ed that which was most natural and most in accordance with the general tenor of this and other prophecies of the Bible.

The chief fault of Mr. Barnes is, that he takes nothing for granted; must prove every thing as it if were doubtful. He writes too much as for skeptics and infidels, and is therefore careful, sometimes too careful, not to make his conclusions quite as broad as his premises. He does not assume enough the inspiration of the book, but makes each passage stand on its own independent proved reasonableness. The same rigid rules applied to the Old Testament Messianic prophecies, would make them mean far less than the Holy Spirit intended to teach.

As in his commentaries on the Gospels, he writes too much for children and youth; explains too much, dilates too much, as if he were still writing for beginners. In such a book as this, he might have been excused, if he had forgotten the children and written for full grown men. This protracts his commentary to an unusual and unnecessary length; and after he has convinced, sometimes tires by repetition. This will be found, we opine, the chief objection to the volume, which otherwise does him more honor, and will have more influence on thinking men, than any other volume with which he has favored the world.

We shall be greatly disappointed, if this last volume of Mr. Barnes does not encourage multitudes, with him as their guide, to traverse this hitherto unvisited continent of truth, and deeply interest them in deciphering, what they have perhaps hitherto regarded as Egyptian hieroglyphics, beyond the ken of mortals. And this effect will be produced, not by the novelty of the theory, for it is substantially the creed of the seventeenth century; but by the peculiar method and spirit of discussion; so sober, so candid, so moderate in its inferences, and so totally removed from all appearance of extravagance and romance.

His argument against the Millenarians, or advocates of the visible reign, we shall have further occasion to notice before we close.

In the meantime, we may declare, that as a demonstration. of the fact of prophecy,-a demonstration that the great Roman Apostasy was depicted by the spirit of inspiration a thousand years before it reached its height,-a demonstration that the

Papal Power is the "beast," and "harlot," and "great Babylon" of the New Testament; we know no book which we would so soon put into the hands of the skeptic and the infidel. All is sober logic and no begging of any question. This cannot be said of some other, even orthodox commentaries, and especially of the one which we now proceed to notice.

MR. LORD.

Of this author we scarcely know what to say. He has certainly talent, learning, metaphysical acumen and rhetorical skill in no ordinary degree. His rules for the exposition of symbols and the general interpretation of prophecy, are on the whole excellent, and more systematically and clearly defined than by any writer within our knowledge. His chief fault on this point is, that the matter is overstrained; his rules are too rigid for the popular style of the Bible. The nice distinctions which he makes between symbols and metaphors and other figures, however reasonable in a philosophical treatise on rhetoric, are out of place and often mislead, when applied to the unsystematic and free style of the Holy Scriptures.

The symbols of the Bible, like its parables and allegories are not cast in the philosophical, but in the popular and oriental mould. They sometimes "walk on all fours," and sometimes "touch only in one point." Sometimes the symbolical is mixed with the metaphorical, and both with the literal, in the same paragraph, if not in the same sentence. See Rev. vi. and ix.

One might as well apply the principles of Murray's English Grammar to the syntax of the Apocalypse,* or the system of Edwardean Metaphysics to the use of the words "head," "heart," "mind," "soul," "spirit," "understanding," "conscience;" or the system of modern scientific physiology to the biblical use of the words "bowels," "nerves," "caul," "reins," &c., as attempt to restrain the meaning of the Scrip

Every Greek scholar knows that the Apocalypse abounds in the strangest grammatical anomalies;-disregarding the common rules for agreement in gender, number and case. Singular nominatives have plural verbs; neuter nouns have masculine or feminine adjectives and participles; nouns in apposition are in different cases, &c. &c. all which, however parallels may be found in other writers are manifestly out of harmony with ordinary rules of modern grammar.

ture symbols to their strict philosophical and scientific use. Leviathan is not so tamed. The crucible here is out of place. Metaphysical exactness is not to be looked for in a book written, not for the learned, but the popular mind. Symbols in the Bible are as definite as other figures, or as common words, and no more definite. The symbols of the first seal, for instance, (vi. chap.) denote victory and prosperity; but what victory, or where, in church or state, by military or moral power, is no more determined by the symbol of the warrior, bow and crown, than by the words "conquering and to conquer."

His "laws of symbolization" are, in general, true and well developed; but in many cases, in his application of them, they are so overstrained as to crucify the meaning of a text. And some of his rules can never be maintained. One for instance, and a favorite one is, that the Saviour can never be symbolized by a creature, nor by anything but Himself. Whereas He is evidently symbolized by a "Lamb that had been slain" in the v. chapter, and by an "Angel with his right foot upon the sea, and the other upon the land," in the x. chapter. Why should he not be symbolized by creatures in the New Testament, as well as typified by creatures in the Old? He was there pictured to the mind by the High Priest, the altar, the sacrifice, the lamb, by prophets, priests and kings, and by Melchisedek. It is not pretended that any creature can represent all his glory; but one emblem can represent him in one office, and another in another, as the lamb can symbolize his innocence, his sufferings and vicarious death. Why should he not be symbolized even by inanimate things, since the Holy Spirit, our author being judge, is symbolized by the "seven lamps of fire," p. 56. There is scarcely a page in his book in which his rules are not stretched beyond reason and propriety.

But the great fault of this writer, in this as in most of his other writings, (and he ought to know how the public regard it,) is his overweening self-conceit; his despotic dogmatism; his supercilious contempt for all who have gone before him. Really, in taking him up for the first time, you would suppose that not a ray of light on the subject of the interpretation of prophecy had ever before reached our benighted earth! Mede, Lowman, Lowth, Hurd, Fleming, the Newtons, Faber, Elliot,

and the whole host of German and English writers "had not a distant idea on the subject;" and had need to learn of our New York interpreter, "which be the first principles of the oracles of God."

This is no caricature. Our blood boiled in reading the first numbers of his Literary and Theological Journal, at the supreme contempt with which he treated the whole world of commentators, sneering at some who were to him as "Hyperion to a Satyr." And there is so much of the same infallible dogmatism in this treatise, that it will nearly destroy the credit which the book can really claim.

It is really amusing to observe with what ease he disposes of Vitringa, Daubuz, Faber, Sir Isaac Newton, and others, just by kicking up a dust of technicals, as convincing as if he threw up the parts of speech, the conjugations and declensions, helterskelter into the air!

There is here a perfect contrast between him and Mr. Barnes. The latter is modest, taking nothing for granted, and keeping his conclusions far within his premises. Even after a point is reached by fair and candid argument, and he might justly add Q. E. D., he leaves the result to the reader's candid judgment. With Mr. Lord, there is no propitiation of the reader, no solicitation of his verdict, but an unceremonious absolute demand; or at least, an assumption that all darkness is cleared away, that, the true light now shines, and that your convictions coincide exactly with his own!

Now few people like to be taken thus by storm. Like Falstaff, they will not "give reasons on compulsion, though reasons were as plenty as blackberries."

Besides, it is encroaching on our province as Reviewers. We only have the right to speak ex cathedra, and assume infallibility; as who should say,

I am Sir Oracle,

And when I ope my lips let no dog bark.

From high authority, and long prescription, Reviewers have the right to sit like Nebuchadnezzar, when, "whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would

he set up, and whom he would he put down." We cannot allow our author the liberty quite yet to cut and slay, Caligulalike, as if he would gladly decapitate all Rome at once.

We forgot, till this moment, that the secret of it all is, that he himself has lately assumed the Reviewer's chair, and has thus learned to "play with lions as with puppy dogs." But we would nevertheless suggest, that, however amusing gladiatorial sports and martyrdoms may have been in ancient days, modern civilization likes decency at least, and some appearance of law and equity in slaughtering men,—even if they have been so wicked as to write books on Prophecy.

Some of Mr. Lord's best friends, the friends too of his Millenarian views, we have reason to know, feel just as we do on this subject. They regret that so much critical acumen, so much theological learning, and so much love for old fashioned orthodoxy, should neutralize its own influence by such unparalleled self-glorification.

As to the general plan of interpretation adopted by Mr. Lord, it varies little, in its grand outlines, from that of the old Protestant scheme of the last two centuries. The chief distinction, (and objection too,) is the Millenarian spirit which pervades the work, and strangely literalizes some of the spiritual, and symbolizes the literal portions of the Prophecy. Of this we may have more to say hereafter.

In reference to the other works at the head of this article, we cannot now enlarge.

Dr. Duffield's book has been for some ten years before the public, and is therefore too well known to need a special notice now. It is devoted to an exposition of the system of "Literalism," as opposed to what he calls "Spiritualism;" and whatever else may be said of it, is the clearest and most intelligible exposé of the beginning, middle and end of the system, which has issued from the American, if not from the English press. The great difficulty with other Literalists is to get definite ideas of what they mean, and to what extent their literalizing process is to be carried. From this obscurity this author is comparatively free.

Decidedly the most unique and original work which has lately appeared on the subject in hand, is "Millenarian VOL. I.-35