to be allowed, by itself, to establish any doctrine.
Even without going so far, a due use of early opinion and long continued
discussion would perhaps prevent rational people from being induced by
those who have the _double Vahu_ to place the Apocalypse _above_ the
Gospels, which all the Bivahuites do in effect, and some are said to have
done in express words. But my especial purpose is to point out that an easy
way of getting rid of 665 out of 666 of the mystics is to require them to
establish the Apocalypse before they begin. See if they even know so much
as that there is a crowd of testimonies for and against, running through
the first four centuries, which makes this book the most difficult of the
whole Canon. Try this method, and you will escape beautiful, as the French
say. Dean Alford,[367] in Vol. IV, p. 8, of his New Testament, gives an
elaborate handling of this question. He concludes by saying that he cannot
{222} venture to refuse his consent to the tradition that the Apostle is
the author. This modified adherence, or non-nonadherence, pretty well
represents the feeling of orthodox Protestants, when learning and common
sense come together.

I have often, in former days, had the attempt made to place the Apocalypse
on my neck as containing prophecies yet unfulfilled. The preceding method
prevents success; and so does the following. It may almost be taken for
granted that theological system-fighters do not read the New Testament:
they hunt it for detached texts; they listen to it in church in that state
of quiescent nonentity which is called reverent attention: but they never
read it. When it is brought forward, you must pretend to find it necessary
to turn to the book itself: you must read "The revelation ... to show unto
his servants _things which must shortly come to pass_.... Blessed is he
that readeth ... _for the time is at hand_." You must then ask your mystic
whether things deferred for 1800 years were shortly to come to pass, etc.?
You must tell him that the Greek [Greek: en tachei], rendered "shortly," is
as strong a phrase as the language has to signify _soon_. The interpreter
will probably look as if he had never read this opening: the chances are
that he takes up the book to see whether you have been committing a fraud.
He will then give you some exquisite evasion: I have heard it pleaded that
the above was a _mere preamble_. This word _mere_ is all-sufficient: it
turns anything into nothing. Perhap