Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

66

[ocr errors]

tation: namely, "that, if we interpret some of these predictions figuratively and some literally, we thereby introduce indecision and uncertainty": and the reason he gives is this, that the ambiguity of many words in every language is not found to produce either uncertainty or confusion. Thus, if Mr. Whitaker use the word sow*, the context will always determine without a possibility of error whether the verb, or the animal of that name, be intended-And can he rest satisfied with this argument? Will he pretend to say, that there is any context which authorizes him to explain the second and third vials literally, and the first, the fourth, and the fifth symbolically, in a manner even most remotely approximating to the absolute certainty with which the context always teaches us whether sow is to be understood as a verb or a substantive? With what face then can he assert, that "there is scarcely a single passage throughout the prophetic "writings, in which, if it may not consistently with "the accomplishment be understood in both, a << man of common sense and unbiassed mind can be "at a loss in which sense it ought to be taken"? admit Mr. Whitaker's principle, and you open the door to the wildest speculations of the most visionary commentator; you make the Apocalypse a mere nose of wax.

[ocr errors]

But Mr. Whitaker asserts, that the term fornication is sometimes used figuratively and sometimes literally in the Apocalypse; and thence infers that his system is perfectly defensible-It is in one

* This word is one of the examples which Mr. Whitaker adduces.

passage,

of exposition. He says, that I "acknowledge the "double sense of prophecy, which certainly "includes the possibility of its being accomplished " both figuratively and literally": and for this he refers me to P. 373 of my second volume. I confess I turned to the page in question with huge dismay and astonishment, prepared to take shame to myself for having been guilty of so palpable a contradiction. But I soon found, that I had merely declared a part of a prophecy of Joel to relate primarily to the effusion of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and ultimately to the yet greater effusion of the Spirit in the period when all nations shall be converted unto Christ. To this I will now add, that I believe there is scarcely a single prophecy in the Old Testament which treats of the first advent of the Messiah, that does not ultimately more or less relate to his second advent. How the avowal of such an opinion can be wire-drawn into any acknowledgment on my part, direct or indirect, explicit or implied, that the prophecies of Daniel and St. John* may be interpreted both literally and symbolically, or sometimes literally and sometimes symbolically according to the humour of the expositor, I am utterly at a loss to comprehend.

1

Mr. Whitaker however will not allow the validity of my objection to such a mode of interpre

*I say, with cautious accuracy, Daniel and St. John. As for the other prophets, they continually mix the imagery of symbols with literal predictions: yet even in them when we are told of the sea roaring and the heavenly bodies being darkened, we are not at liberty to say that the sea means both the natural sea and the symbolical sea, or that the heavenly bodies mean both the natural heavenly bodies and the symbolical heavenly bodies.

tation:

66

tation: namely," that, if we interpret some of these predictions figuratively and some literally, we "thereby introduce indecision and uncertainty": and the reason he gives is this, that the ambiguity of many words in every language is not found to produce either uncertainty or confusion. Thus, if Mr. Whitaker use the word sow*, the context will always determine without a possibility of error whether the verb, or the animal of that name, be intended-And can he rest satisfied with this argument? Will he pretend to say, that there is any context which authorizes him to explain the second and third vials literally, and the first, the fourth, and the fifth symbolically, in a manner even most remotely approximating to the absolute certainty with which the context always teaches us whether sow is to be understood as a verb or a substantive? With what face then can he assert, that "there is "scarcely a single passage throughout the prophetic

66

writings, in which, if it may not consistently with "the accomplishment be understood in both, a "man of common sense and unbiassed mind can be "at a loss in which sense it ought to be taken"? admit Mr. Whitaker's principle, and you open the door to the wildest speculations of the most visionary commentator; you make the Apocalypse a mere nose of wax.

But Mr. Whitaker asserts, that the term fornica tion is sometimes used figuratively and sometimes literally in the Apocalypse; and thence infers his system is perfectly defensible-It is in or

* This word is one of the examples which Mr. Winter adduces.

of exposition. He says, that I "acknowledge the double sense of prophecy, which certainly includes the possibility of its being accomplished "both figuratively and literally": and for this he refers me to P. 373 of my second volume. I confess I turned to the page in question with huge dismay and astonishment, prepared to take shame to myself for having been guilty of so palpable a contradiction. But I soon found, that I had merely declared a part of a prophecy of Joel to relate primarily to the effusion of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and ultimately to the yet greater effusion of the Spirit in the period when all nations shall be converted unto Christ. To this I will now add, that I believe there is scarcely a single prophecy in the Old Testament which treats of the first advent of the Messiah, that does not ultimately more or less relate to his second advent. How the avowal of such an opinion can be wire-drawn into any acknowledgment on my part, direct or indirect, explicit or implied, that the prophecies of Daniel and St. John* may be interpreted both literally and symbolically, or sometimes literally and sometimes symbolically according to the humour of the expositor, I am utterly at a loss to comprehend.

Mr. Whitaker however will not allow validity of my objection to such a mode of int

* I say, with cautious accuracy, Daniel and St for the other prophets, they continually mix th symbols with literal predictions: yet even in them w are told of the sea roaring and the heavenly bodi we are not at liberty to say that the sea me sea and the symbolical sea, or that the hear the natural heavenly bodies and the symbolic

[graphic]
[merged small][ocr errors]

ed with pears to v. xvi. 12, must confess, e case. The zes the Turkish ed, that in the y small kingdom in was the cradle of the n the former it denotes ards subject to the Turkish

r might be used to represent om beginning to end. The vation will appear simply by both passages the great river be kingdom symbolized by the great In the language of symbols a

tes.

Dissertation on the 1260 years. Vol. ii. p. 256-270.

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »