among the apocryphal apocalyptic literature of pre-christian times; eliminates every strictly prophetical element from the vision; limits the historical references to the period immediately following the death of Nero; and regards the whole as a "daring and wildly beautiful poem," with no other element of truth and reality than a buoyant hope of the world's future blessedness and glory-a hope, let us add, of all hopes the most chimerical if, with this reviewer, we are to regard Christ, our hope of glory, as a fable, and Christianity as a dream. The reviewer hashes-up exploded rationalistic views, which, dressed in spirited language, and made piquant by antichristian bitterness and sarcasm, will doubtless be accepted in some quarters as the latest and highest philosophy. To expose his fallacies, would require an article twice as long as his own; whereas, stepping aside, as we are now doing, from our proper subject, we can only devote a few lines to it. "That we owe the Revelation to John the Presbyter is not an inadmissible hypothesis,"-so says the Reviewer; and it is an inadmissible hypothesis that the author of the fourth Gospel is also the author of the Apocalypse. Now, how does the evidence really stand? Papias (as we learn from bishops Andreas and Arethos), Melito, Justin Martyr, residing in Ephesus, and writing only about forty years after the death of St. John; Irenæus, the disciple of Polycarp; all unhesitatingly testify that St. John is the author. And what have we to set against this positive testimony of witnesses so competent to testify to a matter of fact? Chiefly considerations precarious at the best, and light as air when weighed in the balance with authentic external testimony. The Apocalypse is omitted in the old Syriac version. It was rejected by the Alogi in their controversy with the Montanists; by Caius, the Roman presbyter; and in the third century by Dionysius of Alexandria. But the Alogi rejected it on doctrinal grounds; Caius, in consequence of his antipathy to chiliasm; and Dionysius, from critical considerations. This Dionysius, by the way, is the first who conjectures that John the Presbyter was the author. But who was this John the Presbyter? The application of the mythical theory to him would be decidedly more satisfactory than some of its recent applications. A very able German historian (Schaff) believes that there is even to inquire whether the very existence of this obscure presbyter and mysterious duplicate of the apostle John does not rest upon a misunderstanding" of the language of Papias. Be this as it may, the recourse to this shadowy personage as a substitute for St. John in the authorship of the book of Revelation, is a specimen of the hypercriticism which rejects common sense for speculative novelty. The tenor of all external testimony is in favour of the Johanine authorship. Eusebius classes this book among the Homologoumena. That its claim

room

to a place in the Canon was long and warmly disputed in consequence of such prepossessions as those which we have noted, is true; but the external testimony remains unimpeachable. The Westminster Reviewer leans for support upon Lücke; but he does not tell his readers that Lücke, who rejects on internal grounds the Johanine authorship of the Apocalypse, regards the historical testimony as perfectly satisfactory.*

It would be idle to ask this reviewer why the terrors and splendours of the Apocalyptic vision should have been revealed to an unknown presbyter, as he admits no objective revelation at all in the case ;-why an angel should call himself the fellow-servant of the author, and speak of the prophets as his brethren (xxii. 9);-why this.presbyter should write in the way he does to the Ephesian and other churches, the very sphere of the apostle's labours ;-why he has not distinguished himself more clearly from St. John the Apostle. But there are others who will feel the force of considerations like these, corroborating the external testimony. And though we readily acknowledge the difference of style between the Apocalypse and the other writings of St. John, we think that this diversity is quite accounted for by the mental state of the writer (èv veúμari) and the peculiarity of the subject a prophetical vision, overflowing with the poetic diction of the Old Testament.

The

We could have wished that we had space to exhibit the evidence in favour of the Domitianic date,-a point of considerable importance in the interpretation of the book, and to show how consistent and uniform the tradition which assigns it; but this would detain us much too long from our proper subject. Indeed, our apology is due to our readers for keeping them waiting so long upon the threshold. Fresh from the perusal of the review upon which we have made some strictures, we turn, with a sense of relief, to this work itself. tables of reviewers groan beneath the weight of books on the Revelation. Pamphlets, tracts, and sermons on the interpretation or fulfilment of prophecy, fall "thick as autumnal leaves in Val-Ambrosa." We do not, indeed, believe that all the labour expended upon this subject has been in vain. The image of that labour is not "water spilt upon the ground, which cannot be gathered up again," but "bread cast upon the waters, to be found after many days." The path of apocalyptic interpretation is strewed with the ruins of shivered systems;

"Wir glauben nachgewiesen zu haben, dass die zweifelnden, ungünstigen, oder geradezu widersprechenden Urtheile der Alten weder auf irgend einem bestimmten historischen Wissen, noch auf irgend einer durchgreifenden, exegetischen Untersuchung beruhen,—sowohl die kirchliche Tradition als der

exegetische Augenschein spricht dafür, dass der Apostel der Verfasser sei." Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannis, S. 353.-It would be easy to show how the views of several other German writers are slurred over by the reviewer when unfavourable to his purpose, bu space fails.

but many precious fragments will be picked up out of them to be built hereafter as stones into a perfect fabric; and in the meantime, while men are seeking the key to these mysterious hieroglyphs, the book is pouring its spiritual treasures into their hearts. At the same time, we turn with some satisfaction from conflicting schemes of prophetical interpretation to a book which expounds and enforces practical and spiritual truth.

In fact, these Epistles are pre-eminently congregational and pastoral Epistles. Let us hear Dr. Trench on this point:

"It is recorded of the admirable Bengel, that it was his wont, above all things, to recommend the study of these Epistles to youthful ministers of Christ's word and sacraments. And, indeed, to them they are full of teaching, of the most solemn warnings, of the strongest encouragement. We learn from these Epistles the extent to which the spiritual condition of a church is dependent upon that of its pastors; the guilt, not merely of teaching, but of allowing, error; how there may be united much and real zeal for the form of sound words, with a lamentable decay of the spirit of love; or, on the other hand, many works and active ministries of love, with only too languid a zeal for the truth once delivered; with innumerable lessons more. For one who has undertaken the awful ministry of souls, I know almost nothing in Scripture so searching, no threatenings so alarming, no promises so comfortable, as are some which these Epistles contain." (pp. ix., x.)

We acknowledge the truth and force of this statement, and therefore we gladly accept Dr. Trench's contribution to the study of this important part of God's word. He is already well known as an expositor, by his works on the Parables and Miracles. The readers of the Christian Observer will scarcely agree on all points with Dr. Trench; and evangelical Christians will miss the glow and fervour of the spirit which kindles into adoring gratitude in view of the Cross. It is but fair, however, to say, that his sacramental doctrine is rarely obtruded, and never offensively; not, we apprehend, from any reserve, but simply because it appears to hold no very marked or prominent position in his own theological system. We have observed only one reference to "baptismal grace" in the course of the work under notice. (pp. 153, 154.) The recognition of the doctrine of the Cross, there is of the Redeemer's vicarious suffering for human guilt (pp. 11–13); and if we miss what Dr. Chalmers missed in Butler, "the sal evangelicum," it may be attributed, perhaps, to the scholarly and critical character of his works; and while seeking to supply this deficiency from books more immediately devotional, we may gladly avail ourselves of help of another kind, which such books do not afford. We shall do well to remember that "there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will." And the Church never needed works of solid learning, and sober,

patient thoughtfulness, under the control of a devout, reverential, and believing spirit, more than she does in these days of shallow brilliancy and sparkling heterodoxy. We believe that the works of Dr. Trench are quietly doing much to counteract and check the rationalistic spirit. Able, learned, candid-never glozing over a difficulty, and never substituting vituperation for argument-but with reverence for Scripture, as the inspired and infallible word of God, the standard and source of truth, and strong in the inheritance of the erudition of ages, Dr. Trench is well qualified, in this respect, to meet the wants of the age, and to satisfy the demands of inquiring young men. It is the trick of modern infidelity and rationalism, whether designed or unconscious, to treat the sacred heritage of the faith in the "pooh! pooh!" style, as if orthodox Christianity had not a valid argument in its favour; and to accuse its advocates of violently bending fact, science, and Scripture to square with their pre-conceived notions. These writings are full of unproved assertion and intimated falsehood. Glaring misinterpretations, abandoned by even rationalistic German writers, are spoken of as though indisputably and incontrovertibly proven, with the affectation of contemptuous pity for those who venture to dispute and controvert them. The article in the "Westminster," to which we have referred, is an instance of this.

How valuable are such works as this of the dean of Westminster to counteract the influence of such flippant and superficial literature, and to fortify against it those who happily are not yet entangled! They will show that it "is not so clear a case that there is nothing" in Christianity; that many of the objections urged in the present day arise from ignorance or misapprehension of the incriminated book; and that nine-tenths of them are old, slain, dead and buried ages ago; old foes with new faces, risen from the graves in which they were quietly rotting until modern rationalism exhumed and galvanized them.

Those of our readers who are interested in the subject of unfulfilled prophecy, will desire to know what view the author holds on the relation of the Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia to the Church of the future. Dr. Trench has an able excursus on the "Historico-prophetical interpretation" at the end of the volume, and to this we refer our readers for the full exposition and discussion of the subject. He takes the purely historical view of these epistles, which appears to us to agree best with the injunction," Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter." (Revel. i. 10.) But while declining to discuss this question of the prophetical or non-prophetical character of these Seven Epistles, we cannot resist the temptation of quoting a passage concerning their historical character. Speaking of

those who deny all reference whatever in these Epistles to Churches actually existing when the risen and ascended Lord dictated them to the apostle, Dr. Trench says:

"Origen is justly condemned, that, advancing a step beyond other allegorists, who slighted the facts of the Old Testament history for the sake of mystical meanings which they believed to lie behind them, he denied concerning many events recorded there as historical, that they actually happened at all; rearing the superstructure of his mystical meaning, not on the establishment of the literal sense, but on its ruins. Every reverent student of the Word of God must feel that so he often lets go a substance in snatching at a shadow, that shadow itself really eluding his grasp after all. He who in this sense assails the strong historic substructures of Scripture, may not know all which he is doing: but he is indeed doing his best to turn the glorious superstructure built on these-which, though resting on earth, pierces heaven-into a mere sky-pageant painted on the air, a cloudpalace waiting to be shifted and changed by every breath of the caprice of man, and at length fading and melting into the common air."(p. 220.)

We thank Dr. Trench for these eloquent and seasonable words. We have heard a great deal in these latter days about ideology and the ideological interpretation of Scripture. This in plain language means the denial of the veracity and historical character of the Scriptures, or at least of such portions of them as are subjected to the ideological process. The truth of idea may be retained when the truth of fact is abandoned. Certainly this may be when the narrative is avowedly fictitious. The parables of our Lord are a case in point. But when the narrative is professedly historical, the death of the idea will speedily follow the death of the fact. No doubt there are "difficulties of belief in connexion with creation and the fall," but the way to meet these difficulties is not by cutting away the groundwork of historical fact. The Scriptures refuse to submit to this treatment. Simple-minded readers instinctively feel that they are on historical ground, and those in whom the historic sense is most fully cultivated and developed are at one with the simpleminded believer. And if idealising hypercriticism were once to sweep away the historical foundations of faith, every vestige of the idea would speedily vanish. There are men now who are vainly endeavouring to retain Christian ideas when they have wholly surrendered Christian facts. Every year these ideas dwindle or alter their aspects, until at last only the faintest "aftershine" of the faith of their childhood tinges the skirts of the black night of their unbelief. The fate of the individual is but a type of what would befal Christendom if idealising theologians were to succeed in overthrowing the historical credibility of the records of our faith.

But while Dr. Trench justly stigmatises those who deny the