ARCHIVING PDF VERSIONS OF EVERY COPY
Signatures and Liner Notes Preserved; Organized by Sites of Origin:
PDF REFERENCE FILES:
15th (Decimaquinta) Preliminary Note (pp. 56-57)
“I say a profound philosophy teaches, that in the Creation of things it was the intention of the Artificer and Builder, that in those objects of Creation which come within the reach of our vision, men might also be in possession of wonderful symbols and hieroglyphics, serving to point out to them mystically such lessons as would most highly concern them, viz., true instruction in faith and morals.
Origen, after pursuing the subject in a beautiful train of reasoning, concludes at last with the following words, ‘Therefore may all things be referred upward from the visible to the invisible, from the corporeal to the incorporeal, from the manifest to the hidden ; so that the objects of the world may be understood to be created by divine Wisdom according to such a divine dispensation, as from visible things, by means of the things and exemplars themselves, teaches us the invisible, and transfers us from earthly things to those which are of heaven.’ Thus far Origen ; who doubts not that, in the creation of things corporeal, it was the principal design of the divine Artificer that they should be symbols and traces, as it were, of the mysteries of our faith. Therefore the merely natural office proper to every particular thing, in virtue of which it ministers to other bodies, and in which the philosophy of Aristotle rests, by no means satisfies the infinite Wisdom of God, and His especial providence in the salvation of souls ; nor indeed His own wonderful counsel whereby He hath determined to raise us from the corporeal to the incorporeal. It is probable, therefore, that the omnipotence of God, when He had the power of making infinite species of souls, plants, and stones, selected and created out of the infinite things which he had in his power, such as were the more apt to signify the mysteries of our salvation, and a conformably moral instruction. And this was accomplished in such a manner, that the universal mechanism of things created should maintain a most beautiful harmony with the wonderful counsel of God in the salvation of men ; and that things corporeal should subserve to the representation of those which are spiritual.” (Clissold’s Translation)
Note 7, Chapter 1, Verse 7 (pp. 199-202)
“This signification of clouds has in it such force, that even if Christ should not come to Judgment in a material cloud, it might nevertheless be truly and beautifully said that He would come in clouds, according to the language of Sacred Scripture. Not that I would deny that there would be true material clouds at the Day of Judgment ; for I have no mind to innovation in what pertains to teaching : I only mean to assert, that so beautiful and apt is the symbolical signification of clouds, that although there should be no clouds properly so called (viz. no material clouds), Christ might nevertheless most truly and significantly be then said to come in the clouds of heaven. And this I wish to say rather, in order that it might be noted, that in the symbol of the clouds there is latent a much greater and more excellent mystery than any one might think, who considered only the grammatical sense of the Word — a sense to which I see that some persons are too much addicted.”
“Behold, the Apocalypse sets before us the Advent of Christ in the clouds of the preaching of the Gospel, by means of which God pours down His heavenly shower, that is, the spirit of peace and of prayer.” (Clissold’s Translation)
“Arias vero in sua illa spirituali accommodatione, dum Apocalypseos bella vult intra unius hominis pectus includere; non video, qua ratione possit in bello illo spiritali, quod itra unius hominis pectus geritur, distinguere duo veluti bella, quorum primum respondeat bello Ierosolymae corruere; alterius vero, universam Babylonem conflagrare: atque his succedre mille annorum pacem ; ac demum Antichristi bellum. Etenim, licet mysticum duarum urbium praelium in hominis pectore pie meditari, subtile sit inventum, nec improbandum ; ceterum ille trium bellorum ordo ad mysticum hoc bellum transferri non potest. Nec contendit Arias omnia per ordinem ad subtilissimam illam normam redigere. Posse vero multa non ordinatim, sed promiscue, at absque filo accommodari, non inficior. Quin imo existimo, si Arias suam illam applicatione in litterali sensu stabiliret, multa praeterea illum ingeniose pro votis aptare potuisse. Nam in perfidae Ierosolymae bello adversus Dei Ecclesiam poterat contemplari, quam acriter Deo conentur obsistere ii, qui semel fuerant illuminati et gustaverant donum caeleste, et verbum Dei, et prolapsi sunt, ad Hebraecos 6.4. Quorum ex numero vix decima tandem pars, id est, perpauci sese illi submittent. In bello etiam Romae ethnicae adversus Ecclesiam gesto, idoneus sese dabat sermo de eorum de corum repugnantia“ (Vestigatio, Lyons, 1618, p. 19)
Engravings by Don Juan de Jauregui
“A Spanish painter and poet, born at Seville c. 1570, or, according to some, as late as 1583; died at Madrid c. 1640-1. His family, a northern one, was apparently of noble rank, and he was early enrolled as a knight in the Order of Calatrava. He made a sojourn in Rome, and there, judging by what he says in his “Discourse on Painting”, he studied the old masters and formed his own pictorial methods. At all events, report has it that he became distinguished as a portrait painter. A current interpretation of a passage in the prologue to the “Novelas ejemplares” of Cervantes makes him out to have painted a likeness of the famous novelist. As a poet, Jï¿½uregui began as a disciple of the Sevillian bard, Herrera. In point of fact, he adheres in many of his compositions too closely to the manner of his model, and hence a lack of originality in them. Notable among his poetic endeavors in his versions in blank verse of Tasso’s “Aminta”. It is deemed one of the best foreign renderings of that eminent pastoral play. First published in Italy, in 1607, it was included in the collected “Rimas” of Jï¿½uregui put forth at Seville in 1618. In the same volume appeared various poetical pieces, among them a specimen of a translation of Lucas, and certain religious lyrics. In the earlier stages of his career, Jï¿½uregui was a stern opponent of Gongorism and its stylistic excesses, as he clearly shows in his “Discurso poï¿½tico contra el hablar culto y estilo obscuro”, but he later succumbed to the influence of this noxious manner, amply illustrating its peculiarities in his poem “Orfeo” (Madrid, 1624) and even defending it in a special dissertation. Of the “Pharsalia” of Lucas, already attempted by him in his youth, he made, late in life, a complete version, which, however, was not published until 1684, and is over free in its rendering of the original.” (Catholic Encyclopedia)
WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID
“A comprehensive commentary on the Book of Revelation by the Jesuit theologian Ludovicus ab Alcasar (1554-1613) who dedicated the work to Pope Pius V. In a curious introductory letter to the reader however, (by a censor?) Father Antonius Padilla is described as having greatly stimulated and furthered the edition of this commentary, and thus being de facto the dedicatee. After a series of introductory essays and a detailed synopsis follows the commentary, book by book, verse by verse. A concluding chapter on biblical weights and measures closes the work. A Lyon edition followed in 1618. A supplementary volume discussing in more detail those passages from Hiob, the Psalter, Canticles and Prophets quoted or alluded to in Revelation was published only in 1631. See De Backer-Sommervogel I 145-146 who incorrectly mention only 20 engravings. Together with Ribeira, Alcasar is said to have introduced into the study of Revelation the scientific historical method, approaching the work from the viewpoint of the author and seeking the clue to his writings in the events of his time. “
Thomas Kelly Cheyne
James E. Force
Alcazar was fully aware that he contradicted certain of the fathers, differed from the Futurists Ribera and Viegas, and was in conflict with Malvenda. While approving of the concept of spiritual resurrection held by Augustine, he contended against his view of the binding of Satan, as well as that of Ribera and Viegas. (Froom, LeRoy Edwin. The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers, 3 vols. (Wash. D.C.: Review and Herald, 1948), vol 2, p.509) (Preterist Eschatology in the Sixteenth Through Eighteenth Centuries)
“It might be expected, that a commentary that thus freed the Romish church from the assaults of the Protestants, would be popular among the advocates of the papacy. Alcasar met, of course, with general approbation and reception among the Romish community. “‘(Stuart, Moses, “Commentary on the Apocalypse”, Allen, Morrill and Wardell, Andover, 1845, Volume 1, p. 464.)
What do YOU think ?
Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security
Date: 29 Apr 2013
Alcazar did considerable violence to the conditional historical method of prophetic interpretation, favoring sources and interpretations critical to that methodology and adopting a metaphorical, source critical hermeneutic.