Translator's Preface (4)

Translator's Preface (4)

The three views, then, of the Interpretation of these Prophecies are thus clearly distinguished. The Praeterits, view treats them as fulfilled in past historical events, taking place under the several Empires of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Heathen Rome. The modern Anti-Papal view treats “The Little Horn” as the Pope, and the drays as years; and this stretches the predictions over the Twelve Centuries of European struggle between the Ecclesiastical and the Civil Powers. The Futurist is dissatisfied with the Year-Day theory he cannot agree with the past fulfillment of these glowing images of future blessedness. Hence, instead of either Antiochus, Mahomet, Nero, or the Pope, he sees a future Antichrist in the Eleventh Horn of the seventh chapter, in The Little Horn of the eighth chapter, and ht The Willful King of the eleventh chapter. He rejects entirely the Year-Day explanation, and every assertion which is based upon it,; he takes the days literally as days, and supposes them yet unfulfilled. The “Toes” of the image, and the “Horns” of the beasts, are not to him Kingdoms or Successions of Rulers of any kind, but single individual persons. The phrase, The Pope, as equivalent to a “Horn,” is to him a fallacy as it does not mean one person, like an Alexander or a Seleucus; or a single despotic Antichrist — but a long succession of Rulers, one after another. Faber, for example, interprets “the Scriptures of Truth,” chapter 11, by extending it throughout all history, till the end of the Gentile Dispensation. Dr. Todd refers it solely to its close, and contends very strongly against the usual explanation of the Fourth verse. Elliott, again, (Horae Apoc., volume 3,) expounds this chapter to the 35th verse with great propriety and clearness, but passes at once from the Ptolemidae and Seleucidae to the Pope, as signified by “The Willful King.” The Days then become Years, and. the various phases of the Papacy throughout many centuries are supposed to be predicted here, and fulfilled by the decrees of Justinian, persecutions of the Waldenses, French Revolutions, and catastrophes and convulsions yet to come. Our American brethren have adopted similar theories. Professor Bush in his “Hierophant,” has inserted an able exposition of the “Little Horn,” as unquestionably the Ecclesiastical Power of the “Papacy,” and introduced the Goths and Charlemagne as fulfilling their own portions of this interesting Vision. Professor Stuart, however, of Andover, and some of his followers, have returned to the simplicity of the Earlier Expositors.

Note 44. A list of the chief “Futurist” writers and of their sentiments will be found in Birks’ “First Elements of Sacred Prophecy,” where the Year-Day theory is ably advocated, and much useful information condensed.

Note 45. P. 109. New York, 1844.

Note 46. Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy, 1842; and Folsom’s Daniel. Boston, 1842.

CALVIN PROPHETIC SCHEME.

Calvin, then, was, on the whole, a Praeterits. He saw hi the history of the world before the times of the Messiah the fulfillment of the Visions of this Book. They extended from Nebuchadnezzar to Nero. “The Saints of the Most High” were to him either the Hebrew or the Christian Church under heathen persecutors they had a glimpse indeed of the times of the Messiah, and expressed his views in general language; but he rejected the idea of any series of fulfillment’s through a succession of either Popes or Sultans. He saw in these four-footed beings, neither Mahomet, nor Justinian, nor the Ottoman Empire, nor the Albigensian Martyrs. Heathen Rome, and its Senate, and its early Caesars, were to him what Papal Rome, and its Priesthood, and its Gregories, have been to later Expositors.

Our Second Volume, which contains The Prophetical Portion of the Book, will be illustrated by many Dissertations, which will condense the sentiments of later Expositors. Ample scope will then be given to important details. Extracts will be made from the most approved Moderns, and copious references to the best sources of information. IT will be sufficient here to insert the reply of Professor Bush of New York to Professor Stuart of Andover, as illustrating the importance of the difference between those who adopt the Year-Day theory and those who do not “Denying in toto, as I do, and disproving, as I think I have done, the truth of your theory in regard to the literal import of Day, I can of course see no evidence, and therefore feel no interest in your reasonings respecting the events which you consider as the fulfillment of these splendid Visions. If a Day stands for a Year, and a Beast represents an Empire, then we are imperatively remanded to a far different order of occurrences in which to read the realization of the mystic scenery from that which you have indicated. As the Spirit of Prophecy has under his illimitable ken the most distant future as well as the nearest present, I know nothing, in reason or exegesis, that should prevent the affairs of the Christian economy being represented by Daniel as well as by John. As the Fourth Beast of Daniel lives and acts through the space of 1260 years, and as the Seven-headed and Ten-horned beast of John prevails through the same period, and puts forth substantially the same demonstrations, I am driven to the conclusion that they adumbrate precisely the same thing — that they are merely different aspects of the same really — and this, I have no question, is the Roman, Empire. This you deny; but I submit that the denial can be sustained only by shewing an adequate reason why the Spirit of God should be debarred from giving such extension to the Visions of the Old Testament Prophets. Until this demand is satisfied, no progress can be made towards convincing the general mind of Christendom of the soundness of your Expositions. The students of Revelation will still reiterate the query, Why the oracles of Daniel; should be so exclusively occupied with the historical fates of Antiochus Ephphanes? If I do not err in the auguries of the times, a struggle is yet to ensue on the prophetic field between two conflicting parties, on whose banners shall be respectively inscribed, Antiochus and Antichrist.”

Note 47. Hierophant, May 1843, New York.

OECOLAMPADIUS, ZUINGLE, AND BULLINGER.

This is precisely the point that these Lectures will assist in determining, and the following sketches of the opinions of the immediate predecessors and successors of our Reformer, will be useful hi guiding the judgment of the reader.

One of the most learned of the Commentators among the Early Reformers was Oecolampadius, the well-known companion of Zuingle. Bullinger published his notes on the Prophets about fifty years before Beza edited Calvin’s Lectures. His character for piety and profound erudition stood high among his contemporaries, and his elaborate expositions of the Prophets form a tangible proof of his industry, ingenuity, and Christian proficiency. Some account of the method in which he treats these interesting questions will here be appropriate. He divides the Book into the two natural divisions — the Historical and the Prophetical. His remarks on the former portion contain nothing which demands our notice at present; but his second division contains some valuable comments. He takes the Four Beasts of chapter 7 for the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman Empires, dwells on the cruelties of Sylla and Marius, Tiberius and Nero; and accuses Aben-Ezra and the Jews of denying this Fourth Beast to mean Heathen Rome, lest they should be compelled to embrace JESUS as their Messiah. He is not satisfied with Jerome’s opinion, that the Ten Horns mean Ten Kings, who should divide among them the territories of the Roman power. He takes the numbers “ten” and “seven” for complete and perfect numbers, quoting from the parable, “The kingdom of heaven is like ten virgins.” He quotes and approves of Hippolytus, who asserts “the Little Horn” to mean the Antichrist., to whom St. Paul alludes in the Second Ephstle to the Thessalonians. Apollinarius and other Ecclesiastical Writers judge rightly in adopting this interpretation, while Polychronius is deceived by Porphyay in referring it to Antiochus. But who is this Antichrist? Is he supposed to rule after the destruction of Heathen or of Papal Rome? Oecolampadius furnishes us with many opinions — some supposing Mahomet, others Trajan, and others the Papal See. He quotes the corresponding passage in the Apocalypse, and implies that the successors of Mahomet and the occupiers of the Chair of St. Peter are equally intended. By thus introducing the modern history of Europe and of Asia, he leans rather to the second of those divisions into which Commentators on Daniel have been divided. On this testing question of “the Time, Times, and Half a Time” he assumes it to mean three years and a half, he has no limit of any extension of the time through 1260 years; adding, “there is no reason why we should be religiously bound to that number, or follow puerile and uncertain triflings.” He will not allow Antichrist to be only a single person, and thus throws an air of indefiniteness over the whole subject.

Consistently with these principles, he interprets “The Willful King” of chapter 11 by both Mahomet and the Papacy; and explains how this twofold power should be destroyed in the Holy Land. The repetition in the numbers in chapter 12 is treated very concisely. Literal days are said to be intended, and the possibility of ascertaining certainty is doubted. “If any one has detected any certainty in these obscure dates, I do not envy him the exposition already offered satisfies me; for it is not in our power to know the precise divisions of the time (articulos temporum) ” Throughout the whole Comment of Oecolampadius, there is a tone of pity, and a proficiency in correct interpretation which we seek for in vain in some disciples of the Early Reformers. He was evidently a spiritually-minded man, and was always preaching Christ in his Comments on the Old Testament. In this respect he equals, and if possible surpasses the more elaborate Calvin. The extreme spirituality of this eminent Reformer entitles him, in these days, to more notice than he receives. His constant effort’s to honor Christ as his Redeemer, and the practical and persevering manner in which he preaches the gospel of his Redeemer, in his Old Testament Exposition, should render his writings familiar to every sincere and simple-minded Christian. And we are not surprised when we hear competent judges of the difference between Calvin and himself prefer the tone of his remarks to that of his more vigorous ally.

GROTIUS

The Commentary of Grotius is also worthy of comparison with that of Calvin. He is very precise and minute in shewing how the history of the East has borne out the truthfulness of the predictions; and is, perhaps, more accurate in details than his predecessor he differs, indeed, in a few points of importance, which will be separately noticed, but, on the whole, his remarks are correct and judicious. The Ten Kings of the seventh chapter (Daniel 7) he considers to be Syrian Monarchs, and enumerates them as Seleuci, Antioch, and Ptolemaei. Polanus and Junius, two Commentators who are constantly quoted by Poole, in his Synopsis, treat the passage in a similar way. The king to arise after them is still confined to the Jewish era, and “the Time, Times,” etc., are supposed to be literally three years and a, half. The 36th verse of chapter 11 (Daniel 11:36), Grotius interprets of Antiochus Ephphanes, and is supported by Junius, Polanus, Maldonatus, Willet, and Broughton. The “Days” of the twelfth chapter are taken literally by all the Commentators quoted by Poole from Calvin to Mede, and all sup — pose the period intended to be during the reign of the successors of Alexander. Mede was the well-known reviver of the Year-Day theory. Before his time it was a vague assertion, he first gave it shape, and form, and plausible consistency, and since his day it has been adopted by many intelligent Critics, among whom are Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Faber, Frere, Keith, And Birks.

MALDONATUS.

The Commentary of Maldonatus, the Jesuit, demands more extended notice, as he lived about the times of our author, and calls him Patriarcha Hereticorum, and looks upon the subject from exactly the opposite point of view. His exposition of Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezekiel, and Daniel, was published at Moguntiae, (Mentz,) 1611. In his procemium he sketches the life of Daniel, and defends his Book against Porphyry, the Manichaeans, and the Anabaptists. He quotes the mention made of Daniel by Ezekiel, and lays it down as a rule, that our ignorance of the author of a book does not impeach its Canonical Authority; and in the spirit of his Religious Society, lays special stress upon the judgment and decision of “the Church.” He next argues in favor of the Apocryphal Books attributed to this Prophet, and then prefers the authority of his Church to the testimony of Jerome. He defends the canonicity of the stories of Susannah and the Idol Bel, and comments on them in two additional chapters, and places “The Song of the Three Children” between Daniel 3:23-24, translating from Theodotion’s version. There is nothing worthy of special notice in his remarks on the first six chapters; but the next six treat of the reign’s of Christ. and of Antichrist. In accordance with this view, he decides upon the Fourth Beast of tale seventh chapter as the Roman Empire, after rejecting the opinion of Aben-Ezra in favor of the Turks, and that of Porphyry, who thought it to be the successors of Alexander. Respecting the “Little Horn,” his wrath is stirred up, for” the heretical Lutherans and Calvinists, and other monstrous sects,” had dared to pronounce it to be the Roman Pontiff. “But this interpretation even their master, Calvin, has shewn to be absurd.” He combats the notion that by one term all the Roman Pontiffs are intended; and then triumphantly asks, Where are the “Three” whom this single one was to pluck up? He further inquires, Whether all were past in his own day, or all future? He determines that it is all yet to be fulfilled, and thus becomes an adherent to the cause of the Futurists. As neither the Ten Horns nor the Eleventh have yet come into existence, it is natural to conclude the Eleventh to be that Antichrist whom Jerome represents not as a Demon, but a man in whom “a whole Satan shall corporally dwell.” He shall reign, he thinks, three years and a half — a distinct and fixed period — objecting to what he calls “figurt; Calvini,” viz., that an uncertain period is intended by so clear an expression. The, various opinions of his predecessors on Daniel 11:36, move rather his derision than his wrath. Their notions about Constantine, and Mahomet, and the Roman Pontiffs, do not need his serious refutation. Almost all Catholics, he adds, both ancient and modern, refer it to the Antichrist. He also accuses the greater part of “the New Heretics” of stating the Michael of the 12th chapter to be, Messiah himself; and treats the “days” of the close of this chapter as partly fulfilled under the Jewish and partly under the Christian dispensations. His inconsistency in this interpretation is more apparent than in the preceding ones; while his work on the whole is worthy of perusal, as he quotes with judgment the opinions of learned Jews and of the earlier Commentators of the Christian Church.

Note 48. Comment., p. 673, Daniel 7:8.

Within the first century after the Reformation, the views of Divines respecting these Prophecies were far more in accordance with the ancient Greek and Latin Fathers than those prevalent in the present day. The student who would know how Melancthon, Osiander, and Bullinger treated the subject in reply to Bellarmine, Fererius, and other Romish Divines, may profitably consult Willet’s Hexapla in Danielem, published at Cambridge in 1610, and dedicated to King James I. The arguments of the ancients in reply to “wicked Porphirie” are collected and reviewed, the opinions of various Jewish writers are stated and confuted, and no valuable remark of any preceding Commentator is overlooked. For instance, the Fourth Beast of the seventh chapter is explained according to the Jews, as the Turkish, and to Jerome, of the Roman empire but he decides it to be the kingdom of Syria, under the sway of Seleucus and his posterity. The “Little Horne” is said to be Antiochus; and Calvin’s view, connecting it with Augustus and the following Emperors, is thus treated — “But though these things may, by way of analogy, be thus applied, yet, historically, as hath been shewed at large, this prophecy was fulfilled before the coming of the Messiah into the world.” Bullinger refers it to. the Pope, and others to the Turks; and “These applications, by way of analogie, we mislike not.” The “rimes” are supposed, by the majority of these writers quoted, to be single years, and the whole period three years and a half. His laborious industry respecting the “Seventy Weeks” is most instructive; and he deserves the greatest possible credit for the patience with which he has examined all authorities, and the acuteness with which he has discussed the most opposite opinions. He is careful in remarking the various readings of the text, and the different renderings of all preceding versions. The eleventh chapter he treats as all fulfilled in the history of Syria and Palestine before the birth of Christ. He discusses with much ability the question, whether Antichrist is a single person, or a succession of Rulers, as Caliphs or Popes, and presents us with the decisions of the leading Fathers, Romanists, and Reformers on the “notes and marks wherein Antiochus and Antichrist agree.” All who would see Bellarmine fully confuted, and the enormities of this chapter brought home to the several occupants of the See of Rome, will peruse Willet with eagerness and profit. He will also find Calvin’s Interpretations clearly stated and fairly compared with those of the most celebrated Reformers and their most acute antagonists. The days of the twelfth chapter are taken literally, and no hint is given of any elaborate theory of a dozen centuries, extending through the modern history of Europe. To all who love to trace the progress of opinion, respecting the intercourse between men and angels, “the Ancient of Daies,” the Opening of the Books, Michael the Prince, and the application of these Prophecies to the Turks, the Papacy, and the times of a yet future Antichrist, will find hi the “Hexapla” a storehouse of valuable material, where he may exercise, with all freedom, the liberty of choice. It proposes and answers 593 questions, and discusses 134 controversies, the greater part of the latter division being directed against the doctrines aid practices of the Church of Rome.

JOSEPH MEDE.

A formidable opposition to the principles propounded in these Lectures is found in the writings of Joseph Mede. That learned and ingenious author is usually held as the ablest and earliest expositor of the Year-Day theory. It is neither necessary nor possible for us here either to confirm or confute all his hypotheses; we can only refer to his “Revelatio Antichrist, sive de Numeris Daniel’s, 1290 1335.” (Works, page 717.) The first part is occupied by refuting Broughton and Junius, who assert those mystic days to have been literally fulfilled during the Wars of Antiochus. The prediction, he thinks, fulfilled in the twelfth century of our era, when the persecutions of the Papal See, against the Heretics of those days, are said to verify the words of the Prophet. Dr. Todd has thought this treatise worthy of a detailed refutation, and to all who are interested in determining whether Antichrist is a Succession of Rulers or a single person, his learned remarks are worthy of attentive perusal. In pursuance of his own ideas respecting a personal future Antichrist, he is led to dispute the division of Alexander’s empire into four parts, and to quote at full length various authorities, especially Venema, who endeavored to shew the number of divisions to be ten, and that the portion of chapter 8 usually interpreted of the Roman was really fulfilled by the Grecian Empire in the East.

Note 49. See Herm. Venem. Dis. ad Vat. Daniel Emblem., Dis. 5: Section 3-12, pp. 347-364, 4to. Leovard, 1745, as quoted at length in Todd’s Discourses on Antichrist, pp. 504-515.

Calvin then, we find, agrees entirely with Venema, and by anticipation confutes the arguments of Dr. Todd. He thinks it surprising, that men versed in Scripture can thus substitute darkness for light. He is supported by Melancthon and Michaelis, Hengstenberg and Rosenmuller as well as by Theodoret and most of the Greek Expositors. He treats those more leniently who modestly and considerately suppose the times of Antiochus to be figurative of those of Antichrist. At this “figura Calvini” Maldonatus sneers; and yet if we determine that Calvin’s solution is right, it is the very principle by which the perusal of Holy Scripture becomes profitable to us. “I desire,” says he, “to treat the Sacred Oracles reverently; but I require something certain.” “If any one wishes to adapt this passage to present use, he may refer it to Antichrist,” on the principle, “that whatever happened to the Ancient Church, occurred for our instruction.” Hence he, allows of a double sense, and raises a question which has been ably contended for and against by many subsequent Divines. It is too important to be passed over, and will demand our notice in our Second Volume.

The followers of Mede have met with a formidable antagonist, and the adherents of Calvin a staunch supporter in the late Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge. Dr. Lee, in his pamphlet on the Visions of Daniel and St. John has stated his reasons for adhering to the Older Interpreters, thus adopting the principle of the Praeterists, and entirely discarding the slightest reference to the Pope and the Papacy. His conclusions may be exhibited in a few words. Respecting Nebuchadnezzar’s Image, “the feet must of necessity symbolize Heathen Rome in its last times.” “Papal Rome cannot, therefore, possibly be any prolongation of Daniel’s Fourth Empire.” “These Kings,” represented by the Toes, “may, therefore, be supposed in a mystical sense to be, as the digits ten, a round number, and signifying a whole series.” “The Little Horn” is said to be Heathen Rome — its persecuting Emperors from Nero to Constantine fulfilling the Prophetic conditions. The phrase “a Time, Times, and a Half,” is said to refer to the “latter half (mystically speaking) of the Seventieth Week of our Prophet.” “Daniel’s Week of seven days — equivalent here to Ezekiel’s period of seven years — is, we find, divided into two parts mystically considered halves, or of three days and a half.” [...] “That the Roman Power took away the Daily Sacrifice, arid cast down the place of its Sanctuary, it is impossible to doubt. Titus, during the reign of his father Vespasian desolated Jerusalem by destroying both the City and the Sanctuary.” Thus in his general principles of Exposition, this celebrated Hebraist pronounces his verdict in favor of Calvin and his interpretation.

Note 50. Seeleys, London, 1851.

Note 51. Ibid., p2

Note 52. See Introductory.