« AnteriorContinuar »
struck our mind, that led us to write the commentary on the chapter referred to, which was published in our religious journal many years ago. It is now two years since we were called again to explain the 20th chapter of the book. In obedience to that request, we republished our former article on the subject, much enlarged. This sharpened our desire for a more careful perusal of the whole book, and we resolved to begin at the commencement of it, and publish our views as far as we could see the meaning. We begun this plan without any design of republishing in book form; but as we proceeded we were more and more encouraged, and grew more and more interested, until we arrived at the end. Our experience in some respects was like that of Dr. Hammond, which we have described in the commentary under Rev. i. 1.
The articles, as they appeared in our religious journal, were written under many disadvantages. The author had been suffering for some time under a nervous debility, produced at first by too great mental action, and irritated exceedingly by other causes. He strongly suspected, in the summer of 1846, that the end of his earthly career was at hand; but he still toiled on, believing he was engaged in a good work. In the belief that death was near, he reviewed the labors of his public life; and although he saw many imperfections in what he had done, he had not a doubt that the doctrines he had defended were the doctrines of the Bible. It was a great satisfaction to him to reflect that he had labored twenty-five years in turning men from darkness to light — from the errors of superstition to worthy views of God and his moral government. Let the reader forgive the writer this brief allusion to personal matters. They never can appear to others as they appear to himself.
We have spoken of the disadvantages under which some parts of the commentary were written. During the writing the author was obliged to make many journeys into the country. He had no other way than to carry his manuscript with him, and hence different parts were written in different places.
We had one settled principle of interpretation, and that was to compare Scripture with Scripture. Although we derived large aid from some commentators upon the Apocalypse, we derived much more from the Old Testament, and from the prophecy of the Lord Jesus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. We always had this encouragement, when we came to a dark passage,
that the aid which we needed, if not furnished by other writers e in the church, we should in all probability find by a patient to examination of the prophets. Scarcely anything tended more
strongly to convince us of the divine character of the Apocablypse than the acquaintance which its author manifested with
the Old Testament, and the reverence he showed for that book.
“Let the Bible explain itself,” was our motto. No commentators sai upon the New Testament can be of one half the advantage to a the student in gaining a knowledge of that book, that a thorough ac
quaintance with the Old Testament would give him. There are Dre parts of the Old Testament which we do not understand, but
these parts which we can understand convince us that the book is immensely valuable ; and that those who cast it away, or
in any manner bring it into disrepute, are unsettling, undesignedly perhaps, the foundation of all revealed religion.
It is scarcely necessary for us to say that the whole commentary has been revised from the form in which it first appeared. Many illustrations, facts, and arguments have been added, and the work thereby has been greatly enlarged. The introduction, containing the essays on the authorship of the work, and also on its date, is entirely new. By the arguments advanced under these heads we know not how others may be affected; but we are persuaded that the Apocalypse was written by the Apostle John, and that it had its origin before the destruction of Jerusalem. It is in ou view a divine book. It bears a striking resemblance to the Old Testament, especially to the book of Daniel, although we are aware it has points peculiar' to itself. It is becoming every day better understood, and more highly appreciated. It is of vast importance to the understanding of it, that the date should be rightly fixed ; and it is a matter of sincere gratification, that commentators, without distinction of sect, are coming more and more to believe that it was written prior to the great and last overthrow of the Jewish nation.
We have proceeded upon the belief that the common English version is as correct a translation of the original, taken all in all, as any other ; or, at any rate, that it is sufficiently correct to enable the careful student, even though he be but an English scholar, to gain the sense of the inspired writers. From such a conviction, we have avoided, as far as possible, the sprinkling of our pages with Greek words and phrases. We would by no
means undervalue a knowledge of the original languages in which the Bible was written ; but we are persuaded that it is not absolutely essential to the knowledge of divine truth. If men will but use the common version to the highest advantage to which it may be put, we have no fear that they will fail to get a proper perception of the meaning of the sacred writers.
With these reflections we submit the work to the public. It has been prepared for publication in this form at the urgent request of many friends. If it shall be the means of doing any good, however small, let the praise be given to Him by whom our life has been spared, and our strength measurably continued.
January 1, 1848.