see, and arrogantly exalts himself above all that is called God, issuing his laws for the universe. Be it so; but there are some of us who had rather share the dungeon with Galileo, or die the death of martyrdom, than to relinquish the rights of conscience, the liberty of speech and of the press, so dearly purchased by the blood of our fathers. Sooner shall our bodies be mangled upon a wheel, or borne home lifeless to our families, victims of inquisitorial barbarism, than our necks bow down beneath the yoke of Papal domination for if our hats are ever removed in token of submission to clerical despotism, either by pope or bishop, our heads must come with them.

But thanks to the God of our fathers, he has set his bow in our heavens, at once the pledge and promise that America shall be free. Here liberty-civil and religious liberty—such as the world never saw, has spread her banner to the winds of heaven, and under its ample folds our country is enjoying the blessed fruits of the glorious Reformation, and rejoicing in the inheritance of that freedom for which the immortal Luther braved the thunders of the Vatican, and defied the vengeance of the pope of Rome, whom till then he had regarded as the father of Christendom. In striking his first blow at the trade of indulgences, that damning mockery of Heaven, he struck a blow for liberty and for man which has ever since been filling the world with the sons of thought, of reason, and of religion; and here in America we are beginning to appreciate the stupendous benefits of the world's Reformation.

True, when Luther thus lifted his voice for truth and God, his writings were doomed to the flames by the common hangman, and his body to be sent bound to Rome. His intended fate might well be anticipated by that of his fellow-champion for truth, John Huss, the victim of the treachery and bloodthirstiness of the Popish Council of Constance. He was placed in a stone dungeon, three feet wide, six feet high, and seven feet long, and "in this living grave they burnt the true voice out of this world," as has been well said, and choked it in smoke and fire.

But they had not yet conquered the truth of God, burning in Luther's noble soul, though his works were condemned to the flames, and he bound for the sacrifice. His righteous soul, vexed with holy indignation at this outrage upon the majesty of truth, which he prized more than ten thousand lives, burst forth in a strain of withering rebuke, allied to the authoritative tones of inspiration, uttering those deathless words of truth and soberness which awoke the world :

"These writings, aiming faithfully, as human inability would

allow, to promote God's truth on earth, and to save men's souls,you, God's vicegerent, answer by the hangman and fire. You will burn me and them, as an answer to God's message we strive to bring you. You are not God's vicegerent, you are another's, I think. I take your bull as an emparchmented lie, and burn it. You will do what you see good next; this is what I do."

And burn this fire decree he did, in the most public place of Wittenberg, and a shout went up into the heavens: it was the shout of the awakening of the nations.

Then to the pope himself he had the lion heart to say, "This thing of yours, that you call a pardon of sin, is a bit of rag paper with ink. It is nothing else. God alone can pardon sins. Standing on this, I, a poor German monk, am stronger than you all. I stand solitary and friendless, one man on God's truth. You, with your tiaras, triple hats, your treasuries and armories, thunders spiritual and temporal-you stand on the devil's lie, and are not so strong." Verily Luther was the representative of a world lying in bondage beneath a black spectral nightmare, and triple-hatted impostor, calling himself father in God. But he was divinely armed for his high behest; and when he was warned, in view of the fate of Huss, from going to the Diet of Worms, he exclaimed with a martyr's zeal,-"Were there as many devils there as there are roof tiles, I would go on."

And on he went; and after a two hours' spirit-stirring speech before emperor, princes, Papal nuncios, dignitaries spiritual and temporal, sustained by the world's pomp and power, he proclaimed his undying purpose never to recant, in the following words :"Confute me, confute me, not by the hangman and fire, but by proofs of Scripture, or else by plain, just arguments. I cannot recant otherwise, for it is neither safe nor prudent to do aught against conscience. Here stand I! I can do no other. God help me!"

This is the man who, under God, won our yet young liberty from the bondage to Rome; which else had, until now, enslaved the human soul, and imprisoned the world. Such firmness, courage, and love of truth, are needed in America to consummate the work begun in Germany two centuries since ;-not by persecution or intolerance, for Protestant Christianity will tolerate neither, but will extend to the Romish Church our own liberty-not ours, but the rightful inheritance of universal man. And here the great battle is to be fought, in which Romanism is to die; and when the hoary walls of her Babylon shall fall, and fall they must, then, and

not till then, will civil and religious liberty become the inheritance of the world.

Already this "mystery of iniquity" is tottering to its ruin. Where now are its inquisitions and indulgences, its racks and dungeons, its fagots and fire? In our country they may be sought for in vain, thanks to the Bible and the God of the Bible; for but for this agency, North America would be now what South America is. And even there, as in Italy, Spain, Austria, and Ireland, where Romanism finds its last lingering refuge, it is destined to vanish before the onward march of civilization, which is fatal to the very name of every false religion.

The trepidation and alarm of his holiness, Gregory XVI., the present pope, as betrayed in his last published bull, are but the fruit of the conscious insecurity of the tenure by which he holds his triple mitre. Hence his furious anathemas against "audacious liberty" of conscience, of opinion, and of the press, which he feels must presently be fatal to Rome and her dominion. Hence also his reiterated curses upon Luther and the Protestants for thus endangering his supremacy, and undermining his throne. And though he calls, with uplifted eyes and hands, upon the Virgin Mary, whom he declares to be his "greatest confidence and the whole foundation of his hope;" and though Peter, the prince of the apostles, and his co-apostle Paul, are also the objects of his humble prayers, yet these dead saints happily know no more of his idolatrous worship than do their images in his palace at Rome. And when, last of all, he hopes that Jesus Christ will console him under his manifold apprehensions, we are reminded of certain kindred spirits in the days of the apostles, who attempted to cast out devils, in imitation of the miracles performed by these holy men, and who said to the evil spirits, "In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preacheth, we command you to come out;" but the evil spirits answered, "Paul we know, and Jesus we know, but who are you?" and they fell upon them and overcome them. We pray that his holiness, by timely repentance, may escape a similar fate.

D.

ART. III.-Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy. By M. STUART, Professor in Andover Theological Seminary. Andover: Allen, Morrill, and Wardwell. 1842.

THE literary standing of the author of this book very naturally and justly drew to it the attention of those who felt interested in the interpretation of prophecy, in hope of finding a solution of many vexing yet important questions in Biblical exegesis. And the very favorable notices which it has received from the press show, that despite the novelty of some of his opinions, Professor Stuart is regarded as having done much by this treatise to hasten the attainment of an ultimate opinion regarding the exposition of some mysterious prophecies in the Holy Bible. Whether it is to become a standard treatise upon the subject of Biblical hermaneutics, or is to pass away with the excitement of the particular occasion which called it forth, remains to be determined.

That this little book has contributed to allay the unhealthy excitement created by the "Miller" theory of interpretation is most certainly true and thankfully acknowledged; but that it furnishes a satisfactory exposition of the book of Daniel and of the Apocalypse is seriously questioned, upon what we deem valid grounds of doubt. This intimation of dissent from the doctrines of the "HINTS" must not however be understood as referring to all that it contains; for we are happy to acknowledge our obligation to the professor for his very able, and, as we think, clear refutation of the doctrine of a "double sense of prophecy." We had earnestly embraced the opinion which our author has so ably argued in the first part of his book, but in the belief of which we have been confirmed since having read this section of his treatise.

The proposition involving this subject is the first of three topics which the author has discussed in the volume before us. We cannot better place before the reader the purpose of this book, than by quoting a paragraph from the author's Introduction, p. 8, in which he says,―

"The subjects of discussion to which I have adverted may be comprised under three distinct heads. The first is the proposition, that there is in many parts of the prophecies an occult, mystical, undeveloped meaning, which renders those predictions occasionally pregnant with a double sense. The second, that some other prophecies have a meaning which is so concealed and obscure, that it can never be discovered until the events take place to which they refer. The third is, that the leading designations of time in the book of Daniel and the

Apocalypse, namely, 'a time, times, and half a time,' and 'forty and two months, or twelve hundred and sixty days,' comprise, not the actual period literally named, but twelve hundred and sixty years. In other words, the general principle in respect to this third head is, that the times named in the two books before us are designed to be understood as meaning, that each day is the representative of a year."

Although these "principles" of interpretation "have been so current among the expositors of the English and American world, that scarcely a serious attempt to vindicate them has of late been made;"-and though "they have been regarded as so plain, and so well fortified against all objections, that most expositors have deemed it quite useless to defend them," the professor, deeming them essentially defective, has made bold to assail them. Now the grounds upon which our author has done this are so democratic and high-minded,—and as, moreover, they will serve for a justification of our dissent from the professor's application of his own rules, we shall cite the passage in which they are contained.

"Is it lawful and safe, now, to call in question a mode of interpretation so generally admitted, and which has so long been current among us? Lawful I think it may be; for the Scriptures have prescribed to us none of these rules, nor have any of the creeds of Protestants dictated anything which binds us to admit them. Safe it may be, provided truth admits of our questioning such rules; and surely it must be safe, if truth demands that we should reject them, for it is always safe and proper to follow truth. The true and legitimate principles of interpretation depend on no individual man, no sect, no party. They are independent of all parties, else they would be of little or no value. They depend on no niceties of philosophical theories-on no far-fetched and recondite deductions-on no caprice of fancy or imagination. Were they so dependent, they would be of little value even to the learned, and of none at all to the great mass of men who read the Scriptures. The origin and basis of all true hermaneutical science are the reason and common sense of men, at all times and in all ages, applied to the interpretation of language, either spoken or written."-P.9.

The two quotations now before the reader are sufficient to enable him to comprehend the general purposes of the book, and to appreciate the general method by which they are sought.

We have already expressed our concurrence in the opinion of the author respecting the first of the three topics discussed in his book; and we now add, that we do not see cause of decided dissent from the doctrine of the succeeding section.

We should be happy indeed if we could have agreed with Professor S. in the opinions and illustrations which he has advanced upon the third and last topic of his book. But here we are met