The Project Gutenberg eBook of Notes on the New Testament: Revelation, by Albert Barnes.

EDITOR’S PREFACE.

YEAR-DAY PRINCIPLE.

Professor Bush, in the Hierophant for January, 1845, at the close of a review of Barnes on the Hebrews, thus wrote:—“We sincerely hope Mr. Barnes may be enabled to accomplish his plan to its very ultimatum, and furnish a commentary of equal merit on the remaining books of the New Testament; with the exception, however, of the Apocalypse, to which, we think, his rigid Calvinian austerity of reason is not so well adapted; and which, we presume to think, would fare better under our own reputed fanciful and allegorical pen.”2 The indefatigable author has lived to accomplish his plan, and has ventured to include within it the mysterious prophecy, for the elucidation of which the reviewer imagined the severe character of his mind disqualified him. Many will think the supposed disqualification a foremost requisite in an Apocalyptic commentator, inasmuch as the Apocalypse has been too long interpreted on fanciful and allegorical principles; and it is now “high time for principle to take the place of fancy, for exegetical proof to thrust out assumption.”3 The advocates of what has been called the Protestant Historic Scheme of Interpretation, have been supposed peculiarly liable to delusions of this nature. It is, therefore, gratifying to find that this new defender of that scheme has been distinguished by a “Calvinian austerity of reason,” which may help to preserve both him and his readers from being in like manner led astray, and at the same time secure a more respectful tone from critics who have espoused opposite views. Bush, who has himself so ably defended the Protestant scheme on the other side of the Atlantic, now that he finds Barnes on the same ground, will think that the spirit of severe logic and searching inquiry which he has brought with him to the contest, render him all the more valuable an associate. In examining the former volumes of Mr. Barnes, we found it was no part of his system of interpretation to admit typical and mystical senses where the literal one could at all be adopted. We had to complain that his tendency was too strong in the opposite direction.4

The plan which the author tells us he adopted in preparing his commentary, is a singular illustration of his judgment and caution; and therefore affords another assurance of his sobriety as an interpreter of the symbols of John. Up to the time of commencing the exposition of this book, he tells us he had no theory in his mind as to its meaning. The utmost he contemplated, when he began, was to explain the meaning of its language and symbols, without attempting to apply that explanation to historical events. But, to his own surprise, he found a series of events, recorded chiefly in Gibbon, such as seemed to correspond, to a great extent, with the series of symbols found in the Apocalypse. Farther examination exhibited this correspondence still more strikingly; and the result was, that his views ultimately took the shape of those given by the great body of Protestant interpreters. He therefore justly claims to be another and independent witness in favour of the common interpretation.5 These statements, while they cannot but increase the reader’s confidence in the guide who now offers to lead him through the mazes of the Apocalypse, ought also to mitigate the scorn with which some have affected to regard all expositions of this school—speaking of them as “hariolations” and “surmises,” which set the reader “afloat upon a boundless ocean of conjecture and fancy, without rudder or compass.”6 It is easy to say such things, and they are therefore too often said by the followers of Eichhorn and Stuart; but accurate inquiry into the non-Protestant scheme will speedily convince anyone that the hariolations do by no means all belong to one side. We venture to say, that nothing so much deserving the name occurs in the whole series of Protestant expositions, as the absurd and unfounded guesses of the last-named writer regarding the witnesses in chap. xi., and the explanation of chap. xvii. 8, by an unfounded heathen rumour regarding the reappearance of Nero after he had been slain.7

With this edition of the Notes on the Book of Revelation we have not found it expedient to present any accompanying or supplementary notes. The author’s text has been carefully revised, and many errors which had crept both into the American and English editions have been corrected. On certain points we could have wished a little more fulness. The important question of the date of the book; the history of apocalyptic interpretation; and the principles of prophetic interpretation, particularly as regards designations of time, are matters lying at the very foundation of just views of the Apocalypse. The first of these points has, indeed, a page or two allotted to it in the “Introduction,” and is also incidentally noticed in the commentary; the second is less or more touched on in the exposition of difficult passages; but the last is almost entirely overlooked, on the ground that the author intends a full discussion of the subject in his forthcoming volume on Daniel. We somewhat regret this, because of the importance of the Year-day principle itself, and because every reader of the Notes on the Book of Revelation may not possess, or have immediately at hand, those on Daniel. We have no doubt that the author’s defence of this part of the Protestant citadel will prove one of the most able that has yet been given. It will, beyond a doubt, avoid the errors of those who have weakened the argument by insisting on points which, at best, are uncertain; and place the theory on a basis sufficiently broad to admit of rational and hopeful maintaining of it, in spite of numerous learned and able assaults. In the meantime, that our edition may not be without something, however brief and imperfect, on a point which on all hands is allowed to be fundamental, we purpose to devote the following pages to an examination of the Year-day principle.

The importance of the question on which we now enter can scarcely be overestimated. If the prophetic periods of Daniel and John; if the famous 1260 days, the time, times, and the dividing of time, are to be understood literally, and explained of the limited term of three and a half years, during the days of Nero and Antiochus Epiphanes, or days yet to come, towards the consummation and era of the second advent,8 then clearly the ideas that have been long current among Protestants are untenable. There is no figuration of Papal Rome, in the Apocalypse or in Daniel, existing through long and dreary ages, wearing out the saints of the Most High. There are no witnesses during that period of gloom ever and anon lifting up their testimony against the grand apostasy. There is no cheering assurance, derived from an infallible oracle, that the Papal system is doomed, that its days are numbered, and must now be drawing to a close. All the arguments against this “mystery of iniquity,” derived from Daniel and John, must be abandoned; and Protestants must, with shame, retire from a field so long and so successfully occupied by them, whilst the Romanists triumph in their overthrow. “If,” says Bush in his animadversions on Stuart, “your hypothesis be correct, not only has nearly the whole Christian world been led astray for ages by a mere ignis fatuus of false hermeneutics, but the church is at once cut loose from every chronological mooring, and set adrift in the open sea, without the vestige of a beacon, lighthouse, or star, by which to determine her bearings or distances from the desired millennial haven to which she was tending. She is deprived of the means of taking a single celestial observation, and has no possible data for ascertaining, in the remotest degree, how far she is yet floating from the Ararat of promise. Upon your theory the Christian world has no distinct intimation given it as to the date of the downfall of the Roman despotism, civil or ecclesiastical, of Mahometanism, or of Paganism; no clue to the time of the conversion of the Jews or of the introduction of the millennium. On all these points the church is shut up to a blank and dreary uncertainty, which, though it may not extinguish, will tend greatly to diminish the ardour of her present zeal in the conversion of the world.”9 Strange, indeed, it must be regarded, that while the Old Testament church was cheered by her chronological promises or predictions, marking her progress as she floated down the stream of time, and indicating, at any stage of it, how far she was yet distant from the happy times of deliverance that awaited her, everything of this kind should be systematically excluded from the sublime predictions of the New Dispensation. Strange, too, that the grand symbols of Daniel and John—that their glorious predictions, confessedly allowed to reach onwards to the consummation of all things, should embrace a brief chapter in the lives of such men as Nero or Antiochus, and give no notice of that gigantic apostasy which for ages has cast its dark shadow over Christendom, and no comfort to a sorrowing church walking amid the gloom. Yet if the Protestant exposition of Daniel and the Apocalypse has proceeded on false principles, the sooner a return is made to the right path the better, however humbling may be the confession of error, and grieving the loss of imagined advantage in our controversy with Rome. Truth is great, and must prevail. None of her friends would assail even the worst cause with weapons she did not approve.

On both sides of this question, the importance of which has been set forth in the preceding paragraph, we find men of the very highest character for learning and skill in biblical science. “On one side Maitland and Burgh are the most able; on the other Faber, Elliott, and Birks. In America the indefatigable Stuart has taken up the same ground as the former, and has met with a formidable antagonist in Bush.” To the first class—the literal day class, namely—must now be added the name of the author who has thus specified the chief combatants—Dr. Davidson of the Lancashire Independent College. He has taken up the subject in the third volume of his Introduction to the New Testament, and discussed it with all the learning and ability which his high position among English critics might have led us to anticipate. “Si Pergama dextra defendi possent, etiam hoc defensa fuissent.” We think we can discern in his able defence some symptoms of progress in the controversy. The line which Dr. Davidson pursues is essentially different in many respects from that of Professor Stuart. The American professor insists on many points which the English divine seems to have abandoned.10

Everything like dogmatism in the discussion of a question so circumstanced is of course to be carefully avoided. There are difficulties on both sides, of which no satisfactory solution has as yet been given. Our aim shall be to ascertain, if possible, on which side the greater amount of truth lies. While avowing a decided leaning to the Year-day theory, we shall endeavour to do justice to the arguments of its opponents, and shall frankly allow it whenever the arguments of its supporters seem to us weak or dubious.

First, then, it must be allowed that the concurrent testimony of the great mass of Protestant interpreters, the nearly unanimous voice of the Protestant church, furnishes a prestige in favour of the Year-day principle. If it do not supply an argument it creates a favourable feeling, which is worthy of a better name than “prejudice.” It is a prepossession, but a prepossession founded on perfectly just ground, namely, that wherever men of learning and research, as well as Christian people at large, have long and tenaciously held any particular view, there must be something in that view that has a better foundation than its assailants are willing to allow. This is certainly very different from “calling up the names of illustrious dead, as the infallible expounders of the Bible;” and from “giving our language the semblance of assuming that, to differ from current opinions, is to disown Protestantism and favour Romanism.” That there is something in this presumptive argument, which we seek to build on Protestant opinion, is obvious from the anxiety that is manifested to make out that the principle or theory in question has, in reality, no connection with the reformers and the Protestant cause. “The statement,” it is said, “that certain applications of the Apocalypse caused or promoted the Reformation is wholly incorrect. It is absolutely false. A spiritual apprehension of the simple gospel, accompanied with the power of the Spirit, led these illustrious men to separate from the Romish church. And then it should be remembered, by those who write like Bush of the reformers and the ‘Protestant’ interpretation, that not one of the reformers understood a day in prophecy to mean a year. To talk of the reformers, therefore, in connection with this so-called ‘Protestant’ notion, is worse than trifling. It conveys a false impression.”11 Two questions are involved here:—How far the reformers made use of the Apocalypse in their controversy with Papists? and whether the Year-day principle may be regarded as a “Protestant” notion? The fact is, in regard to the first question, that the Waldenses and Wickliffites, previous to the Reformation, drew their weapons from the Apocalypse; and if we do not present references or quotations to prove it, it is just because the matter seems too plain to admit of any doubt. One testimony shall suffice, namely, that of Walter Brute, A.D. 1391. According to Foxe, the martyrologist, he was “a layman, and learned and brought up in the University of Oxford, being there a graduate.” He was accused of saying, among sundry other things, that the Pope is Antichrist, and a seducer of the people. Being called to answer, he put in, first, certain more brief “exhibits;” then another declaration, more ample, explaining and setting forth the grounds of his opinion. His defence was grounded very mainly on the Apocalyptic prophecy. For he at once bases his justification on the fact, as demonstrable, of the pope answering alike to the chief of the false Christs, prophesied of by Christ as to come in his name; to the man of sin, prophesied of by St. Paul; and to both the first beast and beast with the two lamb-like horns, in the Apocalypse; the city of Papal Rome, also answering similarly to the Apocalyptic Babylon.12 Indeed, we may learn much as to how far the Apocalypse had, even in these times, come to be used against the Church of Rome, from the fears of the Papists themselves, which prompted the fifth council of Lateran authoritatively to prohibit all writing or preaching on the subject of Antichrist, and all speculation regarding the time of the expected evils—“Tempus quoque prefixum futurorum malorum vel Antichristi adventum, aut certum diem judicii predicare vel asserere nequaquan presumant.”13 As to the reformers, properly so called, they appear in the field next, using the same weapons with increasing skill and energy, as the two great prophecies whence they were drawn came to be better understood. The pages of Milner, D’Aubigné, or other historians of the period, abound with evidence; and Mr. Barnes has collected part of it under chap. x. 6, to which the reader is referred. Luther and his German associates seem to have drawn more upon Daniel, while in Switzerland and England the Apocalypse, for the most part, was appealed to. We might multiply proofs, were it necessary, from the writings of Leo Juda, Bullinger, Latimer, Bale, Foxe, &c. It is enough to refer to the very copious extracts given in the last volume of the Horæ Apocalypticæ.14 As to the other question, namely, whether the Year-day principle can be regarded as a “Protestant” notion, opportunity will be found for the consideration of it when we come to consider the objection against that principle, drawn from its alleged novelty. Meantime we shall only remark, that while Luther certainly had arrived at no definite conclusions regarding the Apocalyptic designations of time, his mind nevertheless was in search of some principle by which he should be enabled to extend the times beyond the literal sense. Nor need it in any way surprise us, that definite ideas on this subject should only have been obtained when the notion became settled and prevalent that the Popedom was the Apocalyptic Antichrist, and the interpretation of the times on a scale suited to the duration of that system became, in consequence, imperative.

2. The next consideration we advance is, the symbolical character of most of the predictions in which the disputed designations of time occur. In Daniel and the Apocalypse, things pictured to the eye are the signs or representations of a hidden sense intended to be conveyed by them. Now, it seems reasonable to conclude, that in this symbolic or picture writing the times should be hidden under some veil, as well as the associated events. Nay, one would imagine that these were just the very things that specially required concealment, in accordance with the design of the predictions, especially such as relate to the future deliverance and glory of the church; which is, that the saints should understand as much as may sustain their hope, yet in a way of diligence, watchfulness, and prayer. It is said, indeed, that symbolical times are not essential to this partial concealment. It may be so, yet they are doubtless fitted to serve this purpose; and there cannot but appear a manifest impropriety in associating symbolical events with literal or natural times. Why the veil in the one case and not in the other? Is not this system of mixing the symbolic and the literal fitted to mislead? and, according to the theory of Maitland and others, has it not, in point of fact, led astray the greater part of the Protestant world? Is it wonderful, that when times are found “imbedded in symbols,” a symbolical character should have been attached to them too. Let it be observed also, that in cases of what has been called miniature symbolization, as where an empire is represented by a man or a beast, long periods, such as might very well be attributed to an empire, or to any great political or ecclesiastical system, could not, in consistency with symbolical propriety, have been expressed otherwise than we find them. On the supposition that long periods were designed to be expressed, they must necessarily have been symbolized by shorter ones. “Nothing is more obvious than that the prophets have frequently, under divine prompting, adopted the system of hieroglyphic representation, in which a single man represents a community, or a wild beast an extended empire. Consequently, since the mystic exhibition of the community or empire is in miniature, symbolical propriety requires that the associated chronological periods should be exhibited in miniature also. The intrinsic fitness of such a mode of presentation is self-evident. In predicating of a nation a long term of 400 or even 4000 years, there is nothing revolting to verisimilitude or decorum; but to assign such a period to the actings of a symbolical man or animal would be a grievous outrage on all the proprieties of the prophetic style. The character of the adjuncts should evidently correspond with those of the principal, or the whole picture is at once marred by the most palpable incongruity.”15 It appears, then, in regard to dates occurring in passages where this principle of miniature symbolization is adopted, there is a strong presumption in favour of the Year-day theory, or some theory suitably extending the times.

Dr. Maitland has attempted to dislodge his antagonists from this intrenchment. His argument is subtle, and must have been deemed triumphant, for it is repeated and praised as a master-stroke by almost every subsequent writer on the same side. Allowing even that symbols of time might be expected in symbolic predictions, along with symbols of events, he denies that a day can in any way be regarded as the symbol of a year. It is not, he argues, a symbol at all. We give the argument in his own words, premising only that the advocates of the Year-day principle, as we shall by and by see, appeal to Ezek. iv. 4‒9 in proof of it:—“When you speak of the beasts I know what you mean, for you admit that Daniel saw certain beasts; but when you speak of ‘the days,’ I know not what days you refer to, for your system admits of no days: you take, if I may so speak, the word ‘goat’ to mean the thing ‘goat,’ and the thing goat to represent the thing ‘king;’ but you take the word ‘day’ not to represent the thing ‘day,’ but at once to represent the thing year. And this is precisely the point which distinguishes this case from that of Ezekiel’s, which has been so often brought forward as parallel to it. The whole matter lies in this, that the one is a case of representing, the other of interpreting. A goat, not the word goat, represented a king; a day, that is the word day, is interpreted to mean a year.”16 The pith of the argument seems to lie in this, that while, in Daniel, kingdoms are represented by certain visible symbols—beasts, namely—there is no visible symbol of a year. We may interpret a day of a year, but we cannot say a day symbolizes a year. The objector appears to have been met, in the first instance, by the alleged difficulty of symbolizing times in a visible way; but the case of Pharaoh and his officers was at once appealed to, in whose dreams three years are represented by three branches and three baskets; and seven years by seven kine, and seven ears of corn.17 A writer in the Investigator rejoined, that large numbers, such as the 1260 or 2300, could not easily be represented in the same way; a statement which seems so very simple and obvious, that we cannot but wonder it should have elicited such a burst of indignation as this: “What! shall it be affirmed that he who called up a vision in which seven kine symbolized seven years, could not employ visible and equally intelligible representations of 1260 years? This were to limit the power of the Almighty, by arrogantly assuming, that though he presented a few years by outward pictures to the eye, He could not, with equal facility, and like intelligibleness to men, have painted a much larger number by external emblems. We refer the writer in the Investigator to Rev. xiv. 1, and ask him how the apostle John knew there were exactly 144,000. On his principle that large number could not have been presented to the eye. How then did he know that there were 144,000?”18 Does the critic mean that John must have come to the knowledge of it by picture representation? Is he sure of this? The number is the same, and the company is the same as in chap. vii. 4, and there we read, “And I heard the number of them which were sealed, and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.” The question is by no means one regarding what God could do, but one regarding merely the powers and capabilities of symbolic language; and we do not feel ourselves at all guilty of any unwarrantable “daring,” when we aver that large numbers could not be visibly represented like small ones. The real solution of the difficulty which the objection presents, seems to us to have been given by Birks, in his First Elements of Prophecy. “The beasts were conceptions visually suggested to the eye of the prophet, and nothing more; and the days, in like manner, were conceptions suggested by the words of the vision to his ear. The only difference is in the sense by which the mental image is conveyed; for it is plain that a day, when used as a symbol, must be mentioned, and could not appear visibly to the eye.”19 But whatever may be thought of this, and of the preceding observations, we have still our appeal to the matter of fact. If it be the fact, that in Scripture a day does represent a year, we have no concern about speculations regarding modes of representing. The only question is, What is the Bible mode? and to that question we shall very shortly apply ourselves.

Meanwhile, we would remark, ere leaving this part of the subject, that although we affirm that wherever we find the principle of miniature symbolization of events, there we have a strong presumption in favour of the times, if such there be, being also expressed on a miniature scale, yet we do not exalt this into a principle embracing the entire case. We shall endeavour to ascertain here, what such general principle is. It need not be disguised that the ground of it has been shifted more than once during the progress of discussion. Mede himself seems to have occupied ground by far too wide; and few or none now choose to defend the Year-day principle on the platform chosen by him who has been erroneously regarded as its originator. He maintained that, “alike in Daniel, and, for aught he knew, in all the other prophets, times of things prophesied, expressed by days, are to be understood of years.” But prophecies can be quoted almost without number in which the predicted times must be understood literally; and against this position, somewhat doubtingly and casually assumed by an illustrious interpreter, the artillery of Stuart and Maitland would be most successful, if any were found so foolish as to intrench themselves within it. Professor Stuart, however, chooses to write as if it were an essential part of the Year-day theory. He fights with a man of straw, and expends his logic and his ridicule alike in vain. He asks in triumph, If the 120 years, predicted as the period that should elapse before the flood, must be extended into a respite for the ante-diluvians of 43,200 years? and if the predicted bondage of Abraham’s posterity in Egypt, for 400 years, must be extended into 144,000 years? if the seven years of plenty, and seven of famine to Egypt, must mean 2520 years of each? if Israel’s forty years’ wilderness-wanderings are to last 14,400 years?20 No, truly! and yet the times in Daniel and John may be symbolical times notwithstanding. By Bush and Faber, the principle is much narrowed. The ground assumed is that of miniature symbolization. This covers a large part of the field within which the Year-day theory is applied; still, it must be allowed, that both in Daniel and the Apocalypse, there are passages where the times are construed symbolically, or according to the longer reckoning, without being associated with symbols of events. Of this kind is Daniel’s famous prophecy of the seventy weeks. What, then, is the true principle or basis of the Year-day theory? We are disposed to reply, as we find Mr. Barnes in one place has done, that it is the manner of the symbolical books of Daniel and John, to express times on the scale of a day for a year; and that in regard to those places, if such there be, where the times are literal, the circumstances of the case, or some expressions in the text, prevent the possibility of mistake, and leave the principle untouched. The circumstances of the case, for example, forbid us to explain Dan. iv. 32 in accordance with the principle of a day for a year. “According to this, Nebuchadnezzar must have been mad and eat grass 2520 years.”21 The limited life of man renders any such extension of times here positively absurd. So also with the other case, so much insisted on by the Day-day theorists, of Daniel fasting three weeks.22 “Surely no one will contend that Daniel fasted twenty-one years.” No, but not to mention that this is not a prophecy at all, the circumstances of the case forbid it; and besides, in this place, we have the addition of יָמִים (weeks of days), “inserted expressly to bar any such interpretation as would assign to it, as its first sense, the meaning of years.”23 It would, therefore, be most unwise24 to argue from these exceptive passages, where there can be no danger of mistakes, against the application of the Year-day principle to the great leading prophecies in Daniel and John, regarding the glorious epochs of the church, and the times especially of the consummation. Nor can anyone rationally contend, that because these prophets have adopted this style of a day for a year, in predictions of the character above specified—predictions which form the chief part of their writings—that they are in no single instance to depart from that style—that they are never to lay aside the symbolic and assume the natural. Birks and Elliott, it may be noticed finally, find, in those passages where the Year-day theory is applicable, a purpose of temporary concealment; it being “the express design of God, that the church should be kept in the constant expectation of Christ’s advent,” and that, “yet as the time of the consummation drew near, there should be evidence of it sufficiently clear to each faithful inquirer.” “This,” adds the latter writer, “sets aside, from its very nature, the objections that have been drawn from sundry prophetic periods, known to be literally expressed, in prophecies where no such temporary concealment was intended.”25

3. Having seen that the symbolical character of the predictions in which the disputed times for the most part occur, affords a strong presumption, amounting as nearly as possible to proof, in favour of some such principle as that involved in the Year-day theory, we inquire next whether there be any indications of such principle in Scripture?

The case of the spies in the book of Numbers26 has been appealed to by nearly all writers on the Year-day side, and by some of them with no little confidence. “They returned from searching the land after forty days.... After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.” We confess, however, that if this passage were the only one of its kind, we should not be disposed to build much on it. It has been too much pressed; and many will find it difficult to see anything typical or mystical in it. It cannot be proved that the spies were types of the whole nation, or that the days were meant to represent years. Dr. Davidson seems to give the true account of the passage when he says, “It is a simple historical prophecy, in which God ordained that as the spies had wandered forty days, so the Israelites should wander forty years in the wilderness because of their sins.”27 Taken in connection with other passages, however, it may serve to show that the “Year-day scale” readily occurs in Scripture, when another might as easily have been adopted. The very fact of the punishment of Israel in this case being on the precise scale of a year for a day, seems to indicate something of this kind.

Ezekiel’s typical siege presents a much stronger case. We give the passage at length. Ezekiel having been commanded to portray the city of Jerusalem on a tile, and conduct a symbolic siege against it, is further enjoined—“Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.”28 Ezekiel was ordered to assume this painful position that he might be a sign or symbol of the sufferings of the Jewish nation; and the number of days during which he lay prostrate was declared to symbolize the years of their punishment. Here, then, we have a plain precedent showing that in symbolical representations days stand for years. The argument is equally valid whether we suppose the symbolical actions represented things past or things future. The principle is the same. The probability is, that at the time of the representation a few years of the 390 had yet to run; and the design was to show that Jerusalem should be destroyed, and the inhabitants led away captive into Babylon. It is not our province, however, to enter into any exposition of the prophecy. The grand objection made to the argument from this passage is, that in it the symbolic significancy of the days “is expressly stated at the outset.”29 “It is expressly stated that God had appointed a day for a year, whereas in Daniel and John no such information is given.”30 But what if there had not been an “express statement” of the principle? That omission, we imagine, would have been eagerly laid hold on as an evidence that no such principle was contained in it. The “express statement,” then, so far from being an argument against using this passage as a precedent, is in reality a strong argument in favour of so doing. Can anything be more unreasonable than to object to the passages furnishing a clue or key for certain difficulties elsewhere, that they are plain and express? Nothing, we apprehend, unless to object next that the passages for which a key is sought are not plain and express. We had thought that it belonged to the very nature of key-passages that they should be plain, and to the very nature of the passages for which the key was needed, that they should not be plain. The demand that there shall be the express statement in these latter which belongs to the former, is just to demand that there shall be no mystery about the times at all,—that they shall be revealed with perfect clearness, and that no wisdom and diligence be called for in evolving a principle and applying it to special cases. Bush’s reply to Stuart on this point is, we think, triumphant. “The obvious reply to all this (the want of express statement in Daniel and the Apocalypse) is, that the instances now adduced are to be considered as merely giving us a clue to a general principle of interpretation. Here are two or three striking examples of predictions constructed on the plan of miniature symbolic representation in which the involved periods of time are reduced to a scale proportioned to that of the events themselves. What, then, more natural or legitimate, than that, when we meet with other prophecies constructed on precisely the same principle, we should interpret their chronological periods by the same rule? Instead of yielding to a demand to adduce authority for this mode of interpretation, I feel at liberty to demand the authority for departing from it. Manente ratione manet lex is an apothegm which is surely applicable here if anywhere. You repeatedly, in the course of your pages, appeal to the oracles of common sense, as the grand arbiter in deciding upon the principles of hermeneutics. I make my appeal to the same authority in the present case. I demand, in the name of common sense, a reason why the symbolical prophecies of Daniel and John should not be interpreted on the same principle with other prophecies of the same class. But however loud and urgent my demand on this head, I expect nothing else than that hill and dale will re-echo it, even to the ‘crack of doom,’ before a satisfactory response from your pages falls on my ear. All the answer I obtain is the following:—‘Instead of being aided by an appeal to Ezekiel iv. 5, 6, we find that a principle is recognized there which makes directly against the interpretation we are calling in question. The express exception as to the usual modes of reckoning goes directly to show, that the general rule would necessitate a different interpretation.’ I may possibly be over sanguine, but I cannot well resist the belief, that the reader will perceive that that which you regard as the exception, is in fact the rule.”31

Dr. Maitland’s famous objection, that in Ezekiel the case is one of representing, whereas in Daniel and the Apocalypse it is one of interpreting, has already been met in a previous part of this Preface. The objection of Bishop Horsley is not very grave—namely, that because the day of temptation in the wilderness was forty years, and one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day, we might as well conclude that a day is forty years or a thousand years, as that it represents but one year. So might we, indeed, if a number of passages could be produced in which a day has such significancy, and another set of passages could be produced to which the first set furnish a key that seems exactly to answer. In the meantime, we must recognize the difference between what is merely figurative language, and therefore loose and shifting, and the language of symbol.

But the case of Isaiah32 has been supposed to neutralize any argument built upon that of Ezekiel: “The Lord spake by Isaiah, go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. And the Lord said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years, for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia, so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners.” Now, it is argued that here “three years correspond to three years, not three days to three years. It is arbitrary to suppose with Lowth that the original reading was three days, or to supply three days, with Vitringa. The text must stand as it is.”33 But the interpretation of Lowth and Vitringa is not the only mode in which we may escape from the difficulty, as this learned writer seems to hint. We are not shut up to conjectural emendations. The “three years” in the third verse may be connected with what follows, as well as with what goes before; then the verse will run, “Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot; a three years’ sign and wonder,” which relieves us entirely from the supposition that Isaiah walked three years barefoot, and, by consequence, from the objection that is founded on it. All that is intimated is, that in some way or other (the passage does not say how) the prophet was a three years’ sign—a sign, that is, of a calamity that would last during that time, or commence from that time. In proof of the justice of this arrangement, it may be noticed that the Masoretic interpunction throws the three years into the second clause; that the Septuagint gives both solutions, by repeating τρία ἔτη;34 and that in a period of such alarm, when Ashdod was taken and the Assyrian pressing on them, it is not likely the symbolical representation would be continued so long. Indeed, this opinion seems to meet with little or no countenance.35 The opinion that seems generally to prevail is, that Isaiah indicated the three years’ captivity either by exhibiting himself in the manner described in the text for three days, which would intimate three years, or by appearing in this manner once only, and at the same time verbally declaring his design in so doing.

We come next to what is confessedly a main pillar of the Year-day theory, the prophecy of the seventy weeks in Daniel.36 “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the prince, &c.” Now, the all but universal agreement that this prophecy was fulfilled in a period of 490 years, usually reckoned from the 7th of Artaxerxes, and extending to A.D. 33, the year in which Christ died, seems at once to settle the question regarding the mode of computation. There are, indeed, those37 who maintain that this prediction has yet to be fulfilled, and they profess to look for its fulfilment in seventy weeks of days; but the number holding this opinion is exceedingly small. The great mass of writers, even of those who contend for literal times, reject it as quite untenable. This mode of cutting the knot, however, indicates the difficulty that is felt by some “Day-dayists” in reconciling the passage with their theory, and their dissatisfaction with the more usual method of reconciliation. That method adopts a new rendering. The words, it is said, ought to be translated seventy sevens; and these are assumed to be sevens of years, because in the early part of the chapter Daniel had been meditating on Jeremiah’s prophecy regarding the seventy years’ captivity. By thus understanding the sevens at once of years, without the intervention of symbolic days or weeks, the argument for the Year-day principle, it will be seen, is entirely destroyed.

It would be difficult and tedious to trace the course of discussion fully to which the passage has given rise. A very general outline must suffice. It had been maintained by some who contended for “sevens of years,” that the word translated weeks (שָׁבֻעִים shabuim) was the regular masculine plural of שֶׁבַע (sheba), seven, and ought, therefore, to be translated sevens.38 But שָׁבֻעִים (shabuim), as was alleged in reply, “is not the normal plural of the Hebrew term for seven.” The normal plural is שִׁבְעִים (shibim); but that is the term for seventy, and cannot mean sevens.39 It seems now admitted on all hands, that both שָׁבֻעִים (shabuim) and the feminine form שָׁבֻעוֹת (shabpuoth) are plural forms of שָׁבוּעַ (shabua), which, according to the etymology of the word, signifies a hebdomad or septemized period.40 The only question that remains, therefore, regards the use of the word. What is its use? So that after much controversy, the matter stands very much as Mede left it. “The question,” says he, “lies not in the etymology, but in the use, wherein שָׁבוּעַ (shabua) always signifies sevens of days, and never sevens of years. Wheresoever it is absolutely put, it means of days; it is nowhere thus used of years.”41 Besides the places in Daniel, the word occurs absolutely elsewhere, in some one or other of its forms, eleven times, and in every one of these cases with the sense of weeks of days.42 It is true that if we except the places in Daniel, there is no instance in Scripture where the masculine plural שָׁבֻעִים (shabuim) is used to denote weeks. The word elsewhere used for that purpose is uniformly שָׁבֻעוֹת (shabpuoth) in the feminine. But we confess ourselves at a loss to understand why so much should be made of this. The word which Daniel uses is confessedly the masculine plural43 of the same word, which in the singular is translated “week,” and in the feminine plural “weeks;” and although there are instances in various languages of the masculine and feminine plurals having different significations, yet, in the absence of anything like proof that such is the case here, we must be guided by the use of the word in its other forms throughout the Scripture, when we come to interpret the peculiar form that occurs in Daniel. What good reason can be given for departing from the analogy of the other forms? This, it must be confessed, is entirely on the side of the Year-day principle; and the objection resolves itself into nothing more than this, that it is a peculiar form of the word which Daniel uses.

As to what is said of the qualifying word יָמִים, yamim (days), twice occurring in chap. x. 2, 3,44 in connection with שָׁבֻעִים (shabuim), giving the literal sense three weeks, days, or three weeks as to days, we cannot see that it furnishes any grave objection to our argument. It seems rather to strengthen it. For here we have two places in which the word in question, and the form of it in question, are declared to mean weeks of days. Does not this intimate that such is the ordinary and primary sense? Are we not as much entitled to draw this conclusion, as other parties to conclude that the qualifying word is added because the usual sense is sevens of years? Let us only suppose that the qualifying word had been years instead of days (sevens as to years), would it not very readily have been said in that case, Here is a plain declaration that sevens of years are to be understood; and certainly the places where no qualifying word occurs must be ruled by this? Gesenius supposes the addition of יָמִים (days) is merely pleonastic; but if any other reason must be found for it, that of Bush seems as satisfactory as any, which regards it as an intimation that the primary sense is the only admissible one in the circumstances.

4. We entitle our next head of evidence, Exigency of the passages in which the prophetic times occur. The very best plan of arriving at the truth in the question, whether the shorter or longer reckoning be the right one, is to test both by application to the disputed passages. Try the two keys, and see which best suits the lock. One section of the literal dayists have here, however, a great advantage over their opponents, inasmuch as their plan of placing the Apocalyptic fulfilments entirely in the future (with the exception, on the part of some of them, of the epistles to the seven churches), relieves them from every embarrassment that might arise from any specific historical application. Of course it is impossible to argue with men of this school, that their literal times do not answer to their historical events, for historical events they have none, and we cannot prove that their ideal fulfilments may not be realized.

To discuss fully this part of our subject, however, would require a volume embracing an exposition of nearly all the more important passages in Daniel and the Apocalypse. We intend only to offer a few passing remarks on one or two of these, referring such as wish to prosecute the subject, to the “Notes” in this volume.

Let us take first the Saracenic woe.45 We say not, in the meantime, that the interpretation which has given rise to this name is necessarily the right one. We merely wish to institute a comparison between it and another interpretation, which proceeds on the principle of the shorter dates. If the reader will turn to our author’s exposition, and attentively study it, he will, we think, be disposed to acquiesce in the justice of his closing remark, that, on the supposition that it was the design of John to symbolize these events (the Arabian conquests), the symbol has been chosen which of all others is best adapted to the end. Moreover, it will be seen that the Arabian history, according to the requirements of the passage, on the Year-day principle, furnishes a period of five months, or 150 years of intense stinging oppression, and immediately thereafter exhibits a gradual decline in power, along with a disinclination to persecute. Now what have we to oppose to this view on the part of those who advocate literal times? We turn to Professor Stuart. He tells us he can find no event in history that, with any good degree of probability, will correspond to a period of 150 years. “And,” adds he, “if we count five literal months, we are still involved in the same difficulty. Hence the tropical use of the expression five months, seems to be most probable and facile.” His conclusion is that “the meaning must be a short period.” We cannot think that this “tropical use” is very “probable;” it is however abundantly “facile;” and we know not how to argue with those who, when events will not correspond with their literal times, immediately take refuge in tropes. When Professor Stuart can find events that suit, his times are literal, as we shall immediately see; when he cannot find such events, his times are tropical. But a principle so “facile,” however it may suit his convenience, is not fitted to guide us in an inquiry into the prophetic periods. “The proper laws of interpretation,” our author has justly observed in his exposition of the place, “demand that one or the other of these periods should be found, either that of five months literally, or that of a hundred and fifty years.”

Take next the Turkish woe.46 We refer the reader again to the author’s exposition, that he may see how “the hour, day, month, and year” of this prediction—that is, the 391 years, and a 12th or 24th of a year—find their fulfilment in the history of the Turkish empire. But on the supposition that the times are literal, what events can be fixed on as occupying this period of little more than a year? or how, in transactions so great, should a single hour be mentioned? These questions are evaded by assigning a new sense to the clause εἰς τὴν ὥραν καὶ ἡμέραν, &c. It is said to mean only, “that at the destined hour, and destined day, and destined month, and destined year,” the calamity should happen; that is to say, it should occur simply at the appointed time. We venture to say that such a periphrasis for an idea so simple has no parallel elsewhere. For the criticism of the passage, we refer to Barnes and Elliott, who have successfully contended that the words completely reject this sense. The latter appeals also to the parallel passage in Dan. xii. 7, where “for a time, times, and half a time” is universally understood of the aggregate period of three years and a half.47

The forty-two months of the Gentiles is another and remarkable Apocalyptic period.48 If we do not, with our author, apply the passage in which this notation of time occurs, to the trampling down of the church by the Papacy during her long and oppressive reign of 1260 years, but seek an explanation from those who deny the Year-day principle, shall we find events that will better answer on the principle of literal times? Let us try. Professor Stuart, in this place, abandons the idea he sometimes resorts to, of supposing the periods “figurative modes of expressing a short time.” He thinks a “literal and definite period” is here meant; and he even condescends, in spite of all his hatred of historical comments, on historical events answering to this definite period. “It is certain,” says he, “that the invasion of the Romans lasted just about the length of the period named until Jerusalem was taken.” And again, in his Excursus on Designations of Time, he says that in the spring of A.D. 67, Vespasian was sent by Nero to subdue Palestine; and that on the 10th of August, A.D. 70, Jerusalem was taken and destroyed by Titus. Thus he makes out the literal period of forty-two months or three and a half years. He is, however, compelled to admit that the war actually began some time before Vespasian’s mission. But allowing all this to be correct, there was, as Mr. Barnes remarks, “no precise period of three years and a half, in respect to which the language here used would be applicable to the literal Jerusalem. Judea was held in subjection, and trodden down by the Romans for centuries, and never, in fact, gained its independence.” It is trodden down still. And yet we are told, in a laboured article written on purpose to set aside the Year-day principle, that there can scarcely be a doubt that the period in question (the forty-two months) is designed to mark the time during which the conquest of Palestine and of the Holy City was going on.

In close connection with this prediction, we have the times of the two witnesses.49 They were to “prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.” Again, we think the longer reckoning meets the requirements of the passage, and is consistent with the historical events offered in explanation. During all the dark period of Papal rule, there has been a competent number of witnesses testifying in favour of the truth. The reader will find ample details in the exposition within. Let us turn now to the exposition offered by the great chief of the Literal-day theorists. His theory requires him to find the witnesses in Jerusalem immediately previous to its fall. But where the witnesses in Jerusalem prophesying during three and a half literal years? History is quite silent in regard to any such parties; nay more, the accounts which we have of the period render it exceedingly improbable that any such parties could have existed in Jerusalem at that time. The Christians, warned by their Master, had fled to Pella, and thereby escaped the calamity in which their unbelieving countrymen were overwhelmed. Yet, in the absence of history, and in spite of history, suppositions are made to stand in its place. We are told that some of the faithful and zealous teachers of Christianity would certainly remain in spite of their Lord’s warning. These, it is supposed next, would be slain by the Zealots, who would, notwithstanding, be unable to destroy Christianity. The truth should ever have a resurrection. We offer no further remark on this, than that if pure imaginations are to be alleged, where history fails, there can be no difficulty in meeting the requirements of any theory, inasmuch as inventions are much more “facile” than facts. But the exposure of the dead bodies of the witnesses is supposed to be perfectly fatal to the Year-day principle in this passage. “What now,” it is asked, “if we should insist on interpreting this (the three days and a half of exposure) as meaning three and a half years? It would bring out an absurdity; for a single month in the climate of Palestine would in one way or another destroy any dead body, not to speak of its being devoured.” Doubtless this is an absurdity; but it is an absurdity obtained by subjecting a symbolical passage to a very singular process, in which one part of the symbol is explained, and then read along with the unexplained part. But explain both parts of the passage, the lying exposed, as well as the days, and then we have no incongruous sense, but an intimation, that for three and a half years the witnesses should be silenced, and be treated with great indignity, as if unworthy of Christian burial. Or if the question be regarding symbolical propriety, let the symbolical representation stand as it is—both parts unexplained; and what inconsistency is there in supposing dead bodies exposed for three and a half days in the climate of Palestine? If we choose to proceed on a principle like this, we may make as many absurdities as there are passages in the Apocalypse.

Next in order, we have the times of the woman in the wilderness,50 the thousand two hundred and threescore days, or time, times, and half a time, during which she was protected and nourished by God. Once more we refer to the author’s exposition of this passage for a defence of the Protestant interpretation, which explains it of the preservation of the church in a state of comparative obscurity during the long period of Papal oppression. But on the principle of literal days, that is, “if the period of the woman’s sojourn be only three years and six months, the preparation must be either quite disproportionate to the event, or the steps of the preparation will be crowded into the narrowest compass. The spiritual deliverance, the dejection of Satan, the renewed persecution, the protection, the flood, its absorption by the friendly earth, and the persevering rage of the dragon, will all be crushed into the space of two or three years. Surely nothing but the most distinct revelation could make us receive such an exposition of the true reference of so glorious a prophecy.”51 It is difficult, indeed, to conceive that a prophecy of this nature should find its fulfilment in any three and a half years of the church’s history; and our difficulties certainly are not diminished, when we come to consider the special interpretations that are constructed on this principle. We are told that the woman is the Jewish Theocratic church. But that church never dwelt 1260 days in the wilderness, nor can any historical event be alleged in illustration of such a view that does not bear its refutation on the face of it. The Christians who fled to Pella, will the reader believe it, are, for the sake of a theory, made to stand for the church, symbolized by the woman; and their protection, during the continuance of the Jewish war, is the woman’s wilderness sojourn. The flight is the flight of the woman, or Jewish Theocratic church, in the first instance. But the Jewish church, to answer the necessities of the case, is at once transformed into the Christian; and finally, a comparatively small body of Christians in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem is elevated into the dignity of the church, to the exclusion of the numerous societies of Christians existing elsewhere. These are the assumptions set forth in antagonism to the Protestant view; set forth, too, not as modest guesses, but as certain verities, to reject which, brings down on us the charge of ignorance of history, and of exegetical science.

Our limits forbid us to speak of the forty-two months of the beast,52 or of the periods in Daniel. Of the beast, it is manifest, that it is a power of no brief duration; but one which, existing through a long previous period, appears again at the great final battle immediately previous to the millennium, and is then destroyed. Great care is taken, in the chapter which describes the closing struggle, to identify the beast which was then slain with that which had previously appeared on the stage.53 As to the view which explains the beast of Nero, and the times of the three and a half years of his persecution, it is certainly enough to observe, that it requires the aid of a heathen hariolation to make it out, and may, therefore, be dismissed without argument. Of the periods in Daniel, particularly those in the seventh and twelfth chapters,54 we can only say that the mode of authoritatively asserting that the reference is to Antiochus Epiphanes, and then ridiculing the idea of any one man living through 1260 years,55 is a mode which must be abandoned by such as would secure a favourable reception for their views. We believe the sublime predictions of Daniel and John are occupied with far higher subjects—subjects of infinitely more concern to the church and the world than the history of the two tyrants, Antiochus and Nero.

[We had intended to consider some of the current objections against the Year-day theory, particularly that founded on its alleged novelty—“The spiritual common sense of the church,” according to Dr. Maitland, “being set in array against it, from the days of Daniel to those of Wickliffe.” Mr. Elliott has thoroughly examined this position; and the conclusion to which he comes, after a most painstaking inquiry, is—“That from the time of Cyprian, near the middle of the 3d century, even to the time of Joachim and the Waldenses, in the 12th century, there was kept up, by a succession of expositors, a recognition of the precise Year-day principle.” We have carefully examined the grounds of this opinion, and compared them with certain recent and able adverse criticisms, without having had our conviction shaken that, in the main, it is correct.]

INTRODUCTION
TO THE
BOOK OF REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.

§ I.— The Writer of the Book of Revelation.

Much has been written on the question who was the author of this book. To enter into an extended investigation of this would greatly exceed the limits which I have, and would not comport with my design in these Notes. For a full examination of the question I must refer to others, and would mention particularly, Prof. Stuart, Com. i. 283‒427; Lardner, Works, vi. 318‒327; Hug, Intro. to the New Testament, pp. 650‒673, Andover, 1836; Michaelis, Intro. to the New Testament, iv. 457‒544; and the article “Revelation,” in Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature. I propose to exhibit, briefly, the evidence that the apostle John was the author, according to the opinion which has been commonly entertained in the church; the proof of which seems to me to be satisfactory. This may be considered under these divisions: the direct historical evidence, and the insufficiency of the reason for doubting it.

I. The direct historical evidence. The sum of all that is to be said on this point is, that to the latter half of the third century it was not doubted that the apostle John was the author. Why it was ever afterwards doubted, and what is the force and value of the doubt, will be considered in another part of this Introduction.

There may be some convenience in dividing the early historical testimony into three periods of half a century each, extending from the death of John, about A.D. 98, to the middle of the third century.

1. From the death of John, about A.D. 98 to A.D. 150. This period embraces the last of those men who conversed, or who might have conversed, with the apostles; that is, who were, for a part of their lives, the contemporaries of John. The testimony of the writers who lived then would, of course, be very important. Those embraced in this period are Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias. The evidence of this period is not indeed very direct, but it is such as it would be on the supposition that John was the author, and there is nothing contradictory to that supposition.

Hermas, about A.D. 100.—In the Shepherd or Pastor, ascribed to this writer, there are several allusions which are supposed to refer to this book, and which resemble it so much as to make it probable that the author was acquainted with it. Dr. Lardner thus expresses the result of his examination of this point: “It is probable that Hermas had read the book of Revelation, and imitated it. He has many things resembling it” (vol. ii. pp. 69‒72). There is no direct testimony, however, in this writer that is of importance.

Ignatius.—He was bishop of Antioch, and flourished A.D. 70‒107. In the latter year he suffered martyrdom, in the time of Trajan. Little, however, can be derived from him in regard to the Apocalypse. He was a contemporary of John, and it is not a little remarkable that he has not more directly alluded to him. In the course of a forced and hurried journey to Rome, the scene of his martyrdom, he wrote several epistles to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrneans, and to Polycarp. There has been much controversy respecting the authenticity of these epistles, and it is generally admitted that those which we now possess have been greatly corrupted. There is no direct mention of the Apocalypse in these epistles, and Michaelis makes this one of the strong grounds of his disbelief of its genuineness. His argument is, that the silence of Ignatius shows, either that he did not know of the existence of this book, or did not recognize it as a part of the sacred Scriptures. Little, however, can be ever inferred from the mere silence of an author; for there may have been many reasons why, though the book may have been in existence, and recognized as the writing of John, Ignatius did not refer to it. The whole matter of the residence of John at Ephesus, of his banishment to Patmos, and of his death, is unnoticed by him. There are, however, two or three allusions in the epistles of Ignatius which have been supposed to refer to the Apocalypse, or to prove that he was familiar with that work—though it must be admitted that the language is so general, that it furnishes no certain proof that he designed to quote it. They are these: Epis. to the Romans—“In the patience of Jesus Christ,” comp. Rev. i. 9; and Epis. to the Ephesians—“Stones of the temple of the Father prepared for the building of God,” comp. Rev. xxi. 2‒19. To these Mr. John Collyer Knight, of the British Museum, in a recent publication (Two New Arguments in Vindication of the Genuineness and Authenticity of the Revelation of St. John, London, 1842), has added a third: Epis. to the Philadelphians—“If they do not speak concerning Jesus Christ, they are but sepulchral pillars, and upon them are written only the names of men. ” Comp. Rev. iii. 12, “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God; and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God.” It must be admitted, however, that this coincidence of language does not furnish any certain proof that Ignatius had seen the Apocalypse, though this is such language as he might have used if he had seen it. There was no known necessity, however, for his referring to this book if he was acquainted with it, and nothing can be inferred from his silence.

Polycarp.—He was bishop of Smyrna, and suffered martyrdom, though at what time is not certain. The Chronicon Paschale names A.D. 163; Eusebius, 167; Usher, 169; and Pearson, 148. He died at the age of eighty-six, and consequently was contemporary with John, who died about A.D. 98. There is but one relic of his writings extant—his epistle to the Philippians. There is in Eusebius (iv. 15), an epistle from the church in Smyrna to the churches in Pontus, giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp. It is admitted that in neither of these is there any express mention, or any certain allusion, to the book of Revelation. But from this circumstance nothing can be inferred respecting the Apocalypse, either for or against it, since there may have been no occasion for Polycarp or his friends, in the writings now extant, to speak of this book; and from their silence nothing more should be inferred against this book than against the epistles of Paul, or the Gospel by John. There is, however, what may, without impropriety, be regarded as an important testimony of Polycarp in regard to this book. Polycarp was, as there is every reason to suppose, the personal friend of John, and Irenæus was the personal friend of Polycarp (Lardner, ii. 94‒96). Now Irenæus, as we shall see, on all occasions, and in the most positive manner, gives his clear testimony that the Apocalypse was written by the apostle John. It is impossible to suppose that he would do this if Polycarp had not believed it to be true; and certainly he would not have been likely to hold this opinion if one who was his own friend, and the friend of John, had doubted or denied it. This is not indeed absolute proof, but it furnishes strong presumptive evidence in favour of the opinion that the book of Revelation was written by the apostle John. The whole history of Polycarp, and his testimony to the books of the New Testament, may be seen in Lardner, ii. 94‒114.

Papias.—Papias was bishop of Hierapolis, near Colosse, and flourished, according to Cave, about A.D. 110; according to others, about the year 115 or 116. How long he lived is uncertain. Irenæus asserts that he was the intimate friend—ἑταῖρος—of Polycarp, and this is also admitted by Eusebius (Ecc. Hist. iii. 39). He was the contemporary of John, and was probably acquainted with him. Eusebius expressly says that he was “a hearer of John” (Lardner, ii. 117). Of his writings there remain only a few fragments preserved by Eusebius, by Jerome, and in the Commentary of Andrew, bishop of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia. He was a warm defender of the Millennarian doctrines. In his writings preserved to us (see Lardner, ii. 120‒125), there is no express mention of the Apocalypse, or direct reference to it; but the commentator Andrew of Cæsarea reckons him among the explicit witnesses in its favour. In the Preface to his Commentary on the Apocalypse, Andrew says, “In regard now to the inspiration of the book, we think it superfluous to extend our discourse, inasmuch as the blessed Gregory, and Cyril, and moreover the ancient [writers] Papias, Irenæus, Methodius, and Hippolytus bear testimony to its credibility.” See the passage in Hug, Intro. p. 652; and Prof. Stuart, i. 305. And in nearly the same words does Arethas, the successor of Andrew, bear the like testimony. The evidence, therefore, in this case is the same as in the case of Polycarp, and it cannot be supposed that Papias would have been thus referred to unless it was uniformly understood that he regarded the book as the production of the apostle John.

These are all the testimonies that properly belong to the first half century after the death of John, and though not absolutely positive and conclusive in themselves, yet the following points may be regarded as established:—(a) The book was known; (b) so far as the testimony goes, it is in favour of its having been composed by John; (c) the fact that he was the author is not called in question or doubted; (d) it was generally ascribed to him; (e) it was probably the foundation of the Millennarian views entertained by Papias—that is, it is easier to account for his holding these views by supposing that the book was known, and that he founded them on this book, than in any other way. See Prof. Stuart, i. 304.

2. The second half century after the death of John, from A.D. 150 to A.D. 200. This will include the names of Justin Martyr, the Narrator of the Martyrs of Lyons, Irenæus, Melito, Theophilus, Apollonius, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian.

Justin Martyr.—He was a Christian philosopher, born at Flavia Neapolis, anciently called Sichem, a city of Samaria, it is supposed about A.D. 103; was converted to Christianity about A.D. 133, and suffered martyrdom about A.D. 165 (Lardner, ii. 125‒140). He was partly contemporary with Polycarp and Papias. He travelled in Egypt, Italy, and Asia Minor, and resided some time at Ephesus. He was endowed with a bold and inquiring mind, and was a man eminent for integrity and virtue. Tatian calls him an “admirable man.” Methodius says, that he was a man “not far removed from the apostles in time or in virtue.” Photius says, that he was “well acquainted with the Christian philosophy, and especially with the heathen; rich in the knowledge of history, and all other parts of learning” (Lardner). He was, therefore, well qualified to ascertain the truth about the origin of the book of Revelation, and his testimony must be of great value. He was an advocate of the doctrine of Chiliasm—or, the doctrine that Christ would reign a thousand years on the earth—and in defence of this he uses the following language: “And a man from among us, by name John, one of the Apostles of Christ, in a Revelation made to him—ἐν Ἀποκαλύψει γενομένῃ αὐτᾷ—has prophesied that the believers in one Christ shall live a thousand years in Jerusalem; and after that shall be the general, and, in a word, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men together.” There can be no doubt whatever that there is an allusion here to the book of Revelation—for the very name Revelation—Ἀποκάλυψις—is used; that Justin believed that it was written by the apostle John; and that there is express reference to what is now chap. xx. of that book. The book was, therefore, in existence in the time of Justin—that is, in about fifty years after the death of John; was believed to be the work of the apostle John; was quoted as such, and by one who had lived in the very region where John lived, and by a man whose character is unimpeached, and who, in a point like this, could not have been mistaken. The testimony of Justin Martyr, therefore, is very important. It is positive; it is given where there was every opportunity for knowing the truth, and where there was no motive for a false testimony; and it is the testimony of one whose character for truthfulness is unimpeached.

The Narrative of the Martyrs of Vienne and Lyons.—Lardner, ii. 160‒165. In the reign of Marcus Antoninus, Christians suffered much from persecution. This persecution was particularly violent at Lyons, and the country round about. The churches of Lyons and Vienne sent an account of their sufferings, in an epistle, to the churches of Asia and Phrygia. This, according to Lardner, was about A.D. 177. The epistle has been preserved by Eusebius. In this epistle, among other undoubted allusions to the New Testament, the following occurs. Speaking of Vettius Epigathus, they say—“For he was indeed a genuine disciple of Christ, following the Lamb whithersoever he goes.” Comp. Rev. xiv. 2: “These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.” There can be no doubt that this passage in Revelation was referred to; and it proves that the book was then known, and that the writers were accustomed to regard it as on a level with the other sacred writings.

Irenæus.—The testimony of this father has already been referred to when speaking of Polycarp. He was bishop of Lyons, in Gaul. His country is not certainly known, but Lardner supposes that he was a Greek, and, from his early acquaintance with Polycarp, that he was from Asia. When a youth, he was a hearer of Polycarp, and also a disciple of Papias. He was born about the beginning of the second century, and it is commonly supposed that he suffered martyrdom in extreme old age. He became bishop of Lyons after he was seventy years of age, and wrote his principal work, Contra Hæreses, after this. His testimony is particularly valuable, as he was in early life acquainted with Polycarp, who was a contemporary and friend of the apostle John (Lardner, ii. 165‒192). Of his reference to the book of Revelation, Lardner says: “The Apocalypse, or Revelation, is often quoted by him as the Revelation of John, the disciple of the Lord.” In one place he says: “It was seen no long time ago, but almost in our age, at the end of the reign of Domitian.” And again, he spoke of the exact and ancient copies of the book, as if it was important to ascertain the true reading, and as if it were then possible to do this. Thus Eusebius (Lardner, ii. 167) says of him: “In his fifth book he thus discourses of the Revelation of John, and the computation of the name of Antichrist: ‘These things being thus, and this number being in all the exact and ancient copies, and they who saw John attesting to the same things, and reason teaching us that the number of the name of the beast, according to the acceptation of the Greeks, is expressed by the letters contained in it.’” Here is an undoubted reference to Revelation xiii. 18. This evidence is clear and positive. Its value consists in these things: (a) That he was familiar with one who was the friend of John; (b) that he must have known his views on the subject; (c) that he must have been intimately acquainted with the common opinion on the subject of the authorship of the book; (d) that a spurious work could not have been palmed upon the world as the production of John; (e) that he bears unequivocal testimony to the fact that it was written by John; (f) and that he speaks of the “most exact” copies being then in existence, and testified to by those who had seen John himself.

Melito.—Lardner, ii. 157‒160. He was bishop of Sardis, one of the churches to which the book of Revelation was directed. He is supposed to have flourished about A.D. 170. He was a man greatly distinguished for learning and piety, and Jerome says that Christians were accustomed to name him a prophet. He was, moreover, remarkably inquisitive respecting the sacred books; and, at the request of Onesimus, he made extracts from the Scriptures respecting the Messianic prophecies, and also a complete list of the books of the Old Testament, which is still extant in Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. iv. 26. He wrote a Treatise or Commentary on the Book of Revelation. Dr. Lardner says of this, “What it contained we are not informed. I will say it was a commentary on that book. It is plain he ascribed that book to John, and very likely to John the apostle. I think it very probable he esteemed it a book of canonical authority.” Hug says (p. 653), “Melito himself calls it the Apocalypse of John.” Even Michaelis (Intro. to the New Testament, iv. 466) reckons Melito among the witnesses in favour of the book. The value of this testimony is this: (a) Melito was bishop of one of the churches to which the Apocalypse was directed; (b) he lived near the time of John; (c) he was a diligent student on this very subject; (d) he had every opportunity of ascertaining the truth on the subject; (e) he regarded it as the work of the apostle John; (f) and he wrote a treatise or commentary on it as an inspired book. It is not easy to conceive of stronger testimony in favour of the book.

Theophilus.—Lardner, ii. 203‒215. He was bishop of Antioch, and flourished about A.D. 169‒180. He wrote a work against the “heresy” of Hermogenes, referred to by Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. iv. 24. In that work he expressly speaks of the Apocalypse as the production of John; and Lardner says of his testimony, “That the book of Revelation was owned by him is undoubted from Eusebius. Eusebius has assured us that Theophilus, in his book against Hermogenes, brought testimonies from the Apocalypse of John,” pp. 214, 215. The value of this testimony is, that Theophilus doubtless expressed the current opinion of his time, and that he had ample opportunity for ascertaining the truth. There is also a passage in the writings of Theophilus which seems to be a direct allusion to the book of Revelation: “This Eve, because she was deceived by the serpent—the evil demon, who is also called Satan, who thus spoke to her by the serpent—does not cease to accuse; this demon is also called the dragon. ” Comp. Rev. xii. 9.

Apollonius.—Lardner, ii. 391‒393. He flourished about A.D. 192. Eusebius says of him, “He makes use of testimonies out of the Revelation of John.” The value of this testimony is, (a) that he quotes the book as of authority; and (b) that he ascribes it to John, evidently meaning the apostle John.

Clement of Alexandria.—Lardner, ii. 222‒259. He flourished about A.D. 192‒220. Many of his writings are extant. Lardner (p. 245) says of him, “The book of Revelation is several times quoted by him, and once in this manner: ‘Such an one, though here on earth he be not honoured with the first seat, shall sit upon the four and twenty thrones judging the people, as John says in the Revelation.’” Comp. Rev. iv. 4; xi. 16. Lardner adds, “And that he supposed this writer to be John the apostle appears from another place, where he refers to Rev. xxi. 21, as the words of the apostle.” Professor Stuart says (i. 317), “There is no good ground for doubt, from anything which is found in the work, that he received and admitted the Apocalypse as a work of John the apostle.” The known character of Clement makes this testimony of great value.

Tertullian.—He was the contemporary of Clement, and was the most ancient, and one of the most learned, of the Latin fathers (Lardner, ii. 267‒306). He was born at Carthage about the middle of the second century, and died about A.D. 220. He was reared in the study of the Greek and Latin languages, of philosophy and the Roman law, and possessed extensive information. “His testimony to the Apocalypse is most full and ample. He quotes, or refers to it in more than seventy passages in his writings, appealing to it expressly as the work of the apostle John” (Elliott, i. 27). “The declarations of Tertullian are so frequent and plain, that no doubt can possibly remain as to his belief” (Prof. Stuart, i. 318). “The Revelation of John is often quoted. I put together two or three passages, which show his full persuasion that it was written by the apostle and evangelist of that name” (Lardner, ii. 295). One of the passages referred to by Lardner is the following: “The apostle John, in the Apocalypse, describes a sharp two-edged sword coming out of the mouth of God.” Another is, “Though Marcion rejects his revelation, the succession of bishops traced to the original will assure us that John is the author.” There can be no doubt, therefore, that Tertullian regarded the apostle John as the author of the book of Revelation; and his confident assertion may be considered as expressive of the prevailing opinion of his time.

Thus far, to the end of the second century, the testimony of the fathers of the church, as far as we now have it, was uniform and unbroken; and so far as historical testimony is concerned, this should be permitted to decide the question. Marcion, indeed, who lived in the time of Polycarp, and whom Polycarp called “the first-born of Satan” (Lardner, ii. 95), rejected the book of Revelation (see the declaration of Tertullian in Lardner, ii. 275); but it is also to be remembered that he rejected the whole of the Old Testament, the account of the genealogy and baptism of the Saviour, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, the Hebrews, and the Catholic Epistles (Lardner, vi. 142‒151, 347‒350; viii. 489‒513). Besides the opinion of Marcion, the testimony was uniform, with the exception of the heretical sect of the Alogi, if there was any such sect, which is generally supposed to have arisen in the latter half of this century, who derived their name from their antipathy to the name of Logos, and who on this account denied both the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation. See Lardner, iv. 190, 191; viii. 627, 628. Lardner, however, maintains that there never was any such sect (viii. 628).

3. The third half century after the death of John, A.D. 200‒250. Among the names embraced in this period are those of Hippolytus, who flourished about A.D. 220; Nepos, an Egyptian bishop; the well-known Origen, the most acute critic of all the early fathers, and who devoted his life to the study of the Scriptures; Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who flourished about A.D. 246; and Methodius, bishop of Olympia in Lycia. All these, without exception, have left a clear and decided expression of their belief that the apostle John was the author of the Apocalypse. See that testimony at length in Prof. Stuart, i. 321‒326.

It is unnecessary to pursue the historical evidence further. If the testimony in favour of the work is unbroken and clear for an hundred and fifty years, the testimony of those who lived subsequent to that period would add little to its strength. To the names already mentioned, however, there might be added those of Epiphanius, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Ephrem the Syrian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Hilary of Poictiers, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, and many others.

Such is the external positive testimony in favour of the opinion that the book of Revelation was written by the apostle John.

To this might be added certain internal marks, or certain facts in the life of John which accord with this supposition, and seem to confirm it. They are such that if they did not exist there might be some room for plausible doubt, though it must be admitted that, in themselves, they do not amount to positive proof of any considerable strength that he was the author. There is not room to dwell upon them, and they can only be briefly referred to. They are such as these:—(1) That the author calls himself John , evidently with the design of representing himself as the apostle of that name; for (a) his supposed relation to the churches of Asia Minor is such as the relation of the apostle John was, and (b) the name John, unless there was something to qualify it, would be naturally understood as referring to the apostle of that name. (2) The fact that John lived at Ephesus, and was well known to the seven churches of Asia Minor. (3) The fact that he lived to extreme old age—to the time when the book was supposed to have been written. See § II. (4) The fact that there was a persecution in the time of Domitian, when this book is supposed to have been written; and (5) what might be derived from a comparison of this book with the acknowledged writings of John.

II. To confirm the argument, it is necessary to show the insufficiency of the reasons for doubting that John was the author. This point may be considered under two heads—the alleged grounds for doubting that it was written by John by the ancients; and the reasons alleged by the moderns.

(1) The ancients.

(a) It has been maintained that it was rejected by Caius, a presbyter at Rome. He flourished, according to Cave, about A.D. 210. See Lardner, ii. 394‒410. There is a single passage in his writings, from which it has been inferred that he designed to reject the Apocalypse. This is in the following words—“And Cerinthus also, who by his revelations, as if written by some great apostle, imposes upon us monstrous relations of things of his own invention, as shown him by an angel, says, ‘that after the resurrection there shall be a terrestrial kingdom of Christ, and that men shall live again in Jerusalem, subject to sensual desires and pleasures. And being an enemy to the divine Scriptures, and desirous to seduce mankind, he says there will be a term of a thousand years spent in nuptial entertainments’” (Lardner, ii. 400, 401).

The whole force of this depends on the supposition that Caius meant to refer to Rev. xx. 4‒6.

But in regard to this the following remarks may be made:—(a) Caius was strongly opposed to Cerinthus, and to his views; (b) he was opposed to the prevailing doctrine of Chiliasm, or the doctrine of the millennium, as then extensively held—that Christ would reign personally on the earth with his saints for a thousand years; (c) it may be possible that Cerinthus may have forged a work pretending to be of apostolic origin, in which these doctrines were affirmed; (d) it is possible that the book of Revelation, as left by John, may have been interpolated and corrupted by Caius thus. Some one of these suppositions is more probable than the supposition that Caius meant to reject the book of Revelation; for,

1. The views referred to by Caius, as held by Cerinthus, are not the views which are found in Rev. xx. He spoke of a “terrestrial kingdom of Christ;” says that “men would again live in Jerusalem;” that they “would be subject to sensual pleasures;” and that the “term of a thousand years would be spent in nuptial entertainments.” None of these opinions are found in the book of Revelation as we now have it.

2. The title given by Caius to the book—Revelations instead of Revelation—Ἀποκάλυψις—as we find it in the book itself, chap. i. 1, would seem to indicate a different work from that of John. Eusebius always refers to the Apocalypse by the noun singular (Prof. Stuart, i. 341), and this is the general manner in which the work has been designated. If Caius had designed to refer to this, it is probable that he would have used the common term to designate it.

3. These views receive some confirmation from a passage in Theodoret, “who spoke of Cerinthus in such a way as seems to imply that he had forged an Apocalypse for the promotion of his designs.” That passage is, “Cerinthus forged certain revelations as if he himself had seen them, and added descriptions of certain terrible things, and declares that the kingdom of the Lord will be established on the earth,” &c. See Prof. Stuart, i. 342. On the whole, nothing of material importance can be derived from the testimony of Caius in proof that the Apocalypse was not believed to have been written by John.

(b) Dionysius of Alexandria doubted the genuineness of the Apocalypse as being the production of John, though he did not deny its inspiration. He was made bishop of the see of Alexandria A.D. 247 or 248, and died about A.D. 264 or 265. See Lardner, ii. 643‒722. He was a pupil of Origen, and enjoyed a high reputation. The full testimony of Dionysius in regard to this book may be seen in Lardner, ii. 693‒697. I will copy all that is material to show his opinion. He says, “Some who were before us have utterly rejected and confuted this book, criticising every chapter; showing it throughout unintelligible and inconsistent; adding, moreover, that the inspiration is false, forasmuch as it is not John’s; nor is a revelation which is hidden under so obscure and thick a veil of ignorance.” [Prof. Stuart (i. 346) translates this, “It contains, moreover, no revelation; for it is covered with a strong and thick veil of ignorance.”] “And this not only no apostle, but not so much as any holy or ecclesiastical man was the author of this writing, but that Cerinthus, founder of the heresy called after him the Cerinthian, the better to recommend his own forgery, prefixed to it an honourable name. For this, they say, was one of his particular notions, that the kingdom of Christ should be earthly; consisting of those things which he himself, a carnal and sensual man, most admired, the pleasures of the belly and its concupiscence; that is, eating, and drinking, and marriage; and for the more decent procurement of these, feastings, and sacrifices, and slaughters of victims. But, for my part, I dare not reject the book, since many of the brethren have it in high esteem; but allowing it to be above my understanding, I suppose it to contain throughout some latent and wonderful meaning; for though I do not understand it, I suspect there must be some profound sense in the words; not measuring and judging these things by my own reason, but ascribing more to faith, I esteem them too sublime to be comprehended by me.” Then, having quoted some passages from the book, he adds, speaking of the author, “I do not deny, then, that his name is John, and that this is John’s book; for I believe it to be the work of some holy and inspired person. Nevertheless, I cannot easily grant him to be the apostle, the son of Zebedee, brother of James, whose is the Gospel ascribed to John, and the Catholic Epistle; for I conclude from the manner of each, and the term of expression, and the conduct of the book, as we call it, that he is not the same person; for the Evangelist nowhere puts down his name, nor does he speak of himself either in the Gospel or the Epistle. I think, therefore, that he [the author] is another, one of them that dwelleth in Asia; forasmuch as it is said, that there are two tombs at Ephesus, each of them called John’s tomb. And from the sentiment, and words, and disposition of them, it is likely that he differed from him [who wrote the Gospel and Epistle].”

This is the sum of all that Dionysius says in regard to the genuineness of the book.

Respecting this the following remarks may be made:—

1. Dionysius, though he did not regard the work as the work of John the apostle, yet received it as an inspired book, though far above his comprehension.

2. He does not agree with those who altogether rejected it, as if it were no revelation, and contained no inspired truth.

3. He did not ascribe it, as it has been supposed by some that Caius did, to Cerinthus.

4. All the objections that he urges to its being the work of the apostle John are derived from the book itself, and from the difficulty of supposing that the Gospel of John, and the First Epistle of John, should have been written by the same author. He refers to no historical proof on that point; and does not even intimate that its genuineness had been called in question by the early writers. It is clear, therefore, that the objections of Dionysius should not be allowed to set aside the strong and clear proofs of a historical nature already adduced from the early Christian writers. See the opinion of Dionysius examined more at length in Prof. Stuart, i. 344‒354. Comp. Hug, Intro. pp. 654‒656.

(c) It may be added, in regard to the historical testimony from the ancients, that the book is not found in many of the early catalogues of the books of the New Testament, and that this has been made an objection to its authenticity. Thus Gregory of Nazianzen, in a piece composed in verse, containing a catalogue of the canonical Scriptures, omits the book of Revelation; in the catalogue of sacred writings annexed to the canons of the council of Laodicea, A.D. 363, it is also omitted; in the so-called Canons of the Apostles, a supposititious work of the latter part of the fourth century, it is also omitted; it is also omitted in a catalogue of sacred books published by Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 360; and it is mentioned by Amphilocus, bishop of Iconium, A.D. 380, as among the books that were doubtful. “Some,” says he, “admit the Apocalypse of John, but most persons say it is spurious.” See Michaelis, Intro. New Test. iv. 489; Prof. Stuart, i. 357, seq.

In regard to these omissions, and the doubts entertained by later writers on the subject, it may be remarked in general, (1) That it is well known that in the latter part of the fourth century and onward many doubts were entertained as to the canonical authority of the Apocalypse, and that, together with the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter, and the Second and Third Epistles of John, it was reckoned among the books called Antilegomena; that is, books spoken against, or books whose canonical authority was not admitted by all. (2) This fact shows, as has been often remarked, the great vigilance of the church in the early ages, in settling the canon of Scripture, and in determining what books were to be admitted, and what were to be rejected. (3) These doubts, entertained in a later age, cannot affect the clear historical testimony of the early writers, as we now have it; for the question of the origin of the Apocalypse, so far as the historical testimony is concerned, must be determined by the testimony of the writers who lived near the time when it is alleged to have been written. (4) The objections alleged against the Apocalypse in later times were wholly on internal grounds, and were mainly derived from the fact that it was supposed to countenance the doctrine of Chiliasm, or the doctrine of the personal reign of Christ and the saints, for a thousand years, in Jerusalem; and from the fact that the followers of Cerinthus appealed to this book in support of their pernicious errors. The book seemed (see chap. xx.) to countenance the views early entertained by many on the subject of the millennium, and, in accordance with a common method of controversy, its canonical authority was therefore called in question. Thus Hug (Intro. p. 654) says, “It was amidst the disputes concerning the millennium that the first explicit and well-authenticated denial of the Apocalypse occurred.” Nepos, bishop of the Arsinoitic præfecture in Egypt, had maintained that the doctrine of the millennium could be defended from the book of Revelation by a literal exposition. Dionysius opposed this view, and, in the violence of the dispute on the subject, the authority of the Apocalypse itself was called in question by Dionysius, on the grounds referred to above. “He did this, however,” says Hug, “with such moderation, that he might not offend those who had so readily agreed to a compromise;” that is, a compromise by which, as bishop, he had endeavoured to reconcile the contending parties. Hug has shown conclusively (pp. 654‒656) that this constitutes no objection to the genuineness of the book. It was on such internal grounds entirely that the authenticity of the book was called in question, and that it was ever placed among the disputed books. That objection is, of course, of no importance now. (5) It is well known that, mainly by the influence of Jerome and Augustine (see Prof. Stuart, i. 334), all these doubts were removed, and that the Apocalypse after their time was all but universally received, until Luther, for reasons derived from the book itself, in the early part of his life, again called it in question.

Such is a summary of the historical argument in favour of the genuineness of the book of Revelation; and such is the nature of the evidence which has satisfied the Christian world at large that it is the work of the apostle John, and is, therefore, entitled to a place as an inspired book in the canon of Scripture. In ancient times there were no objections to it on historical grounds, and it is unnecessary to say that there can be none on these grounds now.

(2) The objections to its genuineness and authenticity in modern times are wholly derived from the contents of the book itself. These objections, as stated by De Wette, and as expressing the substance of all that is urged by Ewald, Lücke, Credner, and others, are the following:—

1. That the Apocalyptical writer calls himself John, which the evangelist never does. It is added, also, by Ewald, Credner, and Hitzig, that in chap. xviii. 20 and xxi. 14 the writer expressly excludes himself from the number of the apostles.

2. That the language of the book is entirely different from that of the fourth Gospel, and the three Epistles of John the apostle. It is said to be characterized by strong Hebraisms, and by ruggedness; by negligence of expression, and by grammatical inaccuracies; and that it exhibits the absence of pure Greek words, and of the apostle’s favourite expressions.

3. That the style is unlike that which appears in the Gospel and the Epistles. In the latter it is said there is calm, deep feeling; in the Apocalypse a lively creative power of fancy.

4. That the doctrinal aspect of the book is different from that of the apostle’s acknowledged writings. It is said that we find in the latter nothing of the “sensuous expectations of the Messiah and of his kingdom,” which are prominent in the Apocalypse; that the views inculcated respecting spirits, demons, and angels are foreign to John; and that there is a certain spirit of revenge flowing throughout the Apocalypse quite inconsistent with the mild and amiable disposition of the beloved disciple.

For a full consideration of these points, and a complete answer to these objections, the reader is referred to the Commentary of Prof. Stuart, vol. i. pp. 371‒422. A more condensed reply is found in Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, in an article by the Rev. S. Davidson, LL.D., Professor of Biblical Literature and Oriental Languages in the Lancashire Independent College, vol. ii. pp. 614‒618.

The objections do not seem to me to have the importance which has been attached to them by many persons, but it may be satisfactory to see the manner in which they are disposed of by Dr. Davidson; I therefore copy his answer to them.

“Let us now consider the internal evidence in favour of John the Apostle, beginning with an examination of the arguments adduced on the other side by De Wette. These do not possess all the weight that many assign to them. We shall follow the order in which they have been already stated.

“1. We attach no importance to this circumstance. Why should not a writer be at liberty to name himself or not as he pleases? above all, why should not a writer, under the immediate inspiration of the Almighty, omit the particulars which he was not prompted to record? How could he refrain from doing so? The Holy Spirit must have had some good reason for leading the writer to set forth his name, although curiosity is not gratified by assigning the reason. The Old Testament prophets usually prefixed their names to the visions and predictions which they were prompted to record; and John does the same. But instead of styling himself an apostle, which carries with it an idea of dignity and official authority, he modestly takes to himself the appellation of a servant of Christ, the brother and companion of the faithful in tribulation. This corresponds with the relation which he sustained to Christ in the receiving of such visions, as also with the condition of the Redeemer himself. In the Gospel John is mentioned as the disciple whom Jesus loved, for then he stood in an intimate relation to Christ, as the Son of man appearing in the form of a servant; but in the book before us Christ is announced as the glorified Redeemer who should quickly come to judgment, and John is his servant, intrusted with the secrets of his house. Well did it become the apostle to forget all the honour of his apostolic office, and to be abased before the Lord of glory. The resplendent vision of the Saviour had such an effect upon the seer that he fell at his feet as dead; and therefore it was quite natural for him to be clothed with profound humility, to designate himself the servant of Jesus Christ, the brother and companion of the faithful in tribulation. Again, in chap. xviii. 20 the prophets are said to be represented as already in heaven in their glorified condition, and therefore the writer could not have belonged to their number. But this passage neither affirms, nor necessarily implies, that the saints and apostles and prophets were at that time in heaven. Neither is it stated that all the apostles had then been glorified. Chap. xxi. 14 is alleged to be inconsistent with the modesty and humility of John. This is a questionable assumption. The official honour inseparable from the person of an apostle was surely compatible with profound humility. It was so with Paul; and we may safely draw the same conclusion in regard to John. In describing the heavenly Jerusalem it was necessary to introduce the twelve apostles. The writer could not exclude himself (see Lücke, p. 389; and Guerike’s Beiträge, p. 37, seq.).

“2. To enter fully into this argument would require a lengthened treatise. Let us briefly notice the particular words, phrases, and expressions to which Ewald, Lücke, De Wette, and Credner specially allude. Much has been written by Ewald concerning the Hebraistic character of the language. The writer, it is alleged, strongly imbued with Hebrew modes of thought, frequently inserts Hebrew words, as in chap. iii. 14; ix. 11; xii. 9, 10; xix. 1, 3, 4, 6; xx. 2; xxii. 20; while the influence of cabbalistic artificiality is obvious throughout the entire book, and particularly in chap. i. 4, 5; iv. 2; xiii. 18; xvi. 14. The mode of employing the tenses is foreign to the Greek language, and moulded after the Hebrew (chap. i. 7; ii. 5, 16, 22, 23, 27; iii. 9; iv. 9‒11; xii. 2‒4; xvi. 15, 21; xvii. 13, 14; xviii. 11, 15; xxii. 7, 12). So also the use of the participle (chap. i. 16; iv. 1, 5, 8; v. 6, 13; vi. 2, 5; vii. 9, 10; ix. 11; x. 2; xiv. 1, 14; xix. 12, 13; xxi. 14); and of the infinitive (chap. xii. 7). The awkward disposition of words is also said to be Hebraistic; such as a genitive appended like the construct state; the stringing together of several genitives (chap. xiv. 8, 10, 19; xvi. 19; xviii. 3, 14; xix. 15; xxi. 6; xxii. 18, 19); and the use of the Greek cases, which are frequently changed for prepositions (chap. ii. 10; iii. 9; vi. 1, 8; viii. 7; ix. 19; xi. 6, 9; xii. 5; xiv. 2, 7); incorrectness in appositions (chap. i. 5; ii. 20; iii. 12; iv. 2‒4; vi. 1; vii. 9; viii. 9; ix. 14; xiii. 1‒3; xiv. 2, 12, 14, 20, &c.); a construction formed of an αὐτός put after the relative pronoun (chap. iii. 8; vii. 2, 9; xiii. 12; xx. 8); frequent anomalies in regard to number and gender (chap. ii. 27; iii. 4, 5; iv. 8; vi. 9, 10; ix. 13, 14; xi. 15; xiv. 1, 3; xvii. 16; xix. 14; and viii. 11; xi. 18; xv. 4; xvii. 12, 15; xviii. 14; xix. 21; xx. 12; xxi. 4, 24; also chap. xvi. 10; xix. 1, 8, 9). In addition to this, it is alleged by Credner, that the use made of the Old Testament betrays an acquaintance on the part of the writer with the Hebrew text (comp. chap. vi. 13, 14, with Isa. xxxiv. 4; chap. xviii. 2, with Isa. xiii. 21, xxi. 9, xxxiv. 14, Jer. l. 39; chap. xviii. 4, 5, with Jer. li. 6, 9, 45; chap. xviii. 7, with Isa. xlvii. 7, 8; chap. xviii. 21‒23, with Jer. xxv. 10, li. 63, 64). In contrast with all this, we are reminded of the fact that, according to Acts iv. 13, John was an unlearned and ignorant man.

“The book is deficient in words and turns of expression purely Greek, such as πάντοτε, πώποτε, οὐδέποτε; compound verbs, as ἀναγγέλλειν, παραλαμβάνειν, ἐπιβάλλειν; the double negation; the genitive absolute; the attraction of the relative pronoun; the regular construction of the neuter plural with the verb singular (except chap. viii. 3; ix. 20; xiv. 13; xviii. 24; xix. 14; xxi. 12); ἀκούειν with the genitive. Favourite expressions, such as occur in the Gospel and Epistles, are seldom found, as θεάομαι, θεωρέω, ἐργάζομαι, ῥήματα, πάλιν, φωνεῖν, μένειν, καθώς, ὡς (an adverb of time), οὖν, μέν, μέντοι, κόσμος, φῶς, σκοτία, δοξάζεσθαι, ὑψοῦσθαι, ζωὴ αἰώνιος, ἀπόλλυσθαι, οὗτος (τοῦτο) ἵνα; the historic present. There are also favourite expressions of the writer of the book, such as do not occur in John’s authentic writings: οἰκουμένη, ὑπομονή, κρατεῖν τὸ ὄνομα, τὴν διδαχήν, παντοκράτωρ, θεὸς καὶ πατήρ, δύναμις, κράτος, ἰσχύς, τιμή, πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν, ἡ ἀρχή τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς, ὧδε in the beginning of a sentence. The conjunction εἰ, so common in the Gospel, does not occur in the Apocalypse; but only εἰ μή, εἰ δὲ μή, and εἴ τις. The frequent joining of a substantive with μέγας, as φωνὴ μεγάλη, θλίψις μεγάλη, φόβος μέγας, σεισμὸς μέγας, rather reminds one of Luke than John; μείζων, so frequent in the Gospel, is not found in the Revelation; and, on the contrary, ἰσχυρός, which occurs seven times in the Apocalypse, is foreign to the Gospel.

“The following discrepancies between the language of the Gospel and that of the Epistles have been noticed: ἀληθινός is used of God both in the Gospel and the Apocalypse, but in different senses; so also κύριος, and ἐργάζομαι; instead of ἴδε the Apocalypse has only ἰδού; instead of Ἱεροσόλυμα only Ἱερουσαλήμ; instead of ἐάν τις, as in the Gospel, εἴ τις; περί, so often used by John, occurs only once in the Apocalypse, and that too in relation to place; ὄχλος is used in the plural. Words denoting seeing are differently used in the Gospel and Apocalypse; thus, for the present we find in the latter βλέπειν, θεωρεῖν, ὁρᾶν; for the aorist of the active εἶδον, βλέπειν, and θεωρεῖν; for the future ὄπτεσθαι, and for the aorist of the passive also ὄπτεσθαι; μένειν has a different meaning from that which it bears in the Gospel; instead of ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου, and ὁ πονηρός, we find ὁ σατανᾶς, ὁ διάβολος, ὁ δράκων ὁ μέγας.

“Such is a summary statement of an argument drawn out at great length by Lücke, De Wette, Ewald, and Credner.

“Some have attempted to turn aside its force by resorting to the hypothesis that the book was originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek. This, however, is contradicted by the most decisive internal evidence, and is in itself highly improbable. The Apocalypse was written in the Greek language, as all antiquity attests. How, then, are we to account for its Hebraistic idioms and solecisms of language, its negligences of diction, and ungrammatical constructions? One circumstance to be taken into account is, that the nature of the Gospel is widely different from that of the Apocalypse. The latter is a prophetic book—a poetical composition; while the former is a simple record in prose, of the discourses of Jesus in the days of his flesh. It is apparent, too, that John in the Apocalypse imitates the manner of Ezekiel and Daniel. The New Testament prophet conforms to the diction and symbolic features of the former seers. ‘If the question should be urged why John chose these models, the obvious answer is, that he conformed to the taste of the times in which he lived. The numerous apocryphal works of an Apocalyptical nature, which were composed nearly at the same time with the Apocalypse—such as the book of Enoch, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, many of the Sibylline Oracles, the fourth book of Ezra, the Pastor of Hermas, and many others which are lost—all testify to the taste and feelings of the times when, or near which, the Apocalypse was written. If this method of writing was more grateful to the time in which John lived, it is a good reason for his preferring it.’56 In consequence of such imitation, the diction has an Oriental character; and the figures are in the highest style of imagery peculiar to the East. But it is said that John was an illiterate man. Illiterate, doubtless, he was as compared with Paul, who was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel; yet he may have been capable of reading the Old Testament books; and he was certainly inspired. Wrapt in ecstasy, he saw wondrous visions. He was in the Spirit. And when writing the things he beheld, his language was to be conformed to the nature of such marvellous revelations. It was to be adapted to the mysterious disclosures, the vivid pictures, the moving scenes, the celestial beings and scenery of which he Was privileged to tell. Hence it was to be lifted up far above the level of simple prose or biographic history, so as to correspond with the sublime visions of the seer. Nor should it be forgotten that he was not in the circumstances of an ordinary writer. He was inspired. How often is this fact lost sight of by the German critics! It is, therefore, needless to inquire into his education in the Hebrew language, or his mental culture while residing in Asia Minor, or the smoothness of the Greek language as current in the place where he lived, before and after he wrote the Apocalypse. The Holy Spirit qualified him beyond and irrespective of ordinary means for the work of writing. However elevated the theme he undertook, he was assisted in employing diction as elevated as the nature of the subject demanded. We place, therefore, little reliance upon the argument derived from the time of life at which the Apocalypse was composed, though Olshausen and Guerike insist upon it. Written, as they think, twenty years before the Gospel or Epistles, the Apocalypse exhibits marks of inexperience in writing, of youthful fire, and of an ardent temperament. It exhibits the first essays of one expressing his ideas in a language to which he was unaccustomed. This may be true; but we lay far less stress upon it than these authors seem inclined to do. The strong Hebraized diction of the book we account for on the ground that the writer was a Jew; and, as such, expressed his Jewish conceptions in Greek; that he imitated the later Old Testament prophets, especially the manner of Daniel; and that the only prophetic writing in the New Testament naturally approaches nearer the Old Testament, if not in subject, at least in colouring and linguistic features.

“These considerations may serve to throw light upon the language of the book, after all the extravagancies of assertion in regard to anomalies, solecisms, and ruggednesses, have been fairly estimated. For it cannot be denied that many rash and unwarrantable assumptions have been made by De Wette and others relative to the impure Greek said to be contained in the Apocalypse. Winer has done much to check such bold assertions, but with little success in the case of those who are resolved to abide by a strong and prevalent current of opinion. We venture to affirm, without fear of contradiction, that there are books in the New Testament almost as Hebraizing as the Apocalypse; and that the anomalies charged to the account of the Hebrew language may be paralleled in other parts of the New Testament, or in classical Greek. What shall be said, for instance, to the attempt of Hitzig to demonstrate from the language of Mark’s Gospel, as compared with that of the Apocalypse, that both proceeded from one author, viz. John Mark? This author has conducted a lengthened investigation with the view of showing that all the peculiarities of language found in the Apocalypse are equally presented in the second Gospel, particularly that the Hebraisms of the one correspond with those of the other. Surely this must lead to new investigations of the Apocalyptic diction, and possibly to a renunciation of those extravagant assertions so often made in regard to the harsh, rugged, Hebraized Greek of the Apocalypse. Who ever dreamed before of the numerous solecisms of Mark’s language? and yet Hitzig has demonstrated its similarity to the Apocalyptic as plausibly as Ewald, Lücke, and others have proved the total dissimilarity between the diction of the Apocalypse and that of John’s Gospel.

“The length allotted to this article will not allow the writer to notice every term and phrase supposed to be peculiar. This can only be done with success by him who takes a concordance to the Greek Testament in his hand, with the determination to test each example; along with a good syntax of classical Greek, such as Bernhardy’s. In this way he may see whether the alleged Hebraisms and anomalies have not their parallels in classical Greek. Some of the allegations already quoted are manifestly incorrect, e.g., that ἀκούω with the genitive is not found in the Apocalypse. On the contrary, it occurs eight times with the genitive. Other words are adduced on the principle of their not occurring so frequently in the book before us as in the Gospel and Epistles. But by this mode of reasoning it might be shown, that the other acknowledged writings of the apostle John, for instance his First Epistle, are not authentic. Thus ῥήματα, one of the words quoted, though frequently found in the Gospel, is not in any of the three Epistles; therefore, these Epistles were not written by John. It is found once in the Apocalypse. Again, ἐργάζομαι, which is found seven times in the Gospel, and once in the Apocalypse, as also once in each of the Second and Third Epistles, is not in the First Epistle; therefore the First Epistle proceeded from another writer than the author of the Second and Third. The same reasoning may be applied to θεωρέω. Again, it is alleged that the regular construction of neuters plural with singular verbs is not found, with the exception of six instances. To say nothing of the large list of exceptions, let it be considered, that the plural verb is joined with plural nouns where animate beings, especially persons, are designated. Apply now this principle, which regularly holds good in classical Greek, to the Apocalypse, and nothing peculiar will appear in the latter. Should there still remain examples of neuters plural designating things without life, we shall find similar ones in the Greek writers. Another mode in which the reasoning founded upon the use of peculiar terms and expressions may be tested is the following. It is admitted that there are words which occur in the Gospel and Epistles, but not in the Apocalypse. The adverb πάντοτε is an example. On the same principle, and by virtue of the same reasoning, it may be denied, as far as language is concerned, that 1 Timothy was written by Paul, because πάντοτε, which is found in his other epistles, does not occur in it. In this manner we might individually take up each word and every syntactical peculiarity on which the charge of harshness, or solecism, or Hebraizing has been fastened. It is sufficient to state, that there are very few real solecisms in the Apocalypse. Almost all that have been adduced may be paralleled in Greek writers, or in those of the New Testament. The words of Winer, a master in this department, are worthy of attention: ‘The solecisms that appear in the Apocalypse give the diction the impress of great harshness, but they are capable of explanation, partly from anacoluthon and the mingling of two constructions, partly in another manner. Such explanation should have been always adopted, instead of ascribing these irregularities to the ignorance of the author, who, in other constructions of a much more difficult nature in this very book, shows that he was exceedingly well acquainted with the rules of grammar. For most of these anomalies, too, analogous examples in the Greek writers may be found, with this difference alone, that they do hot follow one another so frequently as in the Apocalypse,’ (Grammatik, fünfte Auflage, pp. 273, 274). Should the reader not be satisfied with this brief statement of Winer, he is referred to his Exeget. Studien, i. 154, seq., where the professor enters into details with great ability.

“The following linguistic similarities between John’s Gospel and the Apocalypse deserve to be cited: μετὰ ταῦτα, Apoc. i. 19; iv. 1; vii. 1, 9; ix. 12; xv. 5; xviii. 1; xix. 1; xx. 3;—Gosp. iii. 22; v. 1, 14; vi. 1; vii. 1; xix. 38; xxi. 1. μαρτυρία, Apoc. i. 2, 9; vi. 9; xi. 7; xii. 11, 17; xix. 10; xx. 4;—Gosp. (μαρτυρέω or μαρτυρία) i. 7, 8, 15, 19, 32, 34; ii. 25; iii. 11, 26, 28, 32, 33; iv. 3, 9, 44; v. 31‒34, 36, 37, 39;—1 Epist. i. 2; iv. 14; v. 6‒11. ἵνα, Apoc. ii. 10, 21; iii. 9, 11, 18; vi. 2, 4, 11; vii. 1, &c.;—Gosp. vi. 5, 7, 12, 15, 28‒30, 38‒40, 50; xi. 4, 11, 15, 16, 19, 31, 37, 42, 50, 52, 53, 55, 57; xii. 9, 10, 20, 23, 35, &c.;—1 Epist. of John i. 3, 4, 9; ii. 1, 19, 27, 28. ὄψις, Gosp. vii. 24; xi. 44;—Apoc. i. 16. πιάζειν, Apoc. xix. 20;—Gosp. vii. 30, 32, 44; viii. 20; x. 39; xi. 57; xxi. 3, 10. τηρεῖν τὸν λόγον, τὰς ἐντολάς, or some similar expression, Apoc. iii. 8, 10; xii. 17; xiv. 12; xxii. 7, 9;—Gosp. viii. 51, 55; xiv. 15; xxiii. 24, &c. ὁ νικῶν, Apoc. ii. 7, 11, 17, 26; iii. 5, 12, 21; xv. 2; xxi. 7. This verb is quite common in the First Epistle, chap. ii. 13, 14; iv. 4; v. 4, 5;—Gosp. xvi. 33. ὕδωρ ζωῆς, Apoc. xxi. 6; xxii. 17; comp. Gosp. vii. 38. Compare also the joining together of the present and the future in Apoc. ii. 5, and Gosp. xiv. 3. The assertion of the same thing positively and negatively, Apoc. ii. 2, 6, 8, 13; iii. 8, 17, 21; Gosp. i. 3, 6, 7, 20, 48; iii. 15, 17, 20; iv. 42; v. 19, 24; viii. 35, 45; x. 28; xv. 5‒7; 1 Epist. ii. 27, &c. In several places in the Apocalypse Christ is called the Lamb; so also in the Gospel, chap. i. 29, 36. Christ is called ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, Apoc. xix. 13, and in the Gospel of John only has he the same epithet. τηρεῖν ἔκ τινος, Apoc. iii. 10; Gosp. xvii. 15. σφάττειν, Apoc. v. 6, 9, 12; vi. 4, 9; xiii. 3, 8; xviii. 24; only in the 1st Epistle of John, chap. iii. 12. ἔχειν μέρος, Apoc. xx. 6; Gosp. xiii. 8. περιπατεῖν μετά τινος, Apoc. iii. 4; Gosp. vi. 66. σκηνόω, Apoc. vii. 15; xii. 12; xiii. 6; xxi. 3; Gosp. i. 14. The expulsion of Satan from heaven is expressed thus in the Apoc. xii. 9: ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν; in the Gosp. it is said, νῦν ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἐκβληθήσεται ἔξω, chap. xii. 31. (See Scholz, Die Apokalypse des heilig. Johannes übersetzt, erklärt, u. s. w. Frankfurt am Main, 1828, 8vo; Schulz, Ueber den Schriftsteller, Character und Werth des Johannes, Leipzig, 1803, 8vo; Donker Curtius, Specimen hermeneuticotheologicum de Apocalypsi ab indole, doctrina, et scribendi genere Johannis Apostoli non abhorrente, Trajecti Batav. 1799, 8vo; Kolthoff, Apocalypsis Joanni Apostolo vindicata, Hafniæ, 1834, 8vo; Stein, in Winer and Engelhardt’s Kritisch. Journal, v. i.; and the Jena Literatur-Zeitung for April, 1833, No. 61.) It is true that some of these expressions are said, by Lücke, De Wette, and Credner, to be used in a different sense in the Apocalypse; others not to be characteristic, but rather accidental and casual; others not original, but borrowed. Such assertions, however, proceed more from à priori assumption than from any inherent truth they possess. In regard to the charge of cabbalism, especially in the use of numbers, it is easily disposed of. The cabbala of the Jews was widely different from the instances in the Apocalypse that have been quoted. Perhaps John’s use of the number 666 comes the nearest to one kind of the cabbala; but still it is so unlike as to warrant the conclusion that the apostle did not employ the cabbalistic art. His mysterious indications of certain facts, and the reasons of their being in some measure involved in darkness, are explicable on other than Jewish grounds. There is no real cause for believing that the apostle had recourse to the artificial and trifling conceits of the Rabbins. In short, this argument is by no means conclusive. As far as the language is concerned, nothing militates against the opinion that the Apocalypse proceeded from John, who wrote the Gospel. The contrary evidence is not of such a nature as to demand assent. When rigidly scrutinized, it does not sustain the conclusion so confidently built upon it.

“But it is also affirmed, that the doctrinal views and sentiments inculcated in the Apocalypse are quite different from those found in the Gospel. This may be freely allowed without any detriment to their identity of authorship. How slow the Germans are in learning that a difference in the exhibition of truths substantially the same is far from being a contradiction! A difference of subject in connection with a different plan, demands correspondent dissimilarity of treatment. Besides, there must be a gradual development of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God on earth. Sensuous expectations of the Messiah, such as are alleged to abound in the Apocalypse, may be perfectly consistent with the spirituality of his reign, though it appears to us that the representations so designated are figurative, shadowing forth spiritual realities by means of outward objects.

“But what is to be said of the pneumatological, demonological, and angelogical doctrines of the book? The object for which John’s Gospel was primarily written did not lead the apostle to introduce so many particulars regarding angels and evil spirits. The intervention of good and the malignant influence of evil spirits are clearly implied in the Old Testament prophets, particularly in Zechariah and Daniel. It is therefore quite accordant with the prophetic Hebraistic character of the Apocalypse, to make angelic agency a prominent feature in the book. And that such agency is recognized in the Gospels, is apparent to the most cursory reader. The special object with which the fourth Gospel was written was different from that which prompted the composition of the Apocalypse, and therefore the subject-matter of both is exceedingly diverse. But still there is no opposition in doctrine. The same doctrinal views lie at the foundation of all the representations contained in them. In the one, the Redeemer is depicted in his humble career on earth; in the other, in his triumphs as a king—or rather, in the victorious progress of his truth in the world, notwithstanding all the efforts of Satan and wicked men to suppress it. As to a spirit of revenge in the Apocalyptic writer, it is not found. The inspired prophet was commissioned to pronounce woes and judgments as soon to befall the enemies of Christ, in consequence of their persevering, malignant efforts. As well might an evil disposition be attributed to the blessed Saviour himself, in consequence of his denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees. The same John who wrote the Apocalypse says, in the Second Epistle, ver. 10, ‘If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed.’ It must ever strike the simple reader of the Apocalypse as a positive ground for attributing the authorship to John the apostle, that he styles himself THE servant of God by way of eminence, which none other at that time would have ventured to do; and that he employs the expression, I John, after the manner of Daniel, as if he were the only prophet and person of the name. Nor can it be well believed that a disciple of the apostle, or any other individual, should have presumed to introduce John as the speaker, thus deceiving the readers. The apostle was well known to the Christians of his time, and especially to the Asiatic churches. He did not therefore think it necessary to say John the Apostle for the sake of distinguishing himself from any other. See Züllig’s Die Offenbarung Johannis, Stuttgart, 1834, 8vo, p. 136.”

§ II.—The Time of Writing the Apocalypse.

The evidence as to the date of the Apocalypse may be considered as external or historical, and internal.

1. External or historical. On this point the testimony of the early Christian fathers is almost or quite uniform, that it was in the latter part of the life of the apostle John, and towards the end of the reign of Domitian; that is, about A.D. 95 or 96.

The principal testimony to this fact is that of Irenæus. It will be recollected that he was a disciple of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who was himself the disciple of the apostle John. See § I. (b). He had, therefore, every opportunity of obtaining correct information, and doubtless expresses the common sentiment of his age on the subject. His character is unexceptionable, and he had no inducement to bear any false or perverted testimony in the case. His testimony is plain and positive that the book was written near the close of the reign of Domitian, and the testimony should be regarded as decisive unless it can be set aside. His language in regard to the book of Revelation is: “It was seen no long time ago, but almost in our age, at the end of the reign of Domitian” (Lardner, ii. 181). Or, as the passage is translated by Prof. Stuart: “The Apocalypse was seen not long ago, but almost in our generation, near the end of Domitian’s reign.” There can be no doubt, therefore, as to the meaning of the passage, or as to the time when Irenæus believed the book to have been written. Domitian was put to death A.D. 96, and consequently, according to Irenæus, the Apocalypse must have been written not far from this time.

This testimony of Irenæus is confirmed by that of Clement of Alexandria. Relating the well-known story of John and the robber, he speaks of the event as having occurred on his return from exile in Patmos “after the death of the tyrant,” and represents him as then an infirm old man. The testimony in the book itself (chap. i. 9) is clear, that John was on the island of Patmos when these visions were seen. The “tyrant” whose death is here referred to must necessarily be either Nero or Domitian, as these were, up to the end of the first century, the only imperial persecutors of the Christians. It cannot be supposed to be Nero, since at the time of his persecution (A.D. 64) John could not be supposed to be an “infirm old man;” being probably not much above, if indeed so much as sixty years of age. See Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., b. iii. chap. 23. Of this testimony Prof. Stuart, who himself supposes that the Apocalypse was written before the death of Nero, says (i. 264), “The tyrant here meant is probably Domitian; at least, although he is not named by Clement, it is clear that Eusebius so understands the matter.”

Victorinus, bishop of Pettaw and martyr in Diocletian’s persecution, in his Commentary on the Apocalypse, written towards the close of the third century, says twice expressly that the Apocalypse was seen by the apostle John in the isle of Patmos, when banished thither by the Roman emperor Domitian. See the passages quoted in Elliott, i. 39, and in Prof. Stuart, i. 264. The testimony is unequivocal.

To these testimonies from the early fathers may be added that of Jerome, who says that “John saw the Apocalypse on the island of Patmos, to which he was sent by Domitian,” and in another place he says that this occurred in the fourteenth year of the reign of Domitian (Adv. Jovin. lib. i., Lardner, iv. 446, 447).

And to these plain testimonies may be added those of Sulpicius Severus and Orosius, contemporaries of Augustine; Gregory Turonensis (cent. vi.), Isidorus Hispalensis (cent. vii.), Marianus Scotus, Primasius, and others. See Prof. Stuart, i. 264, 265, and Elliott, i. 38, 39.

Such is the positive testimony that the book was written near the end of the reign of Domitian and about A.D. 96. It is true, that notwithstanding this positive testimony, there were some writers who assigned it to an earlier date. Thus Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, in the latter half of the fourth century, speaks of John as having prophesied in the isle of Patmos in the days of the emperor Claudius (A.D. 41‒54); a time when, as Michaelis observes, it does not appear from history that there was any imperial persecution of Christians whatever, and when, moreover, the probability is that, of the seven Apocalyptic churches, scarcely one was in existence, and the apostle John was in no way associated with them. Lardner (iv. 190) seems to suspect that, in the passage referred to, the name Claudius was a fault of the transcriber. Epiphanius, however, received the Apocalypse as the work of John and as an inspired book (Lardner, iv. 190). Others have ascribed the date of the book of Revelation to the time of Nero. Thus, in the later Syriac version, the title-page declares that it was written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Cæsar. This version, however, was made in the beginning of the sixth century, and can have little authority in determining the question. It is not known by whom the version was made, or on what authority the author relied, when he said that John was banished to Patmos in the time of Nero. So also Andreas and Arethas, commentators on the book of Revelation, one of them in the beginning of the sixth century and the other in the middle of the sixth century, make quotations from the book in such a manner as to show that they supposed that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. They, however, made no express declaration on that point, and their testimony at anyrate, at that late period, is of little value. A few other later writers also supposed that the book was written at an earlier period than the reign of Domitian. See Prof. Stuart, i. 268, 269.

Such is the sum of the historical testimony as to the time when the Apocalypse was written; and that testimony, it seems to me, is so clear as to settle the point so far as the historical evidence is concerned, that the book was written near the end of the reign of Domitian, that is, about A.D. 95 or 96. My exposition of the book proceeds on the supposition that it was written at that time.

2. There is another inquiry, however, as to the internal evidence, for on this ground it has been maintained that it must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem and in the time of Nero. See the argument in Prof. Stuart, i. 270‒282.

Now, in regard to this it may be remarked in general, that on the supposition that it was written near the close of the life of John, and in the time of Domitian, it can be shown that there is no internal improbability or inconsistency; that is, in other words, all the known circumstances in regard to John, and to the condition of the church at that time, would accord with that supposition. For,

(a) It is known that John spent many of the later years of his life at Ephesus, in the midst of the seven churches to which the book was addressed, and the epistles in the book are such as they would be on that supposition.

(b) It is admitted that there was a persecution of Christians in the time of Domitian; and of the persecution which he excited against Christians, Mosheim remarks that “he was an emperor little inferior to Nero in baseness of character and conduct. This persecution undoubtedly was severe; but it was of short continuance, as the emperor was soon murdered” (Mosheim, i. 69). It commenced about A.D. 93 or 94. It is not certainly known how far it extended, but as the ground of the persecution was a fear of Domitian that he would lose his empire from some person among the relatives of Christ who would attempt a revolution (Mosheim, i. 69; Milman, Hist. of Christianity, 193), ere is every probability that it would be directed particularly to the East and the countries near where the Saviour lived and died.

(c) It is not improbable that John would be banished in this persecution. He was a man of great influence among Christians, and it is to be presumed that he would not escape the notice of those who were actively engaged in carrying on the persecution. Moreover, it is as probable that he would be banished as that he would be put to death; for, though we have few facts respecting this persecution, and few names are mentioned, yet we have one recorded instance in which banishment on account of professing the Christian religion took place. Thus Milman (Hist. of Christianity, p. 193), speaking of two of the cousin-germans of Domitian, says, “The one fell an early victim to his jealous apprehensions. The other, Flavius Clemens, is described as a man of the most contemptible indolence of character. His powerful kinsman, instead of exciting the fears, enjoyed for some time the favour of Domitian. He received in marriage Domitilla, the niece of the emperor; his children were adopted as heirs to his throne; Clemens himself obtained the consulship. On a sudden these harmless kinsmen became dangerous conspirators; they were arraigned on the unprecedented charge of Atheism and Jewish manners; the husband Clemens was put to death; the wife Domitilla banished to the desert island of either Pontia or Pandataria.” Nothing is more probable, therefore, than that John the apostle should be also banished to a desert island—and Patmos was admirably adapted to such a purpose. See Notes on chap. i. 9. There is, therefore, everything in the circumstances to make it probable that the book was written at the time in which it is so uniformly said by the early historians to have been. Those things seem to me to make it proper to acquiesce in the general opinion so long entertained in regard to the date of the Apocalypse, for there is, perhaps, no book of the New Testament whose date is better determined on historical grounds than this. These considerations also make it unnecessary to examine the alleged internal evidence from the book that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, especially as it will be shown in the Notes that the passages usually relied on (chap. vi. 9, 10; vii.; xi. 3, 8; xvii. 8, 11; and chap. i. 1, 3; xxii. 7, 20) are susceptible of an easy and satisfactory explanation on the supposition that the book was written in the time of Domitian, or after the destruction of Jerusalem. See also Editor’s Preface.

§ III.—The Place where the Book was Written.

The book itself purports (chap. i. 9) to have been written in the island of Patmos, where the writer says he was “for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ;” that is, clearly, where he had been banished for his attachment to the Saviour. For an account of this island, see Notes on chap. i. 9. The only question that has ever been raised on this point is, whether this was a reality, or a poetical fiction—that is, whether the writer in his visions merely seemed to have been transferred to the place, and this was made the imaginary scene of the vision. The latter supposition has been entertained by Eichhorn in his Introduction to the New Testament (1810), and by some other writers.

In favour, however, of understanding this as a literal fact, the following considerations may be suggested:—

1. The clear statement of the writer himself (chap. i. 9)—a statement that should be received as literally true, unless there is something in the character of the composition, or some intrinsic improbability in the case, to set it aside. If the composition were avowedly fictitious or poetical, then it would be understood that such a statement was not to be received literally. And thus, in a prophetic record, it might be clear that it was a mere visionary representation, in which the prophet seemed to be transported to some place where there would be no danger of misunderstanding it. Undoubtedly, on this principle, some of the visions of Ezekiel and Jeremiah are to be regarded as located at some place remote from that where the prophet was; and thus many of the visions in this book are located in heaven or elsewhere. But these cases are wholly different from the statement in chap. i. 9. Patmos is not represented as the mere scene of a vision. The statement occurs in a plain prose narrative, and there is no intrinsic improbability that it is true.

2. This accords with the representation of history, and with the probabilities of the case, that John was actually banished to Patmos in a time of persecution. See § II. On this point the representations of history are uniform, and they are such, that if a writer had designed to forge a book in the name of John, he would, in all probability, have fixed on Patmos as the scene of the vision, from the fact that he was actually banished there.

3. If Patmos was merely a fictitious place, why should John select it? What was there in that island that would have occurred to him as a proper place to be the scene of such visions? It was little known; it had no sacred associations; it had never been represented as a place visited by the Most High, and it had no particular relation to the scenes which are referred to. One born in Judea, and trained under the influence of the Hebrew religion; one who was a disciple of Christ, and who had witnessed the scene of the transfiguration or the ascension, would have been much more likely to select Sinai, Carmel, Hermon, Tabor, or Olivet, as the scene where the visions were to be laid. These were consecrated spots. On these God had manifested himself in a peculiar manner; had conversed with men, and had given glorious exhibitions of his character and plans. Why should not one of these spots—any one of them in itself is as well adapted to be the scene of such visions as the lonely isle of Patmos—have been selected? Why was a Grecian island chosen—a place not once named in all the sacred writings, and so small and so desolate as to have been almost entirely, before this, unknown even in the heathen world?

4. All the circumstances have the aspect of reality. It was a real persecution to which the writer refers, and it was a real affliction which he was experiencing, and the concinnity of the passage requires us to understand this as a real transfer to a lonely island. If that were a mere vision, then we should be required also to understand the statement that he was “a companion of others in tribulation” as a vision also, and his affliction as an account of an ideal transfer to that island. But this is contrary to the spirit of the passage in chap. i. 9; and the whole, therefore, should be understood as the statement of a literal fact.

These considerations are sufficient to show, that the common opinion, that the visions were seen in the island of Patmos, has every probability in its favour, and should be received as correct. Whether the record was actually made on that island, or was made afterwards, is a point on which no light can be observed, and which is of no importance. From such passages, however, as those in chap. x. 4; xiv. 13; xix. 9; and xxi. 5, it would seem probable that the record was made as soon as the visions were seen, and that the book was actually written in Patmos.

§ IV.—The Nature and Design of the Book.

This must be learned from an examination of the book itself, and the views entertained on this point will be determined, in a great measure, by the principles which are adopted in interpreting it. From the examination which I have given of the book, and the methods of interpretation which I have adopted, it seems to me that the matter and design of the book may be expressed in the following specifications:—

1. It was composed in a time of persecution, and in view of the persecutions and hostilities, external and internal, to which the church was then, and would be exposed. Christianity was then in its infancy. It was comparatively feeble. It encountered the opposition of the world. The arm of the civil power was raised to crush it. It was also exposed to the attacks of internal foes, and persecutions would arise from its own bosom, and formidable enemies in future times would seem to endanger its very existence. Heresies, and divisions, and corruptions of doctrine and of practice, might be expected to exist in its own bosom; times of conflict and darkness would come; changes would occur in governments that would deeply affect the welfare of the church; and there might be periods when it would seem to be doubtful whether the true church would not become wholly extinct. The faith of Christians was, doubtless, sorely tried in the persecution which existed when the book was written, and would be in like manner often sorely tried in the corruptions and persecutions of future ages.

2. The Apocalypse is designed to meet this state of feeling by furnishing the assurance that the gospel would ultimately prevail; that all its enemies would be subdued, and the kingdom of the Messiah set up over all the world. It was intended to impart consolation to the people of God in all ages, and in all forms of persecution and trial, by the assurance that the true religion would be at last triumphant, thus furnishing an illustration of the truth of the declarations of the Saviour respecting the church, that the “gates of hell should not prevail against it,” Mat. xvi. 18. Hence everything in the book tends to the final triumph of the gospel; and hence at the close (chap. xx.), we have the assurance of its far-spread diffusion over the earth, for a period of a thousand years, and (chap. xxi., xxii.) a graphic view of the state of the redeemed when they shall be delivered from sin and woe, and when all tears shall be wiped away from their eyes.

3. The method of doing this is by giving a rapid glance at the great events of history, bearing on the church in all coming times, till it should be triumphant; or by sketching a bold outline of the principal things that would serve to endanger the church, and the principal divine interpositions in behalf of the church, until its triumph should be secured upon the earth. This might have been done by direct statement, or by plain and positive assertion, as it was by many of the prophets; but the end, in this case, would be better secured by a glance at future history, in such a way, that while the great fact of the final triumph of the gospel would be kept before the church, there might be furnished a clear demonstration, in the end, of the divine origin and inspiration of the book itself. This latter object, indeed, would have been in fact accomplished by a plain declaration, but it would be best accomplished by such details as would show that the whole course of events was comprehended by the Holy Spirit—the real author of the whole. A general view of these details may be seen, according to the principles which I have adopted in the interpretation of the work, in the Analysis at the close of the Introduction, § V.

4. The method in which this is mainly done in this book is by pictures or symbols; for, above all the other books in the Bible, the Apocalypse is characterized by this method of representation, and it may eminently be called a book of symbols. It is this which has made it appear to be so obscure; and this particularly which has given occasion for so great a variety in the methods of interpreting it—for there is no kind of representation that furnishes occasion for so much fanciful interpretation as that of symbolical writing. The true principle of interpreting symbolical language has been hitherto little understood, and consequently every writer has indulged his own fancy in affixing such a meaning to the symbol as he chose. The result has been, that there has been no generally admitted principle of interpretation respecting this book, and that the variety of conjectures indulged, and the wild and vain theories advanced, have produced the impression that the book is not susceptible of a plain and sensible exposition. A very common belief is, that symbolical language must, from the nature of the case, be obscure and unintelligible, and that a book, written in the manner of the Apocalypse, must always be liable to the wild vagaries of imagination which have been so commonly exhibited in the attempts to explain this book. These considerations make it proper to offer a few remarks here about the nature of symbolical language, and on the question whether a book written in that language is necessarily unintelligible, or incapable of a plausible interpretation.

A symbol is properly a representation of any moral thing by the images or properties of natural things. Thus a circle is a symbol of eternity, as having neither beginning nor end; an eye is a symbol of wisdom; a lion, of courage; a lamb, of meekness and gentleness. This general idea of symbols is found in types, enigmas, parables, fables, allegories, emblems, hieroglyphics, &c. The symbols mostly used in the book of Revelation are pictures, and could be painted—and, indeed, a great part of the book could be represented in a panorama, and would constitute a series of the most splendid drawings that the world can conceive. The following remarks may throw some light on the reason why this mode of representation was adopted, and on the question whether a book written in this manner is necessarily unintelligible.

(a) This method of representation is not uncommon in the ancient prophecies. A considerable portion of Daniel and Ezekiel is written in this way; and it is often resorted to by Isaiah and the other prophets. It was a method of representation which accorded well with the warm and glowing imagination of the Orientals, and with the character of mind in the early periods of the world. It was supposed to be capable of conveying ideas of important events, although it was doubtless understood that there might be some degree of obscurity in the representation, and that study and ingenuity might be requisite in understanding it—as is always the case with parables and enigmas. We have frequent instances in the Bible of a certain kind of trial of skill in expounding dark sayings and riddles, when the sense was intentionally so conveyed as to demand acuteness of thought in the explanation. The utterance of truths in symbolic language accorded much with this prevailing bent of mind in the ancient and the oriental world—as we see in the symbolical representations in Egypt. If the use of symbols, therefore, in the Apocalypse be urged as an objection to the book, the objection would lie with equal force against no small part of the writings of the ancient Hebrew prophets, and against a method of writing which was actually in extensive use in the early ages of the world. To object to it, must be to object that our own methods and views were not the views and methods of all past ages; that the improved modes of communication in existence now were not in existence always.

(b) Such a method of representation may be, however, clear and intelligible. The purpose of prophecy does not require that there should be in all cases an explicit statement of what will occur, or a particular detail of names, dates, and circumstances—for if such a statement were made, it is plain that it would be possible, on the one hand, for an impostor so to shape his conduct as to seem to fulfil the prophecy, and, on the other, for wicked men, knowing exactly what was predicted, to prevent its fulfilment. All that is demanded in such predictions is, (1) such a statement as undoubtedly refers to the future event; (2) such a statement as, when fairly interpreted, describes such an event; and (3) such a statement as that, when the event occurs, it shall be clear that this was the event referred to, or that the prediction cannot properly be referred to any other event; that is, so that they shall compare with each other as the two parts of a tally do. Now, that symbolical language may have these characteristics, and may be in these respects sufficiently clear and plain, is evident from the following considerations:—

1. A picture may be a correct representation of an event. It was thus among the Mexicans, who, by means of pictures, were enabled to give a correct representation of the landing of the Spaniards, and to convey to their monarch a correct idea of the number and character of the Spanish forces.

The following extract from Dr. Robertson’s History of America, book v., § xii., referring to the landing of the Spaniards in Mexico, will illustrate this:—“During this interview [an interview between Cortes and the ambassadors of Montezuma], some painters in the train of the Mexican chiefs had been diligently employed in delineating, upon white cotton cloths, figures of the ships, the horses, the artillery, the soldiers, and whatever else attracted their eyes as singular. When Cortes observed this, and was informed that these pictures were to be sent to Montezuma, in order to convey to him a more lively idea of the strange and wonderful objects now presented to their view than any words could communicate, he resolved to render the representation still more animated and interesting, by exhibiting such a spectacle as might give both them and their monarch an awful impression of the extraordinary prowess of his followers, and the irresistible force of their arms.”

2. A symbol may be as definite in its signification as the arbitrary character which constitutes a letter with us, or the arbitrary character which denotes a syllable or a word with the Chinese. There is some reason to believe that the letters in most languages were at first pictures or symbols; but whether this is true or not, it is easy to conceive that such might have been the case, and that as definite ideas might have been attached to the symbols employed as to the arbitrary marks or signs. Thus, it is easy to suppose that a circle, a lion, an eagle, a horse, a banner, an axe, a lamb, might have been so employed as always to denote the same thing, in the same way as the letters of the alphabet do, and thus, consequently, the number of symbols employed might have been very numerous, though still retaining their definite character.

3. The truth of these remarks has been illustrated by the recent investigations of the symbolical language or hieroglyphical signs in Egypt. On the celebrated Rosetta stone, an inscription was found in three compartments of the stone, in three different languages—the first in hieroglyphical or symbolical language, the language used by the priests; the second in enchorical or demotic language—the language in common use among the Egyptian people; and the third in Greek. It was conjectured that the inscription in each language was the same, and that consequently there might be a key for explaining the symbols or the hieroglyphics so common in Egypt. Acting on this suggestion, Champollion was enabled to read the inscription in the Egyptian language, and to determine the meaning of the symbols in so common use in the ancient inscriptions, and the symbolical language of Egypt became as intelligible as other ancient forms of record—as it was undoubtedly when it was at first employed. Each of the symbols had a well-known signification, and was adapted to convey a definite idea. An account of this stone, and of the symbols of Egypt generally, may be seen in Gliddon’s Ancient Egypt, chap. i. The symbols employed by the Hebrew prophets may have had, as used by them, as definite a meaning, and may be as susceptible of as clear an interpretation now, as the symbols employed in Egypt, or as any other language. The only real difficulty in interpreting them may have arisen from the fact that they referred to future events (see Notes on Rev. xvi. 12); the employment of such methods of writing was in accordance with the genius of the Orientals, and gave great poetic beauty to their compositions.

4. It should be added, however, that peculiar care is necessary in the interpretation of writings of this character. There is much room for the indulgence of the imagination, and facts have shown that in almost nothing has so much indulgence been given to the fancy as in the interpretation of such books as Daniel and the Apocalypse. Indeed, the explanations of these books have been so loose and wild, as, with many, to bring the whole science of interpretation of the prophecies into contempt, and to produce the very common impression that a rational and consistent exposition of such books as Daniel and the Apocalypse is impossible. A better mode of interpretation, it is hoped, however, is to prevail—a mode in which there will be more careful attention to the true meaning of symbols and to the proper laws of symbolic language. The true method may not have been reached, and many errors may occur before it shall be reached. For many ages the meaning of the Egyptian hieroglyphics was entirely unknown. Thousands of conjectures had been made as to the method of reading those symbols; vast ingenuity had been exhausted; the hope was sometimes entertained that the clue had been discovered, but it was at last felt that all those proposed methods were fanciful, and the world had settled down in despair as to the possibility of deciphering their meaning. The accidental discovery of the Rosetta stone, and the patient labours of De Sacy, Akerblad, Tychsen, and especially of Champollion, have changed the views of the world on that subject, and the hieroglyphics of Egypt have become as intelligible as any other language. It is possible that the same may be true in regard to the meaning of the symbols of the sacred prophets; and that although those of Daniel and John may have seemed to be as obscure as those of Egypt, and although the most wild and extravagant opinions may have been entertained in regard to their meaning, yet the time may come when those books shall take their place among the well-understood portions of the Bible, and when the correspondence of the predictions couched under these symbols with the events shall be so clear, that there shall be no lingering doubt on any mind that they are a part of the divine communications to mankind. Whether this attempt to explain one of those books will contribute anything to a better understanding of the true meaning of the symbolical language employed by the prophets, must be submitted to the judgment of the reader.

§ V.—The Plan of the Apocalypse.

The book of Revelation may be regarded as divided into seven portions, embracing the following general points:—The introduction, chap. i.; the epistles to the seven churches, chap. ii., iii.; the preparatory vision, chap. iv.; the relation of the church to the external world, embracing the outward or secular aspect of things as bearing on the church, chap. v.‒xi. 1‒18; the internal state of the church, embracing the rise and destiny of Antichrist—or, the internal history of the church until the overthrow of that formidable power and the permanent and triumphant establishment of the kingdom of Christ, the last temporary apostasy, and the general judgment, chap. xi. 19; xii.‒xx.; the final condition of the righteous in their state of triumph and glory, chap. xxi., xxii. 1‒5; and the epilogue or conclusion, chap. xxii. 6‒21. This plan, as pursued in this attempt to explain the book, may be seen more in detail in the Analysis on the following pages.

ANALYSIS
OF THE
BOOK OF REVELATION
OF ST. JOHN.

SHOWING THE DESIGN AND ARGUMENT OF THE BOOK

General Introduction, Chap. i.
1. The title and design of the book, chap. i. 1‒3.
2. Dedication to the seven churches of Asia, chap. i. 4‒8.
3. Vision of the Redeemer, chap. i. 9‒18.
4. Commission to write to the seven churches, chap. i. 19, 20.
Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia, Chap. ii. iii.
1. Epistle to the church at Ephesus, chap. ii. 1‒7.
2. Epistle to the church at Smyrna, chap. ii. 8‒11.
3. Epistle to the church at Pergamos, chap. ii. 12‒17.
4. Epistle to the church at Thyatira, chap. ii. 18‒29.
5. Epistle to the church at Sardis, chap. iii. 1‒6.
6. Epistle to the church at Philadelphia, chap. iii. 7‒13.
7. Epistle to the church at Laodicea, chap. iii. 14‒22.
Preparatory Vision, Chap. iv.
1. The scene laid in heaven, chap. iv. 1, 2.
2. The vision of God, of the elders, and of the living creatures, ch. iv. 3‒8.
3. The worship rendered to God, chap. iv. 9‒11.
The external relations of the Church—the relation to secular affairs—political changes and revolutions, as bearing on the Church, Chap. v.‒xi. 1‒18.
1. The Sealed book, containing the record of these events, in the hand of him that sat on the throne. The Lamb of God only could open it. The joy in heaven that one was found who could open the seals, chap. v.
2. The opening of the seals
  1. The opening of the first seal, chap. vi. 1, 2.
    The white horse.—Peace, prosperity, and triumph, fulfilled in the state of the Roman empire from the death of Domitian, A.D. 96, to the accession of Commodus, A.D. 180.
  2. The opening of the second seal, chap. vi. 3, 4.
    The red horse.—Bloodshed, discord, civil strife; fulfilled in the state of the Roman empire from the death of Commodus, A.D. 193, and onward.
  3. The opening of the third seal, chap. vi. 5, 6.
    The black horse.—Calamity, distress, want, trouble; fulfilled in the Roman empire, in the scarcity of food that prevailed; the excessive taxation; the special order not to destroy the olive-yards and vine-yards; the sources of revenue, in the time of Caracalla, A.D. 211, and onward.
  4. The opening of the fourth seal, chap. vi. 7, 8.
    The pale horse.—The reign of death, in the form of famine, pestilence, disease; fulfilled in the Roman empire in the bloodshed, famine, and pestilence that prevailed in the time of Decius, Gallus, Æmilianus, Valerian, and Gallianus, A.D. 243‒268.
  5. The opening of the fifth seal, chap. vi. 9‒11.
    The martyrs.—Fulfilled in the Roman empire in the persecutions, particularly in the time of Diocletian, A.D. 284‒304; the last of the efforts in the Pagan world to extinguish the Christian name.
  6. The opening of the sixth seal, chap. vi. 12‒17.
    Consternation and alarm as if the world was coming to an end; fulfilled in the Roman empire in the threatening invasions of the Goths in the neighbourhood of the Danube, pressed on by the Huns, and producing universal alarm and consternation, A.D. 365, and onwards.
    
    Intermediate vision between the opening of the sixth and seventh seals. A view of the persecution of the church, and the glory of the saints in heaven, designed to sustain the mind in the midst of so much gloom, and to furnish the assurance that innumerable multitudes of men would be brought to glory, chap. vii.
    
    (a) The impending storm of wrath that seemed to threaten universal destruction is suspended in order that the servants of God might be sealed, chap. vii. 1‒3.
    
    (b) The sealing process, indicating the preservation of the church in these times of danger, and the influences that would designate and save the true people of God in all time to come, chap. vii. 4‒8.
    
    (c) A vision of an immense host before the throne, gathered out of all people and all lands, chap. vii. 9‒12.
    
    (d) A view of the martyrs who would be saved; a view designed to give comfort in the trials that would come upon the people of God in this world, chap. vii. 13, 14.
    
    (e) A view of the happiness of heaven, where all suffering will cease, and all tears be wiped away, chap. vii. 15‒17.
  7. The opening of the seventh seal, chap. viii.‒xi. 1‒18.
    Seven trumpets given to seven angels to sound, and the preparatory arrangements for sounding, chap. viii. 1‒6.
    
    Two series of events referring to the West and the East in the downfall of the Roman empire:—
  1. The West—to the fall of the Western empire—four trumpets.
    (1) The first trumpet sounded, chap. viii. 7.
    
    The invasion of the Roman empire by Alaric, king of the Goths, A.D. 395‒410.
    
    (2) The second trumpet sounded, chap. viii. 8, 9.
    
    The invasion of the Roman empire by Genseric, king of the Vandals, A.D. 428‒468.
    
    (3) The third trumpet sounded, chap. viii. 10, 11.
    
    The invasion of the Roman empire by Attila, king of the Huns, the “Scourge of God,” A.D. 433‒453.
    
    (4) The fourth trumpet sounded, chap. viii. 12, 13.
    
    The final conquest of Rome and the Western empire by Odoacer, king of the Heruli, A.D. 476‒490.
  2. The East—to the fall of the Eastern empire—two trumpets, chap. ix.
    (5) The fifth trumpet sounded, chap. ix. 1‒12.
    
    The Mahometans, or Saracens.
    
    (6) The sixth trumpet sounded, chap. ix. 13‒19.
    
    The Turkish power.
    
    The interval between the fall of the Eastern empire and the sounding of the seventh trumpet, chap. ix. 20; xi. 13:—
    
    (a) The result of these judgments, chap. ix. 20, 21.
    
    They produce no change in the moral condition of the world; fulfilled in the state of the Papal world after the conquest of Constantinople, and before the Reformation.
    
    (b) An angel is seen descending from heaven with emblems of majesty, joy, and peace, chap. x.; fulfilled in the Reformation:—
    
    (α) The angel with the rainbow on his head, and his face like the sun, a proper symbol of the Reformation as a work of peace, and accompanied with light and knowledge, chap. x. 1.
    
    (β) The little book in his hand, a symbol of the principal agent in the Reformation—a book—the Bible, chap. x. 2.
    
    (γ) His crying with a loud voice, symbolical of the Reformation as arresting the attention of the nations, chap. x. 3.
    
    (δ) The seven thunders—the anathemas of Papal Rome—the thunder of the seven-hilled city, chap. x. 3.
    
    (ε) The purpose of John to record what the seven thunders had uttered, and the command not to write; the mistake which the Reformers were in danger of making, by regarding the doctrine of the Papacy as the truth of God, chap. x. 4.
    
    (ζ) The solemn oath of the angel that the time predicted would not then occur, but would occur in the time when the seventh angel should sound, chap. x. 5‒7; fulfilled in the anticipations of the Reformers that the world was about to come to an end, and the reign of Christ about to commence, and the assurance of the angel that this would not then occur, but that a long and important interval must take place.
    
    (η) The command given to John to go and take the little book from the hand of the angel, chap. x. 8; fulfilled in the delivery of the Bible again to the church.
    
    (θ) The command to eat it, and the consequences—sweet in the mouth, and bitter to the belly, chap. x. 9, 10; the effect of the pure word of God on the soul indicated by the one; the bitter consequences, in persecution and opposition, that would result from the attempt to make the truth known to the world, indicated by the other.
    
    (ι) The assurance that he would yet prophesy before many people, and nations, and tongues, and kings, chap. x. 10; fulfilled in the restoration of preaching in the church, founded on the Bible, and in the immediate and ultimate influence of the Bible in making the gospel known to the world.
    
    (c) The measuring of the holy city, chap. xi. 1, 2; the determining of what constituted the true church at the time of the Reformation.
    
    (d) The two witnesses, chap. xi. 3‒13. Those who bore faithful testimony to the truth in all the corruptions of the church; their trials and their triumph; fulfilled in the succession of true and sincere Christians whom God raised up from time to time to testify to the truth. They would be persecuted, and many of them would be put to death; they would seem to be finally silenced, and would be treated with great indignity, as if their dead bodies should remain unburied; they would, however, come to life again, that is, at the time of the Reformation they would rise and testify against the corruptions of the Papacy, and would triumph as if they ascended visibly and gloriously to heaven.
    
    (7) The sounding of the seventh trumpet. The final triumph of the church, and the establishment of the kingdom of God in the overthrow of all its enemies, chap. xi. 14‒18. This ends the first series of visions; and this expresses in general terms what is drawn out more in detail in the next series of visions, Part V., embracing more particularly the rise and progress of Antichrist.
The Church internally—the rise of Antichrist, and the effect of that formidable power on the internal history of the Church, to the time of the overthrow of that great power, and the triumphant establishment of the kingdom of God, Chap. xi. 19; xii.‒xx.
1. General Introduction to this series of visions, Chap. xi. 19; xii.
  1. A new vision of the temple of God opened in heaven, chap. xi. 19.
  2. A representation of the church, under the image of a beautiful woman, chap. xii. 1.
  3. The particular thing designed to be represented—the church about to increase and to fill the world, chap. xii. 2.
  4. The deadly hostility of Satan to the church, and his purpose to destroy it, represented by a great red dragon waiting to destroy the man-child, chap. xii. 3, 4.
  5. The ultimate safety of the church, represented by the child caught up to heaven, chap. xii. 5.
  6. The fact that the church would be a long time obscure and hidden—represented by the woman fleeing into the wilderness, chap. xii. 6.
  7. A scenic representation of the great contest going on in the universe about the church—represented by a conflict in heaven between Michael, the protector of the church, with his angels, and Satan, the great enemy of the church, with his angels, chap. xii. 7.
  8. The ultimate discomfiture of Satan, represented by his being overcome and cast out of heaven, chap. xii. 8, 9.
  9. A song of victory in view of this triumph, chap. xii. 10, 11.
  10. The fact that Satan would be allowed, for a limited time, to persecute the church, chap. xii. 12, 13.
  11. The church in the wilderness, chap. xii. 14‒17.
    (a) The church would be driven into obscurity, like a woman fleeing into a desert—representing the condition of the church while the Papacy should have the ascendency, ver. 14.
    
    (b) The church would still be preserved, though in obscurity—represented by the woman nourished by some unseen power, ver. 14.
    
    (c) Satan would still rage against the church—represented by the dragon pouring forth a flood of waters to overwhelm the woman, ver. 15.
    
    (d) The church would be protected, as if the earth should open its mouth to swallow up the water—representing the interpositions from an unexpected quarter in delivering the church from its perils, ver. 16.
    
    (e) The wrath of Satan against the remnant—representing the attempts of the Papacy to cut off individuals when open and general persecution no longer raged, ver. 17.
2. The two beasts, representing the great persecuting power in the church, Chap. xiii.
  1. The first beast, representing the Roman civil or secular power that sustained the Papacy in its career of persecution, chap. xiii. 1‒10.
  2. The second beast, representing the Papal ecclesiastical power, giving life to the former, and perpetuating its influence on the earth, chap. xiii. 11‒18.
3. A representation designed, under a succession of symbols, to cheer and sustain the church in its present and prospective trials, with the assurance of its final triumph, and the ultimate destruction of all its foes, Chap. xiv.
  1. A vision of the redeemed in heaven, triumphant and rejoicing, ver. 1‒5.
  2. The ultimate spread of the gospel through all the world, ver. 6, 7.
  3. The fall of Babylon, the great Antichristian power, ver. 8.
  4. The final overthrow of all the upholders of that Antichristian power, ver. 9‒12.
  5. The blessed state of those who should die in the Lord in any time, whether of persecution or peace, ver. 13.
  6. The consummation of all things—the final triumph of the church, and the overthrow of the wicked, ver. 14‒20:—
    (a) The great harvest of the world by the Son of God—the gathering in of the righteous, ver. 14‒16.
    
    (b) The final overthrow and destruction of the wicked, ver. 17‒20.
4. Preparation for the final judgment on the beast and his image, Chap. xv.
  1. A new wonder is seen in heaven; seven angels appear, having the seven last plagues, to fill up or complete the wrath of God, ver. 1.
  2. Those who in former times had suffered from persecution by the power represented by the beast, but who, in the midst of trial and temptation, had maintained their faith steadfast, now appear to celebrate with a song of victory the prospective downfall of the great foe, ver. 2‒4.
  3. Arrangements made for executing the wrath of God. The temple is open in heaven; seven angels come out having the seven last plagues; one of the four living creatures gives command to them to go and execute the divine purpose, presenting seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God; the temple is forthwith filled with smoke, preventing all access to the mercy-seat, and indicating that the divine purpose was inexorable, ver. 5‒8.
5. The execution of the purpose, Chap. xvi.
  1. The first vial, ver. 1, 2. The first blow struck on the Papacy in the French Revolution.
  2. The second vial, ver. 3. The scenes of blood and carnage in that Revolution.
  3. The third vial, ver. 4‒7. The calamities brought by the French invasions upon the countries where the most bloody persecutions had been waged—the north of Italy.
  4. The fourth vial, ver. 8, 9. The overturning of the governments that sustained the Papal power, in the wars consequent on the French Revolution.
  5. The fifth vial, ver. 10, 11. The direct assault on the Papal power; the capture of the pope himself, and the temporary entire subjugation of Rome by the French arms.
  6. The sixth vial, ver. 12‒16. The decline of the Turkish power; the rapid extension of the gospel in the East; the rallying of the strength of Paganism, Mahometanism, and Romanism—represented by the three frogs that came out of the mouth of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet: the preparation of those powers as if for some great conflict, and the decisive struggle between the church and its foes, as if the issue were staked on a single battle—in Armageddon.
  7. The seventh vial, ver. 17‒21. The complete and final overthrow of the Papal power, as if in a tremendous storm of hail, lightning, and thunder, accompanied with an earthquake.
6. A particular description of the judgment on this formidable Antichristian power, under a new image of a harlot (Chap. xvii.) in the form of an explanatory Episode.
  1. Introduction to the Episode; the vision of the woman sitting on many waters, ver. 1‒3.
  2. A particular description of the Antichristian power referred to, under the image of an abandoned and gaily-attired woman, ver. 3‒6.
  3. A particular explanation of what is designed to be represented by the image of the scarlet-coloured woman, ver. 7‒18:—
    (a) The angel promises to explain it, ver. 7.
    
    (b) A symbolical representation of the design of the vision, ver. 8‒14.
    
    (c) A more literal statement of what is meant, ver. 15‒18. The whole designed to characterize Papal Rome, and to describe the manner of its rise and the means of its ultimate destruction.
7. A description of the effect of that judgment in pouring out the seventh vial on that formidable Antichristian power, under the image of a rich and luxurious city; a further explanatory Episode, Ch. xviii.
  1. A vision of an angel coming from heaven, ver. 1‒3.
  2. A warning voice calling on the people of God to come out of the mystical Babylon, and not to partake of her sin and her doom, ver. 4‒8.
  3. Lamentation over her fate:—
    (a) By kings, that had lived delicately with her, ver. 9, 10.
    
    (b) By merchants that had been enriched by her, ver. 11‒17.
    
    (c) By mariners that had trafficked with her, ver. 17‒19.
  4. Rejoicing over her fate, ver. 20.
  5. The final destruction of the mystical Babylon—the Papal power—represented by a millstone cast by an angel into the sea, ver. 21‒24.
8. A further episodical representatation of the effects that would result from the fall of the powers that opposed the reign of the Son of God and the introduction of the Millennium, with an account of the final destruction of these powers, Chap. xix.
  1. A hymn of the heavenly hosts in view of the destruction of the mystical Babylon, ver. 1‒7:—
    (a) A voice of many people in heaven, shouting Hallelujah, ver. 1, 2.
    
    (b) The sound echoed and repeated as the smoke of her torment ascends, ver. 3.
    
    (c) The four and twenty elders, and the four living creatures unite in the song, ver. 4.
    
    (d) A voice heard commanding them to praise God, ver. 5.
    
    (e) The mighty shout of Hallelujah echoed and repeated from unnumbered hosts, ver. 6, 7.
  2. The marriage of the Lamb as the reason of this increased joy, ver. 8, 9.
  3. John, overcome with this scene, and filled with rapturous joy in view of the final triumphs of the church, prostrates himself before the angel to worship him, ver. 10.
  4. The final conquest over the beast and the false prophet, ver. 11‒21:—
    (a) A description of the conqueror—the Son of God—as he goes forth to victory, attended by the armies of heaven, ver. 11‒16.
    
    (b) An angel is seen standing in the sun, calling on all the fowls of heaven to come to the great feast prepared for them in the destruction of the enemies of God, ver. 17, 18.
    
    (c) The final war, ver. 19‒21. The beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gather together for the battle; the beast and the false prophet taken, and cast into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone; the remainder of the enemies of the church slain. The last enemy of the church on earth is destroyed, and the way is prepared for its universal triumph.
9. The Millennial period and the final judgment, Ch. xx.
  1. The binding of Satan, ver. 1‒3.
  2. The Millennium, ver. 4‒6. Thrones are placed as if there were to be a judgment; the spirit of the martyrs and saints is revived again as if they were raised from the dead, and lived again on the earth; Satan is confined, and the church enjoys a state of repose and prosperity, for the period of a thousand years.
  3. The release of Satan for a little time. ver. 7, 8. After the thousand years are expired, he is permitted to go forth again among the nations, and to awaken a new form of hostility to Christ and the church.
  4. The final overthrow, subjugation, and punishment of Satan and those opposing hosts, and the final triumph, therefore, of the church, ver. 9, 10.
  5. The final judgment on all mankind, ver. 11‒15. All the dead are raised; the sea gives up its dead; Death and Hades give up their dead, and a solemn and just judgment is pronounced on all mankind, and the wicked are consigned to the lake of fire.
The final condition of the righteous—the state of future blessedness, Chap. xxi.; xxii. 1‒5.
1. A vision of the new heavens and new earth, as the final abode of the righteous, chap. xxi. 1.
2. That blessed future abode represented under the image of a beautiful city descending from heaven, chap. xxi. 2‒4.
3. A particular description of the city, as the final abode of the righteous; its general appearance, its walls, its gates, its foundations, its size, its light, its inmates, &c., chap. xxi. 9‒27; xxii. 1‒5
The epilogue, or conclusion, Chap.. xxii. 6‒20.
1. A solemn declaration that the things revealed in this book are true, ver. 6, 7.
2. The effect of those revelations on John, ver. 8, 9.
3. A command not to seal up what had been revealed, ver. 10.
4. The unchangeable condition of the righteous and the wicked in the future state, ver. 14, 15.
5. The blessedness of those who have a right to enter into the Holy City, ver. 15.
6. Jesus declares himself to be the author of all these revelations, ver. 16.
7. The free invitations of the gospel to all men, ver. 17.
8. A solemn injunction not to change anything that had been written in this book, ver. 18, 19.
9. The assurance of the Saviour that he would come quickly, and the joyous assent of John to this, and prayer that it might occur, ver. 20.
10. The benediction, ver. 21.

THE
REVELATION OF ST. JOHN THE DIVINE.

CHAPTER I.

T HE Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ. This is evidently a title or caption of the whole book, and is designed to comprise the substance of the whole; for all that the book contains would be embraced in the general declaration that it is a revelation of Jesus Christ. The word rendered Revelation—Ἀποκάλυψις, whence we have derived our word Apocalypse—means properly an uncovering; that is, nakedness; from ἀποκαλύπτω, to uncover. It would apply to anything which had been covered up so as to be hidden from the view, as by a veil, a darkness, in an ark or chest, and then made manifest by removing the covering. It comes then to be used in the sense of disclosing or revealing, by removing the veil of darkness or ignorance. “There is nothing covered that shall not be revealed.” It may be applied to the disclosing or manifesting of anything which was before obscure or unknown. This may be done—(a) By instruction in regard to that which was before obscure; that is, by statements of what was unknown before the statements were made; as in Lu. ii. 32, where it is said that Christ would be “a light to lighten the Gentiles”—φῶς εἰς ἀποκάλυψις ἐθνῶν; or when it is applied to the divine mysteries, purposes, or doctrines, before obscure or unknown, but made clear by light revealed in the gospel, Ro. xvi. 25; 1 Co. ii. 10; xiv. 6; Ep. iii. 5. (b) By the event itself; as the manifestation of the wrath of God at the day of judgment will disclose the true nature of his wrath. “After thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,” Ro. ii. 5. “For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation (Gr. revelation) of the sons of God,” Ro. viii. 19; that is, till it shall be manifest by the event what they who are the children of God are to be. In this sense the word is frequently applied to the second advent or appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ, as disclosing him in his glory, or showing what he truly is; “When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed,” 2 Th. i. 7—ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει—in the revelation of Jesus Christ; “Waiting for the coming (the revelation—τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν) of our Lord Jesus Christ,” 1 Co. i. 7; “At the appearing (Gr. revelation) of Jesus Christ,” 1 Pe. i. 7; “When his glory shall be revealed,” 1 Pe. iv. 13. (c) It is used in the sense of making known what is to come, whether by words, signs, or symbols, as if a veil were lifted from that which is hidden from human vision, or which is covered by the darkness of the unknown future. This is called a revelation, because the knowledge of the event is in fact made known to the world by Him who alone can see it, and in such a manner as he pleases to employ; though many of the terms or the symbols may be, from the necessity of the case, obscure, and though their full meaning may be disclosed only by the event. It is in this sense, evidently, that the word is used here; and in this sense that it is more commonly employed when we speak of a revelation. Thus the word גָּלָה (gâlâ) is used in Am. iii. 7, “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants.” So Job xxxiii. 16, “Then he openeth (marg. revealeth or uncovereth; Heb. יִגְלֶה) the ears of men;” that is, in a dream, he discloses to their ears his truth before concealed or unknown. Comp. Da. ii. 22, 28, 29; x. 1; De. xxix. 29. These ideas enter into the word as used in the passage before us. The idea is that of a disclosure of an extraordinary character, beyond the mere ability of man, by a special communication from heaven. This is manifest, not only from the usual meaning of this word, but by the word prophecy, in ver. 3, and by all the arrangements by which these things were made known. The ideas which would be naturally conveyed by the use of this word in this connection are two: (1), that there was something which was before hidden, obscure, or unknown; and, (2), that this was so disclosed by these communications as to be seen or known. The things hidden or unknown were those which pertained to the future; the method of disclosing them was mainly by symbols. In the Greek, in this passage, the article is wanting—ἀποκάλυψις—a Revelation, not ἡ, the Revelation. This is omitted because it is the title of a book, and because the use of the article might imply that this was the only revelation, excluding other books claiming to be a revelation; or it might imply some previous mention of the book, or knowledge of it in the reader. The simple meaning is, that this was “a Revelation;” it was only a part of the revelation which God has given to mankind.

The phrase, “the Revelation of Jesus Christ,” might, so far as the construction of the language is concerned, refer either to Christ as the subject or object. It might either mean that Christ is the object revealed in this book, and that its great purpose is to make him known, and so the phrase is understood in the commentary called Hyponoia (New York, 1844); or it may mean that this is a revelation which Christ makes to mankind, that is, it is his in the sense that he communicates it to the world. That this latter is the meaning here is clear, (1), because it is expressly said in this verse that it was a revelation which God gave to him; (2), because it is said that it pertains to things which must shortly come to pass; and, (3), because, in fact, the revelation is a disclosure of events which were to happen, and not of the person or work of the Lord Jesus Christ. ¶ Which God gave unto him. Which God imparted or communicated to Jesus Christ. This is in accordance with the representations everywhere made in the Scriptures, that God is the original fountain of truth and knowledge, and that, whatever was the original dignity of the Son of God, there was a mediatorial dependence on the Father. See Jn. v. 19, 20, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for whatsoever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him (δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ) all things that himself doeth.” “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me,” Jn. vii. 16. “As my Father hath taught me (ἐδίδαξε με), I speak these things,” Jn. viii. 28. “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak,” Jn. xii. 49. See also Jn. xiv. 10; xvii. 7, 8; Mat. xi. 27; Mar. xiii. 32. The same mediatorial dependence the apostle teaches us still subsists in heaven in his glorified state, and will continue until he has subdued all things (1 Co. xv. 24‒28); and hence, even in that state, he is represented as receiving the Revelation from the Father to communicate it to men. ¶ To show unto his servants. That is, to his people, to Christians, often represented as the servants of God or of Christ, 1 Pe. ii. 16; Re. ii. 20; vii. 3; xix. 2; xxii. 3. It is true that the word is sometimes applied, by way of eminence, to the prophets (1 Ch. vi. 49; Da. vi. 20), and to the apostles (Ro. i. 1; Ga. i. 10; Phi. i. 1; Tit. i. 1; Ja. i. 1); but it is also applied to the mass of Christians, and there is no reason why it should not be so understood here. The book was sent to the churches of Asia, and was clearly designed for general use; and the contents of the book were evidently intended for the churches of the Redeemer in all ages and lands. Comp. ver. 3. The word rendered to show (δεῖξαι) commonly denotes to point out, to cause to see, to present to the sight, and is a word eminently appropriate here, as what was to be revealed was, in general, to be presented to the sight by sensible tokens or symbols. ¶ Things which must shortly come to pass. Not all the things that will occur, but such as it was deemed of importance for his people to be made acquainted with. Nor is it certainly implied that all the things that are communicated would shortly come to pass, or would soon occur. Some of them might perhaps lie in the distant future, and still it might be true that there were those which were revealed in connection with them, which soon would occur. The word rendered “things” (ἅ) is a pronoun, and might be rendered what; “he showed to his servants what things were about to occur,” not implying that he showed all the things that would happen, but such as he judged to be needful that his people should know. The word would naturally embrace those things which, in the circumstances, were most desirable to be known. The phrase rendered “must come to pass” (δεῖ γενέσθαι), would imply more than mere futurity. The word used (δεῖ) means it needs, there is need of, and implies that there is some kind of necessity that the event should occur. That necessity may either arise from the felt want of anything, as where it is absent or wanting, Xen. Cyr. iv. 10; ib. vii. 5, 9; or from the nature of the case, or from a sense of duty, as Mat. xvi. 21, “Jesus began to show to his disciples that he must go (δεῖ ἀπελθεῖν) to Jerusalem” (comp. Mat. xxvi. 35; Mar. xiv. 31; Lu. ii. 49); or the necessity may exist, because a thing is right and just, meaning that it ought to be done, as Lu. xiii. 14, “There are six days in which men ought to work” (δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι). “And ought not this woman (οὐκ ἴδει), whom Satan hath bound, &c., be loosed from this bond,” Lu. xiii. 16 (comp. Mar. xiii. 14; Jn. iv. 20; Ac. v. 11, 29; 2 Ti. ii. 6; Mat. xviii. 33; xxv. 27); or the necessity may be that it is conformable to the divine arrangement, or is made necessary by divine appointment, as in Jn. iii. 14, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must (δεῖ) the Son of man be lifted up.” “For as yet they knew not the Scriptures, that he must (δεῖ) rise again from the dead,” Jn. xx. 9; comp. Ac. iv. 12; xiv. 22, et al. In the passage before us, it is implied that there was some necessity that the things referred to should occur. They were not the result of chance, they were not fortuitous. It is not, however, stated what was the ground of the necessity; whether because there was a want of something to complete a great arrangement, or because it was right and proper in existing circumstances, or because such was the divine appointment. They were events which, on some account, must certainly occur, and which, therefore, it was important should be made known. The real ground of the necessity, probably, was founded in the design of God in redemption. He intended to carry out his great plans in reference to his church, and the things revealed here must necessarily occur in the completion of that design. The phrase rendered shortly (ἐν τάχει) is one whose meaning has been much controverted, and on which much has been made to depend in the interpretation of the whole book. The question has been whether the phrase necessarily implies that the events referred to were soon to occur, or whether it may have such an extent of meaning as to admit the supposition that the events referred to, though beginning soon, would embrace in their development far distant years, and would reach the end of all things. Those who maintain, as Professor Stuart, that the book was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and that the portion in ch. iv.‒xi. has special reference to Jerusalem and Judea, and the portion in ch. xii.‒xix. to persecuting and heathen Rome, maintain the former opinion; those who suppose that ch. iv.‒xi. refers to the irruption of Northern barbarians in the Roman empire, and ch. xii., seq., to the rise and the persecutions of the Papal power, embrace the latter opinion. All that is proper in this place is, without reference to any theory of interpretation, to inquire into the proper meaning of the language, or to ascertain what idea it would naturally convey. (a) The phrase properly and literally means, with quickness, swiftness, speed; that is, speedily, quickly, shortly (Rob. Lex.; Stuart, in loco). It is the same in meaning as ταχέως. Comp. 1 Co. iv. 19, “But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will.” “Go out quickly into the streets,” Lu. xiv. 21. “Sit down quickly, and write fifty,” Lu. xvi. 6. “She rose up hastily (ταχέως) and went out,” Jn. xi. 31. “That ye are so soon removed (ταχέως) from him that called you,” Ga. i. 6. “Lay hands suddenly on no man,” 1 Ti. v. 22. See also Phi. ii. 19, 24; 2 Th. ii. 2; 2 Ti. iv. 9. The phrase used here (ἐν τάχει) occurs in Lu. xviii. 8, “He will avenge them speedily” (lit. with speed). “Arise up quickly,” Ac. xii. 7. “Get thee quickly out of Jerusalem,” Ac. xxii. 18. “Would depart shortly,” Ac. xxv. 4. “Bruise Satan under your feet shortly,” Ro. xvi. 20; and Re. i. 1; xxii. 6. The essential idea is, that the thing which is spoken of was soon to occur, or it was not a remote and distant event. There is the notion of rapidity, of haste, of suddenness. It is such a phrase as is used when the thing is on the point of happening, and could not be applied to an event which was in the remote future, considered as an independent event standing by itself. The same idea is expressed, in regard to the same thing, in ver. 3, “The time is at hand”—ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς; that is, it is near, it is soon to occur. Yet (b) it is not necessary to suppose that the meaning is that all that there is in the book was soon to happen. It may mean that the series of events which were to follow on in their proper order was soon to commence, though it might be that the sequel would be remote. The first in the series of events was soon to begin, and the others would follow on in their train, though a portion of them, in the regular order, might be in a remote futurity. If we suppose that there was such an order, that a series of transactions was about to commence, involving a long train of momentous developments, and that the beginning of this was to occur soon, the language used by John would be that which would be naturally employed to express it. Thus, in case of a revolution in a government, when a reigning prince should be driven from his kingdom, to be succeeded by a new dynasty, which would long occupy the throne, and involving, as the consequence of the revolution, important events extending far into the future, we would naturally say that these things were shortly to occur, or that the time was near. It is customary to speak of a succession of events or periods as near, however vast or interminable the series may be, when the commencement is at hand. Thus, we say that the great events of the eternal world are near; that is, the beginning of them is soon to occur. So Christians now speak often of the millennium as near, or as about to occur, though it is the belief of many that it will be protracted for many ages. (c) That this is the true idea here is clear, whatever general view of interpretation in regard to the book is adopted. Even Professor Stuart, who contends that the greater portion of the book refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the persecutions of heathen Rome, admits that “the closing part of the Revelation relates beyond all doubt to a distant period, and some of it to a future eternity” (ii. p. 5); and, if this be so, then there is no impropriety in supposing that a part of the series of predictions preceding this may lie also in a somewhat remote futurity. The true idea seems to be that the writer contemplated a series of events that were to occur, and that this series was about to commence. How far into the future it was to extend, is to be learned by the proper interpretation of all the parts of the series. ¶ And he sent. Gr., “Sending by his angel, signified it to his servant John.” The idea is not precisely that he sent his angel to communicate the message, but that he sent by him, or employed him as an agent in doing it. The thing sent was rather the message than the angel. ¶ And signified it. Ἐσήμανεν He indicated it by signs and symbols. The word occurs in the New Testament only in Jn. xii. 33; xviii. 32; xxi. 19; Ac. xi. 28; xxv. 27, and in the passage before us, in all which places it is rendered signify, signifying, or signified. It properly refers to some sign, signal, or token by which anything is made known (comp. Mat. xxvi. 28; Ro. iv. 11; Ge. ix. 12, 13; xvii. 11; Lu. ii. 12; 2 Co. xii. 12; 1 Co. xiv. 22), and is a word most happily chosen to denote the manner in which the events referred to were to be communicated to John, for nearly the whole book is made up of signs and symbols. If it be asked what was signified to John, it may be replied that either the word “it” may be understood, as in our translation, to refer to the Apocalypse or Revelation, or what he saw (ὅσα εἶδε), as Professor Stuart supposes; or it may be absolute, without any object following, as Professor Robinson (Lex. supposes. The general sense is, that, sending by his angel, he made to John a communication by expressive signs or symbols. ¶ By his angel. That is, an angel was employed to cause these scenic representations to pass before the mind of the apostle. The communication was not made directly to him, but was through the medium of a heavenly messenger employed for this purpose. Thus, in Re. xxii. 6, it is said, “And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.” Comp. ver. 8, 9 of that chapter. There is frequent allusion in the Scriptures to the fact that angels have been employed as agents in making known the divine will, or in the revelations which have been made to men. Thus, in Ac. vii. 53, it is said, “Who have received the law by the disposition of angels.” “For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast,” &c., He. ii. 2; “And it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator,” Ga. iii. 19. Comp. Notes on Ac. vii. 38, 53. There is almost no further reference to the agency of the angel employed for this service in the book, and there is no distinct specification of what he did, or of his great agency in the case. John is everywhere represented as seeing the symbols himself, and it would seem that the agency of the angel was, either to cause those symbols to pass before the apostle, or to convey their meaning to his mind. How far John himself understood the meaning of these symbols, we have not the means of knowing with certainty. The most probable supposition is, that the angel was employed to cause these visions or symbols to pass before his mind, rather than to interpret them. If an interpretation had been given, it is inconceivable that it should not have been recorded, and there is no more probability that their meaning should have been disclosed to John himself, for his private use, than that it should have been disclosed and recorded for the use of others. It would seem probable, therefore, that John had only that view of the meaning of what he saw which anyone else might obtain from the record of the visions. Comp. Notes on 1 Pe. i. 10‒12. ¶ Unto his servant John. Nothing could be learned from this expression as to what John was the author of the book, whether the apostle of that name or some other. Comp. Intro. § 1. It cannot be inferred from the use of the word servant, rather than apostle, that the apostle John was not the author, for it was not uncommon for the apostles to designate themselves merely by the words servants, or servants of God. Comp. Notes on Ro. i. 1.

4 JOHN to the 59seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, 60from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the 61seven Spirits which are before his throne;

4. John to the seven churches which are in Asia. The word Asia is used in quite different senses by different writers. It is used (1) as referring to the whole eastern continent now known by that name; (2) either Asia or Asia Minor; (3) that part of Asia which Attalus III., king of Pergamos, gave to the Romans, viz. Mysia, Phrygia, Lycaonia, Lydia, Caria, Pisidia, and the southern coast—that is, all in the western, south-western, and southern parts of Asia Minor; and (4), in the New Testament, usually the south-western part of Asia Minor, of which Ephesus was the capital. See Notes, Ac. ii. 9. The word Asia is not found in the Hebrew Scriptures, but it occurs often in the books of Maccabees, and in the New Testament. In the New Testament it is not used in the large sense in which it is now, as applied to the whole continent, but in its largest signification it would include only Asia Minor. It is also used, especially by Luke, as denoting the country that was called Ionia, or that which embraced the provinces of Caria and Lydia. Of this region Ephesus was the principal city, and it was in this region that the “seven churches” were situated. Whether there were more than seven churches in this region is not intimated by the writer of this book, and on that point we have no certain knowledge. It is evident that these seven were the principal churches, even if there were more, and that there was some reason why they should be particularly addressed. There is mention of some other churches in the neighbourhood of these. Colosse was near to Laodicea; and from Col. iv. 13, it would seem not improbable that there was a church also at Hierapolis. But there may have been nothing in their circumstances that demanded particular instruction or admonition, and they may have been on that account omitted. There is also some reason to suppose that, though there had been other churches in that vicinity besides the seven mentioned by John, they had become extinct at the time when he wrote the book of Revelation. It appears from Tacitus (Annal. xiv. 27; comp. also Pliny, N. H. v. 29), that in the time of Nero, A.D. 61, the city of Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake, in which earthquake, according to Eusebius, the adjacent cities of Colosse and Hierapolis were involved. Laodicea was, indeed, immediately rebuilt, but there is no evidence of the re-establishment of the church there before the time when John wrote this book. The earliest mention we have of a church there, after the one referred to in the New Testament by Paul (Col. ii. 1; iv. 13, 15, 16), is in the time of Trajan, when Papias was bishop there, sometime between A.D. 98 and 117. It would appear, then, to be not improbable that at the time when the Apocalypse was written, there were in fact but seven churches in the vicinity. Professor Stuart (i. 219) supposes that “seven, and only so many, may have been named, because the sevenfold divisions and groups of various objects constitute a conspicuous feature in the Apocalypse throughout.” But this reason seems too artificial; and it can hardly be supposed that it would influence the mind of John, in the specification by name of the churches to which the book was sent. If no names had been mentioned, and if the statement had occurred in glowing poetic description, it is not inconceivable that the number seven might have been selected for some such purpose. ¶ Grace be unto you and peace. The usual form of salutation in addressing a church. See Notes on Rom. i. 7. ¶ From him which is, and which was, and which is to come. From him who is everlasting—embracing all duration, past, present, and to come. No expression could more strikingly denote eternity than this. He now exists; he has existed in the past; he will exist in the future. There is an evident allusion here to the name Jehovah, the name by which the true God is appropriately designated in the Scriptures. That name יְהֹוָה, from הָיָה, to be, to exist, seems to have been adopted because it denotes existence, or being, and as denoting simply one who exists; and has reference merely to the fact of existence. The word has no variation of form, and has no reference to time, and would embrace all time: that is, it is as true at one time as another that he exists. Such a word would not be inappropriately paraphrased by the phrase “who is, and who was, and who is to come,” or who is to be; and there can be no doubt that John referred to him here as being himself the eternal and uncreated existence, and as the great and original fountain of all being. They who desire to find a full discussion in regard to the origin of the name Jehovah, may consult an article by Prof. Tholuck, in the Biblical Repository, vol. iv. pp. 89‒108. It is remarkable that there are some passages in heathen inscriptions and writings which bear a very strong resemblance to the language here used by John respecting God. Thus Plutarch (De Is. et Osir., p. 354), speaking of a temple of Isis, at Sais, in Egypt, says, “It bore this inscription—‘I am all that was, and is, and shall be, and my vail no mortal can remove.’”—Ἐγώ εἰμι πᾶν τὸ γεγονός, καὶ ὄν, καὶ ἐσόμενον· καὶ τὸν ἐμὸν πέπλον οὐδείς πω θνητὸς ἀνεκάλυψεν. So Orpheus (in Auctor. Lib. de Mundo), “Jupiter is the head, Jupiter is the middle, and all things are made by Jupiter.” So in Pausanias (Phocic. 12), “Jupiter was; Jupiter is; Jupiter shall be.” The reference in the phrase before us is to God as such, or to God considered as the Father. ¶ And from the seven Spirits which are before his throne. After all that has been written on this very difficult expression, it is still impossible to determine with certainty its meaning. The principal opinions which have been held in regard to it are the following:—I. That it refers to God, as such. This opinion is held by Eichhorn, and is favoured by Ewald. No arguments derived from any parallel passages are urged for this opinion, nor can any such be found, where God is himself spoken of under the representation of a sevenfold Spirit. But the objections to this view are so obvious as to be insuperable. (1) If it refers to God as such, then it would be mere tautology, for the writer had just referred to him in the phrase “from him who was,” &c. (2) It is difficult to perceive in what sense “seven spirits” could be ascribed to God, or how he could be described as a being of “Seven Spirits.” At least, if he could be spoken of as such, there would be no objection to applying the phrase to the Holy Spirit. (3) How could it be said of God himself that he was “before the throne?” He is everywhere represented as sitting on the throne, not as before it. It is easy to conceive of angels as standing before the throne; and of the Holy Spirit it is more easy to conceive as being represented thus as ready to go forth and convey a heavenly influence from that throne, but it is impossible to conceive in what sense this could be applied to God as such. II. The opinion held by Grotius, and by John Henry Heinrichs, that it refers to “the multiform providence of God,” or to God considered as operating in seven or many different ways. In support of this Grotius appeals to ch. v. 12; vii. 12. But this opinion is so far-fetched, and it is so destitute of support, as to have found, it is believed, no other advocates, and to need no further notice. It cannot be supposed that John meant to personify the attributes of the Deity, and then to unite them with God himself, and with the Lord Jesus Christ, and to represent them as real subsistences from which important blessings descend to men. It is clear that as by the phrase, “who is, and who was, and who is to come,” and by “Jesus Christ, the faithful and true witness,” he refers to real subsistences, so he must here. Besides, if the attributes of God, or the modes of divine operation, are denoted, why is the number seven chosen? And why are they represented as standing before the throne? III. A third opinion is, that the reference is to seven attending and ministering presence-angels—angels represented as standing before the throne of God, or in his presence. This opinion was adopted among the ancients by Clemens of Alexandria; Andreas of Cesarea, and others; among the moderns by Beza, Drusius, Hammond, Wetstein, Rosenmüller, Clarke, Professor Stuart, and others. This opinion, however, has been held in somewhat different forms; some maintaining that the seven angels are referred to because it was a received opinion among the Hebrews that there were seven angels standing in the presence of God, as seven princes stood in the Persian court before the king; others, that the angels of the seven churches are particularly referred to, represented now as standing in the presence of God; others, that seven angels, represented as the principal angels employed in the government of the world, are referred to; and others, that seven archangels are particularly designated. Compare Poole, Synop. in loco. The arguments which are relied on by those who suppose that seven angels are here referred to are briefly these: (1) The nature of the expression here used. The expression, it is said, is such as would naturally denote beings who were before his throne—beings who were different from him who was on the throne—and beings more than one in number. That it could not refer to one on the throne, but must mean those distinct and separate from one on the throne, is argued from the use of the phrases “before the throne,” and “before God,” in Re. iv. 5; vii. 9, 15; viii. 2; xi. 4, 16; xii. 10; xiv. 3; xx. 12; in all which places the representation denotes those who were in the presence of God, and standing before him. (2) It is argued from other passages in the book of Revelation which, it is said (Professor Stuart), go directly to confirm this opinion. Thus in Re. viii. 2: “And I saw the seven angels which stood before God.” So Re. iv. 5: the seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, are said to be “the seven Spirits of God.” In these passages, it is alleged that the article “the” designates the well-known angels; or those which had been before specified, and that this is the first mention of any such angels after the designation in the passage before us. (3) It is said that this is in accordance with what was usual among the Hebrews, who were accustomed to speak of seven presence-angels, or angels standing in the presence of Jehovah. Thus in the book of Tobit (xii. 15), Raphael is introduced as using this language: “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One.” The apocryphal book of Enoch (chap. xx.) gives the names of the seven angels who watch; that is, of the watchers (comp. Notes on Da. iv. 13, 17) who stand in the presence of God waiting for the divine commands, or who watch over the affairs of men. So in the Zendavesta of Zoroaster, seven amshaspends, or archangels, are mentioned. See Professor Stuart, in loco.

To these views, however, there are objections of great weight, if they are not in fact quite insuperable. They are such as the following: (1) That the same rank should be given to them as to God, as the source of blessings. According to the view which represents this expression as referring to angels, they are placed on the same level, so far as the matter before us is concerned, with “him who was, and is, and is to come,” and with the Lord Jesus Christ—a doctrine which does not elsewhere occur in the Scriptures, and which we cannot suppose the writer designed to teach. (2) That blessings should be invoked from angels—as if they could impart “grace and peace.” It is evident that, whoever is referred to here by the phrase “the seven Spirits,” he is placed on the same level with the others mentioned as the source of “grace and peace.” But it cannot be supposed that an inspired writer would invoke that grace and peace from any but a divine being. (3) That as two persons of the Trinity are here mentioned, it is to be presumed that the third would not be omitted; or to put this argument in a stronger form, it cannot be supposed that an inspired writer would mention two of the persons of the Trinity in this connection, and then not only not mention the third, but refer to angels—to creatures—as bestowing that which would be appropriately sought from the Holy Spirit. The incongruity would be not merely in omitting all reference to the Spirit—which might indeed occur, as it often does in the Scriptures—but in putting in the place which that Spirit would naturally occupy an allusion to angels as conferring blessings. (4) If this refer to angels, it is impossible to avoid the inference that angel-worship, or invocation of angels, is proper. To all intents and purposes, this is an act of worship; for it is an act of solemn invocation. It is an acknowledgment of the “seven Spirits,” as the source of “grace and peace.” It would be impossible to resist this impression on the popular mind; it would not be possible to meet it if urged as an argument in favour of the propriety of angel-invocation, or angel-worship. And yet, if there is anything clear in the Scriptures, it is that God alone is to be worshipped. For these reasons, it seems to me that this interpretation cannot be well founded.

IV. There remains a fourth opinion, that it refers to the Holy Spirit, and in favour of that opinion it may be urged, (1) That it is most natural to suppose that the Holy Spirit would be invoked on such an occasion, in connection with him “who was, and is, and is to come,” and with “Jesus Christ.” If two of the persons of the Trinity were addressed on such an occasion, it would be properly supposed that the Holy Spirit would not be omitted, as one of the persons from whom the blessing was to descend. Comp. 2 Co. xiii. 14: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.” (2) It would be unnatural and improper, in such an invocation, to unite angels with God as imparting blessings, or as participating with God and with Christ in communicating blessings to man. An invocation to God to send his angels, or to impart grace and favour through angelic help, would be in entire accordance with the usage in Scripture, but it is not in accordance with such usage to invoke such blessings from angels. (3) It cannot be denied that an invocation of grace from “him who is, and was, and is to come,” is of the nature of worship. The address to him is as God, and the attitude of the mind in such an address is that of one who is engaged in an act of devotion. The effect of uniting any other being with him in such a case, would be to lead to the worship of one thus associated with him. In regard to the Lord Jesus, “the faithful and true witness,” it is from such expressions as these that we are led to the belief that he is divine, and that it is proper to worship him as such. The same effect must be produced in reference to what is here called “the seven Spirits before the throne.” We cannot well resist the impression that someone with divine attributes is intended; or, if it refer to angels, we cannot easily show that it is not proper to render divine worship to them. If they were thus invoked by an apostle, can it be improper to worship them now? (4) The word used here is not angels, but spirits; and though it is true that angels are spirits, and that the word spirit is applied to them (He. i. 7), yet it is also true that that is not a word which would be understood to refer to them without designating that angels were meant. If angels had been intended here, that word would naturally have been used, as is the case elsewhere in this book. (5) In Re. iv. 5, where there is a reference to “the seven lamps before the throne,” it is said of them that they “are,” that is, they represent “the seven Spirits of God.” This passage may be understood as referring to the same thing as that before us, but it cannot be well understood of angels; for, (a) if it did, it would have been natural to use that language for the reason above mentioned; (b) the angels are nowhere called “the spirits of God,” nor would such language be proper. The phrase, “Spirit of God” naturally implies divinity, and could not be applied to a creature. For these reasons it seems to me that the interpretation which applies the phrase to the Holy Spirit is to be preferred; and though that interpretation is not free from difficulties, yet there are fewer difficulties in that than in either of the others proposed. Though it may not be possible wholly to remove the difficulties involved in that interpretation, yet perhaps something may be done to diminish their force. (1) First, as to the reason why the number seven should be applied to the Holy Spirit. (a) There would be as much propriety certainly in applying it to the Holy Spirit as to God as such. And yet Grotius, Eichhorn, Ewald, and others saw no difficulty in such an application considered as representing a sevenfold mode of operation of God, or a manifold divine agency. (b) The word seven often denotes a full or complete number, and may be used to denote that which is full, complete, or manifold; and might thus be used in reference to an all-perfect Spirit, or to a spirit which was manifold in its operations. (c) The number seven is evidently a favourite number in the book of Revelation, and it might be used by the author in places, and in a sense, such as it would not be likely to be used by another writer. Thus there are seven epistles to the seven churches; there are seven seals, seven trumpets, seven vials of the wrath of God, seven last plagues; there are seven lamps, and seven Spirits of God; the Lamb has seven horns and seven eyes. In ch. i. 16, seven stars are mentioned; in ch. v. 12, seven attributes of God; ch. xii. 3, the dragon has seven heads; ch. xiii. 1, the beast has seven heads. (d) The number seven, therefore, may have been given to the Holy Spirit with reference to the diversity or the fulness of his operations on the souls of men, and to his manifold agency on the affairs of the world, as further developed in this book. (2) As to his being represented as “before the throne,” this may be intended to designate the fact that the Divine Spirit was, as it were, prepared to go forth, or to be sent forth, in accordance with a common representation in the Scriptures, to accomplish important purposes on human affairs. The posture does not necessarily imply inferiority of nature, any more than the language does respecting the Son of God, when he is represented as being sent into the world to execute an important commission from the Father.

CHAPTER II.
ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

This chapter comprises four of the seven epistles addressed to the seven churches; those addressed to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, and Thyatira. A particular view of the contents of the epistles will be more appropriate as they come separately to be considered, than in this place. There are some general remarks in regard to their structure, however, which may be properly made here.

(1) They all begin with a reference to some of the attributes of the Saviour, in general some attribute that had been noted in the first chapter; and while they are all adapted to make a deep impression on the mind, perhaps each one was selected in such a way as to have a special propriety in reference to each particular church. Thus in the address to the church at Ephesus (ch. ii. 1), the allusion is to the fact that he who speaks to them “holds the seven stars in his right hand, and walks in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;” in the epistle to the church at Smyrna (ch. ii. 8), it is he who “is the first and the last, who was dead and is alive;” in the epistle to the church at Pergamos (ch. ii. 12), it is he “which hath the sharp sword with the two edges;” in the epistle to the church at Thyatira (ch. ii. 18), it is “the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet like fine brass;” in the epistle to the church at Sardis (ch. iii. 1), it is he who “hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars;” in the epistle to the church at Philadelphia (ch. iii. 7), it is “he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth;” in the epistle to the church at Laodicea (ch. iii. 14), it is he who is the “Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.”

(2) These introductions are followed with the formula, “I know thy works.” The peculiar characteristics, then, of each church are referred to, with a sentiment of approbation or disapprobation expressed in regard to their conduct. Of two of the churches, that at Smyrna (ii. 9), and that at Philadelphia (iii. 10), he expresses his entire approbation; to the churches of Sardis (iii. 3), and Laodicea (iii. 15‒18), he administers a decided rebuke; to the churches of Ephesus (ii. 3‒6), Pergamos (ii. 13‒16), and Thyatira (iii. 19, 20, 24, 25), he intermingles praise and rebuke, for he saw much to commend, but, at the same time, not a little that was reprehensible. In all cases, however, the approbation precedes the blame; showing that he was more disposed to find that which was good than that which was evil.

(3) After the statement of their characteristics, there follows in each case counsel, advice, admonition, or promises, such as their circumstances demanded—encouragement in trial, and injunctions to put away their sins. The admonitions are addressed to the churches as if Christ were at hand, and would ere long come and sit in judgment on them and their deeds.

(4) There is a solemn admonition to hear what the Spirit has to say to the churches. This is in each case expressed in the same manner, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” (ch. ii. 7, 11, 17, 29; iii. 6, 13, 22). These admonitions were designed to call the attention of the churches to these things, and, at the same time, they seemed designed to show that they were not intended for them alone. They are addressed to anyone who “has an ear,” and therefore had some principles of general application to others, and to which all should attend who were disposed to learn the will of the Redeemer. What was addressed to one church, at any time, would be equally applicable to all churches in the same circumstances; what was adapted to rebuke, elevate, or comfort Christians in any one age or land, would be adapted to be useful to Christians of all ages and lands.

(5) There then is, either following or preceding that call on all the churches to hear, some promise or assurance designed to encourage the church, and urge it forward in the discharge of duty, or in enduring trial. This is found in each one of the epistles, though not always in the same relative position.

CHAPTER VI.
ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

This chapter contains an account of the opening of six of the seven seals. It need hardly be said to anyone who is at all familiar with the numerous—not to say numberless—expositions of the Apocalypse, that it is at this point that interpreters begin to differ, and that here commences the divergence towards those various, discordant, and many of them wild and fantastic theories, which have been proposed in the exposition of this wonderful book. Up to this point, though there may be unimportant diversities in the exposition of words and phrases, there is no material difference of opinion as to the general meaning of the writer. In the epistles to the seven churches, and in the introductory scenes to the main visions, there can be no doubt, in the main, as to what the writer had in view, and what he meant to describe. He addressed churches then existing (ch. i.‒iii.), and set before them their sins and their duties; and he described scenes passing before his eyes as then present (ch. iv. v.), which were merely designed to impress his own mind with the importance of what was to be disclosed, and to bring the great actors on the stage, and in reference to which there could be little ground for diversity in the interpretation. Here, however, the scene opens into the future, comprehending all the unknown period until there shall be a final triumph of Christianity, and all its foes shall be prostrate. The actors are the Son of God, angels, men, Satan, storms, tempests, earthquakes, the pestilence and fire; the scene is heaven, earth, hell. There is no certain designation of places; there is no mention of names—as there is in Isaiah (xlv. 1) of Cyrus, or as there is in Daniel (viii. 21; x. 20; xi. 2) of the “king of Grecia;” there is no designation of time that is necessarily unambiguous; and there are no characteristics of the symbols used that make it antecedently certain that they could be applied only to one class of events. In the boundless future that was to succeed the times of John, there would be, of necessity, many events to which these symbols might be applied, and the result has shown that it has required but a moderate share of pious ingenuity to apply them, by different expositors, to events differing widely from each other in their character, and in the times when they would occur. It would be too long to glance even at the various theories which have been proposed and maintained in regard to the interpretation of the subsequent portions of the Apocalypse, and wholly impossible to attempt to examine those theories. Time, in its developments, has already exploded many of them; and time, in its future developments, will doubtless explode many more, and each one must stand or fall as, in the disclosures of the future, it shall be found to be true or false. It would be folly to add another to those numerous theories, even if I had any such theory (see the Preface), and perhaps equal folly to pronounce with certainty on any one of those which have been advanced. Yet this seems to be an appropriate place to state, in few words, what principles it is designed to pursue in the interpretation of the remainder of the book.

(1) It may be assumed that large portions of the book relate to the future; that is, to that which was future when John wrote. In this all expositors are agreed, and this is manifest indeed on the very face of the representation. It would be impossible to attempt an interpretation on any other supposition, and somewhere in that vast future the events are to be found to which the symbols here used had reference. This is assumed, indeed, on the supposition that the book is inspired—a fact which is assumed all along in this exposition, and which should be allowed to control our interpretation. But assuming that the book relates to the future, though that supposition will do something to determine the true method of interpretation, yet it leaves many questions still unsolved. Whether it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, on the supposition that the work was written before that event, or to the history of the church subsequent to that; whether it is designed to describe events minutely, or only in the most general manner; whether it is intended to furnish a syllabus of civil and ecclesiastical history, or only a very general outline of future events; whether the times are so designated that we can fix them with entire certainty; or whether it was intended to furnish any certain indication of the periods of the world when these things should occur;—all these are still open questions, and it need not be said that on these the opinions of expositors have been greatly divided.

(2) It may be assumed that there is meaning in these symbols, and that they were not used without an intention to convey some important ideas to the mind of John and to the minds of his readers—to the church then, and to the church in future times. Comp. Notes on ch. i. 3. The book is indeed surpassingly sublime. It abounds with the highest flights of poetic language. It is Oriental in its character, and exhibits everywhere the proofs of a most glowing imagination in the writer. But it is also to be borne in mind that it is an inspired book, and this fact is to determine the character of the exposition. If inspired, it is to be assumed that there is a meaning in these symbols; an idea in each one of them, and in all combined, of importance to the church and the world. Whether we can ascertain the meaning is another question; but it is never to be doubted by an expositor of the Bible that there is a meaning in the words and images employed, and that to find out that meaning is worthy of earnest study and prayer.

(3) Predictions respecting the future are often necessarily obscure to man. It cannot be doubted, indeed, that God could have foretold future events in the most clear and unambiguous language. He who knows all that is to come as intimately as he does all the past, could have caused a record to have been made, disclosing names, and dates, and places, so that the most minute statements of what is to occur might have been in the possession of man as clearly as the records of the past now are. But there were obvious reasons why this should not occur, and in the prophecies it is rare that there is any such specification. To have done this might have been to defeat the very end in view; for it would have given to man, a free agent, the power of embarrassing or frustrating the divine plans. But if this course is not adopted, then prophecy must, from the nature of the case, be obscure. The knowledge of any one particular fact in the future is so connected with many other facts, and often implies so much knowledge of other things, that without that other knowledge it could not be understood. Suppose that it had been predicted, in the time of John, that at some future period some contrivance should be found out by which what was doing in one part of the world could be instantaneously known in another remote part of the world, and spread abroad by thousands of copies in an hour, to be read by a nation. Suppose, for instance, that there had been some symbol or emblem representing what actually occurs now, when in a morning newspaper we read what occurred last evening at St. Louis, Dubuque, Galena, Chicago, Cincinnati, Charleston, New Orleans; it is clear that at a time when the magnetic telegraph and the printing-press were unknown, any symbol or language describing it that could be employed must be obscure, and the impression must have been that this could be accomplished only by miracle—and it would not be difficult for one who was disposed to scepticism to make out an argument to prove that this could not occur. It would be impossible to explain any symbol that could be employed to represent this until these wonderful descriptions should become reality, and in the meantime the book in which the symbols were found might be regarded as made up of mere riddles and enigmas; but when these inventions should be actually found out, however much ridicule or contempt had been poured on the book before, it might be perfectly evident that the symbol was the most appropriate that could be used, and no one could doubt that it was a divine communication of what was to be in the future. Something of the same kind may have occurred in the symbols used by the writer of the book before us.

(4) It is not necessary to suppose that a prophecy will be understood in all its details until the prediction is accomplished. In the case just referred to, though the fact of the rapid spread of intelligence might be clear, yet nothing would convey any idea of the mode, or of the actual meaning of the symbols used, unless the inventions were themselves anticipated by a direct revelation. The trial of faith in the case would be the belief that the fact would occur, but would not relate to the mode in which it was to be accomplished, or the language employed to describe it. There might be great obscurity in regard to the symbols and language, and yet the knowledge of the fact be perfectly plain. When, however, the fact should occur as predicted, all would be clear. So it is in respect to prophecy. Many recorded predictions that are now clear as noon-day, were once as ambiguous and uncertain in respect to their meaning as in the supposed case of the press and the telegraph. Time has made them plain; for the event to which they referred has so entirely corresponded with the symbol as to leave no doubt in regard to the meaning. Thus many of the prophecies relating to the Messiah were obscure at the time when they were uttered; were apparently so contradictory that they could not be reconciled; were so unlike anything that then existed, that the fulfilment seemed to be impossible; and were so enigmatical in the symbols employed, that it seemed in vain to attempt to disclose their meaning. The advent of the long-promised Messiah, however, removed the obscurity; and now they are read with no uncertainty as to their meaning, and with no doubt that those predictions, once so obscure, had a divine origin.

The view just suggested may lead us to some just conceptions of what is necessary to be done in attempting to explain the prophecies. Suppose, then, first, that there had been, say in the dark ages, some predictions that claimed to be of divine origin, of the invention of the art of printing and of the magnetic telegraph. The proper business of an interpreter, if he regarded this as a divine communication, would have consisted in four things: (a) to explain, as well as he could, the fair meaning of the symbols employed, and the language used; (b) to admit the fact referred to, and implied in the fair interpretation of the language employed, of the rapid spread of intelligence in that future period, though he could not explain how it was to be done; (c) in the meantime it would be a perfectly legitimate object for him to inquire whether there were any events occurring in the world, or whether there had been any, to which these symbols were applicable, or which would meet all the circumstances involved in them; (d) if there were, then his duty would be ended; if there were not, then the symbols, with such explanation as could be furnished of their meaning, should be handed on to future times, to be applied when the predicted events should actually occur. Suppose, then, secondly, the case of the predictions respecting the Messiah, scattered along through many books, and given in various forms, and by various symbols. The proper business of an interpreter would have been, as in the other case, (a) to explain the fair meaning of the language used, and to bring together all the circumstances in one connected whole, that a distinct conception of the predicted Messiah might be before the mind; (b) to admit the facts referred to, and thus predicted, however incomprehensible and apparently contradictory they might appear to be; (c) to inquire whether anyone had appeared who combined within himself all the characteristics of the description; and (d) if no one had thus appeared, to send on the prophecies, with such explanations of words and symbols as could be ascertained to be correct, to future times, to have their full meaning developed when the object of all the predictions should be accomplished, and the Messiah should appear. Then the meaning of all would be plain; and then the argument from prophecy would be complete. This is obviously now the proper state of the mind in regard to the predictions in the Bible, and these are the principles which should be applied in examining the book of Revelation.

(5) It may be assumed that new light will be thrown upon the prophecies by time, and by the progress of events. It cannot be supposed that the investigations of the meaning of the prophetic symbols will all be in vain. Difficulties, it is reasonable to hope, may be cleared up; errors may be detected in regard to the application of the prophecies to particular events; and juster views on the prophecies, as on all other subjects, will prevail as the world grows older. We become wiser by seeing the errors of those who have gone before us, and an examination of the causes which led them astray may enable us to avoid such errors in the future. Especially may it be supposed that light will be thrown on the prophecies as they shall be in part or wholly fulfilled. The prophecies respecting the destruction of Babylon, of Petra, of Tyre, of Jerusalem, are now fully understood; the prophecies respecting the advent of the Messiah, and his character and work, once so obscure, are now perfectly clear. So, we have reason to suppose, it will be with all prophecy in the progress of events, and sooner or later the world will settle down into some uniform belief in regard to the design and meaning of these portions of the sacred writings. Whether the time has yet come for this, or whether numerous other failures are to be added to the melancholy catalogue of past failures on this subject, is another question; but ultimately all the now unfulfilled prophecies will be as clear as to their meaning as are those which have been already fulfilled.

(6) The plan, therefore, which I propose in the examination of the remaining portion of the Apocalypse is the following: (a) To explain the meaning of the symbols; that is, to show, as clearly as possible, what those symbols properly express, independently of any attempt to apply them. This opens, of itself, an interesting field of investigation, and one where essential service may be done, even if nothing further is intended. Without any reference to the application of those symbols, this, of itself, is an important work of criticism, and, if successfully done, would be rendering a valuable service to the readers of the sacred volume. (b) To state, as briefly as possible, what others who have written on this book, and who have brought eminent learning and talent to bear on its interpretation, have supposed to be the true interpretation of the symbols employed by John, and in regard to the times in which the events referred to would occur. It is in this way only that we can be made acquainted with the real progress made in interpreting this book, and it will be useful at least to know how the subject has struck other minds, and how and why they have failed to perceive the truth. I propose, therefore, to state, as I go along, some of the theories which have been held as to the meaning of the Apocalypse, and as to the events which have been supposed by others to be referred to. My limits require, however, that this should be briefly done, and forbid my attempting to examine those opinions at length. (c) To state, in as brief and clear a manner as possible, the view which I have been led to entertain as to the proper application of the symbols employed in the book, with such historical references as shall seem to me to confirm the interpretation proposed. (d) Where I cannot form an opinion as to the meaning, to confess my ignorance. He does no service in a professed interpretation of the Bible who passes over a difficulty without attempting to remove it, or who, to save his own reputation, conceals the fact that there is a real difficulty; and he does as little service who is unwilling to confess his ignorance on many points, or who attempts an explanation where he has no clear and settled views. As his opinion can be of no value to anyone else unless it is based on reasons in his own mind that will bear examination, so it can usually be of little value unless those reasons are stated. It is as important for his readers to have those reasons before their own minds as it is for him; and unless he has it in his power to state reasons for what he advances, his opinions can be worth nothing to the world. He who lays down this rule of interpretation may expect to have ample opportunity, in interpreting such a book as the Apocalypse, to confess his ignorance; but he who interprets a book which he believes to be inspired, may console himself with the thought that what is now obscure will be clear hereafter, and that he performs the best service which he can if he endeavours to explain the book up to the time in which he lives. There will be developments hereafter which will make that clear which is now obscure; developments which will make this book, in all past ages apparently so enigmatical, as clear as any other portion of the inspired volume, as it is now, even with imperfect view which we may have of its meaning, beyond all question one of the most sublime books that has ever been written.

This chapter describes the opening of the first six seals. (1) The first discloses a white horse, with a rider armed with a bow. A crown is given to him, symbolical of triumph and prosperity, and he goes forth to conquer, ver. 1, 2. (2) The second discloses a red-coloured horse, with a rider. The emblem is that of blood—of sanguinary war. Power is given him to take peace from the earth, and a sword is given him—emblem of war, but not of certain victory. Triumph and prosperity are denoted by the former symbol; war, discord, bloodshed, by this, ver. 3, 4. (3) The third discloses a black horse, with a rider. He has a pair of balances in his hand, as if there were scarcity in the earth, and he announces the price of grain in the times of this calamity, and a command is given not to hurt the oil and the wine, ver. 5, 6. The emblem is that of scarcity—as if there were oppression, or as a consequence of war or discord, while at the same time there is care bestowed to preserve certain portions of the produce of the earth from injury. (4) The fourth discloses a pale horse, with a rider. The name of this rider is Death, and Hell (or Hades) follows him—as if the hosts of the dead came again on the earth. Power is given to the rider over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, with hunger, with death, and with wild beasts. This emblem would seem to denote war, wide-wasting pestilence, famine, and desolation—as if wild beasts were suffered to roam over lands that had been inhabited; something of which paleness would be an emblem. Here ends the array of horses; and it is evidently intended by these four symbols to refer to a series of events that have a general resemblance—something that could be made to stand by themselves, and that could be grouped together. (5) The fifth seal opens a new scene. The horse and the rider no longer appear. It is not a scene of war, and of the consequences of war, but a scene of persecution. The souls of those who were slain for the word of God and the testimony which they held are seen under the altar, praying to God that he would avenge their blood. White robes are given them—tokens of the divine favour, and emblems of their ultimate triumph; and they are commanded to “rest for a little season, till their fellow-servants and their brethren that should be killed as they were should be fulfilled;” that is, that they should be patient until the number of the martyrs was filled up. In other words, there was (a) the assurance of the divine favour towards them; (b) vengeance, or the punishment of those who had persecuted them, would not be immediate; but (c) there was the implied assurance that just punishment would be inflicted on their persecutors, and that the cause for which they had suffered would ultimately triumph, ver. 9‒11. (6) The opening of the sixth seal, ver. 12‒17. There was an earthquake, and the sun became dark, and the moon was turned to blood, and the stars fell, and all kings and people were filled with consternation. This symbol properly denotes the time of public commotion, of revolution, of calamity; and it was evidently to be fulfilled by some great changes on the earth, or by the overturning of the seats of power, and by such sudden revolutions as would fill the nations with alarm.

2 And I saw, and behold 215a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth 216conquering, and to conquer.

2. And I saw, and behold. A question has arisen as to the mode of representation here: whether what John saw in these visions was a series of pictures, drawn on successive portions of the volume as one seal was broken after another; or whether the description of the horses and of the events was written on the volume, so that John read it himself, or heard it read by another; or whether the opening of the seal was merely the occasion of a scenic representation, in which a succession of horses was introduced, with a written statement of the events which are referred to. Nothing is indeed said by which this can be determined with certainty; but the most probable supposition would seem to be that there was some pictorial representation in form and appearance, such as he describes in the opening of the six seals. In favour of this it may be observed, (1) that, according to the interpretation of ver. 1, it was something in or on the volume—since he was invited to draw nearer, in order that he might contemplate it. (2) Each one of the things under the first five seals, where John uses the word “saw,” is capable of being represented by a picture or painting. (3) The language used is not such as would have been employed if he had merely read the description, or had heard it read. (4) The supposition that the pictorial representation was not in the volume, but that the opening of the seal was the occasion merely of causing a scenic representation to pass before his mind, is unnatural and forced. What would be the use of a sealed volume in that case? What the use of the writing within and without? On this supposition the representation would be that, as the successive seals were broken, nothing was disclosed in the volume but a succession of blank portions, and that the mystery or the difficulty was not in anything in the volume, but in the want of ability to summon forth these successive scenic representations. The most obvious interpretation is, undoubtedly, that what John proceeds to describe was in some way represented in the volume; and the idea of a succession of pictures or drawings better accords with the whole representation, than the idea that it was a mere written description. In fact, these successive scenes could be well represented now in a pictorial form on a scroll. ¶ And behold a white horse. In order to any definite understanding of what was denoted by these symbols, it is proper to form in our minds, in the first place, a clear conception of what the symbol properly represents, or an idea of what it would naturally convey. It may be assumed that the symbol was significant, and that there was some reason why that was used rather than another; why, for instance, a horse was employed rather than an eagle or a lion; why a white horse was employed in one case, and a red one, a black one, a pale one in the others; why in this case a bow was in the hand of the rider, and a crown was placed on his head. Each one of these particulars enters into the constitution of the symbol; and we must find something in the event which fairly corresponds with each—for the symbol is made up of all these things grouped together. It may be farther observed, that where the general symbol is the same—as in the opening of the first four seals—it may be assumed that the same object or class of objects is referred to; and the particular things denoted, or the diversity in the general application, is to be found in the variety in the representation—the colour, &c., of the horse, and the arms, apparel, &c., of the rider. The specifications under the first seal are four: (1) the general symbol of the horse—common to the first four seals; (2) the colour of the horse; (3) the fact that he that sat on him had a bow; and (4) that a crown was given him by some one, as indicative of victory. The question now is, what these symbols would naturally denote.

(1) The horse. The meaning of this symbol must be drawn from the natural use to which the symbol is applied, or the characteristics which it is known to have; and it may be added, that there might have been something for which that was best known in the time of the writer who uses it, which would not be so prominent at another period of the world, or in another country, and that it is necessary to have that before the mind in order to obtain a correct understanding of the symbol. The use of the horse, for instance, may have varied at different times to some degree; at one time the prevailing use of the horse may have been for battle; at another for rapid marches—as of cavalry; at another for draught; at another for races; at another for conveying messages by the establishment of posts or the appointment of couriers. To an ancient Roman the horse might suggest prominently one idea; to a modern Arab another; to a teamster in Holland another. The things which would be most naturally suggested by the horse as a symbol, as distinguished, for instance, from an eagle, a lion, a serpent, &c., would be the following: (a) War, as this was probably one of the first uses to which the horse was applied. So, in the magnificent description of the horse in Job xxxix. 19‒25, no notice is taken of any of his qualities but those which pertain to war. See, for a full illustration of this passage, and of the frequent reference in the classic writers to the horse as connected with war, Bochart, Hieroz. lib. ii. c. viii., particularly p. 149. Comp. Virg. Geor. iii. 83, 84:

“Si qua sonum procul arma dedêre,

Stare loco nescit, micat auribus, et tremit artus.”

Ovid, Metam. iii.:

“Ut fremit acer equus, cam bellicus, aere canoro

Signa dedit tubicen, pugnæque assumit amorem.”

Silius, lib. xiii.:

“Is trepido alituum tinnitu, et stare neganti,

Imperitans violenter equo.”

So Solomon says (Pr. xxi. 31), “The horse is prepared against the day of battle.” So in Zec. x. 3, the prophet says, God had made the house of Judah “as his goodly horse in the battle;” that is, he had made them like the victorious war-horse. (b) As a consequence of this, and of the conquests achieved by the horse in war, he became the symbol of conquest—of a people that could not be overcome. Comp. the above reference in Zec. Thus in Carthage the horse was an image of victorious war, in contradistinction to the ox, which was an emblem of the arts of peaceful agriculture. This was based on a tradition respecting the foundation of the city, referred to by Virgil, Æn. i. 442‒445:

“Quo primum jactati undis et turbine Poeni

Effodêre loco signum, quod regia Juno

Monstrârat, caput acris equi: sic nam fore bello

Egregiam, et facilem victu per Secula gentem.”

In reference to this circumstance Justin (lib. xviii. 5) remarks, that “in laying the foundations of the city the head of an ox was found, which was regarded as an emblem of a fruitful land, but of the necessity of labour and of dependence; on which account the city was transferred to another place. Then the head of a horse was found, and this was regarded as a happy omen that the city would be warlike and prosperous.” Comp. Creuzer, Symbolik, vol. ii. p. 456. (c) The horse was an emblem of fleetness, and, consequently, of the rapidity of conquest. Comp. Joel ii. 4: “The appearance of them is as the appearance of horses; and as horsemen, so shall they run.” Je. iv. 13: “Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his chariots shall be as the whirlwind; his horses are swifter than eagles.” Compare Job xxxix. 18. (d) The horse is an emblem of strength, and consequently of safety. Ps. cxlvii. 10: “He delighteth not in the strength of the horse.” In general, then, the horse would properly symbolize war, conquest, or the rapidity with which a message is conveyed. The particular character or complexion of the event—as peaceful or warlike, prosperous or adverse—is denoted by the colour of the horse, and by the character of the rider.

(2) The colour of the horse: a white horse. It is evident that this is designed to be significant, because it is distinguished from the red, the black, and the pale horse, referred to in the following verses. In general, it may be observed that white is the emblem of innocence, purity, prosperity—as the opposite is of sickness, sin, calamity. If the significance of the emblem turned alone on the colour, we should look to something cheerful, prosperous, happy as the thing that was symbolized. But the significance in the case is to be found not only in the colour—white—but in the horse that was white; and the inquiry is, what would a horse of that colour properly denote; that is, on what occasions, and with reference to what ends, was such a horse used? Now, the general notion attached to the mention of a white horse, according to ancient usage, would be that of state and triumph, derived from the fact that white horses were rode by conquerors on the days of their triumph; that they were used in the marriage cavalcade; that they were employed on coronation occasions, &c. In the triumphs granted by the Romans to their victorious generals, after a procession composed of musicians, captured princes, spoils of battle, &c., came the conqueror himself, seated on a high chariot drawn by four white horses, robed in purple, and wearing a wreath of laurel (Eschenburg, Man. of Class. Literature, p. 283. Comp. Ovid de Arte Amandi, lib. v. 214). The name of λεύκιππος—leucippos—was given to Proserpine, because she was borne from Hades to Olympus in a chariot drawn by white horses (Scol. Pind. Ol. vi. 161. See Creuzer’s Symbol. iv. 253). White horses are supposed, also, to excel others in fleetness. So Horace, Sat. lib. i. vii. 8:

“Sisennas, Barrosque ut equis præcurreret albis.”

So Plaut. Asin. ii. 2, 12. So Homer, Il. K. 437:

Λευκότεροι χιόνος, θείειν δʹ ἀνέμοισιν ὁμοῖοι.

—“Whiter than the snow, and swifter than the winds.” And in the Æneid, where Turnus was about to contend with Æneas, he demanded horses:

“Qui candore nives anteirent cursibus auras.”

—“Which would surpass the snow in whiteness, and the wind in fleetness” (Æn. xii. 84). So the poets everywhere describe the chariot of the sun as drawn by white horses (Bochart, ut supra). So conquerors and princes are everywhere represented as borne on white horses. Thus Propertius, lib. iv. eleg. i.:

“Quatuor huic albos Romulus egit equos.”

So Claudian, lib. ii., de Laudibus Stilichonis:

“Deposito mitis clypeo, candentibus urbem

Ingreditur trabeatus equis.”

And thus Ovid (lib. i. de Arte) addresses Augustus, auguring that he would return a victor:

“Ergo erit illa dies, quâ tu, Pulcherrime rerum,

Quatuor in niveis aureus ibis equis.”

The preference of white to denote triumph or victory was early referred to among the Hebrews. Thus, Ju. v. 10, in the Song of Deborah:

“Speak, ye that ride on white asses,

Ye that sit in judgment,

And walk by the way.”

The expression, then, in the passage before us, would properly refer to some kind of triumph; to some joyous occasion; to something where there was success or victory; and, so far as this expression is concerned, would refer to any kind of triumph, whether of the gospel or of victory in war.

(3) The bow: and he that sat on him had a bow. The bow would be a natural emblem of war—as it was used in war; or of hunting—as it was used for that purpose. It was a common instrument of attack or defence, and seems to have been early invented, for it is found in all rude nations. Comp. Ge. xxvii. 3; xlviii. 22; xlix. 24; Jos. xxiv. 12; 1 Sa. xviii. 4; Ps. xxxvii. 15; Is. vii. 24. The bow would be naturally emblematic of the following things: (a) War. See the passages above. (b) Hunting. Thus it was one of the emblems of Apollo as the god of hunting. (c) The effect of truth—as that which secured conquest, or overcame opposition in the heart. So far as this emblem is concerned, it might denote a warrior, a hunter, a preacher, a ruler—anyone who exerted power over others, or who achieved any kind of conquest over them.

(4) The crown: and a crown was given unto him. The word here used—στέφανος—means a circlet, chaplet, or crown—usually such as was given to a victor, 1 Co. ix. 25. It would properly be emblematic of victory or conquest—as it was given to victors in war, or to the victors at the Grecian games, and as it is given to the saints in heaven regarded as victors, Re. iv. 4, 10; 2 Ti. iv. 8. The crown or chaplet here was “given” to the rider as significant that he would be victorious, not that he had been; and the proper reference of the emblem was to some conquest yet to be made, not to any which had been made. It is not said by whom this was given to the rider; the material fact being only that such a diadem was conferred on him.

(5) The going forth to conquest: and he went forth, conquering and to conquer. He went forth as a conqueror, and that he might conquer. That is, he went forth with the spirit, life, energy, determined purpose of one who was confident that he would conquer, and who had the port and bearing of a conqueror. John saw in him two things: one, that he had the aspect or port of a conqueror—that is, of one who had been accustomed to conquest, and who was confident that he could conquer; the other was, that this was clearly the design for which he went forth, and this would be the result of his going forth.

Having thus inquired into the natural meaning of the emblems used, perhaps the proper work of an expositor is done, and the subject might be left here. But the mind naturally asks what was this designed to signify, and to what events are these things to be applied? On this point it is scarcely necessary to say, that the opinions of expositors have been almost as numerous as the expositors themselves, and that it would be a hopeless task, and as useless as hopeless, to attempt to enumerate all the opinions entertained. They who are desirous of examining those opinions must be referred to the various books on the Apocalypse where they may be found. Perhaps all the opinions entertained, though presented by their authors under a great variety of forms, might be referred to three: (1) That the whole passage in ch. vi.‒xi. refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the wasting of Judæa, principally by the Romans—and particularly the humiliation and prostration of the Jewish persecuting enemies of the church: on the supposition that the book was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. This is the opinion of Professor Stuart, and of those generally who hold that the book was written at that time. (2) The opinion of those who suppose that the book was written in the time of Domitian, about A.D. 95 or 96, and that the symbols refer to the Roman affairs subsequent to that time. This is the opinion of Mede, Elliott, and others. (3) The opinions of those who suppose that the different horses and horsemen refer to the Saviour, to ministers of the gospel, and to the various results of the ministry. This is the opinion of Mr. David C. Lord and others. My purpose does not require me to examine these opinions in detail. Justice could not be done to them in the limited compass which I have; and it is better to institute a direct inquiry whether any events are known which can be regarded as corresponding with the symbols here employed. In regard to this, then, the following things may be referred to:—

(a) It will be assumed here, as elsewhere in these Notes, that the Apocalypse was written in the time of Domitian, about A.D. 95 or 96. For the reasons for this opinion, see Intro. § 2. Comp. an article by Dr. Geo. Duffield in the Biblical Repository, July, 1847, pp. 385‒411. It will also be assumed that the book is inspired, and that it is not to be regarded and treated as a work of mere human origin. These suppositions will preclude the necessity of any reference in the opening of the seals to the time of Nero, or to the events pertaining to the destruction of Jerusalem and the overthrow of the Jewish persecuting enemies of the church—for the opinion that those events are referred to can be held only on one of two suppositions: either that the work was written in the time of Nero, and before the Jewish wars, as held by Professor Stuart and others; or that it was penned after the events referred to had occurred, and is such a description of the past as could have been made by one who was uninspired.

(b) It is to be presumed that the events referred to, in the opening of the first seal, would occur soon after the time when the vision appeared to John in Patmos. This is clear, not only because that would be the most natural supposition, but because it is fairly implied in ch. i. 1: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass.” See Notes on that verse. Whatever may be said of some of those events—those lying most remotely in the series—it would not accord with the fair interpretation of the language to suppose that the beginning of the series would be far distant, and we therefore naturally look for that beginning in the age succeeding the time of the apostle, or the reign of Domitian.

(c) The inquiry then occurs whether there were any such events in that age as would properly be symbolized by the circumstances before us—the horse; the colour of the horse; the bow in the hand of the rider; the crown given him; the state and bearing of the conqueror.

(d) Before proceeding to notice what seems to me to be the interpretation which best accords with all the circumstances of the symbol, it may be proper to refer to the only other one which has any plausibility, and which is adopted by Grotius, by the author of Hyponoia, by Dr. Keith (Signs of the Times, i. 181, seq.), by Mr. Lord, and others, that this refers to Christ and his church—to Christ and his ministers in spreading the gospel. The objections to this class of interpretations seem to me to be insuperable: (1) The whole description, so far as it is a representation of triumph, is a representation of the triumph of war, not of the gospel of peace. All the symbols in the opening of the first four seals are warlike; all the consequences in the opening of each of the seals where the horseman appears, are such as are usually connected with war. It is the march of empire, the movement of military power. (2) A horseman thus armed is not the usual representation of Christ, much less of his ministers or of his church. Once indeed (ch. xix. 14‒16) Christ himself is thus represented; but the ordinary representation of the Saviour in this book is either that of a man—majestic and glorious, holding the stars in his right hand—or of a lamb. Besides, if it were the design of the emblem to refer to Christ, it must be a representation of him personally and literally going forth in this manner; for it would be incongruous to suppose that this relates to him, and then to give it a metaphorical application, referring it not to himself, but to his truth, his gospel, his ministers. (3) If there is little probability that this refers to Christ, there is still less that it refers to ministers of the gospel—as held by Lord and others—for such a symbol is employed nowhere else to represent an order of ministers, nor do the circumstances find a fulfilment in them. The minister of the gospel is a herald of peace, and is employed in the service of the Prince of Peace. He cannot well be represented by a warrior, nor is he in the Scriptures. In itself considered, there is nothing more unlike or incongruous than a warrior going forth to conquest with hostile arms, and a minister of Christ. (4) Besides, this representation of a horse and his rider, when applied in the following verses, on this principle becomes most forced and unnatural. If the warrior on the white horse denotes the ministry, then the warrior on the red horse, the black horse, the pale horse, must denote the ministry also, and nothing is more fanciful and arbitrary than to attempt to apply these to teachers of various kinds of error—error denoted by the red, black, and pale colour—as must be done on that supposition. It seems plain, therefore, to me, that the representation was not designed to symbolize the ministry, or the state of the church considered with reference to its extension, or the various forms of belief which prevailed. But if so, it only remains to inquire whether a state of things existed in the Roman world of which these would be appropriate symbols. We have, then, the following facts, which are of such a nature as would properly be symbolized by the horse of the first seal; that is, they are such facts that if one were to undertake to devise an appropriate symbol of them since they occurred, they would be well represented by the image here employed.

(1) It was in general a period of prosperity, of triumph, of conquest—well represented by the horseman on the white horse going forth to conquest. I refer now to the period immediately succeeding the time of John’s banishment, embracing some ninety years, and extending through the successive reigns of Nerva, Trajan, Adrian, and the two Antonines, from the death of Domitian, A.D. 96, to the accession of Commodus, and the peace made by him with the Germans, A.D. 180. As an illustration of this period, and of the pertinency of the symbol, I will first copy from an historical chart drawn up with no reference to the symbol here, and in the mind of whose author the application to this symbol never occurred. The chart, distinguished for accuracy, is that of A. S. Lyman, published A.D. 1845. The following is the account of this period, beginning at the death of Domitian:—“Domitian, a cruel tyrant, the last of the twelve Cæsars.” (His death, therefore, was an important epoch.) “A.D. 96: Nerva, noted for his virtues, but enfeebled by age.” “A.D. 98: Trajan, a great general, and popular emperor; under him the empire attains its greatest extent.” “A.D. 117: Adrian, an able sovereign; spends thirteen years travelling through the empire, reforming abuses and rebuilding cities.” “A.D. 138: Antoninus Pius, celebrated for his wisdom, virtue, and humanity.” “A.D. 161: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, the Stoic Philosopher, noted for his virtues.” Then begins a new era—a series of wicked princes and of great calamities. The next entry in the series is, “A.D. 180: Commodus, profligate and cruel.” Then follows a succession of princes of the same general description. Their character will be appropriately considered under the succeeding seals. But in regard to the period now supposed to be represented by the opening of the first seal, and the general applicability of the description here to that period, we have the fullest testimony in Mr. Gibbon, in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; a writer who, sceptic as he was, seems to have been raised up by Divine Providence to search deeply into historic records, and to furnish an inexhaustible supply of materials in confirmation of the fulfilment of the prophecies, and of the truth of revelation. For (1) he was eminently endowed by talent, and learning, and patience, and general candour, and accuracy, to prepare a history of that period of the world, and to place his name in the very first rank of historians. (2) His history commences at about the period supposed in this interpretation to be referred to by these symbols, and extends over a very considerable portion of the time embraced in the book of Revelation. (3) It cannot be alleged that he was biassed in his statements of facts by a desire to favour revelation; nor can it be charged on him that he perverted facts with a view to overthrow the authority of the volume of inspired truth. He was, indeed, thoroughly sceptical as to the truth of Christianity, and he lost no opportunity to express his feelings towards it by a sneer—for it seems to have been an unfortunate characteristic of his mind to sneer at everything—but there is no evidence that he ever designedly perverted a fact in history to press it into the service of infidelity, or that he designedly falsified a statement for the purpose of making it bear against Christianity. It cannot be suspected that he had any design, by the statements which he makes, to confirm the truth of Scripture prophecies. Infidels, at least, are bound to admit his testimony as impartial. (4) Not a few of the most clear and decisive proofs of the fulfilment of prophecies are to be found in his history. They are frequently such statements as would be expected to occur in the writings of a partial friend of Christianity who was endeavouring to make the records of history speak out in favour of his religion; and if they had been found in such a writer, they would be suspected of having been shaped with a view to the confirmation of the prophecies, and it may be added also with an intention to defend some favourite interpretation of the Apocalypse. In regard to the passage before us—the opening of the first seal and the general explanation of the meaning of that seal, above given, there is a striking resemblance between that representation and the state of the Roman empire as given by Mr. Gibbon at the period under consideration—from the end of the reign of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. By a singular coincidence Mr. Gibbon begins his history at about the period supposed to be referred to by the opening of the seal—the period following the death of Domitian, A.D. 96. Thus in the opening sentences of his work he says: “In the second century of the Christian era the empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most civilized portion of mankind. During a happy period of more than fourscore years the public administration was conducted by the virtue and abilities of Nerva, Trajan, Adrian, and the two Antonines. It is the design of this and the two succeeding chapters to describe the prosperous condition of their empire; and afterwards, from the death of Marcus Antoninus, to deduce the most important circumstances of its decline and fall; a revolution which will ever be remembered, and is still felt by the nations of the earth,” vol. i. 1. Before Mr. Gibbon proceeds to give the history of the fall of the empire, he pauses to describe the happy condition of the Roman world during the period now referred to—for this is substantially his object in the first three chapters of his history. The titles of these chapters will show their object. They are respectively the following:—Ch. i., “The Extent and Military Force of the Empire, in the Age of the Antonines;” ch. ii., “Of the Union and Internal Prosperity of the Roman Empire, in the Age of the Antonines;” ch. iii., “Of the Constitution of the Roman Empire, in the Age of the Antonines.” In the language of another, this is “the bright ground of his historic picture, from which afterwards more effectively to throw out in deep colouring the successive traits of the empire’s corruption and decline” (Elliott). The introductory remarks of Mr. Gibbon, indeed, professedly refer to “the age of the Antonines” (A.D. 138‒180); but that he designed to describe, under this general title, the actual condition of the Roman world during the period which I suppose to be embraced under the first seal, as a time of prosperity, triumph, and happiness—from Domitian to Commodus—is apparent (a) from a remarkable statement which there will be occasion again to quote, in which he expressly designates this period in these words: “If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus,” i. 47. The same thing is apparent also from a remark of Mr. Gibbon in the general summary which he makes of the Roman affairs, showing that this period constituted, in his view, properly an era in the condition of the world. Thus he says (i. 4): “Such was the state of the Roman frontiers, and such the maxims of imperial policy, from the death of Augustus to the accession of Trajan.” This was A.D. 98. The question now is, whether, during this period, the events in the Roman empire were such as accord with the representation in the first seal. There was nothing in the first century that could accord with this; and if John wrote the Apocalypse at the time supposed (A.D. 95 or 96), of course it does not refer to that. Respecting that century Mr. Gibbon remarks: “The only accession which the Roman empire received, during the first century of the Christian era, was the province of Britain. In this single instance the successors of Cæsar and Augustus were persuaded to follow the example of the former rather than the precept of the latter. After a war of about forty years, undertaken by the most stupid, maintained by the most dissolute, and terminated by the most timid of all the emperors, the far greater part of the island submitted to the Roman yoke,” i. 2, 3. Of course the representation in the first seal could not be applied to such a period as this. In the second century, however, and especially in the early part of it—the beginning of the period supposed to be embraced in the opening of the first seal—a different policy began to prevail, and though the main characteristic of the period, as a whole, was comparatively peaceful, yet it began with a career of conquests, and its general state might be characterized as triumph and prosperity. Thus Mr. Gibbon speaks of Trajan on his accession after the death of Nerva: “That virtuous and active prince had received the education of a soldier, and possessed the talents of a general. The peaceful system of his predecessors was interrupted by scenes of war and conquest; and the legions, after a long interval, beheld a military emperor at their head. The first exploits of Trajan were against the Dacians, the most warlike of men, who dwelt beyond the Danube, and who, during the reign of Domitian, had insulted the majesty of Rome. This memorable war, with a very short suspension of hostilities, lasted live years; and as the emperor could exert, without control, the whole force of the state, it was terminated by an absolute submission of the barbarians. The new province of Dacia, which formed a second exception to the precept of Augustus, was about thirteen hundred miles in circumference,” i. 4. Speaking of Trajan (p. 4), he says farther: “The praises of Alexander, transmitted by a succession of poets and historians, had kindled a dangerous emulation in the mind of Trajan. Like him, the Roman emperor undertook an expedition against the nations of the East; but he lamented with a sigh that his advanced age scarcely left him any hopes of equalling the renown of the son of Philip. Yet the success of Trajan, however transient, was rapid and specious. The degenerate Parthians, broken by intestine discord, fled before his arms. He descended the river Tigris, in triumph, from the mountains of Armenia to the Persian Gulf. He enjoyed the honour of being the first, as he was the last, of the Roman generals who ever navigated that remote sea. His fleets ravaged the coasts of Arabia; and Trajan vainly flattered himself that he was approaching towards the confines of India. Every day the astonished senate received the intelligence of new names and new nations that acknowledged his sway. They were informed that the kings of Bosphorus, Colchis, Iberia, Albania, Osrhoene, and even the Parthian monarch himself, had accepted their diadems from the hand of the emperor; that the independent tribes of the Median and Carduchian hills had implored his protection; and that the rich countries of Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria were reduced into the state of provinces.” Of such a reign what more appropriate symbol could there be than the horse and the rider of the first seal? If Mr. Gibbon had been writing a designed commentary on this, what more appropriate language could he have used in illustration of it? The reign of Hadrian, the successor of Trajan (A.D. 117‒138), was comparatively a reign of peace—though one of his first acts was to lead an expedition into Britain: but though comparatively a time of peace, it was a reign of prosperity and triumph. Mr. Gibbon, in the following language, gives a general characteristic of that reign:—“The life of [Hadrian] was almost a perpetual journey; and as he possessed the various talents of the soldier, the statesman, and the scholar, he gratified his curiosity in the discharge of his duty. Careless of the difference of seasons and of climates, he marched on foot, and bareheaded, over the snows of Caledonia and the sultry plains of Upper Egypt; nor was there a province of the empire which, in the course of his reign, was not honoured with the presence of the monarch,” p. 5. On p. 6 Mr. Gibbon remarks of this period: “The Roman name was revered amongst the remote nations of the earth. The fiercest barbarians frequently submitted their differences to the arbitration of the emperor; and we are informed by a contemporary historian that he had seen ambassadors who were refused the honour which they came to solicit, of being admitted into the rank of subjects.” And again, speaking of the reign of Hadrian, Mr. Gibbon remarks (i. 45): “Under his reign, as has been already mentioned, the empire flourished in peace and prosperity. He encouraged the arts, reformed the laws, asserted military discipline, and visited all the provinces in person.” Hadrian was succeeded by the Antonines, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius (the former from A.D. 138 to 161; the latter from A.D. 161 to the accession of Commodus, A.D. 180). The general character of their reigns is well known. It is thus stated by Mr. Gibbon: “The two Antonines governed the world forty-two years with the same invariable spirit of wisdom and virtue. Their united reigns are possibly the only period of history in which the happiness of a great people was the sole object of government,” i. 46. And after describing the state of the empire in respect to its military and naval character, its roads, and architecture, and constitution, and laws, Mr. Gibbon sums up the whole description of this period in the following remarkable words (vol. i. p. 47):—“If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hands of four successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded involuntary respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the Antonines, who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic, had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom.” If it be supposed now that John designed to represent this period of the world, could he have chosen a more expressive and significant emblem of it than occurs in the horseman of the first seal? If Mr. Gibbon had intended to prepare a commentary on it, could he have shaped the facts of history so as better to furnish an illustration?

(2) The particular things represented in the symbol. (a) The bow—a symbol of war. Mr. Elliott has endeavoured to show that the bow at that period was peculiarly the badge of the Cretians, and that Nerva, who succeeded Domitian, was a Cretian by birth. The argument is too long to be abridged here, but, if well founded, the fulfilment is remarkable; for although the sword or the javelin was usually the badge of the Roman emperor, if this were so there would be a peculiar propriety in making the bow the badge during this period. See Elliott, vol. i. pp. 133‒140. But whatever may be said of this, the bow was so generally the badge of a warrior, that there would be no impropriety in using it as a symbol of Roman victory. (b) The crown—στέφανος—was, up to the time of Aurelian, A.D. 270 (see Spanheim, p. 60), the distinguishing badge of the Roman emperor; after that, the diadem, set with pearls and other jewels, was adopted and worn. The crown, composed usually of laurel, was properly the badge of the emperor considered as a military leader or commander. See Elliott, i. 130. At the period now under consideration the proper badge of the Roman emperor would be the crown; after the time of Aurelian, it would have been the diadem. In illustration of this, two engravings have been introduced, the first representing the emperor Nerva with the crown, or στέφανος, the second the emperor Valentinian, with the diadem.

Medal of the Emperor Nerva wearing Crown.

Medal of the Emperor Valentinian wearing Diadem.

(c) The fact that the crown was given to the rider. It was common among the Romans to represent an emperor in this manner; either on medals, bas-reliefs, or triumphal arches. The emperor appears going forth on horseback, and with Victory represented as either crowning him, or as preceding him with a crown in her hand to present to him. The engraving on p. 146, copied from one of the bas-reliefs on a triumphal arch erected to Claudius Drusus on occasion of his victories over the Germans, will furnish a good illustration of this, and, indeed, is so similar to the symbol described by John, that the one seems almost a copy of the other.

Symbolic Bas-reliefs from a Roman Triumphal Arch.

Except that the bow is wanting, nothing could have a closer resemblance; and the fact that such symbols were employed, and were well understood by the Romans, may be admitted to be a confirmation of the view above taken of the meaning of the first seal. Indeed, so many things combine to confirm this, that it seems impossible to be mistaken in regard to it: for if it should be supposed that John lived after this time, and that he meant to furnish a striking emblem of this period of Roman history, he could not have employed a more significant and appropriate symbol than he has done.

5 And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo, a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.

6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, 217A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou 218hurt not the oil and the wine.

5, 6. And when he had opened the third seal.. Unfolding another portion of the volume. See Notes on ch. v. 1. ¶ I heard the third beast say, Come and see. See Notes on ch. iv. 7. It is not apparent why the third beast is represented as taking a particular interest in the opening of this seal (comp. Notes on ver. 3), nor is it necessary to show why it was so. The general design seems to have been, to represent each one of the four living creatures as interested in the opening of the seals, but the order in which they did this does not seem to be a matter of importance. ¶ And I beheld, and lo, a black horse. The specifications of the symbol here are the following: (a) As before, the horse. See Notes on ver. 2. (b) The colour of the horse: lo, a black horse. This would properly denote distress and calamity—for black has been regarded always as such a symbol. So Virgil speaks of fear as black: “atrumque timorem” (Æn. ix. 619). So again, Georg. iv. 468:

“Caligantem nigra formidine lucum.”

So, as applied to the dying Acca, Æn. xi. 825:

“Tenebris nigrescunt omnia circum.”

Black, in the Scriptures, is the image of fear, of famine, of death. La. v. 10: “Our skin was black like an oven, because of the terrible famine.” Je. xiv. 2: “Because of the drought Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are in deep mourning [literally, black] for the land.” Joel ii. 6: “All faces shall gather blackness.” Na. ii. 10: “The knees smite together, and there is great pain in all loins, and the faces of them all gather blackness.” Comp. Re. vi. 12; Eze. xxxii. 7. See also Bochart, Hieroz. P. i. lib. ii. c. vii. pp. 106, 107. From the colour of the horse here introduced we should naturally look for some dire calamity, though the nature of the calamity would not be designated by the mere use of the word black. What the calamity was to be must be determined by what follows in the symbol. Famine, pestilence, oppression, heavy taxation, tyranny, invasion—any of these might be denoted by the colour of the horse. (c) The balances: and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand. The original word here rendered a pair of balances, is ζυγὸν. This word properly means a yoke, serving to couple anything together, as a yoke for cattle. Hence it is used to denote the beam of a balance, or of a pair of scales—and is evidently so used here. The idea is, that something was to be weighed, in order to ascertain either its quantity or its value. Scales or balances are the emblems of justice or equity (comp. Job xxxi. 6; Ps. lxii. 9; Pr. xi. 1; xvi. 11); and when joined with symbols that denote the sale of corn and fruit by weight, become the symbol of scarcity. Thus “bread by weight” (Le. xxvi. 26) denotes scarcity. So in Eze. iv. 16, “And they shall eat bread by weight.” The use of balances here as a symbol would signify that something was to be accurately and carefully weighed out. The connection leads us to suppose that this would appertain to the necessaries of life, and that it would occur either in consequence of scarcity, or because there would be an accurate or severe exaction, as in collecting a revenue on these articles. The balance was commonly the symbol of equity and justice; but it was also, sometimes, the symbol of exaction and oppression, as in Ho. xii. 7: “The balance of deceit is in his hands; he loveth to oppress.” If the balances stood alone, and there were no proclamation as to what was to occur, we should look, under this seal, to a time of the exact administration of justice, as scales or balances are now used as emblems of the rigid application of the laws and of the principles of justice in courts, or in public affairs. If this representation stood alone, or if the black horse and the scales constituted the whole of the symbol, we should look for some severe administration, or perhaps some heavy calamity under a rigorous administration of laws. The reference, however, to the “wheat and barley,” and to the price for which they were to be weighed out, serves still further to limit and define the meaning of the symbol as having reference to the necessaries of life—to the productions of the land—to the actual capital of the country. Whether this refers to scarcity, or to taxation, or both, must be determined by the other parts of the symbol. (d) The proclamation: And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say. That is, from the throne, ch. iv. 6. The voice was not that of one of the four beasts, but it seemed to come from among them. As the rider went forth, this was the proclamation that was made in regard to him; or this is that which is symbolized in his going forth, to wit, that there would be such a state of things that a measure of wheat would be sold for a penny, &c. The proclamation consists essentially of two things—that which refers to the price or value of wheat and barley, and that which requires that care shall be taken not to injure the oil and the wine. Each of these demands explanation. ¶ A measure of wheat for a penny. See the margin. The word rendered measure—χοῖνιξ, chœnix—denotes an Attic measure for grain and things dry, equal to the forty-eighth part of the Attic medimnus, or the eighth part of the Roman modius, and consequently was nearly equivalent to one quart English (Rob. Lex.). The word rendered penny, δηνάριον—Lat. denarius—was of the same value as the Greek δραχμή, drachmē, and was equivalent to about fourteen cents or sevenpence. This was the usual price of a day’s labour, Mat. xx. 2, 9. The chœnix, or measure of grain here referred to, was the ordinary daily allowance for one man [Odyss., xix. 27, 28). See Stuart, in loco. The common price of the Attic medimnus of wheat was five or six denarii; but here, as that contained forty-eight chœnixes or quarts, the price would be augmented to forty-eight denarii—or it would be about eight times as dear as ordinary; that is, there would be a scarcity or famine. The price of a bushel of wheat at this rate would be about four dollars and a half or 18 shillings—a price which would indicate great scarcity, and which would give rise to much distress. ¶ And three measures of barley for a penny. It would seem from this that barley usually bore about one-third the price of wheat. It was a less valuable grain, and perhaps was produced in greater abundance. This is not far from the proportion which the price of this grain usually bears to that of wheat, and here, as in the case of the wheat, the thing which would be indicated would be scarcity. This proclamation of “a measure of wheat for a penny” was heard either as addressed to the horseman, as a rule of action for him, or as addressed by the horseman as he went forth. If the former is the meaning, it would be an appropriate address to one who was going forth to collect tribute—with reference to the exact manner in which this tribute was to be collected, implying some sort of severity of exaction; or to one who should distribute wheat and barley out of the public granaries at an advanced price, indicating scarcity. Thus it would mean that a severe and heavy tax—represented by the scales and the scarcity—or a tax so severe as to make grain dear, was referred to. If the latter is the meaning, then the idea is that there would be a scarcity, and that grain would be dealt out by the government at a high and oppressive price. The latter idea would be as consonant with the symbol of the scales and the price mentioned as the other, if it were not for the additional injunction not to “hurt the oil and the wine”—which cannot be well applied to the idea of dealing out grain at a high price. It can, however, be connected, by a fair interpretation of that passage, with such a severity of taxation that there would be a propriety in such a command—for, as we shall see, under the explanation of that phrase, such a law was actually promulgated as resulting from severity of taxation. The idea, then, in the passage before us, would seem to be, (a) that there would be a rigid administration of the law in regard to the matter under consideration—that pertaining to the productions of the earth—represented by the balances; and (b) that that would be connected with general scarcity, or such an exercise of this power as to determine the price of grain, so that the price would be some three times greater than ordinary. ¶ And see thou hurt not the oil and the wine. There has been a great variety of interpretations proposed of this passage, and it is by no means easy to determine the true sense. The first inquiry in regard to it is, to whom is it addressed? Perhaps the most common impression on reading it would be, that it is addressed to the horseman with the balances, commanding him not to injure the oliveyards and the vineyards. But this is not probably the correct view. It does not appear that the horseman goes forth to destroy anything, or that the effect of his going forth is directly to injure anything. This, therefore, should not be understood as addressed to the horseman, but should be regarded as a general command to any and all not to injure the oliveyards and vineyards; that is, an order that nothing should be done essentially to injure them. If thus regarded as addressed to others, a fair and congruous meaning would be furnished by either of the following interpretations: either (a) considered as addressed to those who were disposed to be prodigal in their manner of living, or careless as to the destruction of the crop of the oil and wine, as they would now be needed; or (b) as addressed to those who raised such productions, on the supposition that they would be taxed heavily, or that large quantities of these productions would be extorted for revenue, that they should not mutilate their fruit-trees in order to evade the taxes imposed by the government. In regard to the things specified here—oil and wine—it may be remarked, that they were hardly considered as articles of luxury in ancient times. They were almost as necessary articles as wheat and barley. They constituted a considerable part of the food and drink of the people, as well as furnished a large portion of the revenue, and it would seem to be with reference to that fact that the command here is given that they should not be injured; that is, that nothing should be done to diminish the quantity of oil and wine, or to impair the productive power of oliveyards and vineyards. The state of things thus described by this seal, as thus interpreted, would be, (a) a rigid administration of the laws of the empire, particularly in reference to taxation, producing a scarcity among the necessary articles of living; (b) a strong tendency, from the severity of the taxation, to mutilate such kinds of property, with a view either of concealing the real amount of property, or of diminishing the amount of taxes; and (c) a solemn command from some authoritative quarter not to do this. A command from the ruling power not to do this would meet all that would be fairly demanded in the interpretation of the passage; and what is necessary in its application, is to find such a state of things as would correspond with these predictions; that is, such as a writer would have described by such symbols on the supposition that they were referred to.

Now it so happens that there were important events which occurred in the Roman empire, and connected with its decline and fall, of sufficient importance to be noticed in a series of calamitous events, which corresponded with the symbol here, as above explained. They were such as these: (a) The general severity of taxation, or the oppressive burdens laid on the people by the emperors. In the account which Mr. Gibbon gives of the operation of the Indictions, and Superindictions, though the specific laws on this subject pertained to a subsequent period, the general nature of the taxation of the empire and its oppressive character may be seen (Decline and Fall, i. 357‒359). A general estimate of the amount of revenue to be exacted was made out, and the collecting of this was committed to the pretorian prefects, and to a great number of subordinate officers. “The lands were measured by surveyors who were sent into the provinces; their nature, whether arable, or pasture, or woods, was distinctly reported; and an estimate made of their common value, from the average produce of five years. The number of slaves and of cattle constituted an essential part of the report; an oath was administered to the proprietors, which bound them to disclose the true state of their affairs; and their attempts to prevaricate or elude the intention of the legislature were severely watched, and punished as a capital crime, which included the double guilt of treason and of sacrilege. According to the different nature of lands, their real produce in the various articles of wine or oil, corn or barley, wood or iron, was transported by the labour or at the expense of the provincials to the imperial magazines, from whence they were occasionally distributed for the use of the court or of the army, and of the two capitals, Rome and Constantinople,” i. p. 358. Comp. Lactant. de Mort. Persecut., c. 23. (b) The particular order, under this oppressive system of taxation, respecting the preservation of vineyards and oliveyards, may be referred to, also, as corresponding to the command sent forth under this rider, not to “hurt the oil and the wine.” That order was in the following words:—“If any one shall sacrilegiously cut a vine, or stint the fruit of prolific boughs, and craftily feign poverty in order to avoid a fair assessment, he shall, immediately on detection, suffer death, and his property be confiscated” (Cod. Theod. l. xiii. lib. xi. seq.; Gibbon, i. 358, note). Mr. Gibbon remarks: “Although this law is not without its studied obscurity, it is, however, clear enough to prove the minuteness of the inquisition, and the disproportion of the penalty.” (c) Under this general subject of the severity of taxation—as a fact far-spreading and oppressive, and as so important as to hasten the downfall of the empire, may be noticed a distinct edict of Caracalla as occurring more directly in the period in which the rider with the balances may be supposed to have gone forth. This is stated by Mr. Gibbon (i. 91) as one of the important causes which contributed to the downfall of the empire. “The personal characters of the emperors, their victories, laws, and fortunes,” says he, “can interest us no farther than they are connected with the general history of the decline and fall of the monarchy. Our constant attention to that object will not suffer us to overlook a most important edict of Antoninus Caracalla, which communicated to all the free inhabitants of the empire the name and privileges of Roman citizens. His unbounded liberality, however, flowed not from the sentiments of a generous mind; it was the sordid result of avarice,” &c. He then proceeds at length to state the nature and operations of that law, by which a heavy tax, under the pretence of liberality, was in fact imposed on all the citizens of the empire—a fact which, in its ultimate results, the historian of the Decline and Fall regards as so closely connected with the termination of the empire. See Gibbon, i. pp. 91‒95. After noticing the laws of Augustus, Nero, and the Antonines, and the real privileges conferred by them on those who became entitled to the rank of Roman citizens—privileges which were a compensation in the honour, dignity, and offices of that rank for the measure of taxation which it involved—he proceeds to notice the fact that the title of “Roman citizen” was conferred by Caracalla on all the free citizens of the empire, involving the subjection to all the heavy taxes usually imposed on those who sustained the rank expressed by the title, but with nothing of the compensation connected with the title when it was confined to the inhabitants of Italy. “But the favour,” says he, “which implied a distinction, was lost in the prodigality of Caracalla, and the reluctant provincials were compelled to assume the vain title, and the real obligations, of Roman citizens. Nor was the rapacious son of Severus [Caracalla] contented with such a measure of taxation as had appeared sufficient to his moderate predecessors. Instead of a twentieth, he exacted a tenth of all legacies and inheritances; and during his reign he crushed alike every part of the empire under the weight of his iron sceptre,” i. 95. So again (Ibid.), speaking of the taxes which had been lightened somewhat by Alexander, Mr. Gibbon remarks: “It is impossible to conjecture the motive that engaged him to spare so trifling a remnant of the evil; but the noxious weed, which had not been totally eradicated, again sprung up with the most luxuriant growth, and in the succeeding age darkened the Roman world with its deadly shade. In the course of this history we shall be too often summoned to explain the land-tax, the capitation, and the heavy contributions of corn, wine, oil, and meat, which were exacted from the provinces for the use of the court, the army, and the capital.” In reference to this whole matter of taxation as being one of the things which contributed to the downfall of the empire, and which spread woe through the falling empire—a woe worthy to be illustrated by one of the seals—a confirmation may be derived from the reign of Galerius, who, as Cæsar, acted under the authority of Diocletian; who excited Diocletian to the work of persecution (Decline and Fall, i. 317, 318); and who, on the abdication of Diocletian, assumed the title of Augustus (Decline and Fall, i. 222). Of his administration in general Mr. Gibbon (i. 226) remarks: “About that time the avarice of Galerius, or perhaps the exigencies of the state, had induced him to make a very strict and rigorous inquisition into the property of his subjects for the purpose of a general taxation, both on their lands and on their persons. A very minute survey appears to have been taken of their real estates; and wherever there was the slightest suspicion of concealment, torture was very freely employed to obtain a sincere declaration of their personal wealth.” Of the nature of this exaction under Galerius; of the cruelty with which the measure was prosecuted—particularly in its bearing on Christians, towards whom Galerius cherished a mortal enmity (Decline and Fall, i. 317); and of the extent and severity of the suffering among Christians and others, caused by it—the following account of Lactantius (De Mort. Persecut., c. 23) will furnish a painful but most appropriate illustration:—“Swarms of exactors sent into the provinces and cities filled them with agitation and terror, as though a conquering enemy were leading them into captivity. The fields were separately measured, the trees and vines, the flocks and herds numbered, and an examination made of the men. In the cities the cultivated and rude were united as of the same rank. The streets were crowded with groups of families, and every one required to appear with his children and slaves. Tortures and lashes resounded on every side. Sons were gibbeted in the presence of their parents, and the most confidential servants harassed that they might make disclosures against their masters, and wives that they might testify unfavourably of their husbands. If there were a total destitution of property, they were still tortured to make acknowledgments against themselves, and, when overcome by pain, inscribed for what they did not possess. Neither age nor ill-health was admitted as an excuse for not appearing. The sick and weak were borne to the place of inscription, a reckoning made of the age of each, and years added to the young and deducted from the old, in order to subject them to a higher taxation than the law imposed. The whole scene was filled with wailing and sadness. In the meantime individuals died, and the herds and the flocks diminished, yet tribute was none the less required to be paid for the dead, so that it was no longer allowed either to live or die without a tax. Mendicants alone escaped, where nothing could be wrenched, and whom misfortune and misery had made incapable of farther oppression. These the impious wretch affecting to pity, that they might not suffer want, ordered to be assembled, borne off in vessels, and plunged into the sea.” See Lord on the Apoc., pp. 128, 129. These facts in regard to the severity of taxation, and the rigid nature of the law enforcing it; to the sources of the révenue exacted in the provinces, and to the care that none of those sources should be diminished; and to the actual and undoubted bearing of all this on the decline and fall of the empire, are so strikingly applicable to the symbol here employed, that if it be supposed that it was intended to refer to them, no more natural or expressive symbol could have been used; if it were supposed that the historian meant to make a record of the fulfilment, he could not well have made a search which would more strikingly accord with the symbol. Were we now to represent these things by a symbol, we could scarcely find one that would be more expressive than that of a rider on a black horse with a pair of scales, sent forth under a proclamation which indicated that there would be a most rigid and exact administration of severe and oppressive laws, and with a special command, addressed to the people, not for the purposes of concealment, or from opposition to the government, to injure the sources of revenue. It may serve further to illustrate this, to copy one of the usual emblems of a Roman procurator or questor. It is taken from Spanheim, De Usu Num. Diss., vi. 545. See Elliott, i. 169. It has a balance as a symbol of exactness or justice, and an ear of grain as a symbol employed with reference to procuring or exacting grain from the provinces.

Emblem of a Roman Procurator.

9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the 221altar the 222souls of them that were slain for 223the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, 224How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and 225avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

11 And 226white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should 227rest yet for a little season, until228 their fellow-servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

9‒11. And when he had opened the fifth seal. Notes, ch. v. 1; vi. 1. ¶ I saw under the altar. The four living creatures are no longer heard as in the opening of the first four seals. No reason is given for the change in the manner of the representation; and none can be assigned, unless it be, that having represented each one of the four living creatures in their turn as calling attention to the remarkable events about to occur, there seemed to be no necessity or propriety in introducing them again. In itself considered, it cannot be supposed that they would be any less interested in the events about to be disclosed than they were in those which preceded. This seal pertains to martyrs—as the former successively did to a time of prosperity and triumph; to discord and bloodshed; to oppressive taxation; to war, famine, and pestilence. In the series of woes, it was natural and proper that there should be a vision of martyrs, if it was intended that the successive seals should refer to coming and important periods of the world; and accordingly we have here a striking representation of the martyrs crying to God to interpose in their behalf and to avenge their blood. The points which require elucidation are: (a) their position—under the altar; (b) their invocation—or their prayer that they might be avenged; (c) the clothing of them with robes; and (d) the command to wait patiently a little time. (1) The position of the martyrs—under the altar. There were in the temple at Jerusalem two altars—the altar of burnt sacrifices, and the altar of incense. The altar here referred to was probably the former. This stood in front of the temple, and it was on this that the daily sacrifice was made. Comp. Notes on Mat. v. 23, 24. We are to remember, however, that the temple and the altar were both destroyed before the time when this book was written, and this should, therefore, be regarded merely as a vision. John saw these souls as if they were collected under the altar—the place where the sacrifice for sin was made—offering their supplications. Why they are represented as being there is not so apparent; but probably two suggestions will explain this: (a) The altar was the place where sin was expiated, and it was natural to represent these redeemed martyrs as seeking refuge there; and (b) it was usual to offer prayers and supplications at the altar, in connection with the sacrifice made for sin, and on the ground of that sacrifice. The idea is, that they who were suffering persecution would naturally seek a refuge in the place where expiation was made for sin, and where prayer was appropriately offered. The language here is such as a Hebrew would naturally use; the idea is appropriate to anyone who believes in the atonement, and who supposes that that is the appropriate refuge for those who are in trouble. But while the language here is such as a Hebrew would use, and while the reference in the language is to the altar of burnt sacrifice, the scene should be regarded as undoubtedly laid in heaven—the temple where God resides. The whole representation is that of fleeing to the atonement, and pleading with God in connection with the sacrifice for sin. ¶ The souls of them that were slain. That had been put to death by persecution. This is one of the incidental proofs in the Bible that the soul does not cease to exist at death, and also that it does not cease to be conscious, or does not sleep till the resurrection. These souls of the martyrs are represented as still in existence; as remembering what had occurred on the earth; as interested in what was now taking place; as engaged in prayer; and as manifesting earnest desires for the divine interposition to avenge the wrongs which they had suffered. ¶ For the word of God. On account of the word or truth of God. See Notes on ch. i. 9. ¶ And for the testimony which they held. On account of their testimony to the truth, or being faithful witnesses of the truth of Jesus Christ. See Notes on ch. i. 9. (2) The invocation of the martyrs, ver. 10: And they cried with a loud voice. That is, they pleaded that their blood might be avenged. ¶ Saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true. They did not doubt that God would avenge them, but they inquired how long the vengeance would be delayed. It seemed to them that God was slow to interpose, and to check the persecuting power. They appeal therefore to him as a God of holiness and truth; that is, as one who could not look with approval on sin, and in whose sight the wrongs inflicted by the persecuting power must be infinitely offensive; as one who was true to his promises, and faithful to his people. On the ground of his own hatred of wrong, and of his plighted faithfulness to his church, they pleaded that he would interpose. ¶ Dost thou not judge and avenge our blood. That is, dost thou forbear to judge and avenge us; or dost thou delay to punish those who have persecuted and slain us. They do not speak as if they had any doubt that it would be done, nor as if they were actuated by a spirit of revenge; but as if it would be proper that there should be an expression of the divine sense of the wrongs that had been done them. It is not right to desire vengeance or revenge; it is to desire that justice should be done, and that the government of God should be vindicated. The word “judge” here may either mean “judge us,” in the sense of “vindicate us,” or it may refer to their persecutors, meaning “judge them.” The more probable sense is the latter: “How long dost thou forbear to execute judgment on our account on those that dwell on the earth?” The word avenge—ἐκδικέω—means to do justice; to execute punishment. ¶ On them that dwell on the earth. Those who are still on the earth. This shows that the scene here is laid in heaven, and that the souls of the martyrs are represented as there. We are not to suppose that this literally occurred, and that John actually saw the souls of the martyrs beneath the altars—for the whole representation is symbolical; nor are we to suppose that the injured and the wronged in heaven actually pray for vengeance on those who wronged them, or that the redeemed in heaven will continue to pray with reference to things on the earth; but it may be fairly inferred from this that there will be as real a remembrance of the wrongs of the persecuted, the injured, and the oppressed, as if such prayer were offered there; and that the oppressor has as much to dread from the divine vengeance as if those whom he has injured should cry in heaven to the God who hears prayer, and who takes vengeance. The wrongs done to the children of God; to the orphan, the widow, the down-trodden; to the slave and the outcast, will be as certainly remembered in heaven as if they who are wronged should plead for vengeance there, for every act of injustice and oppression goes to heaven and pleads for vengeance. Every persecutor should dread the death of the persecuted as if he went to heaven to plead against him; every cruel master should dread the death of his slave that is crushed by wrongs; every seducer should dread the death and the cries of his victim; every one who does wrong in any way should remember that the sufferings of the injured cry to heaven with a martyr’s pleadings, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood?” (3) The robes that were given to the martyrs: And white robes were given unto every one of them. Emblems of purity or innocence. See Notes on ch. iii. 5. Here the robes would be an emblem of their innocence as martyrs; of the divine approval of their testimony and lives, and a pledge of their future blessedness. (4) The command to wait: And it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season. That is, that they must wait for a little season before they could be avenged as they desired, ver. 10. They had pleaded that their cause might be at once vindicated, and had asked how long it would be before it should be done. The reply is, that the desired vindication would not at once occur, but that they must wait until other events were accomplished. Nothing definite is determined by the phrase “a little season,” or a short time. It is simply an intimation that this would not immediately occur, or was not soon to take place. Whether it refers to an existing persecution, and to the fact that they were to wait for the divine interposition until that was over, and those who were then suffering persecution should be put to death and join them; or whether to a series of persecutions stretching along in the history of the world, in such a sense that the promised vengeance would take place only when all those persecutions were passed, and the number of the martyrs completed, cannot be determined from the meaning of their words. Either of these suppositions would accord well with what the language naturally expresses. ¶ Until their fellow-servants also. Those who were then suffering persecution, or those who should afterwards suffer persecution, grouping all together. ¶ And their brethren. Their brethren as Christians, and their brethren in trial: those then living, or those who would live afterwards and pass through similar scenes. ¶ Should be fulfilled. That is, till these persecutions were passed through, and the number of the martyrs was complete. The state of things represented here would seem to be, that there was then a persecution raging on the earth. Many had been put to death, and their souls had fled to heaven, where they pleaded that their cause might be vindicated, and that their oppressors and persecutors might be punished. To this the answer was, that they were now safe and happy—that God approved their course, and that in token of his approbation they should be clothed in white raiment; but that the invoked vindication could not at once occur. There were others who would yet be called to suffer as they had done, and they must wait until all that number was completed. Then, it is implied, God would interpose, and vindicate his name. The scene, therefore, is laid in a time of persecution, when many had already died, and when there were many more that were exposed to death; and a sufficient fulfilment of the passage, so far as the words are concerned, would be found in any persecution, where many might be represented as having already gone to heaven, and where there was a certainty that many more would follow. We naturally, however, look for the fulfilment of it in some period succeeding those designated by the preceding symbols. There would be no difficulty, in the early history of the church, in finding events that would correspond with all that is represented by the symbol; but it is natural to look for it in a period succeeding that represented, under the fourth seal, by Death on the pale horse. If the previous seals have been correctly interpreted we shall not be much in danger of erring in supposing that this refers to the persecution under Diocletian; and perhaps we may find in one who never intended to write a word that could be construed as furnishing a proof of the fulfilment of the prophecies of the New Testament, what should be regarded as a complete verification of all that is represented here. The following particulars may justify this application: (a) The place of that persecution in history, or the time when it occurred. As already remarked, if the previous seals have been rightly explained, and the fourth seal denotes the wars, the famine, and the pestilence, under the invasion of the Goths, and in the time of Valerian and Gallienus, then the last great persecution of the church under Diocletian would well accord with the period in history referred to. Valerian died in A.D. 260, being flayed alive by Sapor, king of Persia; Gallienus died in A.D. 268, being killed at Milan. Diocletian ascended the throne A.D. 284, and resigned the purple A.D. 304. It was during this period, and chiefly at the instigation of Galerius, that the tenth persecution of the Christians occurred—the last under the Roman power; for in A.D. 306 Constantine ascended the throne, and ultimately became the protector of the church. (b) The magnitude of this persecution under Diocletian is as consonant to the representation here as its place in history. So important was it, that, in a general chapter on the persecutions of the Christians, Mr. Gibbon has seen fit, in his remarks on the nature, causes, extent, and character of the persecutions, to give a prominence to this which he has not assigned to any others, and to attach an importance to it which he has not to any other. See vol. i. pp. 317‒322. The design of this persecution, as Mr. Gibbon expresses it (i. 318), was “to set bounds to the progress of Christianity;” or, as he elsewhere expresses it (on the same page), “the destruction of Christianity.” Diocletian, himself naturally averse from persecution, was excited to this by Galerius, who urged upon the emperor every argument by which he could persuade him to engage in it. Mr. Gibbon says in regard to this, “Galerius at length extorted from him [Diocletian] the permission of summoning a council, composed of a few persons, the most distinguished in the civil and military departments of the state. It may be presumed that they insisted on every topic which might interest the pride, the piety, the fears of their sovereign in the destruction of Christianity,” i. 318. The purpose evidently in the persecution, was, to make a last and desperate effort, through the whole Roman empire, for the destruction of the Christian religion; for Mr. Gibbon (i. 320) says that “the edict against the Christians was designed for a general law of the whole empire.” Other efforts had failed. The religion still spread, notwithstanding the rage and fury of nine previous persecutions. It was resolved to make one more effort. This was designed by the persecutors to be the last, in the hope that then the Christian name would cease to be: in the providence of God it was the last—for then even these opposing powers became convinced that the religion could not be destroyed in this manner—and as this persecution was to establish this fact, it was an event of sufficient magnitude to be symbolized by the opening of one of the seals. (c) The severity of this persecution accorded with the description here, and was such as to deserve a place in the series of important events which were to occur in the world. We have seen above, from the statement of Mr. Gibbon, that it was designed for the “whole empire,” and it in fact raged with fury throughout the empire. After detailing some of the events of local persecutions under Diocletian, Mr. Gibbon says, “The resentment or the fears of Diocletian at length transported him beyond the bounds of moderation, which he had hitherto preserved, and he declared, in a series of edicts, his intention of abolishing the Christian name. By the first of these edicts the governors of the provinces were directed to apprehend all persons of the ecclesiastical order; and the prisons destined for the vilest criminals were soon filled with a multitude of bishops, presbyters, deacons, and exorcists. By a second edict the magistrates were commanded to employ every method of severity which might reclaim them from their odious superstition, and oblige them to return to the established worship of the gods. This rigorous order was extended, by a subsequent edict, to the whole body of Christians, who were exposed to a violent and general persecution. Instead of those salutary restraints which had required the direct and solemn testimony of an accuser, it became the duty as well as the interest of the imperial officers to discover, to pursue, and to torment the most obnoxious among the faithful. Heavy penalties were denounced against all who should presume to save a proscribed sectary from the just indignation of the gods, and of the emperors,” i. 322. The first decree against the Christians, at the instigation of Galerius, will show the general nature of this fiery trial of the church. That decree was to the following effect: “All assembling of the Christians for the purposes of religious worship was forbidden; the Christian churches were to be demolished to their foundations; all manuscripts of the Bible should be burned; those who held places of honour or rank must either renounce their faith or be degraded; in judicial proceedings the torture might be used against all Christians, of whatever rank; those belonging to the lower walks of private life were to be divested of their rights as citizens and as freemen; Christian slaves were to be incapable of receiving their freedom, so long as they remained Christians” (Neander, Hist. of the Church, Torrey’s Trans. i. 148). This persecution was the last against the Christians by the Roman emperors; the last that was waged by that mighty Pagan power. Diocletian soon resigned the purple, and after the persecution had continued to rage, with more or less severity, under his successors, for ten years, the peace of the church was established. “Diocletian,” says Mr. Gibbon (i. 322), “had no sooner published his edicts against the Christians, than, as if he had been committing to other hands his work of persecution, he divested himself of the imperial purple. The character and situation of his colleagues and successors sometimes urged them to enforce, and sometimes to suspend, the execution of these rigorous laws; nor can we acquire a just and distinct idea of this important period of ecclesiastical history, unless we separately consider the state of Christianity in the different parts of the empire, during the space of ten years which elapsed between the first edicts of Diocletian and the final peace of the church.” For this detail consult Gibbon, i. 322‒329, and the authorities there referred to; and Neander, Hist. of the Church, i. 147‒156. Respecting the details of the persecution, Mr. Gibbon remarks (i. 326), “It would have been an easy task, from the history of Eusebius, from the declamations of Lactantius, and from the most ancient acts, to collect a long series of horrid and disgustful pictures, and to fill many pages with racks and scourges, with iron-hooks, and red-hot beds, and with the variety of tortures which fire and steel, savage beasts, and more savage executioners, could inflict on the human body.” It is true that Mr. Gibbon professes to doubt the truth of these records, and attempts to show that the account of the number of the martyrs has been greatly exaggerated; yet no one, in reading his own account of this persecution, can doubt that it was the result of a determined effort to blot out the Christian religion, and that the whole of the imperial power was exerted to accomplish this end. At length the last of the imperial persecutions ceased, and the great truth was demonstrated that Christianity could not be extinguished by power, and that “the gates of hell could not prevail against it.” “In the year 311,” says Neander (i. 156), “the remarkable edict appeared which put an end to the last sanguinary conflict of the Christian church and the Roman empire.” This decree was issued by the author and instigator of the persecution, Galerius, who, “softened by a severe and painful disease, the consequence of his excesses, had been led to think that the God of the Christians might, after all, be a powerful being, whose anger punished him, and whose favour he must endeavour to conciliate.” This man suspended the persecution, and gave the Christians permission “once more to hold their assemblies, provided they did nothing contrary to the good order of the Roman state.” “Ita ut ne quid contra disciplinam agant” (Neander, ibid.).

12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great 229earthquake; and the sun230 became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

13 And the 231stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig-tree casteth her 232untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

14 And the 233heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and 234every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, 235hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

16 And 236said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

17 For the 237great day of his wrath is come; and 238who shall be able to stand?

12‒17. And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal. See Notes, ch. v. 1; vi. 1. ¶ And, lo, there was a great earthquake. Before endeavouring to ascertain to what the sixth seal was designed to refer, it is proper, as in the previous cases, to furnish a particular explanation of the meaning of the symbols. All the symbols represented in the opening of this seal denote consternation, commotion, changes; but still they are all significant, and we are to suppose that something would occur corresponding with each one of them. It cannot be supposed that the things here described were represented on the part of the roll or volume that was now unfolded in any other way than that they were pictures, or that the whole was a species of panoramic representation made to pass before the eyes. Thus understood, it would not be difficult to represent each one of these things in a painting: as the heaving ground—the agitated forests—the trembling hills—the falling cities and houses—the sun blackened, and the moon turned to blood.

(a) The earthquake, ver. 12: There was a great earthquake. The word here used denotes a shaking or agitation of the earth. The effect, when violent, is to produce important changes—opening chasms in the earth; throwing down houses and temples; sinking hills, and elevating plains; causing ponds and lakes to dry up, or forming them where none existed; elevating the ocean from its bed, rending rocks, &c. As all that occurs in the opening of the other seals is symbolical, it is to be presumed that this is also, and that for the fulfilment of this we are not to look for a literal earthquake, but for such agitations and changes in the world as would be properly symbolized by this. The earthquake, as a symbol, would merely denote great agitations or overturnings on the earth. The particular character of those changes must be determined by other circumstances in the symbol that would limit and explain it. There are, it is said, but three literal earthquakes referred to in the Scripture: that mentioned in 1 Ki. xix. 11; that in Uzziah’s time, Am. i. 1; Zec. xiv. 5; and that which took place at the Saviour’s death. All the rest are emblematical or symbolical—referring mostly to civil commotions and changes. Then in Hag. ii. 6, 7: “Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land, and I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come; and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts.” That is, there would be great agitations in the world before he came. See Notes on He. xii. 26‒28. So also great changes and commotions are referred to in Is. xxiv. 19, 20: “The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly. The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage.” An earthquake, if there were no other circumstances limiting and explaining the symbol, would merely denote great agitation and commotion—as if states and empires were tumbling to ruin. As this is here a mere symbol, it is not necessary to look for a literal fulfilment, or to expect to find in history actual earthquakes to which this had reference, any more than when it is said that “the heavens departed as a scroll” we are to expect that they will be literally rolled up; but if, in the course of history, earthquakes preceded remarkable political convulsions and revolutions, it would be proper to represent such events in this way.

(b) The darkening of the sun: And the sun became black as sackcloth of hair. Sackcloth was a coarse black cloth, commonly, though not always, made of hair. It was used for sacks, for strainers, and for mourning garments; and as thus worn it was not an improper emblem of sadness and distress. The idea here is, that the sun put on a dark, dingy, doleful appearance, as if it were in mourning. The general image, then, in this emblem, is that of calamity—as if the very sun should put on the robes of mourning. We are by no means to suppose that this was literally to occur, but that some great calamity would happen, of which this would be an appropriate emblem. See Notes on Is. xiii. 10; Mat. xxiv. 29. Comp. Is. xxiv. 23; xxxiv. 4; l. 3; lx. 19, 20; Eze. xxxii. 7, 8; Joel ii. 10; iii. 15, 16; Am. viii. 9. What is the particular nature of the calamity is to be learned from other parts of the symbol.

(c) The discoloration of the moon: And the moon became as blood. Red like blood—either from the smoke and vapour that usually precedes an earthquake, or as a mere emblem. This also would betoken calamity, and perhaps the symbol may be so far limited and modified by this as to denote war, for that would be most naturally suggested by the colour—red. Comp. Notes on ver. 4 of this chapter. But any great calamity would be appropriately represented by this—as the change of the moon to such a colour would be a natural emblem of distress.

(d) The falling of the stars, ver. 13: And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth. This language is derived from the poetic idea that the sky seems to be a solid concave, in which the stars are set, and that when any convulsion takes place, that concave will be shaken, and the stars will be loosened and fall from their places. See this language explained in the Notes on Is. xxxiv. 4. Sometimes the expanse above us is spoken of as a curtain that is spread out, and that may be rolled up; sometimes as a solid crystalline expanse in which the stars are fixed. According to either representation the stars are described as falling to the earth. If the expanse is rolled up, the stars, having nothing to support them, fall; if violent tempests or concussions shake the heavens, the stars, loosened from their fixtures, fall to the earth. Stars, in the Scriptures, are symbols of princes and rulers (see Da. viii. 10; Re. viii. 10, 11; ix. 1); and the natural meaning of this symbol is, that there would be commotions which would unsettle princes, and bring them down from their thrones—like stars falling from the sky. ¶ Even as a fig-tree casteth her untimely figs. Marg., green; Gr., ὀλύνθους. This word properly denotes winter-figs, or such as grow under the leaves, and do not ripen at the proper season, but hang upon the trees during the winter (Rob. Lex.). This fruit seldom matures, and easily falls off in the spring of the year (Stuart, in loco). A violent wind shaking a plantation of fig-trees would of course cast many such figs to the ground. The point of the comparison is, the ease with which the stars would seem to be shaken from their places, and hence the ease with which, in these commotions, princes would be dethroned.

(e) The departing of the heavens, ver. 14: And the heaven departed as a scroll. That is, as a book or volume—βιβλίον—rolled up. The heavens are here described as spread out, and their passing away is represented by the idea that they might be rolled up, and thus disappear. See Notes on Is. xxxiv. 4. This, too, is a symbol, and we are not to suppose that it will literally occur. Indeed it never can literally occur; and we are not, therefore, to look for the fulfilment of this in any physical fact that would correspond with what is here said. The plain meaning is, that there would be changes as if such an event would happen; that is, that revolutions would occur in the high places of the earth, and among those in power, as if the stars should fall, and the very heavens were swept away. This is the natural meaning of the symbol, and this accords with the usage of the language elsewhere.

(f) The removal of mountains and islands, ver. 14: And every mountain and island were moved out of their places. This would denote convulsions in the political or moral world, as great as would occur in the physical world if the very mountains were removed and the islands should change their places. We are not to suppose that this would literally occur; but we should be authorized from this to expect that, in regard to those things which seemed to be permanent and fixed on an immovable basis, like mountains and islands, there would be violent and important changes. If thrones and dynasties long established were overthrown; if institutions that seemed to be fixed and permanent were abolished; if a new order of things should rise in the political world, the meaning of the symbol, so far as the language is concerned, would be fulfilled.

(g) The universal consternation, ver. 15‒17: And the kings of the earth, &c. The design of these verses (15‒17), in the varied language used, is evidently to denote universal consternation and alarm—as if the earth should be convulsed, and the stars should fall, and the heavens should pass away. This consternation would extend to all classes of men, and fill the world with alarm, as if the end of all things were coming. ¶ The kings of the earth. Rulers—all who occupied thrones. ¶ The great men. High officers of state. ¶ And the rich men. Their wealth would not secure them from destruction, and they would be alarmed like others. ¶ And the chief captains. The commanders of armies, who tremble like other men when God appears in judgment. ¶ And the mighty men. Men of great prowess in battle, but who feel now that they have no power to withstand God. ¶ And every bondman. Servant—δοῦλος. This word does not necessarily denote a slave (comp. Notes on Ep. vi. 5; 1 Ti. vi. 1; Phile. 16), but here the connection seems to demand it, for it stands in contrast with freeman. There were, in fact, slaves in the Roman empire, and there is no objection in supposing that they are here referred to. There is no reason why they should not be filled with consternation as well as others; and as this does not refer to the end of the world, or the day of judgment, the word here determines nothing as to the question whether slavery is to continue on the earth. ¶ And every freeman. Whether the master of slaves or not. The idea is, that all classes of men, high and low, would be filled with alarm. ¶ Hid themselves in the dens. Among the caves or caverns in the mountains. See Notes on Is. ii. 19. These places were resorted to for safety in times of danger. Comp. 1 Sa. xiii. 6; xxiv.; Ju. vi. 2; Je. xli. 9; Jos. Ant. book xiv. ch. xv.; Jewish Wars, book i. ch. xvi. ¶ And in the rocks of the mountains. Among the crags or the fastnesses of the mountains—also natural places of refuge in times of hostile invasion or danger. See Notes on Is. ii. 21. ¶ And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, &c., ver. 16. This language is found substantially in Ho. x. 8: “And they shall say to the mountains, Cover us; and to the hills, Fall on us.” It is also used by the Saviour as denoting the consternation which would occur at his coming: “Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us,” Lu. xxiii. 30. It is language denoting consternation, and an awful fear of impending wrath. The state of mind is that where there is an apprehension that God himself is coming forth with the direct instruments of his vengeance, and where there is a desire rather to be crushed by falling rocks and hills than by the vengeance of his uplifted arm. ¶ From the face of him that sitteth on the throne. The face of God—for he seems to be coming forth with the displays of his vengeance. It is not said that God would actually come forth in a visible form, but their consternation would be as great as if he were to do this; the state of mind indicated by this was an apprehension that it would be so. ¶ And from the wrath of the Lamb. The Lamb of God; the Lord Jesus. See Notes on ch. v. 6. There seems to be an incongruity between the words wrath and Lamb; but the word Lamb here is so far a proper name as to be used only to designate the Redeemer. He comes forth to execute wrath, not as a Lamb, but as the Son of God, who bore that name. It would seem from this that they who thus dreaded the impending terrors were aware of their source, or had knowledge enough to understand by whom they were to be inflicted. They would see that these were divine judgments, and would apprehend that the end of the world drew near. ¶ For the great day of his wrath is come, ver. 17. The threatening judgments would be so severe and awful that they would suppose that the end of the world was coming. ¶ And who shall be able to stand? To stand before him, or to withstand his judgments.

It is unnecessary to say that there has been, in this case, as in reference to every other part of the book of Revelation, a great diversity of opinion respecting the events symbolized by this seal. Grotius applied it to the wars between the Jews and Romans under Nero and Vespasian; Dr. Hammond supposed that the defeat of the Jewish leaders in those wars was particularly symbolized; Mr. Brightman referred these symbols to the persecution under Diocletian; Mr. Mede, Dr. Cressner, Dr. More, Mr. Whiston, Mr. Jurien, Mr. Daubuz, Mr. Lowman, Bishop Newton, Mr. Elliott, and others, refer it to the defeat of the Pagan powers, and the final suppression of those powers as opposed to Christianity; Vitringa regarded it as foreshadowing the overthrow of the antichristian powers of the western Roman empire; Cocceius explains it of the wars of the Emperor Frederick against the German princes in the sixteenth century; Dean Woodhouse, of the day of vengeance at the end of the world; Mr. Cunninghame, of the same period as the seventh trumpet, commencing with the French revolution, and to be consummated by the visible advent of the Son of God; Professor Stuart, of the destruction of Jerusalem; and Mr. Lord, of a series of events, part of which are fulfilled, three of them corresponding with the first three vials—the first expressive of the revolution of France, the second of a despotism extending through several years, and the third of the overthrow of that violent dynasty, at the fall of Bonaparte, in 1815. It is not my purpose to examine these views; but, amidst this great variety of opinion, it seems to me that the obvious and natural application of the opening of the seal has not been adverted to. I shall suggest it because it is the most natural and obvious, and seems to be demanded by the explanations given of the previous seals. It is, in one word, the impending judgments from the invasions of the northern hordes of Goths and Vandals, threatening the breaking up of the Roman empire—the gathering of the storm, and the hovering of those barbarians on the borders of the empire; the approaches which they made from time to time towards the capital, though restrained as yet from taking it; the tempest of wrath that was, as it were, suspended yet on the frontiers, until the events recorded in the next chapter should occur, then bursting forth in wrath in successive blasts, as denoted by the first four trumpets of the seventh seal (ch. viii.), when the empire was entirely overthrown by the Goths and Vandals. The precise point of time which I suppose this seal occupies is that succeeding the last persecution. It embraces the preparatory arrangements of these hordes of invaders—their gathering on the frontiers of the empire—their threatened approaches toward the capital—and the formation of such vast armies as would produce universal consternation. A brief notice of these preparatory scenes, as adapted to produce the alarm referred to in the opening of the sixth seal, is all that will be necessary here; the more complete detail must be reserved for the explanation of the four trumpets of the seventh seal, when the work of destruction was consummated. These preparations and threatened invasions were events sufficiently important in their relation to the church, to what preceded, and to the future history of the world, to be symbolized here; and they are events in which all the particulars of the symbol may find a fulfilment. Anyone has only to look on a chart of history to see how appropriately this application of the symbol follows, if the previous explanations have been correct. In the illustration of this, in order to show the probability that these events are referred to by the symbols of the sixth seal, I would submit the following remarks:—

(1) The time is that which would be naturally suggested by this seal in its relation to the others. If the fifth referred to the persecutions under Diocletian—the last great persecution of the Pagan powers in attempting to extinguish the Christian name—then we should naturally look for the fulfilment of the opening of the next in some event, or series of events, which would succeed that at no very distant interval, and that pertained to the empire or power that had been the prominent subject of the predictions in the previous seals. It would also be natural to look for some events that might be regarded as conveying an expression of the divine feeling in regard to that power, or that would present it in such an aspect that it would be seen that its power to persecute was at an end. This natural expectation would be answered either by some symbol that would refer to the complete triumph of the Christian system, or by such a series of judgments as would break the persecuting power itself in pieces. Now the threatened irruption of the northern barbarians followed the series of events already described with sufficient nearness to make it proper to regard that series of events as referred to.

(2) The events were of sufficient importance in the history of the empire to deserve this notice in the foreshadowing of what would occur. They were connected with the breaking up of that mighty power, and the complete change of the aspect of the world, in a political and religious point of view. A new order of things arose in the world’s history. A new religion became established. New kingdoms from the fragments of the once-mighty Roman empire were founded, and the affairs of the world were put on a new footing. These mighty northern hordes not only spread consternation and alarm, as if the world were coming to an end, but they laid the foundations of kingdoms which continue to this day. In fact, few more important events have occurred in history.

(3) This series of events was introduced in the manner described in the opening of the sixth seal. I have already said that it is not necessary to suppose, in the fulfilment of the symbol, that there would be a literal earthquake; but nothing in the symbol forbids us to suppose that there might be, and if there were we could not but consider it as remarkable. Now it so happens that the series of events pertaining to the Gothic invasions is introduced by Mr. Gibbon in the following language: “A.D. 365. In the second year of the reign of Valentinian and Valens, on the morning of the twenty-first day of July, the greatest part of the Roman world was shaken by a violent and destructive earthquake. The impression was communicated to the waters; the shores of the Mediterranean were left dry by the sudden retreat of the sea; great quantities of fish were caught with the hand; large vessels were stranded on the mud; and a curious spectator amused his eye, or rather his fancy, by contemplating the various appearances of valleys and mountains which had never before, since the formation of the globe, been exposed to the sun. But the tide soon returned, with the weight of an immense and irresistible deluge, which was severely felt on the coasts of Sicily, of Dalmatia, of Greece, and of Egypt; large boats were transported, and lodged on the roofs of houses, or at the distance of two miles from the shore; the people, with their habitations, were swept away by the waters; and the city of Alexandria annually commemorated the day on which fifty thousand persons had lost their lives in the inundation. This calamity, the report of which was magnified from one province to another, astonished and terrified the subjects of Rome; and their affrighted imagination enlarged the real extent of the momentary evil. They recollected the preceding earthquakes which had subverted the cities of Palestine and Bithynia; they considered these alarming strokes as the prelude only of still more dreadful calamities, and their fearful vanity was disposed to confound the symptoms of a declining empire and a sinking world,” vol. ii. pp. 115, 116. Mr. Gibbon then proceeds to detail the evils of war, as greatly surpassing the calamities produced by any natural causes, and adds (p. 116), “In the disastrous period of the fall of the Roman empire, which may be justly dated from the reign of Valens, the happiness and security of each individual was personally attacked; and the arts and labours of ages were rudely defaced by the barbarians of Scythia and Germany.” He then proceeds with an exceedingly interesting description of the origin, the habits, and the movements of the Tartar nations, particularly the Huns, as they moved to the West, and precipitated the Gothic nations on the provinces of the Roman empire, until Rome itself was thrice besieged, was taken, and was sacked (ii. 116‒266). The earthquake referred to occurred in A.D. 365. The movements of the Huns from their territories in the neighbourhood of China had commenced about A.D. 100, and in A.D. 375 they overcame the Goths lying along the Danube. The Goths, pressed and overcome by these savage invaders, asked permission of the Romans to cross the Danube, to find protection in the Roman empire, and to cultivate the waste lands of Thrace (Gibbon, ii. 129, 130). In the year 376 they were transported over the Danube, by the permission of the Roman emperor Valens; an event which, according to Mr. Gibbon, in its ultimate result, was the cause of the downfall of the empire; for they learned their own strength; they were attracted by the riches of the capital and the hope of reward, until they finally drew the Western emperor to Ravenna, sacked Rome, and took possession of Italy.

(4) A slight reference to the series of events in these periods of consternation and conquest may show more closely the nature of the alarms which would be caused by the prospect of these dreadful invasions, and may prepare us for a better understanding of the successive calamities which occurred under these invaders, when the empire fell, as described by the four first trumpets of the seventh seal. I shall copy from the tables of contents of Mr. Gibbon’s history, under the twenty-sixth, thirtieth, and thirty-first chapters:—

“A.D.
365.	Earthquakes.
376.	The Huns and Goths.
100.	The emigration of the Huns.
375.	Their victories over the Goths.
376.	The Goths implore the protection of Valens.
”	They are transported over the Danube into the Roman empire.
”	They penetrate into Thrace.
377.	Union of the Goths with Huns, Alani, &c.
378.	Battle of Hadrianople.
”	The defeat of the Romans.
383‒395.	The settlement of the Goths in Thrace and Asia.
395.	Revolt of the Goths.
396.	Alaric marches into Greece.
398.	Is proclaimed king of the Visigoths.
400‒403.	He invades Italy.
406.	Radagaisus invades Italy.
”	Besieges Florence.
”	Threatens Rome.
”	The remainder of the Germans invade Gaul.
407.	Desolation of Gaul.
408.	Alaric marches to Rome.
”	First siege of Rome by the Goths.
408.	Famine, plague, superstition.
409.	Alaric accepts a ransom and raises the siege.
”	Fruitless negotiations for peace.
”	Second siege of Rome by the Goths.
410.	Third siege and sack of Rome by the Goths.
”	Respect of the Goths for the Christian religion.
”	Pillage and fire of Rome.
”	Captives and fugitives.
411‒416.	Fall of the usurpers Jovinus, Sebastian, and Attalus.
409.	Invasion of Spain by the Suevi, Vandals, Alani, &c.
415‒418.	The Goths conquer and restore Spain.”

(5) This would coincide, in the effects produced on the empire, with the consternation and alarm described in the passage before us. The symbols are such as would be employed on the supposition that these are the events referred to; they are such as the events are fitted to suggest. The mighty preparations in the East and North—the report of which could not but spread through the empire—would be appropriately symbolized by the earthquake, the darkened sun, the moon becoming like blood, the stars falling, the departing heavens, and the kings and great men of the earth fleeing in alarm to find a place of safety, as if the end of the world were drawing near. Nothing could have been so well adapted to produce the consternation described in the opening of the sixth seal, as the dreaded approach of vast hosts of barbarians from the regions of the North. This alarm would be increased by the fact that their numbers were unknown; that their origin was hidden; and that the advancing multitudes would sweep everything before them. As in other cases, also, rumour would increase their numbers and augment their ferocity. The sudden shock of an earthquake, the falling stars, the departing heavens, the removal of mountains and islands, and the consternation of kings and all classes of people, would be the appropriate emblems to represent these impending calamities. In confirmation of this, and as showing the effect produced by the approach of the Goths, and the dread of the Gothic arms, in causing universal consternation, the following extracts may be adduced from Mr. Gibbon, when describing the threatened invasion of Alaric, king of the Visigoths. He quotes from Claudian. “‘Fame,’ says the poet, ‘encircling with terror her gloomy wings, proclaimed the march of the barbarian army, and filled Italy with consternation.’” Mr. Gibbon adds, “the apprehensions of each individual were increased in just proportion to the measure of his fortune; and the most timid, who had already embarked their valuable effects, meditated their escape to the island of Sicily, or to the African coast. The public distress was aggravated by the fears and reproaches of superstition. Every hour produced some horrid tale of strange and portentous accidents; the Pagans deplored the neglect of omens and the interruption of sacrifices; but the Christians still derived some comfort from the powerful intercession of the saints and martyrs,” ii. 218, 219. See further illustrations in the Notes on ch. viii. 7‒13.

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Notes on the New Testament, Explanatory and Practical: Revelation

CONTENTS.

LIST OF ENGRAVINGS.

PREFACE.

EDITOR’S PREFACE.

INTRODUCTION
TO THE
BOOK OF REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.

§ I.— The Writer of the Book of Revelation.

§ II.—The Time of Writing the Apocalypse.