I have, however, had other objects in view, in the publication before us, which I now proceed to

state:

There has always existed in this country and elsewhere (and particularly of late in Germany,) a considerable number who have loudly objected to what has been termed the Orthodox view of the Holy Scriptures, and have thence proceeded entirely to deny the peculiar doctrines thus derived and recommended. That these objections might not in some few instances have been well founded, I will not take upon me to deny, because I believe, Divines have in many cases, as noticed above, made out too much. Before I could take upon me to refute such objections, it was necessary I should state generally what I believed to be the true intention of the Scriptures in these respects. I mean with regard to those doctrines which are peculiar to Christianity, and which I believe to be quite necessary to salvation. The body of men which I have had principally in view is, the school of Divines most numerous at this day in Germany. The Rev. H. I. Rose, of Trinity College, Cambridge, has already brought this subject before the public; but, as he has discussed it on grounds very different from those which I have taken, there is not much probability his question will be interfered with in the following pages. The object of Mr. Rose has chiefly been to point out the causes which seem to have led to this departure from the views and principles of the Reformers; but here he has found an opponent in

the second; but, as I found no material difference, notwithstanding the additional matter on the Sabbath, I have made no alteration, either in my text or references, since my article was first written.

the learned Professor of Hebrew at Oxford. Both (ae these able writers, however, acknowledge and lament the state of things alluded to; and therefore, although they differ in some respects in detail, they are unanimous on the great and main question; viz. that the doctrines of this school are heterodox and false. My object has been to investigate the principles on which these tenets are generally advanced, and to examine some of their results in detail; because it is my belief that the main question rests here. Objections loud and vehement may eternally be made to the formularies of faith composed by men; and the samé may be done with regard to the wisest and best hierarchy. But, if we can establish the previous question, and shew that our views of the Scriptures are just, while those of our opponents are false, we shall arrive at conclusions at once cogent and decisive, that both our divinity is in the main right, and our Church founded on the doctrines of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.

The authors I have selected for review on this occasion are, Dr. Wegscheider of the University of Halle, Dr. Rosenmüller of Leipsic, Professor Bertholdt of Erlangen, and Dr. Wm. Gesenius the Hebrew Professor of Halle. And here I wish it to be clearly understood, that I have nothing whatever to advance against either the industry, the learning, the good faith, or the public or private virtues, of these gentlemen. I can very cordially allow, that they are excellent and deserving men; and, further, that their intention may be to advance the truth. With the first three I have no

personal acquaintance; with the last I have had a literary and friendly intercourse for some years; and I will here say, he is a person for whom I entertain the greatest respect, and one to whom I am indebted for the highest distinction his University could bestow upon me.* I am, indeed, sorry that we differ so widely on points of so much importance as those discussed in the following pages are; but, as I presume I have good reasons for the difference evinced on my part, I cannot perhaps more effectually fulfil the office of a friend, than by publicly bringing these to his notice. He has publicly, and with much earnestness and erudition, proposed his; I now publicly, and, I trust, without insult or ostentation, propose mine, with this sentiment (to which I am sure he will subscribe), that where truth, and that too involving matters of such moment as those here discussed, is the object solely had in view, the literary reputation of the combatants need not be thought about.

The last subject dwelt upon in the following pages (and my main question is Scriptural interpretation) is, that of prophecy. The principal cause of my entering on this difficult and interesting sub

A diploma conferring the degree of Doctor in Divinity in the year 1822, which, as it was bestowed unsolicited and in the handsomest manner, I shall never cease to consider one of the greatest distinctions of my life. This, however, great as I esteem it, cannot (nor was it ever intended to do so) be considered as reason sufficient to impose silence on me in questions of this momentous nature. The inquiry I consider as one in which truth alone ought to be had in view. This I certainly have in view; and I trust my friend has also.

ject has been the circumstance, that for the last five or six years much inquiry has been made on it in this country, without perhaps arriving at any very satisfactory results. I do not here, however, present myself in the shape of a controversialist generally, although a few notes to this effect will be found in my work; nor am I vain enough to suppose, that any thing or all I might advance is likely to set at rest a question of so much interest and difficulty as this confessedly is. My main object has been, to investigate the principles of prophetical interpretation, and to divest the question generally of considerations, which have appeared to me to throw great difficulties in the inquirer's way. On this subject, as on those already noticed, my opinion is, that too much has generally been advanced by commentators-that they have entangled themselves with questions foreign to the subject, and hence, by viewing simple matters through an unsteady medium, have unwarily involved themselves and their readers in unnecessary and almost endless difficulties.

One would imagine, at first sight, that the Prophets would be as simple and unsophisticated in their declarations, as either the Evangelists or the Apostles are; and, that both metaphysics and duplicity would be as far removed from their discourses as could possibly be supposed. They constituted part of a nation remarkable for its simplicity, and of a people who were generally ignorant of the sciences; and, as they spoke for the use and edification of ages, to consist of high and low, rich and poor, learned and unlearned, it is most reason

able to suppose they would deliver themselves in a manner most likely to be understood by all. Figurative they are, indeed, to a very high degree; but herein consists one of the greatest marks of their simplicity. Their figures are invariably drawn from nature, and are therefore familiar to all; and, if a few of them must be confined to their peculiar polity and times, we have abundant means of ascertaining all the important particulars relating to them. My opinion is (and this has been formed upon an experience of some extent and duration), that they are thus natural, simple, unaffected, and unsophisticated; that they speak to plain men under common circumstances; and are, in general, as easy to be understood as the Evangelists and Apostles. Besides, we have in the New Testament a most sure and valuable key to their intentions in general; and, if my notions on this subject are correct, the New Testament will supply much more towards their just interpretation, than has generally been imagined by the commentators.

With these views and principles, then, I have invariably proceeded: the results I have arrived at (some of which I must confess were not anticipated by me) will be seen in the following sheets. I only entreat they may be considered with the intention. and spirit with which they have been proposed, and entirely and solely with reference to THE TRUTH. To my Exposition of the book of the Revelation, I suppose the loudest objections will be made; not, perhaps, because what I may have advanced will be considered in itself objectionable, but because, as that book has been made the subject of almost