natural face, in order to make the Apocalypse a veritable history. And this is the way the explication of this enigmatical book becomes possible "without a particular revelation!" If the only alternative be between a satisfactory historical explanation of this book on the one hand, and the necessity of a particular revelation on the other, one cannot help pressing the inquiry whether any historical explanation has yet been offered so satisfactory, as to show beyond a doubt that there is no necessity for a particular revelation that its true meaning may be fully understood.
Dr. Less, Professor in the University of Göttingen, in his Authenticity, etc., of the New Testament, observes with regard to the Apocalypse:
"After the inquiries and assertions of many centuries, we can ascertain of its meaning—absolutely nothing. We become confused and disgusted when we dive into expositions so numerous, various and contradictory. And the Revelation, after all that the learned and unlearned, fanatics and men of sound understanding, have said and dreamt concerning it, still remains—a sealed book. This is the opinion of all, who, from modest distrust of their own penetration, have consulted, I will not say all, the interpreters of this book—for that is absolutely impossible,—but even a moderate part of them."—p. 205.
RADICAL DISAGREEMENT OF EXPOSITORS.
And not only have different expositors arrived at different conclusions as to the meaning and purpose of the Apocalypse, but they have differed in their
