My Dear Brother In Christ, I have read enough of the “Horæ Apocalyptiæ,” to convince myself of its unsoundness in general, The foundation principles of interpretation are found succinctly laid down in chap. 5 (vol. 1); the remainder being simply an examination into the events of history, with a view to apply and illustrate them. It is not therefore necessary to follow him through all these statements, the leading theory being the most material point to be attended to. For even admitting that the historical facts accord with the principles advocated, this would not be sufficient. Such tallying may be allowed as secondary evidence of that which has been previously demonstrated upon independent grounds. But Mr. E. does not thus advance them, (i.e., not upon proofs derived from scripture only, irrespectively of uninspired records). His mode of procedure is a “petitio principii.” He assumes his principles, and then proceeds to try and show the extreme probability by an appeal to history. This method should be carefully used at all times, when the meaning of the Holy Ghost is the inquiry; and perhaps not at all, except in some point of detail, and where no fundamental question is involved. To apply it to the subject-matter of the Holy Ghost in the very basis and frame-work of prophetic truth, is in my judgment an act of self-sufficiency incompatible with a due subjection to the Holy Ghost, and tends to produce and encourage a similar spirit in the reader. The prophetic, like the doctrinal, and other parts of the word of God, are not to be mastered as books of science and general knowledge. The latter require intellectual ability only, and make no demand upon the moral aptitudes of the student. Not so the former. They were given by the Holy Ghost, and for reasons far other than even a carnally minded Christian would think of. They appeal to the renewed mind, and imperatively call for a true soul in fellowship with the purposes of God. For lack of this we find that the very saints of God do not seem able to judge between things that differ widely. Take for example the views of many Christians as to the walk of the Church. Having little fellowship with the thoughts of God respecting the body He is now fowling by the Spirit for the Lord Jesus Christ, they do not see the inconsistency of believers standing in what contravenes some, at least, of the primary principles of the Church. So with their views of what is delivered by the Spirit concerning things to come. The author says he assumes the subject-matter of the Apocalypse to be the continuous fortunes of the Church, and the world (i.e., of the Christian Church and the Roman world). What right has the author so to assume? Is not the legitimate sphere of hypothesis that in which no primary evidence is found? Further assumptions should always be closely tested by the subject-matter to which they belong. Even when this has been done with a certain measure of satisfactory result, they may often all be wrong. So that a scheme which rests only on assumptions, however probable, is but a probability after all. Now to rest the interpretation of the Apocalypse—a portion vitally connected with the preceding prophetic utterances of the Holy Ghost, not only in details but essentially; belonging to the same great structure of prophetic truth which the Spirit began to rear by the Old Testament prophets—to rest this, I say, upon mere assumptions is not less unwise than unwarrantable. If it is not necessary for Old Testament prophecy, why for the Apocalypse? Are we prepared to say that the older prophecies present no evidence of their meaning sufficient to give an insight through the Spirit, as definite as is needful? And if this is so with the Old Testament, is it otherwise with the Apocalypse, organically connected as it is with what went before? Is there not adequate instructions in the scriptures of truth to teach the humble and dependent soul, and thus to render needless, if not dangerous, all assumptions as to the scope and subject-matter of prophecy? That Mr. E. resorts to such an expedient is a plain proof that he feels that he has no other ground to stand upon. The sphere, subject-matter, and the essential character of the Spirit's testimonies in the Apocalypse, are taken for granted. Is this necessary? Suffer me to bring one of his assumptions to the test. First, he says, “the subject- matter of the Apocalyptic seals is the temporary glory of Pagan Rome, and its ravages and destruction by the Goths, Saracens, and Turks, after it had become Christianized, and that the decline and fall of Pagan Rome was owing to the advancing power of Christianity.” If this were so, what are we called upon to believe? That all the seals are past! and that the first six trumpets have received their accomplishment already! Accordingly the events under the seals have relation to the transient splendor, the wane and the extinction of the Pagan Roman world before the power of Christianity. Mark the words, before the power of Christianity. I am told that the day of the Lamb's wrath had arrived, when the forces under Licinius were defeated by Constantine—that then and before some noted personages who had persecuted the Christians, and Licinius who had opposed Constantine—whom the author seems to think divinely commissioned by the Lord to assume the emblem of His passion as the badge of his commission, to go forth, in the name of the Prince of Peace, and scatter war and destruction among men—had remorse on their death-bed because of their conduct, and that the object that inspired their dread was the wrath of the Lamb! Supposing that individuals may have died in remorse of conscience, and under a vague apprehension of judgment after death, what was there in such things at all on a moral level with the language of the sixth vial? A few great men are made to mean the kings of the earth, the great men and the chief captains, and the mighty men Licinius and his defeated soldiers represent all these, and every bondman and every freeman besides! What parallel between the death-bed [Rev. 6; 16:17,17And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done. (Revelation 16:17) does not disclose the actual presence of that day, but a fearful convulsion which produced this apprehension in men's minds. They said “the great day of His wrath is come.” The Spirit did not say this. Mr. E. is right thus far in my opinion. It is the expression of human terror, not God's utterance, save as predicting, men's hearts failing them for fear.—ED.] terrors of a few Roman Emperors or the consternation of the forces under Licinius at their defeat by Constantine, and the great day of the Lamb's wrath, which is to be visible to all and to inspire universal terror through all the earth, for who shall be able to stand? Again, the fifth seal reveals martyr's blood shed like water upon the earth; and yet, according to the “Horaz,” this was included among the events which marked the progress of triumphing Christianity, before which the Paganism of the “world's mistress” became changed into the Christianity of the Church of God.
Now I ask myself what is there in any of the Apocalyptic seals that has the characteristics of truth's progress on the earth? Is the mighty conqueror under the first seal; is universal murder under the second seal? is black famine under the third; is the march of death over the fourth part of the earth, with hell his follower slaying with the sword, with hunger, with pestilence, and with wild beasts (θηρίων), under the fourth; is the cry of the martyrs' souls beneath the altar for vengeance under the fifth, and the persecution and slaughter of many more upon the earth after a little season; or the great earthquake leading men to anticipate the wrath of the Lamb under the sixth seal: are these things marked by any real resemblance to the progress of God's truth, or the victories of the gospel? The heart that can say “yes” can have little spiritual power to hold the balances of the sanctuary. A greater perversion of this part of the Spirit's revelations is scarcely possible. It indicates, to my mind at least, how little there is of that priestly discrimination to put a difference between holy and unholy things, which the functions of the sanctuary of God imperatively demand.
The Lord Jesus said, “he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” That a Christian can take the words of the Holy Ghost, “the temple and holy city” to be expressive of Pagan or even of Christianized Rome, marks an obliquity of judgment that renders him, in my opinion, an unsafe expounder of the lively oracles of God. The character of his interpretation bears no affinity to the grandeur of the Spirit's utterances; while the subject-matter of the two is marked by just the difference between the holy and profane. Could Christianized Rome be other than an unclean thing before God? Is not Constantine's assumption of the labarum a libel upon the heavenly source and character of Christianity You will thus perceive that my doubts whether the Protestant praeterist principle of Apocalyptic interpretation were sound have been converted into convictions of its unsoundness by the perusal of the “Hore.”
I have said so much, feeling that I ought not to commend but rather to contend against a work which, I am satisfied, is really hostile to the interests of God's truth, and to Christ's glory in the earth.
Yours in the truth, R. S.