perfectly arbitrary. And of results so obtained, we cannot deem it to be worth while to bring before our readers more than a few as examples.

5. In his exposition of the first six seals, Dr. Alford takes our Lord's prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem as a parallel passage. Now we hold that there is not a single reference in the two passages to the same event, nor any parallelism whatever between them but what is purely external and accidental, arising from similar catastrophes being had in view in both, and depicted by means of symbols drawn from the same source, namely, from the Old Testament.

6. Dr. Alford asserts that "the four horses and riders (vi. 1-8) are the aspects of the divine dispensations which should come upon the earth preparatory to the Lord's coming.' Thus he makes the sealed book to begin near the end of time; yet he is far from being a consistent futurist. In the very middle of the book he makes the symbolizations regress to the Christian era.

"no

7. "The trumpets," he says, "take up the world-wide vision of the seals at the point where it was said, in chap. vi. 11, that the souls should rest, and the judgments of the trumpets occur during the time of waiting." So that he makes all the trumpets to be chronologically parallel with, i.e. to be virtually included in, the fifth seal; whereas the author has placed them under the seventh, as even Dr. Alford has been led incidentally to admit, when he says, "The preparation of the seven angels to sound is evolved out of the seventh seal." Again, "in the trumpets," he says, especial people is designated as the subject: all is general." Yet by almost universal consent it is allowed that the trumpets are more or less specific, and designed to apply to a particular people or peoples; and there are details in them which are as plainly personal as it is possible for symbolizations to be. See, e.g., viii. 11; ix. 1, 11, 14; xii. 5; xiii. 5; xvii. 12. On account alone of this erroneous view, we are not surprised to meet with the admission,-" in the details there are many par⚫ticulars which I cannot interpret." "The evolution of the courses of visions out of one another," says Dr. Alford, "does not legitimately lead to the conclusion that the events represented by them are consecutive in order of time." Will he, then, show what else can be the object of such an evolution; and how chronological consecutiveness of portions of time, to be at the same time marked out as distinct periods, or as relating to different series of events, could be symbolically indicated in any other way? The marks of correspondence between the seals, trumpets, and vials, from which he infers (p. 662) that the three series are resumptive, not continuous, are best accounted for by the circumstance, that the seventh

trumpet includes the vials, and the seventh seal the trumpets, viii. 1-5 being a syllabus of the seventh seal, and xi. 15-19 of the seventh trumpet. "It is essential," Dr. Alford says, "to a right interpretation, that it take into account the difference between the first four and the last three trumpets." He then proceeds to make the difference consist in the three having "separate and independent details," but the four being "connected and interdependent, their common feature being destruction and corruption." Now, chap. viii. 13 shows that the design of the author was to make the last three trumpets homogeneous; and this has been so universally recognised, that they are commonly designated "the woe trumpets." And in accordance with that design, we find that while the symbolical objects of the plagues of the first four trumpets are diverse, the earth, the sea, the rivers and fountains, the heavenly bodies,-those of the last three are the same, viz., men. The first four, then, are heterogeneous, and the last three homogeneous. And hence Dr. Alford's interpretation cannot, on his own showing, be right; for he has interpreted on an inverted view of the author's plan.

8. In chap. xii. 5, "the words leave no possibility of doubt who is here intended. The man-child is Jesus Christ, and none other." Granting that the woman and her child are symbols of Mary and Jesus, still as the symbolic details require (as is generally, and even by Dr. Alford, allowed) that the woman have also a corporate signification, so in congruity must the child. The view, that the woman's two flights represent one event, arises purely from the inability of the expositor to give an account of two. The different circumstances indicate different flights. "Michael is not to be identified with Christ any more than any other of the great angels in this book." Surely the circumstance that Michael has his angels, is a sufficient indication that he is a symbol of Christ.

9. Speaking of the beast's names of blasphemy (chaps. xiii. and xvii.) Dr. Alford says: The heathen world had but its Divi in the Cæsars, but Christendom has . . . . . its 'defenders of the faith,' such as Charles II. and James II.

new names of blasphemy, with which the woman (the Church) has invested the beast." We wonder that he did not mention Queen"! He

.

as one of these names, " most religious has another passage, too, which surprises no less than the foregoing. "It is universally acknowledged that our prophecy is a taking up and continuation of that of Daniel." Dr. Alford could not but know that this is not "universally acknowledged;" very far from it.

10. Chap. xvii. 10, "The seven heads have a reference to the woman who sits upon the beasts to whom they belong; and, as far as this reference is concerned, they are hills on which

she sits. But they have also another reference,-to the beast of which they are the heads; and as far as this other reference is concerned, they are kings. Not, be it noticed, kings over the woman, nor kings of the city symbolized by her; but kings in a totally different relation, viz., that to the beast of which they are heads. So that, to interpret these things as emperors of Rome, or as successive forms of government over Rome, is to miss the propriety of the symbolization, and to introduce utter confusion. They belong to the beast, which is not Rome, nor the Roman empire, but a general symbol of secular anti-Christian power." Perhaps there is not a more interesting or important point in Apocalyptic interpretation than that which is here raised; and we will, therefore, in this instance, state our reasons for differing from Dr. Alford more fully than we have done in others. Admitting the validity of his premises as to the relation of the heads to the woman and the beast respectively, we consider that he fails to make good his argument in three respects. 1st, It does not follow, because the relation of the heads, as denoting kings, is to the beast and not to the woman, that those kings are not kings of the city symbolized by her. It may be, and we hold that it is the case, that the woman and the beast symbolize for substance the same power. And if so, the kings symbolized by the beast's heads will be the "kings of the city symbolized by the woman." 2nd, It may be, and ver. 10 (we think) shows-and Dr. Alford's interpretation of the heads implies that it is the fact that the object of the prominence given to the heads is not to exhibit their relation to the beast as kings over the power symbolized by him, but to mark out that power by indicating its duration. Even if the relation of the heads to the beast as denoting kings were the salient point, it would be no reason (as Dr. Alford implies that it is) for not interpreting "these kings as emperors of Rome, &c." How much less, when the point is only a secondary and incidental one! 3rdly, The whole argument, however, turns on the question, What does the beast symbolize? On the negative side, Dr. Alford says, "Not Rome." But he gives us nothing more than his word for it, and that does not suffice to convince us. And even he must admit, that, if our view be correct, it is not his opponents, but himself, that "misses the propriety of the symbolization and introduces utter confusion," when he interprets the heads as meaning seven successive kingdoms from Egypt to Christian Rome, only two of which had any connexion with Rome. With

regard to the affirmative side of his statement, his case is even worse; for he refutes himself. How can the beast be "a general symbol of anti-Christian power," when five out of the seven kingdoms which constitute the beast were ante-Christian according to his showing?

11. Chap. xvii. 11. "The eighth is not represented as any one of the beast's heads, but as being the beast himself in actual embodiment. He is èk Twν ÉTта,—not 'one of the seven,' but the successor and result of the seven, following and springing out of them the ultimate anti-Christian power prefigured by the little horn in Daniel, and announced in 2 Thess. ii. 3." We hold that the following will be found to be the true version of the above statement: "The eighth is not represented as one of the beast's heads, nor as being the beast himself in any other sense than as each reigning head in succession becomes the beast pro tem. Αὐτὸς ὄγδοός ἐστι, καὶ ÈK TÔV ĚTTÁ ÈOT. 'He is an eighth king, and is one out of the number of the seven kings.' (cf. Gk. of xiii. 3; ii. 7, 10; iii. 9; v. 5; vi. 1; xvii. 1, et al.) Consequently he is the successor, though not the result of the seven; a resuscitated or restored king. As to his being "the ultimate anti-Christian power, &c.," this is purely a matter of private interpretation, dependent on the expositor's own scheme, and having nothing in the text to support it.

The following are a few specimens of the many positive assertions which are made without proof, and are incapable of being proved, and the truth of which we unhesitatingly deny. (Our selection is made chiefly with a view to show what are Dr. Alford's opinions on the points of chief interest and importance.) "The roll of chap. v. 1 was the great roll of God's purposes. The little roll of chap. x. 2 represents the mystery of God,-the subject of the remainder of the Apocalyptic prophecies." "The city of chap. xi. 2 cannot be the same as the city of xi. 8." "The prophecy of chap. xi. 1-13 is a summary of the larger one which follows." "The altar of chap. xi. I is the altar of incense." "The temple can bear only one meaning, viz., that of the church of the elect saints of God." "The Gentiles are those over whom the millennial reign will be exercised." "Of all prophecies the present is the one which least satisfactorily admits of a literal interpretation of the half-week periods and its consequences." "No solution at all approaching to a satisfactory one has ever yet been given of any one of these periods.' The beast of chap. xiii. represents, "not the Roman empire merely, but the aggregate of the empires of the world as opposed to Christ and his kingdom." Chap. xiii. 4, who is like to the beast,' &c. These words represent to us the relapse into all the substantial blasphemies of paganism under the resuscitated (Christian) empire of Rome, and the retention of pagan titles and forms. Nothing in these words finds any representative in the history of the times of the pagan empire." The second beast of chap. xiii. is "the sacerdotal persecuting power, pagan and Christian." Chap. xiv. "The

144,000, and the harpers, are not identical." "Vv. 6-13 form the text, and the compendium of the rest of the book." Chap. xvii. 9, "The seven heads are Egypt, Nineveh, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, Christian-Rome." Chap. xvii. 12, "The ten horns are ten kings;" "not necessarily personal kings, but kingdoms regarded as summed up in their kings""ten European powers, which, in the last time, in concert with and subjection to the anti-Christian power, shall make war against Christ." Chap. xx. 9, "The beloved city' is Jerusalem, which is destined yet to play so glorious a part in the latter days." Chap. xxi. 1, "All the rest of the book describes things subsequent to the general judgment, and is descriptive of the consummation of the triumph and bliss of Christ's people with him in the eternal kingdom of God. This eternal kingdom is situated on the purified and renewed earth, become the habitation of God with His glorified people."

Having now extended our notice to a greater length than we had contemplated, we will only add one sentence more. We can recommend this commentary to our readers as a critical work, for conciseness and clearness of style, and for a summary of the views of many German writers not generally known in this country; but, while we commit ourselves absolutely to no system of interpretation, we feel bound to say that any one who follows its guidance will be led into error on many points of importance.

LORD STANHOPE'S LIFE OF PITT.

The Life of the Right Hon. William Pitt. By Earl Stanhope, &c. &c. Four vols. John Murray. 1862.

THE life of Pitt has been repeatedly written, but he has not been fortunate in his biographers. It was essayed by Gifford in a heavy book of many volumes; and it was begun, but not completed, by Tomline, bishop of Winchester, who had been his tutor at college, and retained his friendship, and something of his confidence, through life. Both failed egregiously, the bishop's being the greater failure of the two. They wrote in the days when the memory of Pitt was had in worship, all but idolatrous, by his followers, and pursued with positive rancour by those who dissented from his political creed. Politics in those days were steeped in a fanaticism of their own. Lord Macaulay, a Whig, and politically adverse to the policy of the great war