer his question which we read he did, for they are given in answer to 
 y the specific question, how long. I cannot take such liberty in explain- 
 ing the word of God, because I would not dare to do it, in explaining 
 Prof. Stowe or Prof. Stuart, or any one else, if in arjswer to my ques- 
 tion, how long, they should give me a specific number in reply. Prof. 
 Stowe's object is to excite distrust as to all dates, aflirming that 
 we cannot tell when the apostasy of Rome commenced. If he had 
 said we know not the date which God had in view he would be cor- 
 rect, and we should be urged to modesty : but it is rather a matter 
 of surprise to me, to bear it said that we cannot tell by a century 
 when Rome became an apostate church. If we can tell that she is 
 so now, there can be but little difiiculty in determining about when 
 she became so. Still more surprising does it appear to me, that Prof, 
 Stowe, having rejected all dates and all " Millenial arithmetic" 
 down at least till 1926, should have nevertheless told us that the 
 most probable period for commencing the Millejinium is about A. 
 A). 2000 ! ! .' 
 
GETTING RID OF THE ARGUMENT. 93 
 
 troduced, as they serve to illustrate or throw light upon the 
 language and meaning of the Apostle. Prof. S. has given a 
 bald list of texts, without stating their connection, or my 
 object in quoting them, or the specific use made of them, 
 and affirms my " main reliance" to be on them. It suited 
 his purpose, doubtless, to keep his readers in ignorance. 
 
 The only thing he has adduced, in reply to the argument 
 in the eleventh chapter, is the following, which I give as a 
 specimen of worse than puerile weakness : *' Specially and 
 at length does h6 argue the point, that 2 Thess. ii. 8, which 
 speaks of the man of sin being destroyed by the breath of 
 the mouth, and the brightness of the appearing of Christ, 
 admits of no other than a strictly literal sense," p. 310, seq. 
 If the point is argued, certainly it behooved him to notice 
 the argument, and to show its fallacy ; but this lie has re- 
 fused to do, falling back on his own claimed authoritative 
 supremacy, as interpreter of Scripture, whose ipse dixit is 
 law, and saying, *' For myself, after turning this matter 
 round and round, in order to view it on every side, / have 
 not been able to make out what the breath of the mouthy in 
 a strictly literal sense, is, of a being which at most has only 
 a spiritual body (1 Cor. xv. 44 : comp. Phil. iii. 21) ; for 
 such must be the case, in respect of the body of Jesus in 
 the world of glory. Nor am I able to see how brightness, 
 (in the original lni(pavsla,) in the strictly literal sense, can 
 destroy either the man of sin or any other man. It might 
 put oiit their eyes, if carried to a certain extent ; but this 
 would not be to destroy them. And as to this last word, 
 destroy, if all the rest of the verse is strictly literal, of 
 course this part of it is so. The consequence then is in- 
 evitable, that when Christ comes the man of sin and his 
 adherents are to be annihilated ; for nothing less than this 
 can meet the full and literal import of the word avaXcaast, 
 destroy." App. p. 170, 171. 
 
 Now this, what — notwithstanding I yield all the respect 
 
 6 
 
94 
 
 to Prof. S. in other matters which he merits — I must call 
 miserable drivelling badinage, is all that he pretends to offer, 
 in reply to a regular extended argument ! an " entertain- 
 ment," as he calls it, quite as offensive to men who think 
 for themselves and love to reason,- 
 
 Ut gralas inter mensas symphonia discors 
 
 Et crassurn unguentum, et sardo cum melle papaver 
 
 Ofifendunt. 
 
 As jarring music at a jovial feast, 
 Or muddy essence, or th' ungrateful taste 
 • Of bitter honey, shall the guests displease. 
 
 In the argument, which he has thus attempted to laugh 
 to scorn, I have denied, that the language in the text is 
 metaphorical, or that it of necessity must be tropically under- 
 stood. The onus prohandi falls on those who say it is, and 
 must be so understood. But I have fortified my denial by 
 arguments, and have further shown, that the expressions, 
 " the spirit of his mouth," " the brightness of his appear- 
 ing," cannot possibly be construed into metaphor, and are, 
 in common with other phrases employed on this subject, 
 always used in the strict literal sense, when they occur in 
 the New Testament. Dissertations, p. 311. I have also 
 given two distinct and independent arguments, in proof of 
 this point, and a reference to the words and an examination 
 of their import, in every place where they occur in the New 
 Testament. See Dissertations, pp. 311-325. 
 
 Prof S. reverts to the argumentum ah ignoratitia, and 
 pleads his ignorance, — after his utmost effort to imagine 
 what can be the hreatTi of the mouth of a spiritual hody, — as 
 though it therefore must be, in any other than a tropical 
 sense, an absurdity or impossibility. To this I might reply, 
 in the well-known words of Shakspeare : 
 
 There are niore things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, 
 Than are dreamt of in your philosophy ! 
 
GETTING RID OF THE ARGUMENT. 95 
 
 But I will not reprove him by the English bard, but by 
 his English Bible, referring him to an historical fact, which, 
 despite of all Prof S.'s professed ignorance and imbecility 
 of judgment, after turning the matter "round and round," 
 -remains a literal fact, nevertheless. The blessed Redeemer, 
 in his raised body — his " spiritual body," — stood in the midst 
 of his disciples, and said once and again, " Peace be unto 
 you, &LC.," and when he had said this, he breathed on them, 
 &/C. — John XX. 19 — 22. Moses and Elias appeared with 
 Christ, on the mount of transfiguration, talking with Him. — 
 Mat. xvii. 3. What is speech but articulate sounds proceed- 
 ing from the mouth 1 and what creates sound, but air put in 
 vibratory motion 1 — all strictly, liWrally true. This were 
 enough to reprove the Professor's attempt to make his notions 
 of the powers of a " spiritual body" a standard and rule of 
 interpretation, as to the meaning of Scriptural expressions. 
 
 But his attempt at wit, is even more censurable still ; for 
 I have shown that the literal sy em of interpretation does 
 not treat with disrespect the id ms of speech, but requires 
 them to be duly attended to in analyzing the meaning of 
 expressions ; and I have further shown, that the phrase, *' the 
 breath of his mouth," was an idiomatic form of speech among 
 the Hebrews, and given examples from the Old Testament, 
 which determine its meaning in two respects, according to 
 the W5MS loquendi, or popular use of the phrase, to be either, 
 or both, a mighty tempest or a mighty voice or shout. See 
 Dissertations, pp. 321, 322. Now it is a matter of little or no 
 moment, whether, in the first instance, such forms of speech 
 were tropical or not. Ernesti tells us that " usage sometimes 
 converts tropical words into proper ones,^^ and by proper 
 words, he means those that are literal " in respect to their 
 meaning." See Ernesti's Principles of Interpretation, pp. 
 21, 23. Even Professor S. himself, in a note on p. 13, when 
 speaking of Ernesti's condemnation of one of Origen's posi- 
 tions, approved by some of the Fathers after him, and echoed 
 
96 
 
 by many Romish doctors, thai some passages of Scripture 
 have no literal sense, says, *' By literal sense here, Ernesti 
 means a sense not allegorical or mystical; for to this, lit- 
 teral is here opposed, and not to tropical, as it commonly 
 is." This Professor S. knows is precisely the sense in 
 which I have used the word literal, or if not, he betrays an 
 obtuseness of perception, of which I would not have sus- 
 pected him ; for I challenge any and every unsophisticated 
 and unprejudiced man, to read, with ordinary degree of at- 
 tention, what I have written on the subject of the literal 
 system of interpretation, and get any other idea out of it. I 
 have never met or hea]^ of one of my numeroGs hearers, 
 who attended the delivery of the Lectures, — in substance 
 the same with the Dissertations, — that ever conceived or 
 understood me to use the word literal in the invidious sense, 
 which Prof. S. has given it in his " strictures," or in any 
 other than as he himself has defined or explained it. 
 
 His remarks about the meaning of the word brigJitness 
 are almost too trifling, to receive a moment's attention. It 
 is wit of the stalest sort. He admits that brightness might 
 put out the eyes. I will not condescend to play as I might 
 upon the proper and tropical import of these his idiomatic 
 expressions, nor to notice what meaning the usus loquendi 
 gives them, for it is too trifling for so grave a theme ; but 
 it would be only doing what he has done. All I have to 
 say is, that if intense brightness is capable of destroying the 
 organs of vision, it is not unreasonable to believe, that it 
 can be so increased as to disturb yet more perniciously 
 the animal economy. He had much better have consulted 
 physiological and pathological writers, for information on 
 the influence and effects of concentrated light upon the vi- 
 tal system, before he allowed himself to attempt, in his con- 
 fessed ignorance, to be witty. 
 
 Beside, it is a very common process of thought, and usage 
 of speech, when we designate any thing by an expression 
 
GETTING RID OF THE ARGUMENT. ^t 
 
 which describes one conspicuous and remarkable power or 
 property, to judge and speak of its effects and operations 
 by means of other powers or properties intimately, essentially, 
 or inseparably united with it. The Scriptures, for example, 
 designate the Saviour sometimes by the phrase the Son of Man, 
 which is especially appropriate to his humanity, and yet at 
 the very same time speak of acts or powers which pertain 
 to and imply his divinity, and vice versa. 
 
 With intense brightness we associate the i4ea of intense 
 heat, nor can we well separate them. It is not necessary to 
 express an object by a term or terms that denote both ; either 
 will do. Prof S. certainly cannot have forgotten, or failed 
 to observe from other passages in the Scriptures, that the 
 brightness attendant on the coming and manifestation of 
 Jesus Christ, to which such destructive efficiency is attri- 
 buted, is that of devouring Jire. Paul says expressly, that 
 *' the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven — inflaming 
 fire, iv 7ZVQL cployog, taking vengeance on them that know 
 not God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the 
 presence of the Lord and from the glory (dohjg, which is 
 but another word for concentrated light, effulgence or bright- 
 ness, see Luke ii. 9, ix. 31 : Actsxxii. 11, &c.) of his power." 
 The plain common reader finds no such difficulty of appre- 
 hension as that of which Prof S. complains. 
 
 Perhaps he is a philosopher, and does not take things in 
 such a plain and obvious import, but must discover some 
 other quo mode of destroying brightness, than " the fervent 
 heat" which shall melt the elements, according to 2 Peter iii. 
 10. Has he then ever investigated, but forgotten, the im- 
 mensely dv^structive power of that intense brightness, the 
 concentrated electric fluid in its transits, and how instanta- 
 neously it does more than put out the eyes, even destroys 
 life, rives the gnarled oak, and rends the very rocks ? 
 
98 
 
 Surely he has forgotten to consult even his Bible on this 
 subject ; for David would have solved the wonderful mystery 
 for him, when he describes the coming of the Lord in glory 
 and majesty : " At the brightness that was before him his 
 thick clouds passed ; hail-stones and coals of fire. The 
 Lord also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave 
 his voice ; hail-stones and coals of fire. Yea, he sent out 
 his arrows, and scattered them ; and he shot out lightnings 
 and discomfited them. Psalm xviii. 12 — 14. 
 
 Perhaps, also, he will tell us, this is a poetical description 
 of a mighty and magnificent thunder storm. Be it so; but 
 what if the presence of the Lord, his bright appearing, be 
 in the very midst of such a tempest, as it once was when he 
 descended on Sinai ! Will Professor S. ask how such bright- 
 ness can destroy? His plea of ignorance here is more 
 than weakness. Nor can he relieve himself by assigning, 
 as he has done, to the word destroy, dvaXmaEi, the meaning 
 of annihilation, as its only proper literal signification. For 
 the proper or literal idea of the word destroy, is to pull 
 down, to level in ruins, to dissolve and reduce to its original 
 elements, to disturb and disarrange existing order and or- 
 ganization, always according to the nature of the thing of 
 which it is predicated. The idea of annihilation is alto- 
 gether philosophical, or I should say, anti-philosophical, and 
 forms no part of the literal import of the English word de- 
 stroy, or of the Greek word dvaXiano). Fire consumes^ and 
 destroys, but it does not annihilate. When the disciples 
 asked, " Lord wilt thou that we command fire to come down 
 from heaven, and consume them, as Elias did ?" — dvaXojcca 
 avzvog — Luke ix. 54, they meant to be literally understood, 
 and to destroy the Samaritans as literally as at Elias's com- 
 mand, " there came down fite from heaven, and consumed 
 him and his fifty," 2 Kings i. 10, i. e., the captain and his com- 
 pany ; but in all this, neither the idea nor the fact of anni- 
 
gett/ng rid of the argument. 99 
 
 hilation forms part and parcel of the literal import of the ex- 
 pression. Professor S. has attempted to be witty here in 
 the most awkward manner, 
 
 Ludere qui nescit, campestribus abstinet arrais, 
 Indoctusque pilae discive, trochive quiescit, 
 Ne spissae risum toUant impune coronse. 
 
 The man, who knows not how with art to wield 
 The sportive weapons of the martial field, 
 The bounding ball, round quoit, or whirling troque, 
 Will but the laughter of the crowd provoke. 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 J? 
 
 PROF£SSOE. STUARt's ADROITNESS, ETC. IN EVADING A MAIN 
 QUESTION. 
 
 A VERY important and essential inquiry kept in view 
 throughout the Dissertations is, whether the Scriptural idea 
 and account of the day of judgment are not, in many re- 
 spects, much more extended, comprehensive, and widely 
 different from the popular notion of a mere judiciary trial 
 for personal retributions. I have admitted that this limited, 
 floating, ill-designed, and generally prevalent idea, of the 
 nature of the day of judgment, if assumed, will render it 
 exceedingly difficult, yea impossible, to harmonize the pre- 
 dictions of the prophets relative to the day of judgment by 
 the literal system of interpretation, and indeed I may add 
 by any other. I have nevertheless assumed, that they can 
 be harmonized, and stated some reasons why it is found 
 difficult to do so. 
 
 God is the author of order and not of confusion, and there- 
 fore, if there are to us apparent inconsistencies and contra- 
 dictions in the Scriptural account of the day of judgment, 
 it is but fair and right to conclude that they are owing, not 
 to the fact of there being such things in the system of pro- 
 phecy, but that we have neither rightly apprehended the 
 meaning of the prophets, nor seen the different parts and 
 provisions of God's wondrous plan from the same point or 
 in the same light in which they did. We find difficulty in 
 harmonizing the historical accounts of the resurrection of 
 Christ, given us by the Evangelists ; yet is it not impossible 
 to do so. How much more difficult, however, must it be, 
 where the future, and not the past, becomes the theme of 
 investigation ? 
 
101 
 
 In the twelfth chapter of the Dissertations, I have attempted 
 to compare the different accounts of the day of judgment 
 given by Daniel, Christ, Paul,~ and John, especially the 
 more extended account of the Saviour, in the 25th chapter of 
 Matthew. Two very different ideas have been apprehended 
 by biblical students, as to what is the scriptural view of the 
 nature of the day of judgment. One is, that it will be a 
 very short or limited period, during which the dead in all 
 ages, and the livingi, will be all promiscuously gathered, in 
 one vast assembly, before Jesus Christ the Judge, to be tried 
 and to receive their final and eternal sentence. One por- 
 tion, the righteous, being separated from the wicked and 
 placed on the right hand, called the sheep, the other, the 
 wicked, on the left hand, called the goats, to whom re- 
 spectively, in their universal collections or segregations, the 
 awards of grace and of justice, which fix their condition 
 for eternity, shall be simultaneously made. The other ^ 
 idea is, that the Scriptures do not give this account of 
 the day of judgment ; but that it is properly and strictly 
 a new dispensation, viz. that of the kingdom of Heaven 
 actually come upon the earth, introduced by the visible 
 manifestation of Christ with his raised saints, as the 
 Avenger and Judge of his people ; at which time the nations 
 then existing, in their character as organized bodies, or 
 masses of men in national bonds and relations, shall be 
 judged and punished as their crimes shall deserve ; those 
 denominated antichristian, who had opposed and persecuted 
 the people of God, shall be judged and destroyed; the rem- 
 nant of the Jewish race converted, collected, and established ' 
 in the land promised to their forefathers ; the Theocracy 
 revived ; and the reign of Jesus Christ, and of his associa- 
 ted and raised saints, as his subordinate agencies, and as 
 administrators in some new, peculiar, and to us inconceiva- 
 ble yet glorious manner, appropriate to their spiritual and ^ 
 glorified condition — be extended over the earth, in a blessed 
 
 6* 
 
102 PROF. Stuart's adroitness, etc. 
 
 and wonderful system of rule or judgment, during which 
 Satan shall exert no influence among men. This dispensa- 
 tion, after having continued a thousand years, shall be suc- 
 ceeded by the last effort of satanic and human wickedness, 
 issuing in the utter destruction of the conspirators in 
 the final acts of retributive justice, in the judgment of 
 the dead and living, in the eternal expulsion of Satan and of 
 his hosts from this world, in the eternal retributions of the 
 wicked, and in the eternal state of peace, glory, and felici- 
 ty, when this world, renewed, refashioned, and restored 
 to its pristine glorious and good condition, shall be the 
 abode of righteousness, and the mediatorial kingdom of 
 Jesus Christ give place to the direct, immediate reign of 
 Heaven, in which "God shall be all and in all," and death 
 for ever cease its ravages. This is but the most rapid sketch 
 of thegr eat scenes comprehended in the day or dispensation 
 oi judgment, lasting for one thousand years, andcalling into 
 exercise not only the judiciary, but the legislative and execu- 
 tivefunctions of Jesus Christ, our Judge and Lawgiver and 
 King. 
 
 I have endeavored to show that this idea of the Millen- 
 nium, being itself Me day of judgment, the dispensation of 
 Heaven's rule, is that which naturally grows oiit of the 
 grammatico-historical interpretation of the prophecies, ren- 
 ders all that the prophets and apostles have predicted per- 
 fectly harmonious, and is in accordance with the fair and 
 legitimate import of Christ's language in the 24th and 25th 
 chapters of Matthew, and their parallel passages in the other 
 Evangelists, thus interpreted. Prof. S. has not dropped a 
 hint, that such a difference exists as to the scriptural import 
 of the day of judgment. On the contrary, the idea of the 
 Millennium being itself the prolonged and glorious judg- 
 ment-day, he has studiously concealed, and represents me 
 as making a great effort " to remove the great stumbling- 
 block to" (my) ** system," as he chooses to call it, viz., *' the 
 
IN EVADING A MAIN QUESTION. 103 
 
 day of judgment and the coming of the Son of Man, when 
 this day shall be ushered in." App. p. 171. All that I hate 
 to say in reply, is, that he chooses to use the word judgment, 
 in his own limited and assumed sense, — keeps back what I 
 declare to be the scriptural idea, and then, carrying his own 
 idea along with him, — as though mine too was ideiitical 
 with his, — attempts to point out, and sneer at, my alleged 
 inconsistencies. I leave honourable men to judge of such a 
 method of evading a main question at issue, not doubting 
 what their judgment will be. 
 
 I am not at' present concerned to establish these views. 
 The reader may consult what I have written, and Prof S. 
 is riespectfully requested, not hi the spirit of his " strictures," 
 but in Christian courtesy and calm investigation, to review 
 the subject, and to say what are, and what he has to support, his 
 ideas of the day of judgment, as well as what ar6 the fallacies, 
 in the application of the principles of grammatico-historical 
 interpretation, that bring out from the prophetic writings the 
 Mea of the kingdom of Heaven, and the Millennial state, being 
 the new dispensation of judgment, in the multiform varidfies 
 and administration of governmental rule or dominion, com- 
 mencing at the Saviour's coming, but prolonged, until 
 it is perfected in the consummation of this world's redemp- 
 tion from the tyranny of the devil. It concerns me only to 
 notice the few specimens of what I must call, without mean- 
 ing any personal disrespect, either his misapprehension of 
 the whole subject, or misrepresentation of my language and 
 argument. 
 
 "The sum of" (my) "results," he says, "is as follows : 
 (1.) The nations in the flesh, and such only as have pers:e- 
 cuted the Jews and the Church (p. 364), are. to be gathered, 
 judged, and destroyed ; and this judgment is to last through 
 centuries," p. 366. The reader would suppose from this, 
 that I taught that the divine retributive punishment of the 
 nations devoted to destruction, which is the sense in which 
 
104* PROF, stuart's adroitness, etc. 
 
 he uses the words judge and judgment, as here applied, is to 
 be in a course of infliction for centuries. I have not so 
 written or taught. Prof. S. has jumbled together his own 
 conceits, not my statements. 
 
 On page 364, I am tracing the resemblance between 
 Christ's accountof the judgment, and Ezekiel's, in ch. xxxiv., 
 on "the Gentile nations for having scattered his people 
 abroad," &:,c., that is, the retributive judgments or punish- 
 ment inflicted on them. On p. 366 I am speaking of the 
 Millennial dispensation, as the great day or dispensation of 
 judgment, according to the view already stated, of its being 
 the entire, varied, and extended dominion of Christ and his 
 saints. Prof. S. has confounded these things, and thus 
 misrepresented the views expressed. 
 
 He continues, "(2.) No resurrection of the wicked pre- 
 cedes this judgment, but only the resurrection of saints." — 
 If he means, by " this judgment" the Dispensation of judg- 
 ment, or Dominion of Christ and His saints, introduced by 
 Christ's coming, the resurrection of his saints, and the des- 
 truction of the antichristian nations, he has stated my views 
 correctly. If he means by " this judgment," his own notion 
 of the day of judgment, then he has misrepresented them ; 
 for I believe with him, that, at the termination of the 1000 
 years, the wicked shall be raised, and all shall be judged. 
 
 In the third particular about the visible dominion of Christ 
 and his saints on this earth, if " by arranging and governing 
 the new terrestrial kingdom," he means " the. kingdom of 
 Heaven," as I have taught, in its own glorious, peculiar 
 and wonderful adaptation to the circumstances of the occa- 
 sion, and the design of Heaven, he has stated my views cor- 
 rectly ; but if he means any thing else by the phrase " new 
 terrestrial kingdom," he has misrepresented them. 
 
 He thinks that little or no comment, on his part, is neces- 
 sary, to expose " this effort of Mr. D.," as he calls it ; but 
 adventures, in a f\itile effort — (I was about to characterize it 
 
IN EVADING A MAIN QUESTION. 105 
 
 more severely,) — to convict me of having contradicted the 
 Saviour. "(1.) Christ himself," he remarks, " says, that 
 * he will come in his glory, with all his holy angels,^ when he 
 is about to sit upon his throne of judgment. Mat. xxv. 31. 
 Mr. D. says that he will come with all his saints, thus ma- 
 king ayysXoi (angels) to mean holy men or saints.^' On the 
 next page, referring to th^ same thing, he adds : " he violates 
 the idiom of the Greek, by making angels into saints.'^ There 
 is something too little in this sort of criticism almost to de- 
 serve notice. As a specimen alike of candour and scholarship 
 it merits the severest rebuke. I have heard of a certain 
 Professor who commenced a series of intended classical 
 publications, with the Tusculan questions enriched cumnotis 
 et annotationihus, whose errors, and ignorance of Latin 
 idioms, were so glaringly exposed by another more erudite 
 Professor, as to make him desist from the enterprise. What 
 Prof. S. means by *' the idiom of the Greek" being violated 
 by my translating 6t ayioi ayysXot, the holy messengers, i. e. 
 the saints, which I have supported by reasons stated, I will 
 not undertake to say, but I must ask something better 
 than an ex cathedra judgment from onp reproved for 
 ignorance of Latin idioms, before I submit to be thus con- 
 demned. 
 
 The word ayysXog (angel) denotes, generic ally, a messen- 
 ger ; 01 ayioi uyyEloi means the holy messengers. Prof. S. 
 must prove that invariably, in Greek, this last phrase, 6t 
 aywi ayyeXoi, means the immaterial, spiritual beings employed 
 as messengers by God, appellatively and distinctively called 
 bi iiyyeloi, the angels, before he can charge me with having 
 violated the Greek idiom by an attempt to show from parallel 
 passages of Scripture that " the holy messengers or angels" 
 bi ayioi ayyeXoi, spoken of in Matt. xxv. 31, are not this class 
 of messengers, but the saints. He must also show, that these 
 latter cannot ever be employed as messengers. He can do 
 neither of these things. 
 
106 PROF. Stuart's adroitness, etc. 
 
 On p. 352 of the Dissertations, the reader will find a criti- 
 cism on this subject, supported with reasons, showing that 
 parallel passages of Scripture raise the strong presumption, 
 at least, that the angels or messengers who shall attend the 
 presence of Christ at His coming, and when seated on his 
 throne, will be the saints, the holy ones, of whom Enoch, Jude 
 V. 14, and Zachariah xiv. 5, prophesied. Prof S. has taken no 
 notice of thi^ at all, but says I have violated the Greclc 
 idiom!! Now the words in Mat xxv. 31, are bi ayioi 
 ayyeloi ^ez aviov, the holy angels with him. It is not oi 
 ayytXoi, appellatively and emphatically the angels, as he 
 would evidently, but falsely — I do not say designedly — lead 
 the English reader to think. Winer, in his Idioms of the 
 language of the New Testament, will tell him, that words 
 qualifying nouns, which have the article, are placed either 
 between the article and noun or after the noun, if the quali- 
 fying terms be adjectives or nouns'with prepositions : ayioi^ 
 therefore, in Matt. xxv. 31, is the qiialiji cation of the liyyEXoi, 
 messengers that shall attend the coming of Christ — their 
 peculiar, distinctive property, or honour. 
 
 According to the common use of the word, ayioi in the 
 New Testament, used adjectively, denotes holy, and as a 
 noun, saints ; it is the special quality of God's elect, i. e., 
 of His saints. In the present case it qualifies the angels or 
 messengers, as the holy — the saint-messengers. Luke ix, 
 26 is a parallel passage with this, affording a like exam- 
 ple. But in Mark viii. 38, another parallel passage, we have 
 an example of the second method of arranging the words 
 according to the Greek idiom stated by Winer, viz., the 
 qualifying noun or adjectjve occurring after a preposition, 
 lieta iav ayytXcov rmv dyicov, with the angels or messengers, 
 the holy ones or saints. In the one case. Matt. xxv. 31, 
 it is the saint-messengers ; in the other, Mark viii. 38, the 
 messenger saints. 
 
 We can see a very sufficient reason for the use of ayioi 
 
IN EVADING A MAIN QUESTION. 107 
 
 and kyi(ov in this connection, as the words designate who 
 are to be the attendant messengers of Christ at His coming, 
 when he takes his seat, and while sitting on his throne. — 
 There is none whatever in Prof. S.'s supposition, that the 
 angeh, appellatively and emphatically so called, the incor- 
 poreal, spiritual beings of another order of intelligence from 
 the saints, are here spoken of Moreover, I call upon him 
 to produce one single passage in the New Testament where 
 they are tMis designated and called, emphatically and de- 
 nominationally, the holy angels — hi ayioi ayytloi. He will 
 find one case. Acts x. 22, where Cornelius is said to have 
 been warned by one special messenger, vno ayytXov ayiov, 
 ^and other Greek forms, such as 6i ayytloi zmv ov^avcov, 
 &-c.,but never except in the cases where I say, according 
 to Winer, the Greek idiom designates a special, distinctive 
 qualification of the messengers of Christ. Prof S. has as- 
 sumed, and referred to the very texts in dispute in proof, that 
 the phrase, the holy angels, oi ayioi ayyeXot, is applied to 
 the angels of Heaven, the angels of God, i. e., the incorpo- 
 real spirits of a different order of intelligence from the 
 saints. This is begging the question. 
 
 If Prof S. means to say, that I have violated the idiom of 
 the Greek, as his language expressly declares, by making 
 ayyEloi alone, or simply and emphatically, refer to the sairxts, 
 and as thus translating the word, he says what is not the fact, 
 and deceives his reader. He has his choice here, either of 
 gross misrepresentation, or of excessive and highly censura- 
 ble carelessness. If he means to say that I violated the 
 idiom of the Greek, by my explanation of the passages 
 referred to, where the phrases 6i ayioi ayy^Xoi, or tiav 
 ayysXojv rmv ayimVy the holy messsengers, or the messengers 
 the saints, occur, then I leave those who can appreciate the 
 value and accuracy of Winer, on the idioms of the New 
 Testament, to say whether he is not the transgressor here. 
 
loa 
 
 ETC. 
 
 and not I. If the reader thinks this to be severe, I have 
 no other apology to offer, than the remark of Juvenah 
 
 Omne animi vitium tanto conspectius in se 
 Crimen babet, quanto major, qui prseerat, habetur. 
 The fault, so much t^e worse, is always deemed, 
 As he that errs, for greatness is esteemed. 
 
 I give another specimen of Prof S.'s misrepresentations. 
 He says, App. p. 171 : " (2.) Christ says no more about the 
 resurrection of the bodies of saints here, than he does about 
 that of sinners. He says in truth nothing of either ; know- 
 ing of course, that the mass of his hearers took the resurrect 
 tion for granted." If he means to say that I have said the 
 contrary, he is not sustained by the fact. I have said, how- 
 ever, that the 6i ayioi ayytXoi, the holy messengers, whom He 
 brings with Him, according to '' the Greek idiom" are the 
 saints ; and of course, if that be the fact, the resurrection of 
 their bodies occurs at this epoch, seeing it is explicitly taught 
 by Paul, 1 Thess. v. 16, who asserts di priority of the resur- 
 rection of the saints, but how long, whether one hour or one 
 thousand years before the wicked, says not. If Prof S. 
 says simultaneously or immediately after, let him prove it, 
 especially before he charges me with error here, as he has 
 done. 
 
 A third and still more glaring specimen of misrepresen- 
 tation occurs in what follows: '* (3.) Christ says that all 
 nations are to be gathered before him ; Mr. D. says that 
 only persecutors of Jewish Christians are to he judged, and 
 these while in the flesh." There must be some unaccoun- 
 table obtuseness of perception in Prof S.'s mind, to admit 
 of his being betrayed into sucji unfounded assertions. He 
 knows, or, if he reads with ordinary attention what I 
 have written, he could not fail to know, that I have not 
 used, as synonymous, the words *' gathered before Him," and 
 *' judged," as he has done. The reader will see in the Dis- 
 
IN EVADING A MAIN QUESTION. 109 
 
 sertations, pp. 3^S,&lc., a careful examination of the import 
 of the expression, ''gathered before Him," and reasons also 
 to show that it cannot mean the universal promiscuous resur- 
 rection of the dead, but something very different. Prof S. 
 pays no attention to this ; but, assuming his own notion of 
 the process of the day of judgment to be correct and scrip- 
 tural, he uses it for the purpose of charging me with having 
 contradicted the blessed Redeemer. 
 
 I appeal here to his own sense of justice, and to every 
 honourable mind, to say, what such conduct should be 
 called. I have not denied, that all nations shall be gathered 
 before the Saviour, — not even in Prof Stuart's sense of a 
 final, promiscuous, universal resurrection of the dead. I 
 have not said that only persecutors of Jews and Christians 
 are to be judged, and these while in the flesh. I challenge 
 him to the proof of his assertions, and charge him with 
 having, either totally misapprehended the plain and obvious 
 import of my language and remarks, or with having egre- 
 giously misrepresented me, and deceived his reader. 
 
 I give the reader another specimen. " The separation" 
 says Prof S. " of the two parties — sheep and goats — is affirm- 
 ed by Christ to be complete, universal, and of eternal dura- 
 tion, Matt. XXV. 32-46 : Mr. D. makes it the tvoric of centuries, 
 a long and difficult and gradual process, and finally extends 
 it onli/ to persecutors of Jews and Christians." Before he 
 can charge me with contradicting the Saviour, he should 
 have provedj^rs^, that the separation of which Christ speaks, 
 between the sheep and goats, is that of individuals, and not 
 of nations ; second, that it takes place instantaneously ; 
 third, that it occurs at the time of the universal resurrection 
 of the dead, of which John speaks. Rev. xx. 1 — 6. This he 
 has not even attempted. 
 
 I have shown, see Dissertations p. 342, 343, 359, — 365, 
 that there are such radical differences between the account 
 of Christ's separating between the sheep and the goats, and 
 
ilO PROF, stuart's adroitness, etc. 
 
 John's account of the final day of retribution after the Mil- 
 lennium, when the dead, small and great, shall be personally 
 judged, is to prove they cannot refer to the same identical 
 scenes and transactions. And as to the process of separa- 
 tion being the work of centuries, Slc, ^s Prof. S. affirms that 
 I teach, all I have to say is, that I have done no such thing, 
 and challenge him to th6 proof. Were I disposed to adopt 
 Prof. Stuart's style of argument, by which he seeks to con- 
 vict me of contradicting Christ, £tnd to apply it to him, how 
 easy would it be for me to make out, a far stronger, and 
 more striking case against him, than he has attempted 
 against me ! 
 
 Thus Professor S. has said (1,) that there will be one gene- 
 rsd, universal, and, if not simultaneous, at least rapidly suc- 
 ceeding, resurrection and congregating of the righteous and 
 the wicked before the throne of God. But Paul says the dead 
 in Christ shall rise first. And John says the souls of the 
 martyrs " lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years, 
 hut the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand 
 years were finished J ^ Rev. xx. 4, 5. 
 
 (2.) Professor S. says that there will and can be no visi- 
 ble kingdom of Christ and his raised saints on the earth ; 
 but the glorified saints themselves, redeemed to God out of 
 every kindred and tongue and people and nation, say, 
 '' Christ hath made us unto our God kings and priests ; and 
 WE SHALL REIGN ON THE EARTH." Rev. v. 9, 10. 
 
 (3.) Professor S. says that Jesus Christ will not come in 
 the clouds of heaven personally and visibly to establish his 
 kingdom on the earth. But Daniel says, " I beheld one like 
 the Son of Man come with the clouds of heaven, &c., and 
 there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, 
 that all people, nations, and languages should serve Him." 
 Dan. vii. 13, 14. Other examples might be added. I have 
 just as good a right to assume as he has. If he accounts it 
 unjust thus to charge him, what, I ask, makes that unjust to- 
 
IN EVADING A MAIN QUESTION. Ill 
 
 ward him that is not toward me? He actually, without 
 show of argument, assumes. I have done no such thing, 
 but supported my positions by Scriptural argument, and criti- 
 cal, philological, exegetical exposition. 
 
 The reader is now prepared to see how perfectly gratui- 
 tous are Professor S.'s charges against me, of contradicting 
 Christ, of violating the Greek idiom, of foisting in this ot 
 that, to meet my purpose, — of making *' the process (and of 
 course the punishment) a mere temporal and terrestrial mat- 
 ter," and of continuing the connection of the sheep and 
 goats for centuries after a final and eternal separation is as- 
 serted by Christ to be made. What " process" Professor S. 
 means, whether of the resurrection, or judgment, or what, 
 he does not say, nor can any one divine from his language. 
 But he asks, " What shall we say now to such argumenta- 
 tion as this?" That is, as he has stated it to be. I answer, 
 it is all false — the creations of his own excited and per- 
 turbed fancy — and say, in relation to his dreamings, in his 
 own words : " It would be difficult to find in any or all the 
 adventurous works on the prophecies, which have hitherto 
 made their appearance, any thing which exceeds this, either 
 in boldness of assertion, or in unfounded and presumptuous 
 criticism and philology.^' App. p. 17^. 
 
 He assumes certain things to be true, which he has not 
 proved, nor attempted to prove ; he applies his assumptions to 
 my definitions, criticisms and exposition of the Saviour's 
 language ; he " foists into the account just so much and no 
 more," of my real meaning, " as suits his purpose," and, as 
 it were saying unto me, 
 
 Udum et molle tutum es — 
 Soft and moist clay thou art — 
 
 he works up the vessel to dishonour, for his own and read- 
 ers' entertainment. " All that is said," says he, " in Scrip- 
 ture with respect to his (Christ's) coming to destroy Jerusa- 
 
112 ppoF. Stuart's adroitness, etc. 
 
 lem, and coming to vindicate his chosen, &c., is applied by 
 him, with little exception, to the anti-Millennial coming of 
 Christ, and applied in what he names the literal sense." 
 App. p. 172. It remains for Professor S. to prove, that the 
 Scriptures ever speak of Christ's coming in the sense he 
 here assumes they do, and that the passages I have cited, in 
 proof of his second visible personal coming, mean what he 
 SAYS they do. He is not allowed thus to try the question 
 in dispute, and then turn round, impertinently, and raise the 
 shout of victory. He may think he has perfectly triumphed, 
 and sent through the length and breadth of the land, such a 
 version of my views as will secure from the hundred trumpet 
 tongues of crying fame my unavoidable overpowering con- 
 demnation, so as to make me regret the folly and rashness 
 of which he has accused me ; but 
 
 Conscia mens recti, famoB mendaeia ridet. 
 
 The mind with conscious sense of right, 
 May hear the crowd its thoughts revile. 
 While in its calm sustaining might 
 At all the lies of fame can smile. 
 
 ■::smm^^^m.:'^   ■'■ 95"i^'«qi'^- '■ ^H^mm 
 

 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 PROF. STUART S CHARGES OF THE WANT OF EXPLICITNESS. 
 
 The reader, by this time, will not fail to be surprised 
 that a writer, who is himself so loose, and far from being 
 explicit, should bring a charge of this nature agaipst another, 
 who thus far at least has shown, that with what other things 
 he may be charged this is not appropriate. But that sur- 
 prise will quickly cease, when he learns that the charge is 
 not founded so much upon what has been, as upon what 
 has not been written. sy 
 
 Wisjirst count is, that in giving the general outline of 
 the Millenarian's views of scriptural prophecy — one item of 
 which is the expectation of a Revived Theocracy in this 
 world, having Jerusalem for its centre and capital, and ex- 
 tending as efficiently and fully its blessings to all the 
 nations of the earth, as the old Jewish Theocracy did to the 
 tribes of Israel, — I spoke only of " rites of worship adapted 
 to the dispensation in which Jerusalem and the Jewish 
 nation are to stand pre-eminent among the nations," and 
 did not ''say plainly," as he would have me, "that the i | 
 Levitical ritual of sacrifices, and offerings, and ceremonies, ^ , 
 is to be reinstated^ This he has been pleased^ to ask his 
 reader to '' observe," as proof, " how guardedly" I have 
 expressed myself, lest perchance Prof S. or somebody else 
 might convict me of " a point blank contradiction of what 
 the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has affirmed and 
 taught." 
 
 Now this is a grievous charge. In reply to it, it were 
 enough for me to state, that the charge, true or false, has 
 nothing whatever to do with the leading object and argu- j 
 ments of the Dissertations. I have unciertaken to investi- 
 
^ 
 
 114 PROF. Stuart's charges of 
 
 gate the language and statements of the prophets relative 
 to the second coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, 
 and affirmed and taught, that the fair, candid, and consist- 
 ent application of the true principles of grammatico-histori- 
 cal interpretation, bring out, as the result, that that coming 
 will be pre-millennial. In doing so, I have incidentally given 
 an outline of the views of Millenarians, one item of whose 
 belief is, that a Theocracy shall be established in the world. 
 To give the details of their views, the arguments in support 
 of them, my own views and reasonings, or any appeal to 
 the Scriptures on the subject, I have not even attempted ; 
 because not necessary to the general argument, nor em- 
 braced in the specific object of the Dissertations. And yet, 
 for not doing this, I am accused of the " want of explicit- 
 ness." But how does he attempt to establish this charge ? 
 By direct quotations of any thing I have written? By a 
 careful analysis of any of my arguments 1 By fair and legi- 
 timate inferences from any positions I have advanced ? By 
 no means. This would have been a very explicit and ho- 
 nourable mpde of procedure. But the reader will be dis- 
 appointed, if he expects any such thing. It is by a process 
 quite tortuous and complicated, the very reverse of this, 
 that Prof. S. attempts to establish his charge of a want of 
 explicitness against me. 
 
 . First, he assumes that the Jews will not be restored to 
 their former relation to God, return to Palestine, and en- 
 joy the benefits of a theocratic government. See App. p, 
 174. All the point and force of his objection against 
 what he calls my '' views and system," are in this assump- 
 tion. With far more assurance of truth and propriety of 
 argument than he has exhibited when he charges me with 
 contradicting Christ and Paul, might I charge him with 
 " neither more nor less than a point blank contradiction of 
 what the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has affirmed and 
 taught," on the express authority of the Spirit of God speaking 
 
THE WANT OF EXPLICITNESS. 115 
 
 by Jeremiah the prophet, that, by the very covenant described 
 by the latter, referred to and in part quoted by the former, 
 God has stipulated and pledged^Hinjself that if the sun and 
 moon, those ordinances of God, depart from before Him, 
 then the seed of Israel shall cease from being a nation for 
 ever " Behold, the days come, saith the Lord that the city 
 shall be built to the Lord from the tower of Hananeel unto the 
 gate of the corner, and it shall nothe plucked up nor throvi'n 
 down any more for ever. Jer. xxxi. 31 — 40. 
 
 I am not now going to argue this point. The restoration 
 and return of the Jews to Palestine, their conversion and 
 re-establishment in their own land as a nation, are points 
 so clearly, fully, explicitly taught in the Bible, that nothing 
 but the most ingenious efforts, not of criticism, but metaphys- 
 ical, philosophical exposition, and allegorizing the predic- 
 tions, can set aside the scriptural evidence on this point. Prof. 
 S. has the countenance and support of few.compared with tlie 
 mass. He and Mr. Miller, with his followers, stand here pre- 
 cisely on the same ground, and adopt the same principles 
 of interpretation. He is infinitely nearer to them whom he 
 so severely denounces than I. 
 
 The only important difference I see between them is, that 
 Mr. Miller, with precisely the views of Prof. S. as to the 
 nature of the dayof judgment, brings it here in a fewmonths- — 
 before the Millennium — while the latter defers it till after 
 the one thousand years ; and that while Mr. Miller makes 
 the righteous rise one thousand years before the wicked, 
 Prof S. brings them all out of their graves simultaneously. 
 
 It is enough for me to take such passages as Deut. xxx. 1 — 
 10, xxxii. 26 — 43, Jer. xxxii. 36 — 44, xxxiii. 7 — 26; Ezek. 
 xxxvii. 20 — ^28 ; Zech. x. 6 — 12, xii. 2 — 4, and others parallel 
 with them, and having learned, by those parts of the predic- 
 tions already fulfilled, the principles of interpretation, that 
 they have been verified in literal historical realities, accord- 
 ing totheplaingrammatico-historical meaning of the language 
 
116 
 
 apply the very same principles to the parts not yet fulfilled, and 
 look for the literal historical reality of the events predicted. 
 It is insulting the understanding of men, to tell us, that they 
 have been all actually already fulfilled, and allegorize, phi- 
 losophize, and generalize, to make them suit this or the 
 other theory or speculation. Prof S., in so doing, is guilty 
 of the very thing he so justly and severely reprobates and 
 condemns in his Hints. It will cost him a vast amount of 
 time and labour ; and I may say to him, 
 
 Ssepe stilum vertas, iterum quoe digna leglsint 
 Scripturus — 
 
 Would you the reader's just esteem engage, 
 Correct with frequent care your blotted page — 
 
 before he can prove, what now he so dogmatically and au- 
 thoritatively assumes, that the prophets did not mean to 
 teach the literal restoration and re-establishment of Judah 
 and Israel, in the land which " God covenanted with their 
 fathers to give to them for an everlasting possession," but 
 meant something entirely and fundamentally different from 
 the plain, grammatical import of their language. 
 
 Having, however, assumed this, in order to make good his 
 charge, his next step, which we have already seen he is wont 
 to take, is to excite prejudice against my alleged views, by 
 telling the reader to observe my extreme caution " hot to 
 appear flatly to contradict an epistle which is mainly occu- 
 pied with taking down and removing that very building 
 which Mr. D. covertly endeavors to rear up and adorn anew." 
 App. p. 175. Having thus prepossessed the reader's mind 
 with false views and prejudices, he comes to tlie direct 
 proof — all turning upon the meaning he chooses to give to 
 the terms theocracy and rites of worship, which I have used 
 in stating the views of certain Millenarian writers. " Ob- 
 serve how guardedly this is expressed" by him : " A Theo- 
 cracy and rites of loorship cannot FAIRLY mean, IN 
 THE IDIOM OF THEOLOGIANS AND CRITICS, 
 
 % 
 
THE "WANT OP EXPLICITNESS. 117 
 
 any thing less than this ;" that is, as he most unequivocally 
 means to be understood, the identical Mosaic, Levitical rites , 
 which Paul says " serve unto the example and shadow of 
 heavenly things," and are " the figures of the true." " The 
 hasty reader," he admits, "may not, perhaps, at first view, 
 discern it;" that is, what he charges on me, and, therefor^, 
 forsooth, he must resort to " the idiom of theologians and 
 critics, to determine what a Theocracy and rites of worship 
 must mean. This is a new rule for the interpretation of 
 Scripture, which may suit the dark ages of popery, when for 
 centuries they had the only key, and it was the prescrip- 
 tive right of theologians and critics to say what the Bible 
 did mean : but it will be laughed to scorn by the sober, in- 
 telligent, reflecting laymen and members of the church, 
 who, however they may render the honour which may be due 
 to " theologians and critics," will never consent to adopt 
 their idiom in order to determine what a Theocracy and 
 rites of worship^ or any thing else revealed in the Scripture, 
 cannot or must not mean. By the aid of this new rule of 
 interpretation, proposed for the special benefit of biblical 
 professors, theologians and critics, he brings out his con- 
 clusion, and fixes on me, as he thinks indelibly, his accusa- 
 tion : " In so many words, plain and unequivocal, the Old 
 Testament, repeatedly, and in a great variety of ways, (I 
 mean, of course, when it is literally interpreted, as Mr. D. 
 would have it in other places,) declares the renewal of the 
 Leviticfil rites in connection with the return of the Jews." 
 Here we are at issue on a point of fact. I say it does not : 
 nor do the passages in Isaiah Ixvi. 16 — 24, or Ezekiel xliv. 
 and seq., to which Prof S. refers. 
 
 I admit that Jerusalem, and the temple, shall be rebuilt 
 and a new division of Palestine take place for the tribes, 
 and that the special ordinances detailed by Ezekiel, " even 
 the very measures of the city, temple, and possessions of 
 the Levites, as also the names of the city gates and every 
 
 7 
 
118 PROF. STUART*S CHARGES OF 
 
 thing of this nature, are all drawn out with exactness, like 
 the diagram of a building, or of a plot of ground ; so that 
 any doubt as to what is to be the future arrangement of all 
 these matters, is out of the question on the literal ground of 
 Mr. D." App. p. 175. But what then ? It is a perfect non 
 sequitur, which Prof. S. draws by way of inference, tJiem- 
 Jore the identical Theocracy and ritual of Moses, shall be re- 
 vived. Has he never read and compared Ezekiel and Le- 
 viticus, and seen the wonderful difference ? A Theocracy, 
 with a ritual of commemorative sacrifices, and institutions, 
 devoid of any mortal high priest, especially adapted to the 
 state of things in the world, to be developed in the provi- 
 dence of God on the restoration of the Jews, and in every 
 respect much more glorious, cannot be called the same 
 identical economy of Moses, which Paul says was but a 
 type and shadow of that which was to come, the command- 
 ment of which previously given has been disannulled for the 
 weakness and unprofitableness thereof, now that the true 
 High Priest, after the order of Melchizedec, has " not entered 
 into the holy places made with hands, the figures of the 
 true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of 
 God for us" — and where he is discharging for us the offices 
 of High Priest within the veil, seated " on the right hand of 
 the Majesty in the Heavens," " at the right hand of the 
 throne of God," " after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, 
 for ever sat down on the right hand of God, from hence- 
 forth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool," when 
 He shall return Priest and King upon Ms oum throne, and 
 give his raised saints, to sit down with Him on His throne, 
 as He is now sat down with His Father on his throne. If 
 Prof S. thinks, that any sacrificial rites, or theocratic in- 
 stitutions, are inconsistent in themselves, let him show what 
 greater impropriety there is, or can be, in commemorative 
 sacrifices, than in prospective sacrifices. But it is not for 
 him or for me to judge here. The question, is, what saith 
 
THE WANT OF EXPLICITNESS. 119 
 
 the Lord ? We must guard against any preconceived notions 
 whatever, any assumptions and postulates of our own, and 
 inquire at the mouth of the Lord, applying to the interpre- 
 tation of His language, the principles which He himself 
 hath taught us, and sanctioned by his holy providence, ful- 
 filling the predictions as far as the dispensations of his grace 
 have been developed in this world. 
 
 He thinks to terrify me, by his inferences, and doubtless 
 has persuaded himself, that I have studied reserve, if not 
 something worse, on this subject, for which he charges me 
 with want of explicitness. I fear not to follow, where the 
 Spirit of Christ leads. I am under no apprehensions about 
 the results, that will flow from the principles of interpreta- 
 tion, which God Himself has authorized to be applied to 
 his word. T care not here to defend the position into which 
 he thinks he has driven me. 
 
 I have said and taught that the Millennial dispensation, 
 as set forth in the word of God, is a new dispensation, mira- 
 culously to be introduced, as all the former were, having 
 its own peculiar, glorious, and wonderful features, which, 
 however Prof S. and I may be unable to understand now, 
 the day itself will abundantly declare. I value, infinitely 
 more, the word of Jesus Christ, than all the philosophy and 
 sophistry of the schools ; and dread nothing more, than to 
 exalt my preconceived opinions of the nature of things, as a 
 standard or rule, by which to judge of the glorious things, 
 " which eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, and of which 
 it hath not entered into the heart of man to conceive.'^ I 
 confide implicitly in the wisdom of Jesus Christ, and the 
 perfect knowledge he has of human nature, and the ease and 
 success with which he can adapt his own institutions and 
 arrangements, to the compound nature of man, and bring the 
 benign sway of Heaven to bear directly on this revolted 
 world, when the time comes for Satan to be violently ex- 
 pelled, retributive justice executed on the nations, and the 
 
120 
 
 Kingdom of Heaven established in its visibility on this 
 earth. 
 
 I know no safe depositary of power, among mortal men, 
 for the purposes of government. Tyranny and oppression, in 
 church and state, under every form and organization of 
 government, social, civil, ecclesiastical, monarchical, aristo- 
 cratical or democratic, have sooner or later characterized 
 the governments of earth, and have done so from the begin- 
 ning of this fallen world. Nor do I see, from any experience 
 of the past, from any developments at the present, from any 
 peculiarities in our own republican system and church 
 organizations, any pledge, security, or reasonable prospect, 
 that the existing nations of the earth, in their governmental 
 character and capacity, are ever going to be brought under 
 the dominion of Jesus Christ, by the simple, faithful preach- 
 ing of the gospel of the grace of God. The gospel has been 
 preached for 1800 years, and powerful revivals of religion, and 
 great and extensive reformations have occurred ; but where 
 is there, or has there been a solitary nation, which, in its 
 organization, legislation, administration of justice, execution 
 of law, and prosecution of its interests, has recognized the 
 supremacy of Jesus Christ, owned and honoured His sway, 
 and given a specimen of what many persuade themselves the 
 preaching of the gospel is destined to accomplish morally, 
 socially, politically, and nationally, in this world ? The 
 sheet-anchor of the world's security and ultimate blessedness 
 is in the covenant of peace, announced to Abraham, rati- 
 fied to him, and confirmed to all that have like precious faith 
 with him. 
 
 It is the sway of Heaven alone, that can redeem this 
 fallen world. Mortal men are not safe depositaries of power. 
 The saints, that have been disciplined by affliction, that have 
 suffered in this world, and by the grace of God have been ' 
 taught to deny themselves, that have been subsequently 
 trained in Heaven, ^nd rendered incapable of ambition, envy. 
 
THE WANT OF EXPLICITNESS. 121 
 
 pride, malice, revenge, &c., and shall be associated with 
 Jesus Christ Himself, as his kings and priests, living and 
 reigning with Him, can be safely intrusted with the domin- 
 ion of the nations. And when my Bible tells me that at 
 the coming of Christ, the corrupt powers of earth shall be 
 destroyed, and the power and the kingdom, and the great- 
 ness of the dominion under the whole Heaven shall be given 
 to the people of the saints of the Most High, I rejoice in the 
 prospect, and rest upon the promise, and the covenant of 
 God, and while I feel anxious to tell, to every mortal living, 
 the good news, to preach the gospel of the kingdom, and to 
 save as many as possible from the wrath to come, I trouble 
 not myself about any difficulties or inconsistencies that may 
 occur in my imaginings ; but rest assured, that the blessed 
 Redeemer will do all things well, and accomplish, to the 
 very letter, all His plans, and all that He has promised. Prof. 
 S. may smile or sneer at my faith, just as he pleases, but I 
 defer with infinitely greater reverence, to the authority that 
 has enjoined us to " be followers of them who through faith 
 and patience inherit the promises." 
 
 The reader will perceive, therefore, from this frank ex- 
 posure of the feelings of my heart, how little I am affected 
 by, and how utterly out of place and imbecile I regard, his 
 complaints, and the numerous questions which Professor S. 
 has propounded on pp. 175, 176, in reference to the minute 
 detailed state of things, to arise in this world, under the new 
 dispensation. Conjecture might be busy ; but it would not 
 profit. All I have to say is, that his questions might be 
 multiplied without end, and ninety-nine hundredths of them, 
 like those he has already propounded, will resolve themselves 
 into censurable ignorance, discontented curiosity, or carping 
 censoriousness. 
 
 Percontatorem fugiio nam garrulus idem iste. 
 
 Th' impertinent be sure to hate ; 
 Who loves to ask, will love to prate, 
 
122 PROF. Stuart's charges of 
 
 is an admonition extremely appropriate. But lest the reader 
 may think that I am disposed to evade his questions, I re- 
 mark, that already has he his answer, as to all that I have 
 not told about Jerusalem to be rebuilt, the new or heavenly 
 Jerusalem, where it alights, who live there beside Christ, 
 and what sort of intercourse or relation they maintain. The 
 specific topic of the book did not require it. Some of his 
 questions I have already answered, by showing that they are 
 founded on absolute misstatements of what I have said, 
 particularly those which he has marshalled under No. (10.) 
 To this I may add, that, if the entire dispensation is mi- 
 raculous, utterly beyond any thing we know in the present 
 stage of human developments, it were impertinent to pro- 
 pound inquiries, based on our limited knowledge and expe- 
 rience. Paul, who had a glimpse of the heavenly state, 
 whether in the body or out of the body he could not tell, but 
 who was caught up to paradise, lets us know, that what he 
 heard was incommunicable. Professor S. may find himself 
 trespassing on a province, that pertains not to him, by in- 
 dulging his inquisitiveness. Yet still, I may add, that, if he 
 will but read and study the prophetic scriptures, in the sim- 
 plicity of faith, with an humble, teachable, and prayerful 
 spirit, applying the principles of interpretation God has sanc- 
 tioned, instead of philosophy falsely so called, he will learn a 
 great deal of which he is now ignorant, to enlighten his mind 
 as well as to refresh and comfort his heart. It is an admo- 
 nition, not for purposes of style, but inestimable information, 
 that I care not how often or how earnestly it is pressed upon 
 myself; and there want not indications in Professor S.'s 
 Hints, that it is, at least, as appropriate to him as to 
 myself: 
 
 Vos exemplaria (ista) 
 Nocturna versate manu, versate diurna. 
 
 Make more the (prophets) your supreme delight, 
 Read them by day and study them by night. 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 PROF. Stuart's charge of " apparent inconsistencies 
 
 AND INCONGRUITIES." 
 
 This is the second count, in his bill of complaints against 
 *' Mr. D.'s statements." The reader will observe, that 
 it is even more guarded than the other. Whatever incon- 
 sistencies and incongruities, he thinks he has detected, he 
 ventures no further than to call them " apparent.'^ It is the 
 commonest thing imaginable, for apparent inconsistencies 
 to be discovered, on a closer and more candid examination, 
 to be but apparent, not real. The infidel and skeptic 
 charges them upon the apostles, and prophets, and Christ 
 Himself. The Bible in their view is but a tissue of " in- 
 consistencies and incongruities." 
 
 In attending to a charge of this sort, therefore, we must 
 always have regard to the temper and design of the accuser. 
 He may look through a distempered medium, — may have 
 on magnifying or " coloured glasses," or have the very or- 
 gans of vision imperfectly developed, so as to " see men as 
 trees walking." The reader is prepared to believe, by this 
 time, that many of Prof. Stuart's alleged apparent incon- 
 sistencies in " Mr. D.'s statements," that is, as they ap- 
 pear to him, may be accounted for, by the influence of his 
 own imperfect vision, and the distorted medium through 
 which he contemplates them. 
 
 In reply to this charge, it may be proper to remark, that 
 Prof S. has, in some instances, assumed as true, what is 
 denied, and what he has not attempted to prove ; and on 
 these false assumptions, founds his charge of inconsistency, 
 &-C. If I should assume a white man to be black, or an 
 innocent man to be guilty, I should discern a multitude of 
 
124 
 
 apparent inconsistencies in him. In other instances, his 
 charges are founded on his own misapprehension of their 
 views, which I have attempted to sketch in the general out- 
 line. I may hear the opinions of a man but partially re- 
 ported, and differing with him entirely in my own views, on 
 the general subject, while I attribute my opinions also to 
 him, his own may appear to me, nothing but a bundle of 
 inconsistencies. It behooves me, in such a case, to see 
 well to it, that I make myself fully acquainted with his 
 opinions, and not attribute mine to him, before I attempt to 
 charge him with inconsistency. 
 
 In other instances Prof Stuart's charges grow wholly out 
 of his utter ignorance of the writings and views of those 
 whose views I have rapidly sketched in the general outline. 
 Had he read them, he would have seen his objections and 
 charges anticipated, and met, as they encountered those, 
 who have done precisely what he has ; and therefore, as a 
 candid man and lover of truth, he would never have revived 
 and repeated charges of inconsistency, which had been an- 
 swered to the perfect satisfaction of many who made them, 
 and so as to revolutionize and secure the abandonment of 
 their own opinions and the adoption of those which they 
 had ignorantly condemned. In a word, Prof S. has allowed 
 himself to rear his castle of absurdities on the mere frame- 
 work or scaffolding of the system he condemns. His con- 
 duct in this particular, is precisely of a piece with that of 
 the man, entirely unacquainted with the limner's art, w^ho, 
 on seeing " the general outline" or sketch upon the can- 
 vass, begins to criticise, to point out deformities, and to mul- 
 tiply his charges of inconsistencies and incongruities, as 
 though he had before him the full and finished picture, 
 with all the shades and colouring and blending of features 
 yet to be added. 
 
 He has given us in his Hints, a sketch of his own views 
 oh some points of prophetical story. Let us try his own 
 
"apparent inconsistencies and incongruities." 125 
 
 method in application to his own work, and see what appa- 
 rent inconsistencies and incongruities we shall find there. 
 (1.) " The fourth beast, in Dan. vii. 7, 8, 11, 19—26," he 
 says, " as all must concede [?] is the divided Grecian dominion, 
 which succeeded the reign of Alexander the Great." All! — 
 of whom does he speak? — all critics, all expositors, all 
 readers ? If so he is very wide from the truth. 3Iultitudes of 
 writers and readers have not conceded it, do not concede 
 it ; nor have they ever felt, that any thing now or heretofore 
 said in favour of it, induced any obligation to do so, but 
 just the contrary. 
 
 How can the fourth beast be the divided Grecian do- 
 minion? How can that which was divided into ten king- 
 doms be identical with the empire divided intoybwr ? Where 
 will he produce a parallel passage in the Scriptures proving 
 a beast to be the symbol of a dismembered empire? What 
 propriety is there in making the symbol of one beast to de- 
 note an empire divided into four kingdoms. Prophecy is 
 far more explicit than all this. If the beast denoted the 
 empire — what did the seven heads denote ? and what the 
 ten horns ? How was the fourth beast diverse from all that 
 went before it? If the four kingdoms, that '' succeeded the 
 reign of Alexander the Great" is the beast, what was his 
 dominion 1 How does Prof. S. harmonize the several mem- 
 bers of this complicated symbol, the fourth beast'? What 
 were the three kingdoms preceding the Grecian ? How, 
 and when was it divided into ten kingdoms, and where is 
 there any agreement between the fourth beast and the Grecian 
 dominion, either as established by Alexander, or divided 
 into four parts at his death by his generals? (2.) He makes 
 Antiochus Epiphanes to be the little horn that rose up after 
 the ten kings, as Daniel has it. Who, what, were the ten kings 
 before him, and th& three plucked up by the roots ? How 
 did Antiochus Epiphanes prevail against the saints until 
 the Ancient of Days came, with the fiery stream issuing from 
 
 7* 
 
126 
 
 before him, thousand thousands ministering unto him, and 
 ten thousand times ten thousand standing before him, and the 
 judgment was set ? When, and how did all this take place, 
 even long before the first coming of Christ 1 Who were the 
 saints? How did they take possession of their everlasting 
 kingdom, when that tyrant was destroyed ? 
 
 (3.) He says Antiochus Epiphanes prevailed until a time, 
 times, and a dividing of time, or 1260 days. Where is the 
 exact fulfilment of this ? How can Prof. S. reconcile his 
 own statement with the words of the prophet ? How can 
 he prove, after insisting that the prophet meant literal days 
 in number 1260, that " it was not his design to he exact to a 
 day ?" and if so, that he was not mistaken 1 
 
 (4.) Prof S. says '' Dan. xii. 7 marks the terminus ad quern 
 of the predictions which immediately precede it, and affirms 
 that the dashing in pieces, i. e. utterly destroying or suppress- 
 ing the power of the Jews, is to be referred altogether to 
 Antiochus, no one who reads Dan. vii. 25 and xi. 21 — 45, 
 and makes comparison of them with the annunication here, 
 can well doubt." Hints, p. 37. Now multitudes do doubt, and 
 have doubted, and, for reasons shown, do well to doubt. With 
 what spectacles therefore does he read these passages so 
 clearly, as to give him the liberty thus to condemn every one 
 who doubts and differs from him, as mere dolts ? In what dic- 
 tionary of synonymes too has he learned, that " utterly destroy- 
 ed'' means only " suppressed" the power ? When and how 
 did the resurrection spoken of in Dan. xii. 2, 3, 4, which was 
 to take place at the time of the end, when " all these things 
 [that is, according to Prof. S., the things spoken of before to 
 Daniel] shall be finished'"? Dan. xii. 7. What manner of 
 agreement is there, between the prophet's predictions, and 
 Prof. S.'s comments ? Why does he confessedly contradict 
 Daniel as to time some thirty days ? Why has he not told us 
 how Daniel stood in his lot, at the time of the end, as the 
 angel promised ? Why has he not told us the terminus ad 
 
127 
 
 quern of the 1290 days more exactly ? Does he suppose that 
 we will be satisfied with Ms saying " it is plainly implied"? 
 Why has he not placed in so clear a light " the correspond- 
 ence of prediction and history," which he says " is so striking 
 — that none can refuse to perceive it" ? Whence did he ob- 
 tain authority thus to settle the question, to suit himself, and by 
 sweeping denunciation, condemn those that cannot see the 
 visions of his own brain ? 
 
 (5.) Professor S. has completed the fulfilment of Daniel's 
 predictions long before Christ came. Of course he must 
 guard against appearing to be guilty of '* a point blank 
 contradiction" of Christ, who, after he came, admonished 
 his followers that even after his departure from earth, they 
 should " see the, abomination of desolation, spoken of by 
 Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place," and recom- 
 mended them which should be in '* Judea, to flee into the 
 mountains." Matt. xxiv. 15, 16. But in order to do so who 
 gave him the right to introduce a principle of interpretation 
 to suit himself? which he has done, when he says, that these 
 words of Daniel, as quoted by Christ, "were not intended 
 to have such an application as is made of them by inter- 
 preters," and I may add, was made of them by Christ's fol- 
 lowers at the time, *' but only that they described events of 
 altogether a similar nature," and that '^ perhaps even more 
 than half of the fulfilments spoken of in the New Testa- 
 ment, are of a like character.'! Hints, p. 102. What sort 
 of a rule of interpretation is that which involves a perhaps 7 
 
 (6.) Professor S. makes the beast in Rev. xiii. with seven 
 heads and ten horns, to symbolize the persecuting power of 
 Rome, especially as exercised by Nero. Hints, p. 115. He 
 also tells us a long story of the superstitious impression 
 produced by " the soothsayers," that Nero had not been 
 killed, or would re-appear on the throne, and passes this off, 
 no doubt by the aid of his "jpcrAops," as the fulfilment of 
 John's prediction, that one of the heads of the beast should 
 
128 ppoF. 
 
 be '' wounded to death," but revive again, and " all the 
 world wonder after the heast." He has not told us on what 
 authority he has assumed that John wrote the Apocalypse 
 during Nero's reign, as he evidently implies, when he says 
 that instead of calling the beast Nero by name, " which 
 would have been, in connection with what he said, a treason- 
 able offence/' he has ^^ purposely adverted to him m such a 
 way, that his readers might easily know who he meant." 
 Hints, pp. 117, 118. He did it " secretly to intimate to his 
 readers, who was meant by the beast," by repeating those 
 things which ^^ popular rumour had spread abroad respecting 
 him." p. 120. How does this agree witli the high and 
 independent character of John as a prophet, and with the 
 fact of his inspiration 1 How does it agree with the internal 
 evidence in the book itself, that it was not written either 
 during Claudius' or Nero's reign ? " He has not told us" 
 how he sets aside the arguments of Woodhouse and others, 
 showing the date of the writing of the Apocalypse to have 
 been under Domitian, years after these and other things, 
 such as the slaying of the witnesses, &c., which, according 
 to his interpretation, John wrote as prophecy, had become 
 matter of history ? He has not told us how it lies on its 
 very face, that the Apocalypse was written for Christians 
 only, in the midst of a bitter and bloody persecution ; nor 
 how he even attempts to answer Dr. Cressener's demonstra- 
 tion, in fourteen particulars, that the fourth beast of Daniel 
 is the same with the beast described by John ! 
 
 I might swell this list, but having done enough in this 
 '' repulsive task," adopt his own language, which he most in- 
 consistently and unjustly applies to me, and in which, not- 
 withstanding he has taken special pains, once and again, to 
 inform the reader that I have presented " nothing new," he 
 nevertheless, now that it suits his purpose for ridicule, can, 
 like all who love to create a laugh, contradict himself by 
 giving me credit for novelties not rarely surpassed since the 
 
"apparent inconsistencies and incongruities." 129 
 
 days of Jacob Bcehman or Immanuel Swedenborg. I do 
 it not to revile in turn, nor to retaliate, but merely to show 
 how easy it would be to apply his own ribaldry to himself: 
 " The one half is not yet told, but enough. Such a tissue 
 of incongruities and inconsistencies, has rarely made ils ap- 
 pearance before the world at any period since the days of 
 Jacob Boehman and Immanuel Swedenborg. How it is 
 possible, for any sober and 'educated man, in.possession of 
 his reason, seriously to believe and earnestly to defend such 
 things as these, I confess myself unable to see." I have 
 made out by his machinery as fair a case as he has. But I 
 am not concerned to review his Hints. They need but 
 little. The simplest and most uneducated can do that with 
 great ease for themselves. For further particulars, however, 
 I refer Professor S., or any one who is curious in such mat- 
 ters, to certain numbers published very near him, in a work 
 he perhaps affects to despise for various reasons, viz., the 
 Signs of the Times, which appeared during October and 
 November last. Let him also read Mr. Miller's letters in 
 the same work reviewing his Hints. He may think and talk 
 as he pleases about the Signs of the Times, and Mr. Miller 
 and his followers, and call their opinions ignorant, uneducated, 
 fanatical hariolations, and what not. I am not their apologist, 
 having less alliance with them in my mode of interpretation 
 than he ; but one thing is certain, they deserve, as men and 
 Christians, other treatment ; and there are objections and 
 reasonings, sober, solemn, urgent argument in that review 
 and those letters, which Prof. S. is not going to meet and 
 put down by laughter and contempt, as he has attempted 
 with me. Professorial critics may aspire to the reputation 
 of superior learning, open schools for their laudations of 
 German professors and lofty literati, and titled digni- 
 taries, and pour contempt on ignorant hariolators, but 
 like Horace, who disdained such hotbeds of conceit, I 
 care not to approach them, either to hear their effusions, or 
 
130 PROF. Stuart's charge of 
 
 bespeak exemption from their attacks, even though I should 
 be charged, as he was, with the very thing which more 
 especially pertains to all impudent pretenders to literary 
 merit. 
 
 Grammaticas ambire tribus et pulpita dignor 
 
 Hinc iilas lacryraae ! Spissis indigaa Iheatris 
 
 Scripta pudet recitare, et nugis addere pondus, 
 
 Sidixi. Rides, ait, et Jovis auribus ista 
 
 Servas; fidis enim manare poetica mella 
 
 Te solum, libi pulcher. Ad iiaec ego naribus uti 
 
 Formido. 
 
 The tribe of grammar pedants I despise, 
 
 And hence these tears of spleen and anger rise. 
 
 I blush in grand assemblies to repeat 
 
 My worthless works, and give such trifles weight ; 
 
 Yet these professions they with wonder hear— 
 
 " No, you reserved them for dread Caesar's ear; 
 
 With your own beauties charmed, you surely know 
 
 Your verses with a honeyed sweetness flow ;" 
 
 Nor dare I rally with such dangerous folk. 
 
 After this general notice of Prof S.'s charge of incon- 
 sistencies, and the admirable contrivances by which he 
 attempts to establish it, a mere cursory notice of his speci- 
 fications, is all that I feel to be necessary. 
 
 No. 1, grows out of his own mistaken apprehension, 
 that I believe and represent the Millenarians to believe, that 
 the complete restoration of the Jews is " the first act in the 
 great drama." I have done no such thing. A partial resto- 
 ration may take place ; other events occur; and after all 
 this, the elect remnant be gathered. There is just as great 
 a difference between his statement and mine, as there is 
 between complete and partial. One instance of false as- 
 sumption. 
 
 No. 2, grows out of his confounding two things, entirely 
 different, and distant by at least 1000 years, viz., Ezekiel's 
 war of Gog and Magog, and John's battle of Armageddon, 
 with John's war of Gog and Magog. He identifies them. I 
 
131 
 
 deny that they are the same, and so have made the state- 
 ment. Let him prove his assertion. 
 
 No. 3, is a specimen of w^orse than puerile captiousness. 
 Suppose I admit, what I say some have conjectured, that 
 the Gog and Magog of John, are all the wicked dead raised 
 up at the final judgment, led on by Satan and his hosts, let 
 loose, in a last desperate and violent attack against the 
 camp of the saints, and represented by John as coming 
 " from the four corners of the earthy'' — what then? Prof. 
 S. interpolates the passage by his own paraphrase, viz., 
 ^' the utmost extremities, '\ and then asks, "Are there no 
 wicked men, then, who are buried elsewhere than in these 
 extremities, and who must be raised up at the end of the 
 world ?" Who said the contrary 1 And if the camp of 
 the saints be the abode of Christ and his raised saints, the 
 place of his throne, and the seat of his supernal dominion, 
 a general conspiracy of the wicked of earth, rising on all 
 sides, could not have been more graphically described — from 
 every corner of the earth they come — I have as good a right 
 as he has to interpolate my meaning, which I think better 
 and more accordant with scriptural usage, and say from the 
 four corners of tlie earth, means from the four quarters, as 
 in our translation, N. S. E. W., i. e., every direction. This 
 is the merest trifling. 
 
 No. 4 is a specimen of misrepresentation and of the con- 
 fusion of his own thoughts. I have not said that Christ and 
 his saints will dwell permanently in the air ; however, in sta- 
 ting Millenarians' views, and referring particularly to those 
 of Mr. Cunninghame, I have said, that for a season Christ and 
 his saints will be together in the air. If Prof. S. denies it 
 he is guilty of " a point blank contradiction" of Paul, 1 
 Thess. iv. 17. Will Prof. S. say how long they shall remain 
 with Christ in the air ; one hour, a day, a month, or a year, or 
 forty years 1 I have not said it ; — nor that Millenarians say 
 how long. They can be with Christ in the air for a season, 
 
132 PROF. Stuart's charge of 
 
 where the quickened saints meet him, and there after* attend- 
 ing his presence and movements, be ever with him, as the 
 child that always dwells with its parent, however he may re- 
 move the locality of his dwelling. And as to Prof S.'s crit- 
 icism on the words iv loig inavqavioig, to mean the aerial re- 
 gions, I admit it, remarking, that as this is the residence 
 of Satan before the Millennium, as Prof. S. admits, so noth- 
 ing can be more appropriate than that Christ and his saints 
 should enter and occupy it, when they come, according to 
 prophecy, to establish the dominion of Heaven on the ruins 
 of Satan's kingdom. Will Prof S. read his New Testa- 
 ment a little more attentively before he adventures again 
 sneeringly to say that " the air is a new abode of Christ and 
 the saints," meaning one of my novelties? 
 
 No. 5 grows out of certain assumptions of his own about 
 the impossibility of glorified bodies dwelling on this earth. 
 I have no concern with the rash impertinent questions he 
 asks, but refer him to his Master for his answer. 
 
 No. 6 is a complaint of difficulty of apprehension grow- 
 ing out of his neglecting to distinguish between apostate 
 Christian nations, and nations simply wicked and persecu- 
 ting. Millenarians use the word antichristian, in a spe- 
 cific, emphatic sense, when speaking of the final apostasy, 
 and destruction of the nations guilty of it, and also in a 
 generic sense, comprehending also idolatrous nations. Prof, 
 S^. makes no such distinction, and charges their views with 
 the confusion of his own thoughts. 
 
 No. 7. In reply to the questions propounded here, I refer 
 him to his Geography and History, to know what part, and 
 how much of the earth were included in the Roman em- 
 pire. 
 
 Nos. 8 and 9 are impertinent questions, growing out of 
 his own gratuitous assumptions. Yet I may answer, that the 
 language of the prophet, according to the usage of Scripture, 
 will be fully and exactly fulfilled if delegates from the na- 
 
"apparent inconsistencies and incongruities." 133 
 
 tions, and voluntary visitors, frequent Jerusalem as the capi- 
 tal of the nations in the flesh, the centre and seat of her 
 Theocracy, especially on the great public occasions referred 
 to by Isaiah — Jerusalem never wanting, on those occa- 
 sions, the presence of more or less worshippers, from different 
 parts of the earth. But Isaiah does not say, chap. Ixvi., that 
 " all flesh, from month to month and Sabbath to Sabbath, shall 
 come to worship before God" at Jerusalem. Zechariah says 
 that such a visitation and presentation before the Lord at 
 Jerusalem, shall take place annualhj, under certain penal- 
 ties for neglect, chap. xiv. 16, &c. Isaiah refers not to the 
 same thing, but to another feature in the wonderful arrange- 
 ments of that period. 
 
 If Prof S. wants any clew about the time, to convert the 
 nations left in the flesh, and will search for it, he will find it 
 in the prophetical scriptures. It was not my object, nor did 
 the argument require me to give the clew ; — only to bespeak 
 attention to the whole subject, and induce inquiry and study. 
 And as to any reason why the saints should remain on the 
 earth, after the conversion of the nations, alleging as he does 
 their work is done, he has his answer already, that it is but 
 just begun. If he does not relish a terrene residence for 
 them, he and his Master must settle that matter, not I. 
 
 No. 10, I return and press upon himself. " If all 
 Christians," as he says the Bible tells us, " are to be made 
 kings and priests unto God, who are to be the subjects?" 
 He must answer it, nor will he be allowed to dodge it. It 
 is part and parcel of his own scheme, and he must show its 
 consistency with that scheme. " When all are kings, who 
 are to be ruled ?" Millenarians have nothing to do with this 
 question. It finds no place in their views. The poor perse- 
 cuted, afflicted, despised, trodden down, and martyred saints, 
 and faithful witnesses of Christ that have died before, and 
 shall be on the earth at His coming, they are to be the 
 kings and priests. The nations in the flesh, during the 
 
134^ 
 
 whole Millennial period, form the subjects. Prof. S. has a 
 hard task to perform, if he undertakes to prove from the Bible 
 that all who are, or ever shall be, on this earth, subject to 
 Jesus Christ, stiall be His kings and priests. This is another 
 of his assumptions. They are the redeemed up to a given 
 date — the date of Christ's coming, that are to reign. If 
 Prof S, dates that coming after the Millennium, at the last 
 epoch of judgment, the final consummation of all things, he 
 will have more need of theological looseness and generaliza- 
 tion, or poetic flights and descriptions, to help him make 
 the language of the Bible at all intelligible on this subject, 
 than he has yet had, in his interpretation of prophecy. 
 
 No. (11) I have already answered. Christ may judge, 
 for any thing we dare say, that sacrificial commemorative 
 offerings not expiatory may be better adapted to human 
 nature^mankind in the flesh — as means of summary impor- 
 tant symbolic instruction, than any other. Certain it is, the 
 world has hankered after such strong representations, and 
 God from the beginning saw they were needed, and that it 
 was best to give them. But I am not concerned to answer 
 such questions, though I could say much from Ezekiel, 
 about the use of the offerings to be made at Jerusalem. The 
 question is, What hath the spirit of Christ taught ? 
 
 No. (12) is a tissue of misapprehension, and misrepre- 
 sentation. As long as nations in the flesh have different 
 localities, there will be different peculiarities. The union 
 between Jews and Gentiles, consists not in the destruction 
 of these things ; but will be perfected in the very state of 
 things predicted to occur at Christ's coming. If Paul did 
 not '^separate" he certainly distinguished , between Jews 
 and Gentile Christians and churches. Nor has Christianity 
 destroyed the distinction. While the Jews, according to 
 God's covenant and oath, are never to cease from being a 
 nation, will Prof S. show how the distinction is ever to be 
 abolished? The Millennial dispensation will unite, and 
 
135 
 
 blend in perfect harmony, under One Theocracy, all the. 
 nations and families of earth ; but it will not destroy national 
 and domestic distinctions. Prof S. assumes this singular 
 and ridiculous position, that there can be no union of parts 
 and parties without the destruction of identity or peculiar 
 characteristics, personal, social, national. 
 
 No. (13) I have already answered under 8 and 9. 
 
 No. (14) I have also answered under No 4. I add, that 
 it is another specimen of misrepresentation. Mr. D. no- 
 where says " that the saints all descend and live in the new 
 earthly Jerusalem," as Prof S. says he does. I distinguish 
 between Jerusalem with its temple rebuilt by man, the seat 
 and centre of the Theocracy among the nations in the flesh, 
 and the heavenly Jerusalem, — which comes down out of 
 heaven, — the city which hath foundations, whose maker and 
 builder is God, — the object of hope and expectation by all 
 the saints that died in faith, an interest in which is the in- 
 heritance of each, and where they shall dwell with Christ, 
 needing no light of the sun, or of the moon, and having no 
 temple ; for the Lord God Almighty, even the Lamb, is the 
 light thereof, in the light of which the nations of them that 
 are saved walk, and into which the kings of the earth, the 
 raised saints, do bring their glory and honour. 
 
 No. (15) is mere trifling. As to the dimensions and de- 
 scription of this heavenly city, I might refer Prof S. to the 
 learned Lord King, though not adopting his views in his 
 Morsels of Criticism, for some suggestions to stop his laughter, 
 which perhaps he would respect from him more than any 
 thing from me. But I answer, the whole dispensation is 
 miraculous ; and as no description can give us accurate 
 ideas of the thing, till we see it, when the description be- 
 comes perfectly plain, and obvious, so it concerns me not 
 to meet what he has said, about the height of houses, streets, 
 uppermost apartments, dwellings accommodated to the 
 spiritual bodies of the saints, and all such puerile nonsense. 
 
J 36 
 
 It is enough for me to say, in exact accordance with my 
 principles of interpretation, that the vision of John, when 
 he saw the New Jerusalem descending out of heaven, &:-c., 
 is a symbolical description of some real abode of the saints 
 with Christ,, the nearest approximation to which we can 
 make in our thoughts, is of a city, built of the most splendid 
 and gorgeous materials known in the whole physical uni- 
 verse. If Prof S. will not dare to deny that Jehovah the 
 Angel of the Covenant, our divine Redeemer, was on Sinai 
 with his twenty thousand angels. Psalm Ixviii. 17, and Moses 
 and Elias in splendour above the sun were with Christ upon 
 the mount of transfiguration, he should be cautious how he 
 allows himself to sport with the sublime descriptions given 
 by the Spirit of Christ, that he may make his reader laugh 
 either at my folly or my faith. 
 
 Nos. (16) (17) contain questions which require no 
 other answer than what I have given to No. 5. 
 
 No. (18) is founded on his own misapprehension of the 
 statement, according to which, if the Millenarian view I 
 quoted, but said nothing about my own opinion, be cor- 
 rect or deserving of attention, it will be a conflict between 
 spiritual principalities and powers, an assault of hell against 
 the saints. Here I remark, there are differing views among 
 Millenarian writers, but it is felt to be a solemn theme, de- 
 serving of grave and reverent attention, widely different 
 from the flippant efforts of Prof S. to excite mirth. 
 
 No. (19.) Here Prof S. assumes that the Gog and Ma- 
 gog of John and Ezekiel are the same. He nmst first prove 
 it. Having assumed their identity, and that therefore they 
 precede the Millennium, he charges me with teaching that 
 they both follow the Millennium. I have denied their iden- 
 tity, and have not taught as the opinions of Millenarians, 
 what he attributes to me. I can only preserve my charity 
 for him here, by attributing to him entire ignorance of the 
 views he undertook to criticise. 
 
137 
 
 No. (20) contains the same sort of egregious trifling 
 which any and every man must be guilty of, who allows 
 himself to ask questions, and criticise, and captiously urge 
 objections against that of which he is, and in the nature of 
 things must be, profoundly ignorant. It contains moreover 
 one of the most remarkable specimens of the non sequitur 
 I have ever met with — given too as clear, cogent/convincing « 
 exposition ! establishing a fundamental position, or putting a 
 key into his hands, to unlock the mysteries of the prophets ! ! 
 I give it in his own remarkable words. " Paul assumes 
 * that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,' 
 (1 Cor. XV. 50,) for the evident reason that that kingdom is 
 not material." And this Prof. S. gives as an argument to 
 prove that there is to be no materiality about the future and 
 final world of the blessed ! ! ! Let him first prove that Heav- 
 en is absolutely, totally disconnected from the material Uni- 
 verse, before he attempts to pervert Paul's language in this 
 style. Let him say what Paul means by the phrase Jlesh and 
 blood, 1 Cor. xv. 50. He certainly means no more than hu- 
 man nature, in its present corrupt and mortal state. It must 
 pass through the alembic of the grave. It must sustain the 
 transforming process of the resurrection, before it can inher- 
 it the kingdom. Does this prove, that in the resurrection 
 state, that is, as Paul means, in the kingdom of Heaven, there 
 is to be an utter destitution of every particle of materiality ? 
 Let Prof S. try to prove it. Paul does not assign as the 
 reason why flesh and blood, i. e. man in his present corrupt 
 and mortal state, cannot inherit the kingdom of God, that 
 that kingdom is not material. Paul nowhere said it ; — no- 
 where assumes it ; — and Prof S. shall not " foist" in any 
 transcendental notions of the heavenly state, first to explain 
 Paul, and then turn round and claim to have a key, where- 
 with to unlock the mysteries of the prophets, and make short 
 work of the whole business of interpretation, by telling us 
 it all belongs to " the world^of mind." If the spiritual body, 
 
1JJ8 PROF. Stuart's charge of 
 
 on which he lays such great stress, is utterly devoid of ma- 
 teriality, then is it nonsense to talk of a resurrection of the 
 body as any thing that literally is to take place. It is all 
 spirit, or poetry, or what not, no materiality about it at all, 
 according to Prof S. ! ! I challenge him to show how, in 
 what imaginable way, there is a resurrection of the body, 
 if the spirituality of the saints means utter, absolute immate- 
 riality ; and how he can escape the condemnation, which 
 Paul has pronounced on Hymeneus and Philetus, who, so 
 far as I understand language, were guilty of this very thing, 
 and allegorized, spiritualized, in their vain babblings, so as to 
 give him occasion to say to Timothy, " if we be dead with 
 Christ we shall also live with Him ; if we suffer, we shall also 
 reign with Him ;" and that however extraordinary and im- 
 probable this may seem, so that even '* if we believe not, 
 yet he abideth faithful : he cannot deny himself" 2 Tim. 
 ii. 11-^-18. Verily, if Prof S.'s views of the nature of the 
 spiritual body be correct, that it is utterly, absolutely imma- 
 terial, I see not but that along with those men he has erred 
 concerning the truth ; virtually, to all intents and purposes, 
 saying, " that the resurrection is past already," for the dead 
 saints are now, for aught we know to the contrary, wholly 
 spiritual, totally disconnected from all materiality ; and what 
 sort of a resurrection can it be, that adds no materiality to 
 them? I charge not Prof S. with this heresy, but I see not 
 how it is possible to prevent his principles of interpretation 
 and notions on this subject, if fairly and legitimately carried 
 out, from leading there. It will not do to tell me, of its be- 
 ing etherealized, and attenuated. I care not to what degree 
 he does this, it is still associated with matter. — If some or- 
 ganic power of luminous emanation, or modified electric 
 galvanic ethereal subtilty, be the element of the raised spirit- 
 ual body, it is still associated with matter, and capable of 
 a terrene dwelling. I say not what it is ; the day will declare 
 it. He may extricate himself the best way he can from this 
 
"apparent inconsistencies and incongruities." 139 
 
 difficulty, but I see no way possible for him to do it, while 
 he denies all materiality to the kingdom of heaven, and by 
 consequence to the raised saints. If he uses the word mate- 
 rial^ in some gross sense, and does not mean to deny all 
 materiality of being to the raised saints, then he had better 
 learn to write with more precision, and to beware how he 
 thinks that other people will understand him just as loosely 
 as he expresses himself 
 
 No. (21.) I might here say, that my remarks, under the 
 last head, are also an answer to this : but there are one or 
 two additional specimens of gratuitous and false assump- 
 tions, non sequiturs, and other things, deserving attention. 
 Prof S. says, that it *' looks very suspicious," that I have 
 not urged '' 1 Cor. xv. in favour of" (my) " scheme." My 
 object was not to treat of the resurrection. It only comes 
 in, incidentally, as connected with the main argument. 
 Had I treated specifically of the first resurrection, it would 
 have been appropriate. I have done it when publicly lec- 
 turing on this subject. What suspicions Prof S. has con- 
 jured up, I know not : but I know, that Prof S. has said 
 1 Cor. XV. contains ** an account of the resurrection of the 
 saints only." App. p. 181. And yet, in almost the very 
 next breath, he turns round and says, *' Paul here asserts, 
 that it (he means, apparently at least, the resurrection of the 
 wicked, but if he means the resurrection of the saints only, 
 then he lakes for granted what he must prove) takes place 
 at that period," i. e., what he calls the end of the world, the 
 very same period at which he says occurs the resurrection 
 of the saints; that is, both, according to Prof S., occur 
 together. How does Paul assert this, when, according to 
 Prof S.'s own admission, he is speaking of the saints, re- 
 surrection, and " of THEIR resurrection only ? " It can 
 only be implied, just as Prof S. assumes, that both resurrec- 
 tions occur together. 
 
 He professes ^' truly [to] regret to be obliged to give 
 
140 PROF. Stuart's charge of 
 
 any account of [my silence in] this matter, since [he] must 
 seem to accuse Mr. D. of want of candour and fairness." 
 Strange tenderness all of a sudden, when he had done the 
 thing over and over again in reality, without any apology or 
 squeamishness. Perhaps there may have been other reasons 
 for his regrets. I shall not undertake to pry into them : 
 but ask him, where, in all the xvth chap, of 1 Cor., he finds 
 that Paul asserts any thing about the resurrection of the 
 wicked, as he says he does? And how he. Prof S., recon- 
 ciles his own statements here ? I agree with him, that Paul 
 speaks of the resurrection of the saints, and of " thei?- re- 
 surrection only." Now it will not do for Prof S. to say, 
 that the resurrection of the wicked is implied, for he says 
 Paul " asserts" it — two very different things, which others 
 can distinguish, if not he. 
 
 But Prof S. has settled it in his own mind as things not 
 to be disputed, which things also he attributes to Paul as 
 equally assumed by him, that the world is to have an end, 
 that all connection with the material universe on the part 
 of saints is to cease then — and that at this end of the world, 
 both saints and sinners all rise together. Observe how 
 adroitly he uses his key to unlock these mysteries. '' Paul 
 says that ' flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of 
 God.' Of course Paul supposes [?] that kingdom in which 
 the saints will live after the resurrection, to be of a nature 
 wliicli is incompatible with the residence of material bodies." 
 App. p. 181. Paul neither supposes, nor assumes, any such 
 thing ; nor can his language be made to imply it. The 
 things, which Prof. S. says of course Paul supposes, (he 
 means implies,) are all of them non sequiturs. Not one of 
 them flows legitimately from any thing Paul has said in this 
 chapter. Yet on these false assumptions, or non sequiturs, 
 call them what you may, he has modestly regretted to be 
 obliged to seem to charge me with a want of fairness and 
 candour, because forsooth, I have not attempted to prove my 
 
"apparent inconsistencies and incongruities." 141 
 
 views from this chapter ! ! ! Marvellous, marvellous for- 
 bearance- and tenderness ! 
 
 .... But I have not done with this cluster of non sequiturs. 
 Where, I ask, does Paul speak in chap. 15, of 1 Cor. of 
 the end of the world 1 In the 24th verse Prof. S. says. Let 
 us see what Paul says : " Then cometh the cnd^'' — what end? 
 Prof S. says of the world. I answer, non sequitur. Paul 
 says no such thing, nor does it follow by fair inference. But 
 what does Prof S. mean by the end of the world ? His lan- 
 guage, argument, accusation against me, and the whole 
 drift of his remarks, especially his assertion about the king- 
 dom of Heaven being not material — entirely disconnected 
 from the material universe — show that he means the annihi- 
 lation of this globe. If he does, I challenge him to the proof, 
 from the Bible, that ever, to all eternity, such an event 
 shall occur, whatever may be its conflagrations or transfor- 
 mations ? The word " end," to jsXog, may mean, either 
 the consummation, or the termination, in this connection 
 the completion, either of the present state of things, or of 
 the things consequent on Christ's coming to establish His 
 kingdom — the kingdom of Heaven. The connection proves 
 it to be the latter. This consummation, Paul says, shall 
 take place when Christ sball deliver up the kingdom to God, 
 even the Father. The date of this consummation, he says, 
 shall occur when He, Jesus Christ, shjdl have put down all 
 rule, and all authority, and power, having reigned till he 
 hath put all his enemies under his [avtov, his own) feet. 
 For it is too plain, to admit of any question, that there can 
 be no delivering up a kingdom by Christ to the Father, in the 
 sense in which Paul means, until it is completely, thoroughly 
 established in his own possession — all enemies subdued and 
 put for ever to rest. But, at what stage, in the develop- 
 ments of the scheme of redemption, ist his termination, or 
 consummation, to occur ? Then, says Paul, when His ene- 
 
U2 
 
 mies being subdued, He shall have delivered up the king- 
 dom to the Father, and God be all in all. 
 
 Paul's account of the matter, wonderfully corroborates 
 the views I have stated. He gives the order of the resur- 
 rection exactly. First, Christ " the first fruits" and pledge ; 
 second, they that are Christ's, his saints, at his coming — not 
 a word about the wicked. Then, when certain other things 
 occur, the consummation takes place. Paul does not say 
 that the then is at Christ's coming ; but tvhen He shall have 
 subdued his enemies, and delivered up the kingdom to the 
 Father. At his coming, Christ and his saints, according to 
 Daniel, enter into the possession of the kingdom. Tlie 
 work begins with retribution, even the slaughter of apostate 
 nations, the expulsion of Satan, and an entire new, heavenly 
 and miraculous organization of affairs in this world, — the 
 kingdom of Christ, — the kingdom of heaven. John says, 
 that this kingdom of Heaven, this reign of Christ with the 
 saints that rise at his coming, will last for one thousand 
 years. The prophets describe it, as glorious beyond con- 
 ception. The beast and the false prophet receive their 
 doorn ; but there remains yet one enemy, death. This is 
 the last enemy, and the destruction of this, Paul says, closes 
 up the dispensation, forms the consummation. " The last 
 enemy that shall be destroyed is death." Here then, in v. 
 26, Prof S. might have found Paul's allusion to, not his as- 
 sertion of, the resurrection of the wicked, and not in v. 24, 
 as he says. The scenes of the great final closing up the 
 work of judgment, at the termination of Millennial sway, 
 when the wicked dead shall be raised, — hell judged, and 
 all men then alive on the earth, or that have ever lived, 
 have their eternal state determined, is " the end,^' the end 
 of the mediatorial sway of Christ — not the annihilation of 
 the globe. 
 
 It is said by John, that the earth and the heaven shall 
 
"apparent inconsistencies and INC6KGRUITIES." 143 
 
 flee away, from the face of Him that shall sit on the great 
 white throne to judge the living and the dead. This does 
 not, and cannot, mean the annihilation of the astronomical 
 earth and heavens, — this planet and the stars, but refers to 
 their inhabitants. The terror of the scene will strike uni- 
 versal horror into the wretched beings that shall either rise 
 from hell, or who may at that time be alive on the earth, 
 over which heaven's dominion had swayed one thousand 
 years, but no place shall be found for them. They shall all 
 appear before the judgment seat of Christ ; — they shall all 
 stand before God and be judged ; — death and hell shall be 
 cast into the lake of fire ; and this world, recovered fully 
 back to God, purified, rescued from death, the seat of 
 Christ's mediatorial dominion, originally given to Adam, 
 but usurped and tyrannized over by the devil, be handed 
 back to God, restored, and for ever confirmed as an integral 
 part in the great, universal, celestial empire of Jehovah. I 
 am not concerned to add any thing more about the eternal 
 dispensation which then shall succeed. The end has come ; — 
 the scheme of redemption has accomplished its work : Christ 
 triumphs : his saints celebrate his victories, and share in his 
 glory : — the kingdom reverts to the Father ; and God for 
 ever reigns. Yet I may say, that the consolidation and con- 
 summation of the divine dominion, in the restored unity of 
 the universal empire of Jehovah, does not in the least de- 
 gree imply but that still the earth shall be the inheritance of 
 Jesus Christ, and He the great head, prince and sovereign 
 under God, and the avenue of access to Him for ever for his 
 saints. Should a monarch say to his son, Reduce to subjec- 
 tion that revolted province, unite it to my dominion, and it 
 shall be your inheritance, in which, under me, you shall 
 reign, it would be easy to see how, on its reduction and his 
 delivering it up to his father, the father's dominion should 
 be entire, and yet the son have the principality still. Thus 
 it is that Christ reigns one thousand years, the end comes. 
 
144< PROF. STUART S CHARGE OF 
 
 He delivers up the kingdom, and yet He reigns for ever and 
 ever in His everlasting kingdom. 
 
 The reader cannot fail now to perceive, how baseless is 
 Prof. S.'s charge, of want of candour, preferred against me^ 
 because, as he insinuates, I felt that 1 Cor. xv. militated 
 against the views I had expressed, and therefore most sus- 
 piciously abstained from all reference to it. It is of a piece 
 with his attempt, in closing up his charge, to make it appear 
 that I contradict the apostle. *' Paul," he says, " as before 
 remarked, puts the resurrection of the saints at the end of 
 the world, 1 Cor. xv. 24 , but Mr. D. before the Millennium." 
 App. p. 181. He has not proved the first part of this asser- 
 tion, nor is it implied in the 24th verse to which he refers, 
 as I have shown, at least in his sense of the words. 
 
 As to my mixing up the righteous and the wicked together, 
 in the Millennium, it is what he has done himself avowedly, 
 and to an extent that leaves far in the rear most commenta- 
 tors of his own class. See Hints, &lc., pp. 141-143. I 
 challenge him to produce the proof from the Dissertations, 
 of my having mixed up the righteous and the wicked, as he 
 says, or of having made any allusion to the presence of any 
 wicked on earth, durinor the Millennial reign of Christ and 
 his saints, save in referring to the prediction of Isaiah Ixv. 
 20, and that without even expressing my views as to the full 
 or precise import of the passage, having alluded to it but for 
 one specific purpose, viz., the quick retribution that shall be 
 seen in the comparatively early death of individuals, who 
 might be found *' sinners," under the Millennial dispensation. 
 But I have offended, and must by some means be convicted. 
 I do not belong to the school of Prof S., nor have I ever 
 cared to obtain the sanction of one whom the little myrmi- 
 dons that court his favour, style " the giant in biblical litera- 
 ture." This perhaps is my offence. I have dared to dissent 
 from him, to deny his assumptions and exegesis, and to state, 
 distinctly, the reasons of my dissent and denial. He has not 
 
"apparent inconsistencies and incongruities." 145 
 
 condescended to notice them ; but attempts authoritatively, 
 and Math ridicule, to silence me and put me aside. But 
 whatever he and his flatterers may think, I have neither at- 
 tempted, nor thought of rivalship. I have felt perfectly sat- 
 isfied if I have the sanction of the Bible, fairly and honestly 
 interpreted. And that I have not erred so egregiously as 
 Prof S. attempts to make his readers believe, I can refer to 
 names good and great, — as good and great as Prof S. or 
 any of his admirers can claim to be, — in support of all that 
 I have stated, to be the belief of Millenarian writers, 
 high^in fame for learning and piety. 
 
 duicquid sum ego, quamvis 
 Infra Lucilis, sensum ingeniinnque, tan)en me 
 Cum magniis vixisse, inviia faiebitur usque 
 Invidia, et, fragili quoerens iilidere dentem, 
 Off'endet solido. 
 
 What though with great Lucilius I disclaim 
 All saucy rivalship of birth or fame, 
 Spite of herself, even Envy must confess, 
 That I the sanction of the great possess, 
 And, if she dare attempt my honest fame, 
 Shall break her teeth against my solid name. 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 PROF. STUARt's remarks ON HIS PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRE- 
 TATION. 
 
 With these, in general, if I understand them, I have no 
 fault to find. He has stated them, distinctly enough, in his 
 writings, and comments on others who have written on this 
 subject, and in his App. p. 183. But from his application of 
 them, growing mainly out of his confusion of thought, in re- 
 ference to analogical language, and from one or two assump- 
 tions for that purpose, I do most pertinaciously dissent, for 
 reasons which, I think, the candid and unprejudiced reader 
 will deem abundantly sufficient. He says that language, — 
 which, in its primary meaning, being employed to denote 
 sensible objects and actions, must have a sensible import, by 
 reason of the very necessities of the case, — possesses an ana- 
 logical significancy, when used in relation to things and ac- 
 tions wholly mental ; and gives examples of words of this 
 sort, expressing various mental acts, such as understanding, 
 comprehension, perception, idea, imagination, &,c. So far, 
 well. 
 
 Hence, having no direct and immediate, or intuitive per- 
 ceptions of God, and things purely spiritual, we are necessi- 
 tated to speak of Him and of them, as he says, more humano, 
 that is, in terms that originally denote sensible objects and 
 actions. Such is the language which the Bible employs, to 
 designate God and his natural, intellectual, and moral per- 
 fections. Thus far also it is well. 
 
 All that Professor S. says here, has long, long since, been 
 well and truly said, even by the Fathers whose puerilities- he 
 affects so heartily to despise, and of which even modern fa- 
 thers, I might add, are sometimes guilty. The more sober 
 
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 1^1 
 
 and intelligent of them denied, that we can have any direct 
 perception, of any thing in the divine nature, by spiritual 
 ideas, or .by a direct intuition, or by any supernatural notions 
 and conceptions infused directly from above. Here, to 
 speak metaphorically, the eye of the mind is just as blind 
 as the eye of the body. So Chrysostom, Gregory Nyssen, 
 Nazianzen, Plotinus, Justin Martyr, Cyril, Hilary, Athana- 
 sius, and especially Tertullian, — to quote them irrespectively 
 of their priority or posteriority in point of time. — thought 
 and expressed themselves. God could have no intercourse 
 with 2is, said Tertullian, otherwise than hy taking on himself 
 the Dialect of our senses and affections. With the mystic 
 theology, which grew out of certain principles of the Plato- 
 nic philosophy, taught by the Alexandrian philosophers, and 
 applied to Christianity, arose different notions and modes of 
 speech, with respect to our knowledge of God, which may 
 yet be traced in the schools and systems of modern days. 
 Whatever may be said about union, and contemplation; 
 about the philosophic lying beneath the spontaneous con- 
 sciousness ; and about transcendental knowledge of the 
 Deity, it will not be pretended, that the idiom of metaphysi- 
 cians, and of mystic theologians, is to be made the rule for 
 the interpretation of Scriptural language in reference to spi- 
 ritual realities ; or, as Professor S. has it, " the invisible 
 worlds 
 
 He has said that " some analogy, real or supposed, lies at 
 the foundation" of the language, employed to express our 
 views of things strictly and exclusively mental or spiritual, 
 p. 183. But in the use, which he has made of this important 
 principle, he shows that he has confounded Analogy and 
 Metaphor, and has left his reader in utter perplexity, without 
 any assignable or imaginary clew, by which to unravel the 
 import of words, when used either analogically or tropically. 
 I deny that these are convertible expressions, any more than 
 that the things which they are employed to express, are at 
 
lis 
 
 PROF. STUART S RKMARKS ON HIS 
 
 all identical, He has assumed that they are. No wonder, 
 therefore, that he is himself perplexed, and finds it difficult 
 to apprehend the meaning of those who think and write with 
 more precision. To expose his fallacy here, it is necessary 
 for me to be a little more explicit and full on this subject 
 than he has been. 
 
 Of the substance of God, as a Being really existing, we 
 have no knowledge, and can have none ; because we can 
 find nothing, in the utmost stretch of our conceptions, which 
 we can adopt as a representative of it, — nothing whatever, 
 between which and it, we can trace or assume any analogy. 
 It is true, that we call him a Spirit, and Light, &/C., as the 
 nearest approximation we can make to an idea of his essence. 
 But what do we mean by these words ? and how do we apply 
 them to God ? Spirit, in its original sensible import, means 
 breath. We take this subtile element, as the convenient rep- 
 resentative of our own sentient minds or spirits, and form a 
 conception of them as something entirely, essentially differ- 
 ent and distinct from matter. Christ's own explanation of 
 the popular conception is given negatively — ** A spirit hath 
 not flesh and bones." But, as to any direct, intuitive, or 
 other knowledge of the substance or essence of our immor- 
 tal minds or spirits, we have none ; and therefore can have 
 no more definite and distinct knowledge of the Essence or 
 substance of God, whom, nevertheless, we call a Spirit. As 
 to light, we have no knowledge of its essence either, but 
 endeavouring to comprehend it from its effects and operations, 
 we conceive of it, as some exceedingly subtile element, re- 
 moved from every thing we are accustomed to account gross 
 and impure. We use it, therefore, as the symbol or repre- 
 sentative of different things, according to the character or 
 form of its operations — design ating^wnVz/ at onetime by it, 
 and knmoieuge at another, between both which things, and 
 something answerable in the operations and manifestations 
 of God, we can trace an analogy. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 ii^ 
 
 I In like manner, when, by means of scriptural expressions 
 on this subject, — designed to reveal to us, and to assist us 
 in forming some conceptions of, the different attributes or 
 perfections of God, — we speak of His goodness, love, pow- 
 er, forbearance, wisdom, justice, holiness, &lc., we first con- 
 ceive of something in us, which we have learned thus to 
 express, according to a process of thought not here neces- 
 sary to state, and making these things in us representatives 
 of something analogous, i. e. correspondent or answerable to 
 them in God, use the same language to express our views of 
 His properties. I state the idea in the language of a clear 
 and profound thinker and writer. *' There must be some- 
 thing, in the Divine nature, that bears a similitude only, and 
 correspondency, with the commendable passions and affec- 
 tions (and I may add powers) of a human soul : for other- 
 wise, there would be no analogy between them; and then, 
 those perfections in God, the nature of which are signi- 
 fied by them, would be as truly the very same in kind with 
 your passions and mine, as the passions and affections of any 
 other man. The reason is, if we ascribe knowledge to God 
 which in us is performed hy ratiocination ; that is, by think- 
 ing, which requires the help of imperceptible fibres in the 
 brain, and the concurrence of the animal spirits ; we may 
 as safely ascribe to him those passions and affections, which 
 are also the operations of the rational soul, composed of 
 matter and spirit acting in essential union. These indeed 
 show themselves, more in the sensitive part of the body, than 
 ratiocination or the motions of the will ; that is, than the 
 several modes of thinking and willing ; and are attended with 
 a more extraordinary commotion of spirits. But there is 
 still a motion or commotion of bodily parts and spirits in 
 both, which are often even wasted and impaired by intense- 
 ness and vehemence of thinking and willing. And there- 
 fore, all to be inferred from thence is, that in this state of 
 corrupt nature, our passions are ascribed to God, in a lower 
 
 8* 
 
150 PROF, stuart's remarks on his 
 
 degree of analogy, than our intellectual operations and moral 
 virtues : though in a state of innocence, they must have been 
 all equally complete representations of the divine perfec- 
 tions." 
 
 This is not to attribute human passions and affections to 
 God. Nor is it saying, that if we infinitely remove all im- 
 perfections which attend their existence and development 
 in us, they will then be literally and properly passions and 
 affections in God, of the same kind in Him that they are in 
 us : for, remove all the imperfection incident to those com- 
 motions of bodily parts with which they are blended, and 
 the passions, &c. are extinguished ; and when we undertake 
 to attribute them, as the Bible teaches us, to the disembodied 
 spirit, it is only as bearing some analogy with what we now 
 experience, that we can form any conception of them. In 
 like manner, when we speak of them in reference to God, 
 who is a pure unembodied spirit, we do not affirm them to 
 be of the same kind, but something in his nature analogous 
 with what we find in our own, so as to make the latter suit- 
 able representatives of the former. 
 
 This analogy is founded, solely and primarily, not on the 
 imperfection of human language, which necessitates us to 
 resort to tropes and figures of speech, as Prof S. says, to 
 express the resemblances we may design to trace ; but on 
 the interesting, wonderful, and to us honourable and glorious 
 fact, that God made man in His own likeness after His oicn 
 image. He laid a foundation, in the very constitution of our 
 nature, by virtue of which, we contemplate somewhat of 
 Himself by the help of what we could discern in ourselves ; 
 and although, in its splendid and glorious moral features, 
 that image has been greatly blurred and defiled by the fall, 
 yet has it not been wholly defaced or obliterated, as Paul 
 teaches, by denominating even fallen man still the Image 
 of God. For had that been the case we could no more 
 have ever attained to any knowledge of God, than can the 
 
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 151 
 
 brute creation — since the very basis, on which all our know- 
 ledge of Him rests, or rather, the very processes of mind, in the 
 exercise of which God originally ordained we should possess 
 the knowledge of Himself, would have been utterly destroyed. 
 
 It was owing to the neglect, or ignorance, of tliis impor- 
 tant fact, which, for distinction's sake, may be called divine 
 analogy J that men run into the two extremes, either of 
 making, with some Arians and Socinians, the language ap- 
 plied to the nature and operations of God, literal, and so 
 materialize the Deity ; or with certain metaphysical scholas- 
 tic writers, of making it metaphorical, and so denying that 
 there is any thing, in reality, in the nature of the Divine 
 Being, answerable to the moral virtues and perfections, and 
 in their laborious efforts to obtain some direct, intuitive 
 knowledge of God, to mysticise their conceptions of Him, 
 and foster the wildest enthusiasm. 
 
 The same remarks apply, with equal force and truth, to 
 the angelic intelligences of Heaven. As to any properties, 
 which, as simple spirit, they possess, we know no more about 
 them than as there is something in their nature analogous 
 with our own. This, we are led to believe from the facts, 
 that they have assumed, at times, external visible forms and 
 manifestations ; that they had converse and communion with 
 men ; and also, that the Bible expresses some of their proper- 
 ties, by terms which designate those of our own nature. Still 
 there are certain acts, just as in the case of God Himself, 
 which they are stated to perform, implying powers, of which 
 we can form no conception ; because we can discern nothing 
 in ourselves analogous or answerable thereto, so that, both 
 of God and of them we are constrained to confess, it is but 
 in part only that we have knowledge. 
 
 Now, beyond God, angelic and satanic intelligences, the 
 disembodied spirits of our own kind, the raised Redeemer, 
 and those of his saints that were either quickened or raise d 
 with Him, we have no manner of knowledge or hint what. 
 
152 PROF. Stuart's remarks on his 
 
 ever. Of whatever other existences there may be in the 
 spiritual world, we hiow nothing. " The world of mind," 
 as Professor S. calls it, meaning the actings of the human 
 intellect in this present stage of our existence — the incarnate 
 mind — not the unembodied or disembodied mind, but plainly 
 the mind of man in the flesh, does not properly belong to the 
 spiritual world. It is part and parcel of this fallen world, 
 and we have a variety of means by which to obtain know- 
 ledge of its actings and properties, other than the analogy 
 appropriate to the spiritual world. It is a mere metaphor, 
 or trope of speech, which Professor S. uses when he talks of 
 " the world of mind" in contradistinction from " the world of 
 matter." He means the mind of man in this world— while 
 yet in connection with and operating in the flesh — a thing 
 as different from the mind of angels and disembodied saints, 
 as earth is from Heaven, and angels from men. He shall 
 not, therefore, be allowed to confound them, and then at- 
 tempt to spiritualize and mysticise the whole gospel of the 
 grace of God, by telling us, that the very same sort of ana- 
 logy, which forms the foundation of our knowledge of God, 
 of angels, and of the spiritual invisible world — (he means by 
 invisible, devoid of sensible manifestations) — is to be adopted 
 by us, as the basis of all our conceptions and knowledge of 
 the things which God has revealed to us, concerning the 
 scheme of redemption, the kingdom of Heaven, and the 
 coming of Jesus Christ, which the prophets declare shall 
 have their developments and manifestations in this world, 
 among and before rational creatures living in the flesh.. 
 
 Professor S. has deceived himself and his reader, by mis- 
 apprehending and misstating the true foundation of the im-. 
 port of analogical language. He has excluded the living 
 active mind of man in this world, now dwelling in the flesh, 
 with all its external sensible manifestations and facilities for 
 our obtaining knowledge of its actifigs and holding commun- 
 ion with it, as completely and absolutely from this world, 
 
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 153 
 
 tiS i&'tft^'Tlfiig'een world of spirits, where God and Christ and 
 the angels and saints now dwell. Speaking of the " invisible 
 world, and all the beings and objects that belong to it," he 
 says, ** they are not objects of sense to us." But the mind 
 of mBn in this world, does manifest itself by external sensi- 
 ble sounds, expressions and actions. The language which 
 we use to express such actions and manifestations, of course 
 is taken from sensible objects, and we understand it well, 
 because we assume, and are so constituted that we do as- 
 sume, the existence of an analogy in the actings of mind, 
 with its external bodily actings in and through the flesh. It 
 is not mere tropical language, therefore, which we employ, 
 when we speak of intending, perceiving, comparing, com- 
 prehending, imagining, concluding, and the like — we mean 
 to express something more, yea, much more, than mere meta- 
 phorical resemblance, even the correspondence and agree- 
 ment, in the very nature of the mind's actings, with the ex- 
 ternal sensible actings by which it manifests them, or by 
 which we express them, so that there is an analogy, which 
 has its foundation, not in the mere tropes and embellish- 
 ments of diction, but in the nature of things. 
 
 What we thus learn of our own mental and moral acts 
 and properties, and express on the foundation of such an an- 
 alogy between the inner actings of the mind and its outer 
 manifestations, becomes, in its turn, the means of knowing 
 and expressing our conceptions of God, and of perfectly 
 pure unembodied mind, by reason of the analogy assumed to 
 exist, in the very nature of things, between unembodied and 
 embodied mind. 
 
 The employment of tropical language is done with dif- 
 ferent intent, and altogether on different principles. Prof. 
 S. has lost sight of the important and essential distinction 
 between them, and confounded analog^/ and metaphor. For 
 he says, that " spiritual objects of the eternal and unseen 
 world, cannot be the same as the material ones, from which 
 
language has taken its origin. Of course a tropical use of 
 words, at the foundation of which some analogy real or sup- 
 posed lies, is the only use which can be supposed or sanc- 
 tioned in cases like these," that is, when we speak of God, 
 of Christ, of the spiritual world, of the kingdom of Heaven, 
 and of other invisible realities. He evidently thinks, and 
 so reasons, that there is but one or other of two alternatives 
 to be adopted. Either our language must be understood 
 literally, which being taken from sensible objects and ac- 
 tions, cannot, without absurdity, be so understood when ap- 
 plied to God and spiritual things, or tropically, that is, as he 
 attempts to explain himself, " we must give to these latter 
 declarations" — he means analogical expressions — " a sense, 
 which will make them compatible with the loell known nature 
 oi spirits J' 
 
 Now, not to notice for the present, the excessive con- 
 fusion and floundering of thought here, let us for a moment, 
 put his position to the test. By tropical language, he under- 
 stands metaphorical, figurative expressions, applied to God 
 and spiritual things. He has admitted, that our use of them 
 in reference to these things, is founded on some real or sup' 
 posed analogy, so that all he has said on this subject, when 
 fairly brought out of the confusion in which it lays in his 
 own thoughts, amounts to just this, and no more, that we 
 conceive of God and spiritual things — the spiritual world — 
 by analogy, and express them only by metaphor ; for that is 
 the trope of speech, under which the expressions he particu- 
 larizes must be classed. " He might just as well have said, 
 we conceive of them only by Hyperbole, and express them 
 by Irony.^^ 
 
 I have said that analogy, which Professor S. confesses 
 lies at the foundation of our knowledge of God, and meta- 
 phor, or tropes of speech, are very different. " Metaphor 
 in general," says the author already referred to, "is a sub- 
 stitution of the idea or conception of one thing, with the 
 
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 15§ 
 
 term belonging to it, to stand for another thing, on account \/ 
 of an appearing similitude only, without any real resemblance 
 and true correspondency between the things compared, as 
 when the Psalmist describes the verdure and fruitfuhiess of 
 vallies, by laughing and singing. Analogy in general, is 
 the substituting the idea or conception of one thing to stand 
 for and represent another, on account of a true resemblance, 
 and correspondent reality in the very nature of the things 
 compared. They both agree in this, that they are equally a 
 substitution of the idea, or conception, of one thing to stand 
 for another ; and that, by these a word is transferred from 
 \\& first and proper signification, to express some other thing 
 in a more remote and secondary meaning. They agree also 
 in this, that the substituted ideas or conceptions cannot, either 
 in analogy or metaphor, represent, to our mind any thin 
 of the real, true, essential nature of the objects they stand 
 for, i. e., as they are in themselves. They only furnish us at 
 best with similitudes or representative and mediate concep- 
 tions of those objects. But they differ in this. First, that 
 the ground a.nd foundation of metaphor, consists only in an 
 appearing or imaginary resemblance and correspondency, 
 as when God is said to have hands, and eyes, and ears. But 
 the foundation of analogy is an actual similitude, and a real 
 correspondency in the very nature of things, which lays a 
 foundation for a parity of reason even between things dif- 
 ferent in nature and kind: as when God is said to have 
 kh,owledge, power and goodness. They differ in this : meta- 
 phor is altogether arbitrary, and the result merely of the 
 imagination ; it is rather a figure of speech than a real si- 
 militude and comparison of things, and therefore is properly 
 of consideration in Rhetoric and Poetry. But analogy, be- 
 ing built on the very nature of things themselves, is a neces- 
 sary and useful method of conception and reasoning, and 
 therefore of consideration in Physics and Metaphysics. It is 
 the result of reason viewing the true nature of beings. The 
 
156 PROF. Stuart's remarks ox his 
 
 comparison here contains something not only actual and 
 real, but correspondent and similar ; and the parity of rea- 
 soning upon it is just and true." 
 
 It is very easy therefore, from this very clear and satisfac- 
 tory view of the matter, to determine when language, applied 
 to God and spiritual beings, has a mere figurative or meta- 
 phorical import, as when Christ is called a door, the vine, 
 the way, a Lamb, &/C., expressions designating a mere im- 
 aginary resemblance; and when it has an analogical import, 
 according to which, words are transferred from the proper 
 and immediate objects of our senses and reason, to import 
 something divine and supernatural, as when they represent 
 any similar and correspondent reality in the nature or oper- 
 ations of spiritual or heavenly beings, which is the case when 
 we use such expressions as Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Redemp- 
 tion, Intercession, Throne, Kingdom, Dominion, and the like. 
 
 This, no doubt, is what Prof S. meant to express, when 
 he claims that such expressions as new birth, regeneration, 
 resurrection, new creation, used to denote the moral and 
 spiritual renovation of corrupt and fallen man, must be inter- 
 preted " in a tropical way." Yet this does not prove, that 
 they are not employed to designate " historical facts." He 
 says, '* it is as much a matter of fact and of history, in re- 
 spect to the Christian, that he has been born again, as that 
 he has been physically and naturally born." Unquestiona- 
 bly. But it would not be, if it was all metaphor or figure, 
 denoting mere arbitrary or imaginary resemblance. It is 
 correspondence in reality, in the nature of things, between 
 the commencement of a man's spiritual and moral existence, 
 as a renewed, regenerated sinner, and the commencement of 
 his physical existence, as born into this world — the analogy 
 between these things — that makes snch language import 
 reality, and not mere fanciful resemblance. Yet has he 
 expressed himself most obscurely and unintelligibly, yea, 
 contrary to truth, if his words have meaning, when he says, 
 
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 157 
 
 in reference to such expressions as derive their import from 
 the divinely constituted analogy of things, that " we must 
 give them a sense which will make them compatible with 
 the WELL KNOWN nature of spirits /" This is actually "^ 
 putting the cart before the horse. We have no well known 
 notions, and can have no well knotony'iews — he means accu- 
 rate ideas — of the nature of spirits. All our knowledge of 
 them is complicated, and obtained by a circuitous, not by a 
 direct route, the basis of which is laid in the analogy be- 
 tween God and spiritual things, and the things which, because 
 of this their correspondence, in the nature of things, we use 
 as representatives of them. 
 
 Prof. S. will have us use some preconceived notions of 
 the nature of spirit and of spiritual things, by which to judge 
 of the meaning of scriptural language, in relation to them. 
 Hear what he says: "If then I am asked, why I give a 
 spiritual exegesis to all those passages that respect his 
 (Christ's) future reign on earth, my answer is, that I do it 
 for a reason which leads me to explain all the anthropopathic 
 expressions concerning God and the future w.orld in a spirit- 
 ual manner, i. e. because any other exegesis would be utterly 
 opposed to the well known, and certain nature and condition 
 of the Messianic reign." *' In fact, one might just as well 
 appropriate and assign all our bodily qualities to spirits, as 
 a:ppropriate, to Christ's kingdom, the qualities of a temporal, 
 earthly, visible, kingdom." App. pp. 185, 186. 
 
 Thus has Prof S. actually separated and discarded the 
 kingdom of Christ from this world. By denying, and ridi- 
 culing, as he has done, the idea of its visibility/ — that is, its 
 perceptibility by ani/ of our senses, for he speaks tropically, 
 by synecdoche using visibility for all external sensible mani- 
 festations, — he has made it as completely and absolutely a 
 matter of mere mind, intellect, spirit, as is God Himself Hav- 
 ing, in his extreme confusion, and obscurity, failed to give us 
 
158 PROF, stuirt's remarks on his 
 
 any hints, or clew, by which to understand the import of lan- 
 guage as applied to God, when it is to be understood analo- 
 gically or tropically, and having left us wholly to the do- 
 minion of our imaginations here, to explain as mere me- 
 taphors the meaning of all words designating God^s 
 names, titles, personality, modes of subsistence, rela- 
 tions, offices, attributes, acts, operations and manifesta- 
 tions, as well as the " terminology," as he calls it, of the 
 whole scheme of redemption, and of the mediatorial govern- 
 ment and kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, — 
 he has contributed a vast amount, to sanction the practical 
 skepticism and infidelity, and rationalism of the times, and 
 to fix indelibly and for ever, by his incautious attempt to 
 wash it out, the " stain" which he has seen *' on English 
 and American expositors," who, like himself, have " no 
 standard, no landmark, no compass," but " every man 
 says," of course rightfully, when using and interpreting me- 
 taphors and figures, as applied to God and spiritual things, 
 *' what is right in his own eyes, and then calls upon others 
 to agree with him," Hints, p. 144, because he claims to 
 have some clearer and better notions than they, about the 
 nature and ope{ations of mind or spirit by which to explain, 
 or determine what is tropical language. 
 
 I do him no injustice here, and would not charge him 
 with opinions and positions he has not actually advanced. 
 *' No principle," says he, " which belongs to the science of 
 hermeneutics is better established than this, viz., that lan- 
 guage is always to be regarded as tropical, when, if literal- 
 ly interpreted, it would make a sense absurd, frigid, incon- 
 gruous, or inconsistent with the context or nature of things,^' 
 App. p. 186. He does not seem ever to have thought dis- 
 tinctly that there is a third style of language, the analogical, 
 sanctioned by God, and based on His own divine constitu- 
 tion of things, in the use of which, we express other than 
 
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATf 
 
 
 imaginary/, arbitrary resemblances, even tlfe^e-wfeiclTexist, 
 as has been shown, m the nature or reality 9f,^ht^kings 
 compared. 
 
 What he has said in reference to tropical language is 
 correct and plain enough, except the word ** frigid," which 
 means any thing or nothing, according to men's tempera- 
 ment, and had better have been left out. The rule applies 
 to language that is tropical ; but it does not apply to that 
 of which we have spoken, viz., the analogical, for God, by 
 his own divinely constituted analogy, has for ever debarred 
 us in His second commandment, from the indulgence of 
 our own imaginations, as well as our senses, in the framing 
 and employing of mere pictorial or metaphorical, which are 
 also figurative, representations of Himself, and of heavenly 
 things. He has used similitudes, and He only has the 
 right to do it, when speaking of himself. The neglect and 
 practical contempt of His prerogative here, led to idolatry. 
 Men never will, never can, be satisfied, without some know- 
 ledge of God and divine things, which they can feel is cer- 
 tain. Tell them that there is no foundation of certain know- 
 ledge laid in any analogy at all between God and man, as man 
 exists here in his compounded being, mind and body — mind 
 acting and manifesting itself externally and sensibly — but 
 that we must depend on mere metaphorical, tropical repre- 
 sentations of Him, and it will drive the ignorant into the use 
 of pictorial images, and lay the foundation of idolatry, while 
 the more reflecting will resort to some form of mysticism or 
 of rationalism, which presumes to judge of God, according to 
 preconceived philosophical or metaphysical notions of the 
 nature of things. The dangers of adopting the literal im- 
 port of language, on the one hand, and the tropical or meta- 
 phorical, on the other hand, will be best and easiest avoided 
 by adhering to God's own method, the analogical import of 
 words founded on the divinely constituted resemblance or 
 analogy in the nature of things, In medio tutissitnus ibis 
 
IbO profT^tuXrt^s rkmarks on his 
 
 Prof. S. has wholly neglected this analogical import of 
 language, and having confounded it with tropical expressions 
 and the plain rule of Rhetoric applicable to them, must of 
 necessity be just as confused and bewildered often, in his 
 interpretation of other parts of Scripture beside the prophe- 
 cies, as are thfey who undertake to explain the prophets 
 and distinguish not between tropes and symbols. 
 
 But there are further fallacies in Prof S.'s attempt to 
 develope his principles of interpretation. He contradicts 
 some of the plain and fundamental facts of Scripture. For 
 he assumes, and so claims to interpret the Scriptures, that 
 Christ and the kingdom of Heaven, the kingdom being spir- 
 itual, are as truly in their nature invisible, devoid of all exter- 
 nal sensible acts and manifestations, as is Jehovah himself, the 
 invisible God. On this assumption too, he says, the pro- 
 phets so thought and spake of Christ, and so expected their 
 language would be interpreted, '* The kingdom of God," siiys 
 he, " is spiritiial." *' The prophets took it for granted, that 
 in speaking of a spiritual Redeemer, and of his kingdom, 
 their language must be spiritually interpreted." Hence he 
 concludes, that all our language in reference to Christ and 
 His kingdom, is merely tropical. Now he has not proved 
 these assumptions ; nor can he : for they are directly in the 
 face of scriptural facts. 
 
 Whatever he may say about God, as a pure unembodied 
 spirit, who is essentially invisible ; and whatever he may 
 think of our remarks, — about the analogy, which gives sig- 
 nificance to our language in reference to God and spiritual 
 things, having its foundation in the divine constitution by 
 which man was made in the image of God and after his like- 
 ness, and about that analogy being the means of our know- 
 ledge of Him, — one thing is certain, he cannot say, that Je- 
 sus Christ our blessed Redeemer is an invisibh^heing, and 
 has no external sensible relations to the material universe, 
 nor interest in this fallen visible world of ours. That He is 
 
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 161 
 
 not now actually seen by us, is no more proof, that he is in- 
 visible, than it is, that Prof. S. is invisible, because I and 
 many others do not see him. The eternal Son of God be- 
 came visible. God was manifest in the flesh. He was con- 
 stituted and still " is the image of the invisible God," Col. i. 
 15, " the brightness of his glory, and the express image oiYns 
 person," Heb. i. 3. He took upon him a material nature, 
 and in the likeness of sinful flesh lived, acted, suffered and 
 died among men ; all literally true. In that very body, which 
 had died, which was pierced in its side and hands and feet 
 and marred in its countenance. He rose again. His human 
 soul resumed its relation to matter ; rising from the dead. 
 He again appeared, acted, ate, spake, and consorted with 
 men in the flesh, for the space of forty days. He was known 
 by his followers, recognized as the same — their identical Lord 
 and Master. 
 
 Thomas was incredulous, and when told of his resurrec- 
 tion, deemed that it must have been an apparition which the 
 other apostles had seen, and would not be convinced to the 
 contrary, insisting that he must first " see in his hands the 
 print of the nails, and put his finger into the print of the 
 nails^ and thrust his hand into his side/' John xx. 25, that 
 is, must yceZ him, as well as see him — exercise the very sense 
 by which we have the presence of a material world. The 
 Saviour subsequently appeared to him, and said, " Reach 
 hither thy finger, and behold my hands ; and reach hither 
 thy hand, and thrust it into my side, and be not faithless 
 but believing," v. 27. Verily he would have been unbeliev- 
 ing still, on Prof. S.'s principle, a notion about a spiritual 
 body being devoid of all materiality, if on reaching forth 
 his hand, he had not felt as well as seen. It would have but 
 confirmed him in his belief that it was only a spirit, an ap- 
 parition that both he and the apostles had seen, and not what 
 he found it to be, his Lord and his God. 
 
 In.that same body, the Saviour often afterwards appeared 
 
16^ 
 
 PROF. STUART'S REMARKS ON HIS 
 
 to the disciples, having eaten before them, Luke xxiv. 42, 
 43, and having, as Luke says, " showed himself alive, after 
 bis passion, by many infallible proofs, being seen of them 
 forty days." Acts i. 3. Paul says " he was seen of live hun- 
 dred brethren at once." 1 Cor. xv. 6. I am not concerned 
 to say, think, or imagine, what were the properties of his 
 raised or spiritual body. It is enough for me to know, that 
 the Redeemer did not become so spiritual, as to be invisible 
 to mortal men. He still retained some connection with 
 matter. That he ever parted with the materiality he had 
 after his resurrection. Prof S. has produced no proof; nor 
 can he : for, in that same visible body he ascended into 
 heaven, and was followed by the wondering gaze of his dis- 
 ciples, till " a cloud received him out of their sight." Acts 
 i. 9. In that same glorious body, he subsequently appeared 
 to Saul of Tarsus, and was identified by him as Jesus of 
 Nazareth, so that he became qualified, with all the other 
 apostles, to testify the fact of his resurrection. "Last of 
 all," says he, " he was seen of rhe also." 1 Cor. xv. 8. All 
 this was literally true. And the angels who appeared to the 
 wondering apostles that had literally seen him go into heav- 
 en, announced : " This same Jesus, which is taken up from 
 you into heaven, (that is literally as they saw,) shall so come, 
 in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven," Acts 
 i. 11. 
 
 It is not possible for language to assert, in plainer terms 
 than this, the fact of the visible personal return of Jesus 
 Christ, in the same body with which he ascended into heav- 
 en. Language must have lost all its meaning, and we must 
 for ever be at the mercy of the whims, and conceits, and 
 philosophical, metaphysical absurdities and nonsense of phi- 
 lologists, critics, professors, and what not, if we are to be 
 told, that Christ has parted with all his materiality, become 
 an invisible spirit, and will not, as literally and truly appear, 
 and be seen again, as when he went into Heaven. And yet 
 
PRINCIPLES or INTERPRETATION. 163 
 
 Prof. S., notwithstanding all this overwhelming evidence 
 from the word of God, establishing incontestably these facts, 
 if I caii understand language and gather the mind of a wri- 
 ter from his expressions, has the rashness, I must say the 
 bold and daring presumption, to deny, that the second com- 
 ing of Christ will be visible. Of course he also must deny, 
 that he ever will be again visible, or so manifest himself, as 
 to be seen by men in the flesh. " Christ's coming to extend 
 and complete his kingdom," he says *' is no more evidence, 
 that his kingdom is visible and an object of sense, than his 
 coming to set up his kingdom at first [a most gratuitous as- 
 sertion] is an evidence, that this kingdom was then visible. 
 Christ himself assumed a visible appearance then, only that 
 he might take on him our nature and die for sin. Heb. ii. 9, 
 14 [a most awkward assertion.] When he appears a sec- 
 ond time, there is no necessity of assuming such a nature ; 
 [did he ever lay it off?] he will appear ^ i. e. [let the reader 
 mark this] he will give manifest tokens of his presence, only 
 for the purpose of salvation — salvation spiritual, not tempo- 
 ral. Heb. ix. 28." App. p 185. 
 
 If this is not to " wrest the Scriptures," it comes as 
 near to it as any thing I can well conceive. Yet to this 
 result is he driven, to maintain consistently his fundamental 
 principle of interpretation, that the predictions, concerning 
 Christ's coming and kingdom, relate only to " the world of 
 mind," and not at all to " the world of matter." I deny 
 that when Christ first came literally in the flesh, it was then 
 ** to set up his kingdom," as Prof S. assumes and asserts 
 it. Let him produce the slightest shadow of proof for it from 
 the word of God. He tells us himself distinctly that his 
 object was very different. Where did Prof S. learn that it 
 was then actually to set up his kingdom 1 Not a breath to 
 this effect ever dropped from the Saviour's lips. Where too 
 did Prof S. learn, that the only object Christ had in view, 
 in assuming a visible appearance, was that he might take on 
 
16,4 PROF. Stuart's remarks on his 
 
 him our nature and die ? I wonder at the extraordinary 
 looseness of such expressions. 
 
 How marvellously also has he been betrayed by his prin- 
 ciples, into " a point-blank contradiction" of Paul, Heb. 
 ix. 28, who says, without any tropes of speech at all, that 
 " unto them that look for him shall he appear {oq,Oricerai) 
 1st fut. pass., " SHALL HE BE SEEN," a secoud time, with- 
 out sin (a sin-offering) unto salvation ;" — of the two angels 
 whose words we have quoted. Acts i. 11; — of John, who 
 says, expressly, " Behold he cometh with clouds, and every 
 eye shall see him, and they also that pierced him, and all 
 nations shall wail because of him ;" Rev. i. 7 — of Christ 
 himself, who, speaking of a vision of himself, to occur not 
 merely after his death, but after his return to the Father, 
 said to his disciples, " A little while and ye shall not see 
 me ; and again a little while, and ye shall see me, and be- 
 cause I go to the Father." Johnxvi. 17, &c. When speaking 
 of these being but the tokens of Christ's presence onli/ for 
 salvation, — *' salvation spiritual, not temporal," i. e., as his 
 language means, invisible, how is he betrayed into " a point- 
 blank contradiction" of Peter, who says of that salvation ex- 
 pressly, that it is " ready to be revealed in the last time — at 
 the appearing of Jesus Christ ;" 1 Pet. 5-7 — and of Paul, 
 who referred the Thessalonians to their glorious day of rest 
 and salvation, ''when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from 
 heaven, with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking ven- 
 geance on them that know not God and obey not the Gospel 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Thess. i. 7, 8. 
 
 Surely Prof. S. has forgotten himself, or forgotten his 
 Bible, or both, in his zeal to establish his interpretation 
 of the predictions relative to the coming and kingdom of 
 Christ, by denying their visibility, as he has done. But to 
 this result, his confused notions about spirit, and " the world 
 of mind," and *' tropical language," have driven him. To 
 use his own language, '' There is no stopping short of this, 
 
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 165 
 
 without entire and absolute inconsistency. And I will only 
 add, that whatever proves too much — too much in such an 
 immeasurable degree — proves nothing, absolutely nothing." 
 App. p. 189. 
 
 The reader, perhaps, is ready to ask, Does he not offer 
 proof of his assumptions and positions 1 — surely he must have 
 proof,, clear and strong as holy writ ? He does indeed offer 
 proof of his main position, that " the kingdom of God is 
 spiritual," of course he means entirely, absolutely, exclu- 
 sively, for if not, then all he has said, is but just beating 
 against the air — words to no purpose ; for no one denies, 
 that the kingdom of Christ embraces the minds or spirits 
 of men, whatever may be the degree or extent, the grandeur 
 or the glory, of its visibility. His proof is, " So the Saviour 
 has most explicitly declared : * The kingdom of God comett 
 not with observation ; neither shall they say lo here ! or lo 
 there ! for behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 
 xvii. 20, 21. Did Prof S. examine the context? did he 
 ponder the language of Christ here ? Is he at all aware of 
 the numerous and pointed criticisms, that he must meet and 
 answer before he can establish the meaning he assigns to 
 these words ? and that this passage is strictly and properly a 
 locus vexatissimus, as he says ? If he is ignorant of these 
 things, his ignorance is inexcusable. If he knew them, and 
 observed silence that he might use the argumentum ad cap- 
 tandum, his silence is highly censurable- 
 It was to the Pharisees Christ addressed these remarks. 
 See V. 28. They were the persons who " demanded when 
 the kinordom of God should come?" His remark that it 
 
 a 
 
 Cometh not by observation, fieta TragartjQi^aEo^g, was intended 
 to be a declinature of any satisfactory answer to the Phari- 
 sees about the time when this event should take place. The 
 kingdom of God, as both Christ and the Pharisees on this 
 occasion used the phrase, means the glorious dominion which 
 God should establish on earth under the reign of the Mes- 
 
 9 
 
166 PROF, stuart's remarks on his 
 
 siah. The word ^aQarijQi^aig, here translated observation, 
 occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and very rarely 
 in classical Greek. It is derived from a word, which, in the 
 Greek Testament means to watch from a near position — 
 and so metaphorically to watch closely, narrowly, or with 
 malicious design. Mark iii. 2 : Luke vi. 7 ; xiv. 1 ; xx. 20 : 
 Acts ix. 24. In Gal. iv. 10, it is used to denote the manner 
 in which the Jews kept their festivals, &c., which occurred 
 at fixed, definite times, after well-known and stated intervals, 
 so being objects of regular anticipation, looking forward to, 
 or expectation. The preposition fxeta, here translated ivith, 
 occurring in connection with the genitive, is sometimes, in 
 a similar connection, translated inter, among — in the midst 
 of; and may denote here in the midst of expectation, watch- 
 ing, or looking closely for it. Supposing an ellipsis of 
 aaiQov — which may appropriately be done, as the subject re- 
 fers to time when, &c., and connecting it thus with the ac- 
 cusative, it may be translated after, and the same idea still 
 presents itself, viz., after a season of watching, or expectation, 
 of course up to the very time of its arrival. 
 
 The idea of Christ then in this passage is, that, unlike 
 their Jewish festivals, whenever the kingdom of God would 
 come, it would not be in the midst of watching or looking 
 after it, not at a definite period to whioh expectation or at- 
 tention had been directed. While this would be a declining 
 to answer their question when it would come, just as he al- 
 ways did decline to answer that question, by whomsoever 
 proposed, it nevertheless agrees exactly with other statements 
 which he has made on the subject. What he says after- 
 wards, that " neither should it be said lo here, or lo there," is 
 plainly intended to intimate, that when it did come, it would 
 be instantaneous, no time, notice, or opportunity for observ- 
 ing, announcing or watching it, however short in its progress 
 after it made its appearance, should occur. Before men would 
 have time to say lo here ! or lo there ! it would be upon them, 
 
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 167 
 
 right in the midst of them. Behold the kingdom of God is 
 in the midst of you, Ivxog vfiav, not within you personally, for 
 that in no sense was true of the Pharisees, much less in Prof. 
 S.'s sense, who to support his scheme assumes that the phrase 
 denotes the dominion of grace, the reign of Christ, in the heart. 
 
 The plural vfxmv, you, shows that he addressed them col- 
 lectively, as men dwelling on earth, in the midst of, that is 
 among whom, the kingdom should suddenly appear. It 
 should have been in the singular in order to convey the met- 
 aphysical, psychological, spiritual meaning, that Prof S. 
 gives it. This view agrees exactly with what Christ, imme- 
 diately after, said to his disciples, warning them against be- 
 ing deceived by those who might tell them either that it had 
 come, or was appearing here or there, and that they should 
 not go after them or follow them, " for as the lightning that 
 lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto 
 the other part under heaven, so shall also the Son of man be 
 in his day." Luke xxiv. 24. He identifies the season of his 
 coming and kingdom ; and when it did come He says it 
 would be sudden, unexpected, instantaneous, in the very midst 
 of them, and take them by surprise, like the lightning's flash. 
 This is one view of the passage it behooved Prof. S. to have 
 noticed. He may find some things, though not from a pro- 
 fessor of biblical literature, in a work entitled, Essays on the 
 Kingdom of God, by Philo-Basilicus, deserving his serious and 
 attentive consideration, and which, as an Exegetical profes- 
 sor, he is not doing himself or his students justice to neglect 
 any longer. 
 
 There are other views, that may be given of this passage, 
 consistently with sound philological criticism and strict 
 analysis, but they all bring out the same result. Thus, if 
 the phrase Ivrog vnav be translated within you^ it can mean 
 no more than within their nation. For as a matter of fact, 
 it is not true, that it was in their hearts, which Christ would 
 not therefore assert. There was, however, a very important 
 
168 PROF. 
 
 sense, in which the kingdom of God, at that time, was in the 
 midst of them, within their nation. He, the destined king, 
 stood before them. He was performing the miracles predict- 
 ed, triumphing over the devils, and thus giving proof that 
 the dominion of Heaven, the kingdom of God, was come 
 unto them ; Matt. xii. 28, UQct sqjdaasv icp vpiag rj ^ccGrlnicc rov 
 daov. It was as Luke says, " come upon" them, xi. 20. In 
 some important sense it had so arrived as to be at their very 
 doors. This was in the person of the destined king, demonstra- 
 ting his powers and benevolence, and tendering himself and 
 his services to the Jewish nation, to whom he confined his 
 personal ministry. It was exactly in the same strain that John 
 preached the kingdom of God to be at hand, and that Christ 
 and his apostles, during his personal ministry, did too. 
 
 The kingdom in all its fulness of bliss and glory was 
 preached to them, offered for their acceptance, according to 
 the design and extent of its blessed and wonderful provisions. 
 Matt. iv. 15, 17 ; x. 7 : Mark i. 15 : Luke x. 9. The very 
 first step for them, and indispensably necessary to possess the 
 kingdom, and to secure its bliss and glory, was to repent, 
 to accept Christ, to yield to all his instruction, to give up 
 their own wills, wishes, thoughts, notions, reasonings, plans, 
 and expectations, and to learn of him. Who will dare to 
 say, that if the rulers and Pharisees, and entire Jewish na- 
 tion, had accepted Him thus, and cleaved to Him with all 
 their heart, Deut. xi. 1 — 28, God would not have been faith- 
 ful and his kingdom have been set up at once, in his own 
 abundantly veritable manner, by which to maintain his own 
 faithfulness 1 and thus all the direful consequences of his 
 coming to his own and his own receiving him not, of the 
 Jews' rejection of Christ, and of the subsequent long delay 
 and postponement of the kingdom, been obviated ? No man 
 dare to say the contrary. For thus run God's promises, Deut. 
 xxviii. 1 — 18, of old to the Jewish people, made through 
 Moses. Our ignorance as to how God would or could act 
 
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 169 
 
 under certain contingencies, forms no excuse for our unbe- 
 lief But they did not embrace Christ the promised king ; nor 
 his proffer of the kingdom which he had brought nigh to them, 
 and which had actually thus come unto them and upon them. 
 Accordingly he distinctly informed them, that the kingdom, 
 which had come nigh them, should be taken from them, and 
 given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof, Matt. xxi. 
 43, in exact accordance with what the Psalmist had predicted, 
 Ps. cxvii. 22, 23 : Matt. xxi. 42. After they had crucified 
 *' their king," according "^to Pilate's own showing, on the 
 cross, and he had risen from the dead, he conversed with, 
 and gave commandments to his apostles about the kingdom 
 of God. They continued still to preach the kingdom of 
 God, not as set up and established, but as an object of hope, 
 desire and expectation — the gospel, or good news, of the king- 
 dom. They went among the Gentiles, agreeably to the syn- 
 od of Jerusalem's decision. Acts xv., in the premises, that God 
 by them might visit the Gentiles, and take out of them a 
 people for the glory of his name, who should be, as Paul 
 teaches, " heirs of the kingdom." But the kingdom was no 
 longer preached as having co?ne nigh to them, either Gentiles 
 or Jews ; nor as being at hand, approaching, as it had been 
 before the crucifixion of Christ, to the Jews. Prophecy 
 thenceforth pointed to a long and dark night to come upon 
 the world, a dreadful tide of evils that should flow in upon it ; 
 and so it has been ever since, that " we must through much 
 tribulation enter the kingdom of God." 
 
 In whatever way therefore we translate the words of Christ, 
 agreeably to their strict grammatical import, we get no such 
 idea as Prof S. assumes. It makes the language of Christ 
 utterly destitute of precision, and is directly contradictory 
 of what Christ says ; for the reign of grace in the heart, 
 was not true of the Pharisees ; and the very way by which 
 it is to be secured, and to be advanced in the world, is by 
 close, diligent observation, and watching of times, opportuni- 
 
no PROF. 
 
 ties, occasions, means, and all other things, that may invite 
 to action, and promise fair for the abundant effusions of the 
 Spirit of God or the success of missions. Ordinarily here, 
 the most watchful and observant are the most successful ; 
 yet has he assumed a disputed passage, in which a word oc- 
 curs that nowhere else occurs in the New Testament, given 
 it a meaning for which he can produce no authority, and 
 without one solitary remark, attaching his own meaning to 
 the expressions, palmed it off upon the reader, as Christ's 
 own definition of the invisible spiritual nature of his kingdom, 
 and laid it down as the fundamental principle of his whole 
 scheme and system of interpretation ! ! ! I hold Prof. S. ex- 
 ceedingly censurable here, considering the position he oc- 
 cupies, and the influence he sways as an interpreter of the 
 sacred Scriptures. Surely he cannot be ignorant that his 
 views have been contested, and need strong arguments to sup- 
 port them. Has he never, with all his fondness for the Ger- 
 mans, read the excursus of Koppe on the formulas " king- 
 dom of God — of Heaven — of Christ," in which he carefully 
 examines, and analyzes the import of every passage, where 
 the phrases occur, to determine their scriptural import? If 
 not, he may find something there deserving his attention, 
 and also a very clear and satisfactory solution of the method 
 of interpretation, which he, in common with many others, 
 adopts in relation to these phrases. 
 
 The next passage he adduces in support of his position as 
 to the essential spirituality and invisibility of Christ's king- 
 dom is, Rom. xiv. 17 ; " So, says Paul, the kingdom of God 
 is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace, and joy in 
 the Holy Ghost." And no Millenarian denies or teaches 
 any thing to the contrary. In the exalted state of happiness, 
 in which Christ and his saints shall live and reign together, 
 there will be no place or occasion for the differences that 
 existed in the primitive church, about meat and drink. Why 
 said Paul, will you attach such importance to these things here, 
 
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 171 
 
 when they shall have no place hereafter, bat righteousness, 
 peace and joy be the elements of your delight? This text 
 proves nothing for his position ; for if he means to say, that 
 the influence of Christianity ,'the reign of grace in the heart, 
 has nothing at all to do with meat and drink, so that our 
 actions and feelings in relation to them form no part of our 
 religion, he contradicts Paul, whose very object was to show 
 that it had, and that it should make us willing neither to eat 
 meat, or drink wine all our days, if the indulgence of our 
 liberty would cause a brother to offend. This is only addi- 
 tional proof, of the exceeding looseness with which Prof. S. 
 quotes and applies Scripture. He has much to do in the 
 way of exegesis to make this text speak what he has cited it 
 for. 
 
 Of like nature is the passage which he partially quotes 
 from John xviii, 36 : — " My kingdom is not of this world — 
 not from hence." Christ in so saying does not deny, nor 
 mean to teach aught to the contrary, that He and His saints 
 will reign on the earth, which the Scriptures assert they will ; 
 much less that He and His kingdom are so essentially spirit' 
 ual as to be invisible, which it is the object of Prof. S. to 
 prove by quoting these words. He disavowed the idea that 
 His kingdom was like the governments of earth, to be es- 
 tablished and maintained, as they are, by military powers and 
 standing armies : for he explains his meaning, which Prof. 
 S. has conveniently left out of view : '*Ifmy kingdom were 
 of this world, then would my servants fight that I should not 
 be delivered to the Jews ; but now is my kingdom not from 
 hence." He was not then going to set up a visible domin- 
 ion, like the governments of earth; and this was his answer 
 to the charge of sedition at Pilate's bar. It is marvellous 
 to see how Prof S. has contrived to make it prove that he 
 will never have a visible kingdom on earth ! 
 
 The nature of this visible kingdom hereafter to be revealed, 
 the Jews had mistaken. They charged Him with sedition. 
 
172 PROF. Stuart's remarks on his 
 
 He replied to the charge, that now His kingdom was not of 
 this world, nor was he seeking, by military movements, to 
 establish one. How does, and how can this prove, that in the 
 ^^ world to come,'' of which Paul so expressly treats, Heb. ii. 
 5, he should not have a visible kingdom, and which should 
 be established, too, on the ruins of the nations of this pres- 
 ent world ? The inference of Prof S. is another piegnant 
 example of the non seqidtur. To the same purport, and 
 equally fallacious, in point of logic, is all he says about the 
 spiritual change necessary, the spiritual enemies with whom 
 we have to combat, and the holiness and purity of heart 
 necessary to see God. However true and important in them- 
 selves these things are, and however indispensably neces- 
 sary, in order to a part or lot in the kingdom of God, they 
 prove just nothing at all as to his purpose. They do not 
 prove that the kingdom of Christ, however deeply His do- 
 minion may be seated in the heart, is devoid of all visi- 
 hility, and shall never be manifested and established on this 
 earth. It is a remarkable specimen of logic, to take up one 
 feature of an object or subject described by an author in a 
 particular place, and then talk and reason about it, assuming 
 and using it as a key-note of interpretation, as if that one 
 feature were all it possessed, while the same author else- 
 where, and others too, had spoken of oiher features and as- 
 pects as belonging to it. 
 
 The truth is. Prof S. has lost sight of the foundation which 
 God has laid, in the very nature of things, in that divine 
 analogy, by virtue of which we use terms and expressions 
 denoting things pertaining to man in his being, rchtions and 
 interests, created in the image of God, and constituted head 
 over this lower creation — as representatives of that which cor- 
 responds with them in God revealing himself in Jesus Christ, 
 the second Adam, and in His relations and interest in earth 
 as Head, Lord, and ** Heir of all things," as well of this 
 as of other worlds. Neglecting these grand fundamental 
 
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 173 
 
 facts, which, when apprehended, render all our language, ta- 
 ken from sensible objects, and used either analogically in ap- 
 plication to God and divine and spiritual things, or even sensi- 
 bly to Christ and His kingdom, perfectly intelligible and 
 expressive, certain and definite, he finds himself doomed to 
 float about in the ocean of his imagination, with nothing 
 but mere metaphorical, tropical terms, to assist his concep- 
 tions of these things. He gives it, as '* the consequence of 
 all this, that I feel just as well satisfied, that the predictions 
 respecting the future state and prosperity of Christ's kingdom 
 are to be spiritually interpreted, as I do that the declarations 
 of Scripture respecting the hands, feet, eyes, ear, mouthy, 
 etc., of the Divine Being are to be spiritually interpreted.'*'- 
 
 The reader will perceive, that I have not done Prof S. 
 injustice ; but fairly stated his principles, and the results 
 to which they bring him. And although " it were easy to say 
 things, that would occupy as much space as" Prof S.'s 
 Hints, on the subject of the incarnation of the Son of God, 
 his being constituted the second Adam — made the Head of 
 all his people, having the dominion, originally given to Ad- 
 am and usurped by the devil when he sinned, put into his 
 hands, and being constituted Heir of all things, according 
 as Paul has taught in his epistle to the Hebrews — a wonder- 
 ful, glorious, and divine analogy — all which would come 
 properly into view, in estimating the Millenarian views of 
 Bible truth, yet enough has been said, to show how vague, 
 confused, and shadowy, is Prof S.'s scheme of interpreta- 
 tion, as he has applied his principles to the glorious plan of 
 redemption, through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 
 
 I merely add here, that his attempt to make it appear, 
 that the Jews rejected Christ, because they interpreted the 
 Scriptures literally, as he says, is like all the rest. They 
 would not take the literal interpretation of their prophets. 
 That was the very stumbling stone : but having, like Prof. 
 S., conceived in their own imaginings, an idea of Christ 
 
 8* 
 
174 PROF. Stuart's remarks on his 
 
 and his kingdom, not to be sure the same, but both alike the 
 product of their own fancies — they would not believe the 
 plain literal statements of the prophets about the first advent,- 
 under circumstances of humiliation, poverty, suffering, and 
 contempt, but run away with those which related to his 
 second advent, and interpreted them to their liking. 
 
 As to my treating Christians who with Prof. S. believe 
 only in a spiritual invisible kingdom, with disregard and 
 contumely, it is much easier for him to assert it than to prove 
 by any thing I have said. The contumely is from the other 
 side ; and the history of Millenarian views, both from the 
 beginning and at this present time, will prove that the spirit 
 of vituperation, of persecution, and exclusive claims to or- 
 thodoxy, find no countenance and support from their advo- 
 vocates. Millenarians have ever plead the solemn obligation 
 to exercise implicit faith in the promises of God, and relied 
 on the plain evidence of truth presented in His word, inter- 
 preted on the principles of grammatico-historical exegesis, 
 rather than on the miserable appliances of bigotry, pride, 
 malice, ambition, envy, and conscious individual weakness, 
 so eagerly sought and often mischievously employed by those 
 who intrigue with ministers, and virtually pronounce the 
 decisions of ecclesiastical courts and councils, presbyteries 
 and synods, to be authoritative and final, conclusive and 
 infallible. 
 
 As to Prof S.'s assuming, for a moment, the position he 
 opposes, to trace out some of its consequences, App. pp. 186, 
 187, 1 deem it totally unnecessary to notice and reply to such 
 ribaldry. I was going to give it even a harsher name ; for as he 
 starts from positions which I have not laid down, and which 
 are not legitimately deducible from any thing I have said, but 
 which he obtains and maintains by ringing his changes on 
 his meaning of the simple word literal, I am in no wise con- 
 cerned to follow him or listen to his badinage. And as to 
 his utter contempt of the idea of the restoration of the Jews, 
 
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 175 
 
 and kindred topics, both in his appendix and his sermon 
 preached at the ordination of Rev. W G. Schauffler, Nov. 
 14, 1831, wherein he just as flatly contradicts the Scriptures, 
 as in the cases I have already pointed out, I have but to say, 
 in his own words, " no principles of hermeneutics can be 
 sound which make the Bible to contradict itself," which, 
 whatever may be said of his, and whatever he has falsely 
 charged about a yoke of bondage, &c., he has failed in every 
 respect to show that mine have done. He has indeed under-^ 
 taken to sit in judgment on the plans of God, and imperti- 
 nently and presumptuously to ask, just as the Unitarian does 
 at times, in interpreting the oracles of God, in reference to 
 orthodox views, " Cui bono ?" *' What end is to be answered 
 by all this ?" and similar questions. His ignorance, or ina- 
 bility to comprehend God's plans, is no rule or reason for 
 interpreting His language, in some way to adjust it to his 
 sense of propriety and utility. Christ was a Son of David, 
 in the ordinary sense of that term, and the establishment of 
 His kingdom on earth, as set forth by the prophets, and that 
 kingdom, swayed by Him, first through the agency of His 
 raised saints in the heavenly Jerusalem, yet having the literal 
 Jerusalem and the Jewish people as the centre of its terrene 
 organization, and the nations congregated around it like so 
 many confederate tribes, renders the language of Jeremiah 
 and others, at which Prof S. stumbles, just as plainly and 
 literally intelligible as that the Son of God should be ** born 
 of a virgin, and his name should be called mighty God, won- 
 derful Counsellor, the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace, 
 and the government should be on his shoulders." 
 
 Doubtless Prof S. will regard all this as proof of insanity, 
 and try to comfort himself with the belief that I am bereft 
 of reason, as he has intimated in no unequivocal terms, App. 
 p. 181. But the charge of madness is very easily made : not 
 always so easily established. I might, indeed, after all I 
 have shown, with some appearance of truth retaliate : 
 
176 
 
 Putidius multo cerebrum est, mihi crede. 
 
 Believe me, dear reader, with all this ado 
 His brain is more addled by far of the two. 
 
 But this would be uncourteous and unbecoming ; and there- 
 fore I content and comfort myself with Damasippus' just 
 remark : 
 
 Velut sylvis, ubi passim 
 Palanfes error certo iraraile pell it, 
 lUe sinisirorsum, his dexirorsum abit; unus utrisque 
 Error, sed variis illudit pariibus ; hoc te 
 Crede modo insanum nihilo sapientior ille, 
 Clui te deridet, caudam trahat. 
 
 When in a wood we leave the certain way, 
 One error fools us, though we various stray ; 
 Some to the left, some turn to t'other side: 
 So he, who dares thy madness to deride, 
 Though you may frankly own yourself a fool. 
 Behind him trails his mark of ridicule. 
 
I 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 PROF. STUART's final NOTICE OF THE FATHERS AND OTHERS. 
 
 He tells his reader that he " must not, for a moment, sup- 
 pose, that the leading features of Mr. D.'s scheme are new, 
 or the product of long continued and accurate investigation, 
 on his part, of the Scriptures." In the first part of this sen- 
 tence, he contradicts himself, as I have already shown. The 
 latter has meaning, which cannot be misunderstood, and is 
 intended to insinuate things far beneath what common de- 
 cency and the respect he owes to himself would have requir- 
 ed, and certainly too far beneath my notice, at least as long 
 as I am no believer in his omniscience. 
 
 He has admitted the facts, which I have stated, and the 
 truth of the quotations I have given, relative to the faith of 
 the Fathers on this subject. The only hint to the contrary, 
 that he has dropped, is his remark about Justin Martyr, the 
 text of whose " so called Millennial passage," and " the 
 only one," (Dial, cum Tryphone, p. 30G ed. Colon.) he says, 
 " is not settled." The dispute about the text I have noticed ; 
 and shown, that the rejected version, which learned authors 
 believe to be correct, makes his testimony still stronger. He 
 affects to be 'doubtful as to Justin Martyr's views, but is 
 constrained to admit " he was a Millenarian." Justin 
 Martyr's " Hints" are more explicit than Prof S.'s, and if 
 he wishes to know how they strike other minds, beside mine, 
 let him consult the Bishop of Lincoln's account of the writ- 
 ings and opinions of Justin Martyr, Chap. 5. 
 
 He has admitted, that in Germany and Switzerland, not a 
 few writers of the same class have appeared since the Refor- 
 mation, and that for thirty or more years have been on the 
 increase, especially in England. He should have also added 
 
178 PROF. Stuart's final notice of 
 
 the land of his ancestors, with whose literature and theology 
 it would seem he is not as well acquainted as with those of 
 Germany, and certainly much to his loss, if it be the fact. 
 For he has not made the most distant allusion to Scotland, 
 which has furnished some of the most powerful writers on 
 this subject, as in almost every other department of literature 
 and theology. I had even anticipated him in his allusion to 
 the American Austin, who, although deranged, nevertheless 
 has given, in writings which he has left behind him, proofs 
 of a vigorous intellect, impaired by other causes than his 
 Millenarian views. His allusion to him and to myself, in 
 the connection and manner in which he has made it, reminds 
 me more of Horace's wild bull than any thing else. 
 
 Foenum habet in cornu, longe fuge dummodo risum 
 Excutiat sibi, non hie cuiquarn parcel amieo. 
 
 Yonder he drives — avoid that furious beast ; 
 
 If he may have his jest, he never cares 
 
 At whose expense, nor his best friend he spares. 
 
 Prof S. has not pretended to deny, that the Fathers, 
 whose testimony I have quoted, and the whole traditionary 
 history I have given, establishes the point for which I intro- 
 duce it, viz., that the literal system of interpretation defined 
 and explained as I have done, was that which obtained in 
 the primitive church, and until the simplicity of faith was 
 corrupted by the philosophy of the schools. But it is neces- 
 sary for him to set it aside, if possible, and this he attempts, 
 in his usual ad invidiam style of argument. 
 
 In the first place, he leads the reader to suppose that I 
 quote the Fathers " as autliorityP He does not even hint 
 the real object for which the traditionary history is given, 
 but assigns one totally unfounded, aijd of his own invidious 
 charging. 
 
 Next he endeavours to throw odium in general, on what I 
 have given, as though it were a long, unnecessary effort, 
 
THE FATHERS AND OTHERS. 179 
 
 spread out over 100 pages, while, almost in the same breath, 
 with beautiful consistency, he tells his reader that " Corrodi 
 has drawn it out to four volumes ; and yet has told his story 
 tersely and briefly too, in his Gescliichte des Ckiliasmus." 
 
 But his principal effort consists in endeavouring to excite 
 prejudices against the Fathers by throwing odium, first on 
 Lactantius of the 4th century, who nevertheless, with all his 
 literal and figurative interpretation, he says, " shuns many 
 of the absurdities into which Mr. D. has fallen," — then on 
 Tertullian, the loss of whose work De spe Jidelium., he 
 greatly regrets, — then on Justin Martyr, to which I have al- 
 ready referred, — then on Ireneeus, and finally, on Papias, 
 Ap. pp. 191, 192, reviving and repeating Eusebius's condem- 
 nation of the latter, whose prejudices were just as strong as 
 Prof S.'s, and on the same account, viz., that Papias took the 
 prophetical Scriptures in their plain meaning, instead of ex- 
 plaining them mystically or spiritually. 
 
 And what makes this invidious attempt still worse, is, that 
 notwithstanding he had promised his reader " more than 
 once," some " specimens of opinions among the early advo- 
 cates of the visible personal reign of Christ," as puerilities 
 and incongruities and absurdities, to be met in the writings 
 of the Fathers, sufficient to destroy their authority, he has 
 after all his trumpeting and flourishing, confined himself to 
 the old stale and hackneyed extract from Papias, about the 
 wheat and grapes, which the earth would produce in the 
 Millennium. He has given no specimen from Lactantius, 
 but told us about his " interpreting the Scriptures now 
 literally, and then figuratively, and sometimes both ways, 
 in the same passage" — remarkable specimens of which can 
 be produced from Prof S.'s own Hints. Of Tertullian he 
 h^s given nothing, but what I had done myself. Of Justin 
 Martyr, nothing. Of Irenseus, nothing more than that, " in 
 support of a visible and terrestrial reign, the ingathering of 
 the Jews, &c. ; for the most part, so far as he quotes Scrip- 
 
180 
 
 ture, he quotes the same passages which Mr. D. also pro- 
 duces, and interprets them in the same literal way." 
 
 From Irenaeus and Eusebius he quotes the story of Papias' 
 wheat and grapes, and strives to create a laugh at the ex- 
 pense of '' Washington Temperance Societies, who inhibit 
 all kinds of intoxicating drink," whose " day he says will 
 soon be over, when the Millennium of Papias and Irenaeus 
 is come," as though they had identified with grapes the 
 abundance of intoxicating drink ; but, as he confesses him- 
 self to have been trifling here, it is almost condescending on 
 our part to trifle too, to repeat or notice what he says. 
 
 Still it may be necessary to remark that he has done me 
 injustice, — and with what intent his own conscience may 
 answer, — when, in allusion to this boasted extract of his, as 
 though he had, and claimed, all the merit of bringing it to 
 light, he says, '' Mr. D. has indeed carefully suppressed the 
 specimens which I am about to produce." Prof S. knows 
 that I did not quote the Fathers as " authority" per se or 
 *' traditionary authority." He knows, also, that I distin- 
 guished carefully between their own private opinions and 
 their historical testimony as to the faith of the church. He 
 knows, further, that I actually did refer to the sentiments of 
 Papias, and to this very passage, which he has endeavoured, 
 in imitation of Dr. Whitby, who did the very same thing 
 before him, to turn to his account against Millenarian views 
 of Bible truth. See Dissertations, p. 261. And he knows, 
 still further, that I referred to as respectable authority as 
 himself, so far as scholarship, sound exposition of Scripture, 
 and exalted standing are concerned, no less than that of 
 Gresswell in his admirable and elaborate work on the Para- 
 bles, who has surmised, with great plausibility, that the pas- 
 sage of Papias found in Irenseus, has been incorrectly trans- 
 lated ; and I may add, according to Prof S.'s own rule of 
 interpreting round and large numbers in Scripture, that a 
 large number was used to express indefinitely and hyperboli- 
 
THE FATHERS AND OTHERS. 181 
 
 cally Papias' views of the earth's exceeding fruitfulness during 
 the Millennium, and nothing more. There are internal evi- 
 dences in the passages themselves that they are mere hyper- 
 bole, a very common figure of speech, adopted by fervid 
 writers, when speaking especially on the subject of the Mil- 
 lennium, whether literal ists or spiritualists. 
 
 Papias' opinions on this subject — whom, says Bengelius, 
 *' people generally decry, without regarding what the ancients 
 say to his praise,^' — had nothing to do with the evidence I was 
 citing of the faith of the church. The joke is too old, too 
 stale, too " putrid," which Prof S. has attempted. It failed 
 when Whitby tried it, and has long lain buried with him. 
 Like every second-hand joke, especially when exhumed, it 
 fails still more flatly when dug out of the grave by Prof. S. 
 He may think, that if it succeeded with Whitby, and as 
 Whitby probably thought it succeeded with Eusebius, it 
 must certainly do so'Vith Prof. S. But it will not do. 
 
 Nil agit exemplum, litem quod lite resolvit. 
 
 By such examples, truth can ne'er be tried : 
 They but perplex the question, not decide. 
 
 In conclusion, I have but a remark or two to make. If I 
 have replied to Prof S. with severity, it is the severity of 
 fraternal faithful rebuke, which I feel he has merited, and 
 which Christian obligation requires me to administer, and 
 which I have done not with bitterness or personal ill will. 
 If there has been less of that respect, with which he is wont 
 to be addressed and spoken of, it has been because he has 
 not respected himself; but has greatly lowered himself be- 
 low the estimation in which I had formerly held him, by the 
 style of his argument, his contemptuous treatment of myself, 
 and the ribaldry of which he has made such liberal use. 
 
 Should he again turn his attention to me, or to the sub- 
 ject, there are certain points which he must fairly and logi- 
 cally meet ; and not attempt to make any false issues. He 
 
182 PKOF. stuart's final notice of 
 
 must prove the assumptions on which he has founded his 
 own exposition of prophecy as unfolded in his Hints, and 
 which I have denied. Prof. S.'s dogma, or assertion, will 
 not be received as argument, nor will his Jewish, Popish or 
 German authorities. He must meet fairly and fully the 
 question where, when, and whence originated the idea of 
 the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Heaven, and what is 
 the Scriptural sense in which those phrases were used by 
 Christ and his apostles, — wherein, and how far, and what 
 proof there is, that they used them differently from their 
 current import in their day ? He must further prove, from 
 the word of God, what specific authority he has for inter- 
 preting such phrases as Zion, the Zion of God, the Hill of 
 God, Jerusalem, the holy city, the Mountain of the Lord, in 
 his allegorical, spiritual sense, as denoting the church this 
 moment and heaven the next. He must show — how the 
 Abrahamic covenant does not guarantee to the Jews on their 
 repentance and conversion, the possession of the land pro- 
 mised to their forefathers, and once inhabited by them, 
 how God can in any way be understood to have promised 
 that land to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob themselves ^ when 
 they never have possessed it, — and how, on any principle or 
 pretext whatever, which will commend itself to the sober 
 judgment of common sense, the possession of an inheri- 
 tance by their remote posterity could be spoken of and 
 promised as their personal possession and estate. Espe- 
 cially must he meet the question fairly and fully whether 
 the kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven, as spoken of 
 by Christ and his apostles, is not regarded by them as fu- 
 ture — not something in another globe or in heaven, but 
 here, on this earth, to be developed in a new and glorious 
 dispensation, to be introduced by Jesus Christ at his per- 
 sonal visible coming. 
 
 These are grave and solemn themes. Minds of the 
 highest order, Christians of the most ardent and devoted 
 
.^ THE FATHERS AND OTHERS. 183 
 
 piety, and scholars of the profoundest erudition, have em- 
 braced the Millenarian faith as the true and genuine import 
 of God's promises and the scheme of prophecy. Modesty 
 and humility, patient and laborious investigation, the ab- 
 sence of every thing like dogmatism and ridicule, become 
 those who would inquire into the import of the sacred Scrip- 
 tures in these matters. When Prof S. has any arguments 
 to submit, suggestions to oiFer, analysis of Scripture to pre- 
 sent, expositions and applications of his own principles of 
 interpretation to the promises and predictions of the word 
 of God to ej^bit, if done in a respectful, courteous, be- 
 coming manner, even though differing from his Millenarian 
 brethren, he will find them willing to give them all due 
 consideration. Truth is to be elicited anC^established in 
 no other way : and whatever may be the action of councils, 
 the decrees of ecclesiastical bodies, the dogmas of the 
 schools, the prescription of ages, the errors and controlling 
 influence of public opinion, in the end the truth must 
 |riumph. 
 
 MAGNA EST VERITAS ET PREVALEBIT. 
 
 THE END. 
 
*, 
 
# 
 
 -«?■ 
 
 t 
 
 •-' 
 
 # 
 
 s< 
 
# 
 
 % 
 
p 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 RENEWALS ONLY— TEL. NO. 642^405 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below» or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 REC'DLD JUN277Q -5PM 2 g 
 
 L.i;-- k. 
 
 x197^i 1 # 
 
 M^'D CIRC D£Pr 
 
 
 n e s'l t j Q 
 
 LD21A-60to-3,'70 
 (N5382sl0)476-A-32 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
 'fc 
 

 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UBRARY