Notes on the Old and New Testaments

When I began the preparation of these 'Notes' on the New Testa ment, now more than twenty years ago, I did not design to extend the work beyond the Gospels, and contemplated only simple and brief explanations of that portion of the New Testament, for the use of Sunday-school teachers and Bible classes. The work originated in the belief that Notes of that character were greatly needed, and that the older commentaries, having been written for a different purpose, and being, on account of their size and expense, beyond the reach of most teachers of Sunday-schools, did not meet the demand which had grown up from the establishment of such schools. These Notes, contrary to my original plan and expectation, have been extended to eleven volumes, and embrace the whole of the New Testament.

Having, at the time when these Notes were commenced, as I have ever had since, the charge of a large congregation, I had no leisure that I could properly devote to these studies, except the early hours of the morning, and I adopted the resolution — a resolution which has since been invariably adhered to — to cease writing precisely at nine o'clock in the morning. The habit of writing in this manner, once formed, was easily continued, and having been thus continued, I find myself at the end of the New Testament. Perhaps this personal allusion would not be proper, except to show that I have not intended, in these literary labors, to infriu8;e on ibe proper duties of the pastoral office, or to take time for these pursuits on which there was a claim for other purposes. This allusion may perhaps also be of use to my younger brethren in the ministry, by showing them that much may be accomplished by the habit of early rising, and by a diligent use of the early morning hours. In my own case, these Notes on the New Testament, and also the Notes on the books of Isaiah, Job, and Daniel, extending in all to sixteen volumes, have all been written before nine o'clock in the morning, and kre the fruit of the habit of rising between four and five o'clock. I do not know that by this practice I have neglected any duty which I should otherwise have performed, and on the score of health, and, I may add, of profit in the contemplation of a portion of divine truth at the beginning of each day, the habit has been of inestimable advantage to me.

It was not my original intention to prepare Notes on the book of Revelation, nor did I entertain the design of doing it until I came up to it in the regular course of my studies. Having written on all the other portions of the New Testament, there remained only this book to complete an entire commentary on this part of the Bible. That I have endeavored to explain the book at all is to be traced to the habit which [ had formed of spending the early hours of the day in the study of Tae Sacred Scriptures. That habit, continued, has carried me forward until I have reached the end of the New Testament.

It may be of some use to those who peruse this volume, and it is proper in itself, that I should make a brief statement of the manner in which I have prepared these Notes, and of the method of interpretation on which I have proceeded; — fur the result which has been reached has not been the effect of any preconceived theory '^r plan, and if in the result I coincide in any degree with the common method of interpreting the volume, the fact may be regarded as the testimony of another witness— however unimportant the testimony may be in itself — to tho correctness of that method of interpretation.

Up to the time of commencing the exposition of this book, I had tjo theory in my own mind as to its meaning. I may add, that I had a prevailing belief that it could not be explained, and that all attempts to explain it must be visionary and futile. "With the exception of the work of the Rev. George Croly,* which I read more than twenty years ago, and which I had never desired to read again, I had perused no commentary on this book until that of Professor Stuart was published, in 1845. In my regular reading of the Bible in the family and in private, I had perused the book often. I read it, as I suppose most others do, from a sense of duty, yet admiring the beauty of its imagery, the sublimity of its descriptions, and its high poetic character; and though to me wholly unintelligible in the main, finding so many striking detached passages that were intelligible and practical in their nature,. as to make

* 'Tbe Apocalypse of St. John, or prophecy of the rise, progress, and fall of the iiiurch of Rome; the inquisition; the revolution in France; a universal war, and the final triumph of Christianity; being a new interpretation, by the Rev. Cleorgo Croly, A. M. U. R. S. L.

it on the whole attractive and profitable, but with no definitely-formed idea as to its meaning as a whole, and with a vague general feeling that all the interpretations which had been proposed were wild, fanciful, and visionary.

In this state of things, the utmost that I contemplated when I began to write on it, was, to explain, as well as I could, the meaning of the language and the symbols, without attempting to apply the explanation to the events of past history, or to inquire what is to occur hereafter. I supposed that I might venture to do this without encountering tho danger of adding another vain attempt to explain a book so full of mysteries, or of propounding a theory of interpretation to be set aside, perhaps, by the next person that should prepare a commentary on the book.

Beginning with this aim, I found myself soon insensibly inquiring whether, in the events which succeeded the time when the book was written, there were not historical facts of which the emblems employed would be natural and proper symbols on the supposition that it was the divine intention in disclosing these visions to refer to them, and whether, therefore, there might not be a natural and proper application of the symbols to these events. In this way, I examined the language used in reference to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth seals, with no anticipation or plan in examining one as to what would be disclosed under the next seal, and in this way also I examined ultimately the whole book: proceeding step by step in ascertaining the meaning of each word and symbol as it occurred, but with- no theoretic anticipation as to what was to follow. To my own surprise, I found, chiefly in Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Eoman Empire, a series of events recorded such as seemed to me to correspond to a great extent with the series of symbols found in the Apocalypse. The symbols were such as it might be supposed loould he iised, on the supposition that they were intended to refer to these events, and the language of Mr. Gibbon was often such as he would have used, on the supposition that he had designed to prepare a commentary on the symbols employed by John. It was such, in fact, that, if it had been found in a Christian writer, professedly writing a commentary on the book of Reve~ lation, it would have been regarded by infidels as a designed attempt to force history to utter a language that should conform to a predetermined theory in expounding a book full of symbols. So remarkable have these coincidences appeared to me in the course of this exposition, that it has almost seemed as if he had designed to write a com mentary on somo portion of this book, and t have found it difficult to doubt that that distinguished historian was raised up by an overruling Providence to make a record of those events which would ever afterwards be regarded as an impartial and unprejudiced statement of the evidences of the fulfilment of prophecy. The Historian of the ' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' had no belief in the divine origin of Christianity, but he brought to the performance of his work learning and talent such as few Christian scholars have possessed. He is always patient in his investigations; learned and scholarlike in his references; comprehensive in his groupings, and sufficiently minute in his details; unbiassed in his statements of facts, and usually cool and candid in his estimates of the causes of the events which he records; and, excepting his philosophical speculations, and his sneers at every thing, he has probably written the most candid and impartial history of the times iiiat succeeded the introduction of Christianity, that the world possesses, and even after all that has been written since his time, his work contains the best ecclesiastical history that is to be found. Whatever use of it can be made in explaining and confirming the prophecies, will be regarded by the world as impartial and fair; for it was a result which he least of all contemplated, that he would ever be regarded as an expounder of the prophecies in the Bible, oj be referred to as vindicating their truth.

It was in this manner that these Notes on the book of Revelatior assumed the form in which they are now given to the world; and it surprises me, and, under this view of the matter, may occasion some surprise to my readers, to find how nearly the views coincide with those taken by the great body of Protestant interpreters. And perhaps this fact may be regarded as furnishing some evidence that, after all the obscurity attending it, there is a natural and obvious interpretation of which the book is susceptible. Whatever may be the value or the correctness of the views expressed in this volume, the work is the result of no previously-formed theory. That it will be satisfactory to all, I have no reason to expect; that it may be useful to some, I would hope; that it may be regarded by many as only adding another vain and futile cfibrt to explain a book which defies aU attempts to elucidate its meaning, I have too much reason, judging from the labors of those who have gone before me, to fear. But, as it is, I commit it to the judgment of a candid Christian public, and to the blessing of Him who alone can make any attempt to explain his word a means of diffusing the knowledge of truth.

I cannot conceal the fact that I dismiss it, and send it forth to the worlcl, as the last volume on the New Testament, with deep emotion. After more than twenty years of study on the New Testament, I am reminded that I am no longer a young man; and that, as I close this work, so all my work on earth must at no distant period be ended. I am sensible that he incurs no slight responsibility who publishes a commentary on the Bible; and I especially feel this now in view of the fact — so unexpected to me when I began these labors — that I have been permitted in our own country to send forth more than two hundred and fifty thousand volumes of commentary on the New Testament, and that probably a greater number has been published abroad. That there are many imperfections in these Notes, no one can feel more sensibly than I do; but the views which I have expressed are those which seem to me to be in accordance with the Bible, and I send the last volume forth with the deep conviction that these volumes contain the truth as God has revealed it, and as he will bless it to the extension of his church in the world. I have no apprehension that the sentiments which I have expressed will corrupt the morals, or destroy the peace, or ruin the souls of those who may read these volumes; and I trust that they may do something to diffuse abroad a correct knowledge of that blessed gospel on which the interests of the church, the welfare of our country, and the happiness of the world, depend. In language which I substantially used in publishing the revised edition of the volumes on the Gospels, (Preface to the Seventeenth Edition, 1840,) I can now say, * I cannot be insensible to the fact that, in the form in which these volumes now go forth to the public, I may continue, though dead, to speak to the living; and that the work may be exerting an influence on immortal minds when I am in the eternal world. I need not say that, while I am sensitive to this consideration, I earnestly desire it. There are no sentiments in these volumes which I wish to alter; none that I do not believe to be truths that will abide the investigations of the great day; none of which I am ashamed. That I may be in error, I know; that a better work than this might be prepared by a more gifted mind, and a purer heart, I know. But the truths here set forth are, I am persuaded, those which are destined to abide, and to be the means of saving millions of souls, and ultimately of converting this whole world to God. That these volumes may have a part in this great work is my earnest prayer; and with many thanks to the public for their favors, and to God, the great source of all blessing, I send them forth, committing them to His care, and leaving them to live or die, to be remembered or forgotten, to be used by the present generation and the next, or to be superseded by other works, as shall be in accordance with his will, and as he shall see to be for his glory/

The works "which I have had most constantly before me, and from which I have derived most aid in the preparation of these Notes, are the following. They are enimierated here, as some of them are frequently quoted, to save the necessity of a frequent reference to the Editions in the Notes.

A Commentary on the Apocalypse, by Moses Stuart, Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary at Andover, Mass. Andover, 1845.

Horse Apocalypticas; or, a Commentary on the Apocalypse, Critical and Historical. By the Rev. E. B. Elliott, A. M. Late Vicar of Tuxford, and Fellow of Trinity College. Third Edition. London, 1847.

The works of Nathaniel Lardner, D. D. In ten volumes. London, 1829.

The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. By Edward Gibbon, Esq. Fifth American, from the last London edition. Complete in four volumes. New York, J. and J. Harper, 1829.

An Exposition of the Apocalypse. By David N. Lord. Harper & Brothers, 1847.

Dissertations on the Opening of the Sealed Book. Montreal, 1848.

Two New Arguments in vindication of the Genuineness and Authenticity of the Revelation of St. John. By John Collyer, Knight. London, 1842.

llie Seventh Vial, being an Exposition of the Apocalypse, and in particular of the pouring out of the Seventh Vial, with special reference to the present Revolution in Europe. London, 1848.

The Signs of the Times, as denoted by the fulfilment of Historical Predictions, from the Babylonian Captivity to the present time. By Alexander Keith, D. D. Eighth edition. Edinburgh, 1847.

Apocalyptical Key. An extraordinary discourse on the Rise and Fall of the Papacy. By Robert Fleming, V. D. M. New York, American Protestant Society.

A Key to the Book of Revelation. By James McDonald, Minister of the Presbyterian Church, Jamaica, L. I. Second Edition. New London, 1848.

Das alte und neue Morgenland. RosenmuUer. Leipzig, 1820.

The Season and Time; or, an exposition of the Prophecies whicw relate to the two periods subsequent to the 1200 years now recentlj expired, being the time of the Seventh Trumpet, &c. By W. Ettrick. A. M. London, 1816.

For a very full view of the History of the interpretation of the Apocalypse, and of the works that have been written on it, the reader ia referred to Elliott's Horae Apocalypticae, vol. iv., pp. 307-487, a?i(> prof. Stuart, vol. i., pp. 450-475.

§ 1. The Writer of the Booh 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 Kew Testament, pp. 650-673, Andover, 1836; Michaelis' Introduction to the New Testament, iv. 457-544; and the article Revelation, in Kitto's Cyclopedia 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 insuflBciency of the reason for doubting it.

I. The direct historical evidence. The sum of aU 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.

(a) 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 tho 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.

Mermas, about A. D. 100. In the "Shepherd," or "Pastor" ascribed to Una 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 ia prohaUe that Hermaa had read the book of Revelation, and imitated It.

He has many things resembling it." Vol. ii., p. 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 recognise 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 recognised 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. 9j 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 (Tavo new Arguments in vindication of the genuiness ard 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 Chronicou Paschale names A. D. 163; Eusebius, 167; Usher, 169; and Pearson, 148. Ho died at the age of eighty-six, and conse quently was cotemporary 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 aHusion to the book of Revelation

But from this circumstance, notning can be inferred respecting tlie 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 ei»istla 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 Irenaeus was the personal friend of Polycarp. Lardner, ii. 94-96. Now Irenoeus, 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 favor 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. Irenaeus asserts that he was the intimate friend ■ — iraipos — of Polycarp, and- this is also admitted by Eusebius. Eccl. 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 Cesarea, 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 Cesarea reckons him among the explicit witnesses in its favor. In the Preface to his commentary on the Apocalypse, Andrew says, "In regard now to the inspiration of the book, wo think it superfluous to extend our discourse, inasmuch as the blessed Gregory, and Cyril, and moreover the ancient [writers] Papias, Irenceus, Ilethodius, and Hip2iolytu8 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 ease in 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 h© 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; (h) so far as the testimony goes, it is in favor of its having been composed by John; (c) the fact that he was the author is not called in questioc 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 more easy to account for his holding these views, by supposing that the book waa known, and that he founded them on this book, than in any other way. See Prof. Stuart, i. 304.

(6) 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, Irenaeus, Melito, Theophilus, Apollonius, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian.

Justin Martyr. He was a Christian philosopher, bom at Flavia Neapolis, anciently called Sichem, a city of Samaria, it is supposed about A. D. 103; waa converted to Christianity about A. D. 133, and suffered martyrdom about A. D. 165. Lardner, ii. 125-140. He was partly cotemporary with Polycarp and Papias. He travelled in Egypt, Italy, and Asia Minor, and resided sometime at Ephesus. He was endowed with a bold and enquiring 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 bo of great value. He was an advocate of the doctrine of Chiliaam — 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 — iv ' ATtoKaXixpti yevoiiivT} avri^ — 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 — AiroKaXirpis — is used; that Justin believed that it was written by the apostle John; and that there is express reference to what is now chapter XX. of that book. The book was, therefore, in existence in the time cf 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 su2"ered 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 sufi'erihgs, 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 ^ivhich follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth." There can he no douht that this passage in Revelation was referred to; and it proves that the hook was then known, and that the writers were accustomed to regard it as on a level with the other sacred writings.

IreTKBUs. The testimony of this father has already heen referred to whe speaking of Polycarp. He was bishop of Lyons, in Gaul. His country is no cwftainly known, hut 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 m extreme old age. He became bishop of Lyons after he was seventy years of age, and wrote his principal work. Contra Hcereses, 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 orten 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 tne 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 Rev. xiii. 18. This evidence is clear and positive. Its value consists in these things: (a) That he was familiar with one who was a friend of John; (6) 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; (/) 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 tD 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 reques of Onesimus, he made extracts from the Scriptures respecting the Messianic pro phecies, and also a complete list of the books of the Old Testament, which is stil extant in Eusebius. Hist. Ecc. iv. 26. He wrote a Treatise, or Commentary on the Book of Revelation. Dr. Lardner says of this, "what it contained we axe not informed. I will say it was a commentary on that book. It is p.ain lie 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 favor 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; (5) 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; (/) and he wrote a Treatise, or commentary on it as an inspired book. It is not easy to conceive of stronger testimony in favor of the book.

TheopJiilus. 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 Hermogcnes, 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 Bays 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. Ho 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 honored 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." Prof. Stuart says (i. 317), "There is no good ground for doubt, from any thing 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.

Terttdlian. Ho was the contemporary of Clement, and was the most ancient, and one of the most learned of the Latin fathers. Lardner, ii. 207-306. He was born at Carthage, about the middle of the second century, and died about A. D. 220. Ho was bred up 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 gerenty passages in his ■writings, appealing to it expressly as the work of th6 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 tha4; 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 ua 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 an 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 bo 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. 4S9-513. 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 Buch a sect. viii. 628.

(c) 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 Egpptian 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 favor 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 Alexancb-ia, Ephrem the Syrian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Hilary of Poictiers, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, and many others.

Such is the external positive testimony in favor of the opinion that the book of Rovelation was written by the apostlo John,

To this might be added certain internal marks, or certain fao>s in the Ufa of John which accord with this supposition, and seem to confirm it. They are such that if they did 7iot 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 Jo/m, evidently with the design of representing himself as the Apostle of that name, for (a) his supposed relation to the churehei of Asia Minor is such as the relation of the apostle John was, and (6) 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 ho lived to extreme old age — to the time when the book was supposed to have been written. See § 2. (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.

(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 ho designed to reject the Apocalypse. This is in the following words: "And Cerin-

thus 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. Jtnd being an enemy to the divine Scriptures, and desirous to sedueo 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; {h) 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 iave 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. Tho views referred to by Caius, as held by Cerinthus, aro not the vieTrn which are found in Rev. xx. He spoke of a " terrestrial kingdom of Christ /' saj^ that "men would again live in Jerusalem;" that they "would be subject to sensual pleasures;" and that the " time of the thousand years would be spent in nuptial entertainments." None of these opinions are found on the book of Revelation as we now have it.

2. The title given by Caius to the book — Revelations instead of Revelation — 'ATTo/caAui/'tff — as we find it in the book itself, ch. 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 Apoca lypse 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. G93-697. I wUl copy aU 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 Johii'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 caUed after him the Corinthian, the better to recommend his own forgery, prefixed to it an honorable 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 %o be comprehended by me." Then, having quoted some passages from the book.

he adds, Bpeaking of the author, " I do not deny, then, that his name 13 John, and that this is John's book; for I believe it to be the work of some holy abd inspired person. Nevertheless, I cannot easily grant him to be the apostle, the son of Zebedee, brother of James, whose is tho 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 tho same author. He refers to no historical proof on that point; and does not even intimate that it genuineness had been called in question by the early writers. It is clear, therefore, that the objections of Dionysius should not be allowed to scb aside the strong and clear proofs of an historical nature already adduced from tho 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 cataloguo <jf 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 •ilso omitted; in the so-called Canons of the Apostles, a supposititious work of tho latter part of tho 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 mos* oereons say it is spurious." See Michaelis, Intro. New Tes. iv. 489; Prof. Stuart, I. 357, seq.

In regard to these omissions, and the doubts entertained by later writers on tho subject, it may be remarked in general, (1.) that it is well known that in tba latter part of tlio fourtli century and omrard 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 bftoks called Antilegomena; that is, hooks 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 • u 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 en-ors. The book seemed (see ch. 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. Thiis 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 Praefeeture in Egypt, had maintained that the doctrine of the Millennium covdd 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. " lie did this, however," says Hug, " with such moderation, that he might not offend those who had so readily agreed to a compromise j" — that is, a compromise by which, as bishop, he had endeavored 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 uni versally 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 favor 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 unuotessary to say that there can be none on these grounds now.

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

1. That the Apocalyptical writer calls himself John, which the evangelist never dees. It is added, also, by Ewald, Credner, and Hitzig, that in chs. 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 favorite 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 "sen- Buous 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 Cyclopedia 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 favor of John the Apostle, beginning with an examination of the arguments adduced on the other side by Do Wctte. These do not possess all the weight that many assign to them. Wo 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 loading the writer to set forth bis name, although curiosity is not gratified by assigning the reason. Tho Old Testament prophets usually prefixed their names to the visions and predictions which they were prompted to record -, and John docs 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 tho Gospel, John is mentioned AS the disciple whom Jesus loved, for then he stood in an intimate relation to Christj as the Son of man appearing in the form of a servant,• but in the book before tis, Christ is announced as the glorified Redeemer who should quickly come to judgment, and John is his servant, entrusted with the secrets of hia house. "Well did it hecome the apostle to forget all tho honor 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 humOity, to designate himself the servant of Jesus Christ, the brother and companion of the faithful in tribulation. Again, in ch. 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 afiBrma 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. Chapter xxi. 14 is alleged to be inconsistent with the modesty and humility of John. This is a questionable assumption. The official honor 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 Liicke, p. 389; and Guerike's Beitrdge, p. 37, sq.).

The book is deficient in words and turns of expression purely Greek, such as vdvTOTZ, -iriuTTOTS, ol6ii70T£; compound verbs, as dvayyAXctv, irapaXafipdveiv, iiriPdXXciv; the double negation; tho genitive absolute; the attraction of the relative pronoun; the regular construction of the neuter plural with the verb singular (except viii. 3; ix. 20; xiv. 13; xviii. 24; xix. 14; xxi. 12); uko^civ with the genitive. Favorite expressions, such as occur in the Gospel and epistles, are seldom found, KS dtdofiaif 0£Wj5fa), ipyd^onai, pt'iitara, -ndXiv, (piavsiv, nivtiv, Kadiis, wj (an adverb of time), ovv, jxiv fiivToi, Kda^iog, <pCi>g, cKorla, So^d^eaOai, v^lovaOai, ^Uifi aldviog, dnoWvaQatf ylros (tovto) 'va; the historic present. There are also favorite expressions of tho writer of this book, such as do not occur in John's authentic writings: oiKov^ivtjj trjoiiovfi, Kpareiv rb Svofia, rnv SiSa^^v, navTOKpdrwp, Oc^s Koi rar^jp, 6vvanis, Kparoff

i'^X^S, riiirj, np(j}r6T0K)S TwvvsKpiLv, j; apx^ rTjg kt'icxcws tov Oeov, b apx^^v twv ^anXiuv Tt'is yr}s, w<5£ in the beginning of a sentence. The conjunction d, so common in the Gospel, docs not occur in the Apocalypse; but only el fi^, tl hi jxfi, and I'i m. The frequent joining of a substantive with [iiyag, as (/.wv;) ixiyaXrj, 6X11^15 iitydXr), (^6^05 fiiyas, azicrrjos yiiyag, rather reminds one of Luke than John; yitii^wv, so frequent in the Gospel, is not found in the Revelation,• and, on the contrary, laXvpos, 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: d\vdiv6s is used of God both in the Gospel and the Apocalypse, but in different senses; so also Kvpios, and tpyd^onai; instead of t^£ the Apocalypse has only l?iov; instead of 'ItpoadXvfia only 'ItpovaaXrm) instead of fdv TL?, as in the Gospel, d ns; irtpi, so often used by John, occurs only once in the Apocalypse, and that -too in relation to place; ox^og is used in the plural. "Words denoting seeing are differently used in the Gospel and Apocalypse; thus, for the present wo find in the latter (3\iTrtiv, Oeoipclv hpSv; for the aorist of the active clSov, /SAtVcn, and 6eo)pziv; for the future dirrecrOai, and for the aorist of the passive also S-izrcaOai; {livav has a different meaning from that which it bears in the Gospel; instead of 6 «p;\;c/jv tov KocpLOV, and h rrovtjpds, we find 6 caravds, b bid^oXos, h SpaKwv b jiiyas.

Such is a summary statement of an argument drawn Qut at great length by LUcke, 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 splecisms 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.* 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 Testanaent books; and he Avas certainly inspired. Rapt in ecstacy, 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 ho was privileged to tell. Hence it was to be lifted up far above the level of simple proso or biographic history, so as ta correspond with the sublime visions of the seer. Nor should it be forgotten that be 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 Jcquire 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, iittle 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 coloring and linguistic features.

These considerations may serve to throw light upon the language of the book, after all the extravagances 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 of 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, Lucke, and ©thers 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 allegationa already quoted are manifestly incorrect, e. g. that uKovio 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 p^nara, one of the words quoted, though frequently found in the Gospel, is rot in any of the three epistles; therefore, these epistles were not written by John. It is found once in the Apocalypse. Again, ipyd^ofiai, 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 Otwpiu). Again, it is alleged that the regular consjtruction of neuters plural with singular verbs is Qot found, with the exception #"'six instances. To say nothing of the laxge 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 -avTort 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 navTore, which is found in his other epistles, does not occur in it. In this manner we might individually take up each word and every syntatical 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 not follow one another so frequently as in the Apocalypse' {Grammatik, fiinfte Auflage, pp. 273, 4). Should the reader not be satisfied with this brief statement of Winer, he is referred to his Exeget. Studien, i. 154, sq., where the Professor enters into details with great ability.

cotheologicum de Apocalypsi ah indole, doctrina et scribendi genere Johannis Apostoli non abhorrente, Trajecti Batav. 1799. 8vo.; Kolthoff, Apocalypsis Joanni Apostoli vindicata, Hafniae, 1834, Svo.; Stein (in Winer and Engelhardt's Krilisch. Jourfial, v. i.), and the Jena Literatur-Zeitung for April, 1833, No. 61). It is true, that some of these expressions are said by LUcke, 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 a priori assumption than from any inherent truth they possess. In regard to the charge of cabbalism, especially ia the use of numbers, it is easily disposed of. The cabbala of the Jews was widely difierent 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 Eabbins. 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 aflSrmed, that the doctrinal views and sentiments inculcated in the Apocalypse are quite diflFerent from those found in the Gospel. This may be freely allowed without any detriment to their identity of anthorship. 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 recognised in the Gospels, is apparent to the most curscry 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 Apocalyptio writer, it is not found. The inspired prophet was commissioned to pronounce woes and judgments as soon to befal 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 tminence, which none other at that time would have ventured to do; and that if

employs tlie expression, / John, after tlio manner of Daniel, as if he weie 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 Ziillig's Die Ojfenharung Johannis, Stuttgart, 1834, 6vo. p. 136.)"

^ 2. TTie time of writing the Apocalypse,

The evidence as to the date of the Apocalypse, may be considered as external t>r 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 j that is about A. D. 95 or 96.

The principal testimony to this fact is that of Irenseus. It will be recollected that he was a disciple of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who was himself the disciple of the apostle John. See § 1, (6). 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 ulmost 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 Irenaeus believed the book to have been written. Domitian was put to death A. D. 96, and consequently, according to Irenaeus, the Apocalype must have been written not far from this time.

This testimony of Irenaeus is confirmed by that of Clement of Alexandria. Relating the weU-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, (ch. 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 Iro 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, Eccl. Hist. B. iii. ch. 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 earned by Clement, it is clear that Eusebius so understands the matter."

Victorinus, Bishop of PettaTV, 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 j Gregory Turonensis (cent, vi.), Isidorus Hispaleusis (cent, vii.), Marianus Scotus, Primasius, and others. See Prof. Stuart, i. 264, 265, and EUiott, 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 testimory, 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 whateverand when, moreover, the probability is that, of the seven Apocalyptic chiirches^ scarcely one was in existence, and the apostle John was in no way associated witli 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 th« later Syriac version, the title-page declares that it was written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Cesar. 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 any rate, 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. 3*

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, L

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.

(6) It is admitted that there was a persecution of Christians in the time of Do-c mitian; 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, MUman, Hist, of Christianity, 193), there 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 hanisJied 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,

ijays, "The one fell an early victim to his jealous apprehensions. The other. Flavins 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 favor 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 Fontia or Pandataria." Nothing is more

probable, therefore, than that John the Apostle should be also banished to a desert inland — and Patmos was admirably adapted to such a purpose. See Notes on ch. L 9. There is, therefore, every thing 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 hifltorians to have been. Those things seem to me to make it proper to acquiesce tn 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 wiU be shown in the Notes, that the passages usually relied on, ch. vi. 9, 10; vii.; xi. 3, 8; xvii. 8, li, and ch. 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.

^ 3. The place where the look was written.

The book itself purports (ch. i. 9), to have been written in the island of Patmoe, ^here the writer says he was "for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jssus Christ:" that is, clearly, where he had been banished for his attachment to the Saviour. For an account of this island, see Notes in ch. 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 favor, however, of understanding this as a literal fact, the following considerations may be suggested:

1. The clear statement of the writer himself (ch. 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 ^et it aside. If the composition were avowedly fictitious or poetical, then it would be understood that Buch 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 ch. 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 ^ 2. 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 n« 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 hare 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 teen 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 ch. i. 9; and the whole, therefore, should be understood as the statement of a literal fact.

These considerations are sufflcient to show that the tommon opinion that the visions were seen in the island of Patmos has every probability in its favor, 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 ch. x. 4; xiv. 13; xix. 9, and xxi. 5, it would seem probable that the record was made as seon as the visions were seen, and that the book was actually written in Patmos.

I 4. TJie nature and design of the hook.

This must be learned from an examination of the book itself, and the views entertained on this point wiU 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 mo 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 •orruptions of doctrine and of practice, might be expected to exist in its owa bosom; times of conflict and darkness would come; changes would occur in governments, that would deeply aflfect the welfare of the church; and there might bo periods when it would seem to be doubtful whether the titie 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 Savior respecting the church, that the "gates of hell should not prevail against it." Matt. xvi. 18. Hence every thing in the book tends to the final triumph of the gospel; and hence, at the close (ch. xx.), we have the assurance of its far-spread diffusion over the earth, for a period of a thousand years, and (chs. xxi. xxii.) a graphic view of the state of the redeemed when they shall be delivered from sin and wo, and when all tears shall be wiped away from theb 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; oi 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, § 5.

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 characterised 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 wUd 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 wUd vagaries of imagination which have been 60 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 anintelligible.

(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 aymbolical 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.

(6) 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 cireumstances — 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 te 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) su?h 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 q, 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.