Chapter 30
1. And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
3. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him.
4. And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
5. And there shall be no night there: and they need no candle, neither light of the sun: for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
Vs. 1-5.--These verses, being a continuance of the description of the "holy city," naturally belong to the preceding chapter.--The angel proceeds to show John the source and current from which emanate all heavenly blessings. The allusion is to Ezekiel, xlvii. 1-12; but both he and John call our attention to man's primeval state, when our first parents dwelt in Eden. This abode of the blessed is beautified and enriched with all the products, delights and attractions which are adapted to the refined senses of holy creatures,--"pleasant to the eyes, and good for food." It is Paradise restored, by the "doing and dying" of the second Adam. It is also Paradise _improved_, having not only the "tree of life," as the first had, but also, in addition, the "water of life." The "tree of life" was to sinless Adam a symbol and pledge of immortality to himself and all his posterity whom he represented in the Covenant of Works. Now that heaven is procured for all believers by the second Adam, it is emblematically represented to our weak apprehension by directing our attention to the primitive and earthly Paradise. This is repeatedly done in Scripture. The Lord Jesus, before he expired upon the cross, said to the penitent thief,--"To day shall thou be with me in Paradise. (Luke xxiii. 43.) Paul was "caught up" thither, (2 Cor. xii. 4;) and he calls the place "heaven," (v. 2;) and in this book, (ch. ii. 7,) the Lord promises,--"I will give to him that overcometh to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." The "tree" is an emblem of Christ, (Song ii. 3;) the "river of the water of life" symbolizes the Holy Spirit, (John vii. 38, 39;) for as the Son and the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father, the former by generation, the latter by emanation from eternity,--so "that eternal life which was with the Father" in the person of the Son, and purchased by the Son, is communicated by the Holy Ghost to all the redeemed by regeneration. (2 Cor. iii. 6; Rom. viii. 2.)--Thus, the eternal duration of life in glory "proceeds out of the throne of God and the Lamb." On each side of the river "the tree of life" is accessible by the inhabitants; and the fruits of the tree, ripe in all months of the year, and adapted to every taste, each one may "put forth his hand" as he passes, "and take ... and eat, and live for ever." (Gen. iii. 22.) Or, "the people that are therein" may "sit down under its shadow, and its fruit will be sweet to their taste."--"The leaves of the tree" are for medicine, being preventive of all disease, so that "the inhabitant shall not say, I am sick: the people that dwell therein are forgiven their iniquities." (Is. xxxiii. 24.) "There shall be no more curse." Satan gained entrance into the garden of Eden, and succeeded in entailing the "curse" upon man, and upon beast, and upon the fruits of the ground; but he shall never be loosed again, or emerge from "the lake of fire," to disturb the repose of that blessed society in heaven, (ch. xxi. 27.)--As the "throne of God and the Lamb" is _one,_ (ch. iii. 21;) so it is remarkable that the distinction of persons is omitted, as though the Father and the Son were but one person. True, Christ said, "I and my Father are one," (John x. 30;) but he referred to _unity_ of _nature_ and purpose, not of _personality;_ for, in consistency with this, he said also,--"My Father is greater than I;" an assertion which must consist with the former, and which plainly involves personal distinction, (ch. xiv. 28.)--"His name shall be in their foreheads."--Which of them? We have found Christ's Father's name "written in the foreheads" of a hundred and forty-four thousand saints _militant_, (ch. xiv. 1.) While in conflict, "the world knew them not," and the adherents of Antichrist "cast out their names as evil," branding them as _heretics_; but now they are known to the whole universe, as the _covenant property_ of both the Father and the Son, (ch. iii. 12.)--"Behold, I and the children which God hath given me;" (Heb. ii. 13.) "I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me cut of the world. Thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. ... All mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them." (John xvii. 6,10.)--There will be no intermission or interruption of service, "no night there,"--no hidings of God's countenance, no desertions; for "they shall see his face" in the "express image of the Father's person," be assured of his love;--"need no candle," nor any earthly accommodation; "for the Lord God giveth them light; and they shall reign for ever and ever," in fulness of joy and unalloyed pleasures for evermore. (Ps. xvi. 11.) How different is this heaven from the Mahometan paradise, which, if real, could gratify only carnal and sensual sinners! yet the imaginations of many, and their aspirations too, with the Bible in their hands, are little better than those of Mahometans or pagans. All speculations of heathen philosophers about the "chief good," or the enjoyments of their imaginary gods, are so gross and brutish as to demonstrate the all-important truth, that "except a man be born again, _he cannot_ see the kingdom of God." (John iii. 3.) And it is too evident that some modern philosophers are as little acquainted as Nicodemus with the humbling doctrines of the gospel. The society of learned men, making perpetual advance in natural science, especially in astronomy,--would seem to be the highest conception of happiness which too many modern philosophers can reach. They know not some of the elementary teachings of the Holy Scriptures; such as,--"Without holiness no man shall see the Lord;" and that this indispensable preparation for heavenly felicity consists in "the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost."
The hundreds of diverse and conflicting opinions of learned writers on the _summum bonum_, or chief good, proves to demonstration, that without supernatural revelation and regeneration, man cannot conceive in what happiness consists. Thus far is the description of the heavenly state; and how little can we know, or even conceive of the glory and felicity of the upper sanctuary! We must still say with the prophet Isaiah and the apostle Paul,--"Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (Isa. lxiv. 4; 1 Cor. ii. 9.)
6. And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
7. Behold, I come quickly, blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
Vs. 6, 7.--The angel assures the apostle and all who read, that "these sayings are faithful and true," however sublime and incomprehensible; however, incredible to infidels; however contradicted and misinterpreted by antichristian apostates and enthusiasts. They are all from "the Lord God of the holy prophets,"--from Jesus Christ and God the Father, (ch. i. 1.)--All prophets who wrote _any part_ of the Bible, were "holy men of God." (2 Pet. i. 21.)--Of "these things" some were "shortly to be done;" and all in regular series would be accomplished in due time.--"Behold I come quickly." Christ is the speaker here, and declares that each one is "blessed who keepeth the sayings ... of this book." This benediction was pronounced on such at the beginning of this Revelation, (ch. i. 3,) and it is repeated by its immediate divine Author, to encourage all to study it. This blessing is not to be expected by any who merely _read_ or _hear_, but by those only who _keep_ the "sayings of this prophecy." Its Author foreknew its enemies and corrupters.
8. And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel, which showed me these things.
9. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
Vs. 8, 9.--A _second_ time, John attempts an act of idolatry! While we may wonder at this, let us not fail to admire the wonderful wisdom of God in permitting his servant to fall, as he did in the case of our first father Adam, that he might take occasion more fully to display his glory in "bringing good out of evil." The Apocalypse is directed chiefly against that primary feature of the great Antichrist, _idolatry_. This was part of "the mystery of inquity "which did already work" in the time of the apostles, (Col. ii. 18,) and was to be fully developed afterwards. (2 Thess. ii. 4.) This second rebuke of an apostle, by one of the most exalted of creatures, for ever answers all arguments of Papists or others, who plead for, or palliate the "worshipping of angels" or souls of men. Idolaters worship angels and souls _when absent_, as though they were omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent; thus giving the glory to creatures of these divine perfections: whereas this heavenly messenger, _when present_, keenly resents this indignity to his and the apostle's adorable Creator and Lord. Once more the angel directs John and all men to join him and all the heavenly host in observing "the first and great commandment,"--"Worship God," (ch. v. 11-14.) This angelic rebuke, leaves Papists for ever without excuse; and consequently all others who deny the _supreme deity_ of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and yet worship him.
10. And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand.
11. He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
12. And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
Vs. 10-12.--Christ himself addresses John in person. He had done so at the beginning of these glorious scenes of the future, (ch. i. 8.) Now he appears again in glory, though not described as before, that he may thus authenticate and close the vision.--"Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book." Why is this? The reason is assigned, because "the time is at hand" when they shall begin to be verified in actual history. The case was different in Daniel's time, who was inspired by the same omniscient Spirit to predict the same events. "O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the vision, even to the time of the end." (Dan. xii. 4.) If the vision of the empires of Persia and Greece was to be "for many days," (ch. viii. 26,) then the rise, reign and overthrow of the Roman empire, were still more remote. No wonder that Daniel, with becoming humility but intense interest inquired, "O, my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?" Such was the subdued anxiety of other prophets. (1 Pet. i. 10.) And here we may once for all notice the _three distinct_ periods mentioned by Daniel, as measuring the duration of the Roman empire, the Romish apostacy, and as they bear upon the promised and desirable millennium. The two prophets, Daniel and John, agree in fixing and limiting the domination of the Antichrist to 1260 years. This agreement has been already pointed out. The Lord, however, to allay the laudable anxiety of his "greatly beloved" servant Daniel, makes mention of two other periods of time, 1290 and 1335 days or years, (ch. xii. 11, 12.) Now, when we have manifold assurances that the great apostacy shall terminate with the close of the 1260 years, we may venture humbly to suppose, that the next thirty years may be occupied in the conversion of the Jews, and the remaining forty-five in the effectual calling of the residue of the gentile nations; so as to bring the kingdoms of the earth and the church of Christ to perfect organization and visible harmony, and the whole population of the globe into voluntary and avowed subjection to the Lord and his Anointed,--to perfect millennial splendor, the nearest approximation to heaven. (Rom. xi. 25, 26; Ps. cii. 15, 16.) But "who shall live when God doeth this?" (Num. xxiv. 23.)--The divine Author of this book, having given to mankind a complete and sufficient revelation of his will, containing invitations and warnings, at this juncture gives intimation that obstinate sinners shall at length be left to the consequences of their own free and perverse choice, "unjust and filthy still;" no further means to be employed for their conviction; but those who have embraced the offer of the gospel, shall be confirmed for ever in holiness and happiness,--"righteous and holy still."--He also repeats the assurances of his sudden appearance to reward "every man according as his work shall be." The recompense which he brings will be of debt or justice to the impenitent unbeliever; but wholly of free grace to the believer; for the works of each class shall follow them, as decisive evidence of their respective characters, (ch. xiv. 13.)
13. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
V. 13.--The Lord Christ here declares and asserts the eternity of his personal subsistence and official standing, as an all-sufficient guarantee of his ability and authority to deal with the righteous and the wicked, as also to bring to pass all events by his providence which are here predicted. The same guarantee he had given at the beginning of the Apocalypse, (ch. i. 8.)
14. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
V. 14.--Those who "do his commandments," are believers, (John xiv. 15,) and no others can obtain a "right to the tree of life"--all the blessings of Christ's purchase: for "without faith it is impossible to please God," (Heb. xi. 6;) and "this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." (1 John v. 3.) "By the deeds of the law,"--keeping the commandments, whether moral or ceremonial, "shall no flesh be justified in the sight of God," or _merit_ a "right to the tree of life," or to "enter in through the gates into the city." This right, power, or privilege, is confined to those, and to those only, who "receive and believe on the name of Christ." (John i. 12.) They who serve the Lord Christ, are entitled to the reward of the inheritance, (Col. iii. 24;) and in keeping of his commandments, there is great reward. (Ps. xix. 11.) This reward is of _grace_, not of _debt_ to any of the children of Adam: "not of works, lest any man should boast." (Rom. xi. 6; Eph. ii. 9.) And when the last elected sinner, pertaining to the whole company of the redeemed, shall have been called, justified and sanctified, then "with gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the King's palace." (Ps. xlv. 15.)
15. For without are dogs and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
V. 15.--"Without are dogs."--These characters have been excluded by the righteous and unalterable sentence of the judge of quick and dead, having their part in the "lake of fire:" for there is no intimation here or elsewhere, of any _purgatory_ or intermediate place, with the delusive hope of which, those who "love and make lies," flatter themselves and their blind votaries. Oh, that such "sinners in Zion," and out of Zion, "might be afraid!"--that timely "fearfulness might surprise these hypocrites!" that they might ponder those awful questions!--"Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?" (Isa. xxxiii. 14.)
16. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
V. 16.--This is the "angel" whose ministry the Lord Christ was pleased to employ in making known to the church through his servant John, most of the discoveries of this book, (ch. i. 1, 11.) Many other angels have indeed been employed by the Mediator as the ministers of his providence; but this one seems to have been the principal all along. None of these heavenly messengers, however, was found competent to reveal the purposes of God, (ch. v. 3.) To this work the eternal Son of God alone was found adequate by nature and office,--the "Lamb that had been slain." Christ has a personal property in the angels, as he is their Creator and Lord; and as they are his creatures and willing servants,--"_mine_ angel."--This is perfectly reasonable; for he is the "Root of David" in his divine nature; and the "Offspring of David," in his human nature, (Rom. i. 3.)--God-Man, Mediator. And here let it be remarked, that in speaking or writing of our Redeemer there appears to be no scriptural warrant for the popular phrases,--"the _union_ of the two natures,"--"Christ as man;" or, "as God." These expressions militate against the _unity_ of his _divine nature_ and _personality;_ and are calculated,--we do not say _intended_, to mislead or confuse the mind of his disciples. "In _him personally_, not in the Father or the Holy Ghost, "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Col. ii. 9.)--By John the descent of Christ's human nature is traced through David here, because of the Covenant of Royalty; by Paul, he is represented as being of the "seed of Abraham," by reason of the more extended relation involved in the Covenant of Grace. (Heb. ii. 16.)--He is also "the bright, even the morning star." This may be in reference to the less luminous "stars in his right hand," (ch. i. 16, 20,) and by way of contrast with them: but he takes this name chiefly to intimate that he is the Author of all supernatural illumination, whether in the kingdom of grace or of glory:--"The Lamb is the light thereof," (ch. xxi. 23.)
17. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth, say, Come. And let him that is athirst, come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
V. 17.--Here is the unrestricted universal call of the gospel, to "come" to Christ for eternal life.--"We do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world," (1 John iv. 14.)--The invitation is manifold and pressing. "The Spirit" by the word and conscience says, "Come." "The Bride," the church militant and triumphant, says, "Come." Every one "that heareth" the invitation, is warranted to say to others, "Come." Let every one that "thirsts" for true and lasting felicity, "Come." If any one be in doubt, whether his desire be spiritual or not, it is added for his encouragement, as well as sufficient warrant,--"Let whosoever will, take of the water of life freely." Any sinner of Adam's race may "wash and be clean," in that "fountain open for sin and for uncleanness;" may with confidence and pleasure, "draw water from the wells of salvation." (Zech. xiii. 1: Isa. xii. 3.) Who can resist these calls, invitations and persuasions, and be guiltless? or who can devise easier terms of reconciliation to an offended God, than are here addressed to the chief of sinners?
18. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Vs. 18, 19.--"For I testify."--He who is "the faithful and true Witness" closes this book of prophecy, with a solemn and awful sanction. These tremendous threatenings by the "Lord God of the holy prophets," may well cause all who read or hear to tremble: for who can abide his indignation?--While the "prophecy of this book" is primarily intended, all other parts of the Bible are included in this solemn conclusion: for doubtless our Lord intended the Apocalypse to be a close to the whole canon. The threatening is twofold, corresponding to the criminality. Learned, bold and irreverent biblical critics; enthusiasts and pretenders to new revelations, are in danger of these judgments. "The plagues that are written in this book," are such as will utterly destroy the presumptuous sinner who "adds to these things." And he that impiously "takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy," exposes himself to the like awful punishment. "God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."--Tremendous doom! All that which he seemed to have shall be taken away. (Luke viii. 18.) Great will be the sudden and unexpected loss!--These awful denunciations, however, have special reference, like the rest of the threatened judgments in this book, to the great, continued and defiant impieties of the apostate church of Rome. She has "added" her _traditions_ to the Scriptures, as part and principal part, of the "Rule of Faith!" She has "taken away" the Scriptures from the body of her people; or shut them up in an "unknown tongue," so that "every man may" _not_ "hear in his own tongue wherein he was born, the wonderful works of God." (Acts ii. 8, 11.) This is one of the articles in Rome's indictment here; and whatever modern infidelity or spurious charity may suggest, this theft of God's word, and robbery of his people, is not to be expiated with burnt offering or sacrifice. And he who scans all time, foresaw this attempt of the dragon and his allies to deprive the church and the world of the "lively oracles;" therefore, as he promised a blessing on the reader of this book, as it were on the title-page, here in the close he appends a malediction, that all who read or hear, may be deterred from such sacrilege.
20. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly: Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
V. 20.--"He which testifieth these things" is the Lord Jesus. Again he reminds all to whom these presents come, of his certain and speedy appearance. These frequent assurances are not "vain repetitions." They are intended to strengthen the faith and counteract the despondency of the saints, and to alarm the consciences of his enemies. (2 Pet. iii. 3, 4, 8, 10; Jude 14, 15.) To this "promise of his coming," John responds in the name of the whole church,--"Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus," to fulfil these predictions, in their promises and threatenings; "to be glorified in his saints, and admired in all them that believe." "So shall they ever be with the Lord." (1 Thess. iv. 17.)
21. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
V. 21.--These are also the words of John. He had just been addressing the "Lord Jesus," and his next words are addressed to the "seven churches," (ch. i. 4, 11,) or to all who read or hear the words of this book: but especially the church general. This is a concise form of the "apostolic benediction," (2 Thess. iii. 18,) which is sometimes amplified, by naming the Father and the Son; or, at other times, the three divine persons. (2 Cor. xiii. 14.) However, "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ" is originally from God the Father, procured for us by Jesus Christ, and communicated to us by the Holy Spirit. And unto the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, let equal, undivided, and everlasting glory be ascribed, by all the subjects of his regenerating and sanctifying grace, "throughout all ages, world without end." Amen.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: Life of Martin Luther. Pp. 173, 174. London. 1855. Luther afterwards became convinced of his error.]
[Footnote 2: Gibbon has unconsciously written a commentary on prophecy!--an involuntary witness, like Josephus!]
[Footnote 3: "It has been our lot to hear the voice of the third woe," Faber.--"In this I entirely agree with that expositor." M'Leod. The blinding influence of earth's politics upon the minds of pious men, has often occasioned the hearts of their brethren to "sigh for their inconsistency."]
[Footnote 4: The terms "clergy and laity" are of papal origin, and the unlearned Christian should know that they are contrary to the mind of the Holy Spirit. 1 Pet. v. 3. The body of the people are "God's heritage,"--_clergy_.]
[Footnote 5: Gibbon.]
[Footnote 6: Mosheim.]
[Footnote 7: Such is the interpretation of Bishop Newton!]
[Footnote 8: Faber.]
[Footnote 9: This is the opinion of Mr. Faber.]
[Footnote 10: Scott.]
[Footnote 11: Scott]
[Footnote 12: So Mr. Faber imagined.]
[Footnote 13: So designated by Nicholas, late emperor of Russia.]
APPENDIX.
THE NEW JERUSALEM.
Interpreters are much divided in opinion as to the import of this symbol. Some think it represents the church on earth during the period of the millennium; while others, no less learned and pious, consider it as an emblematical representation of the heavenly state. Of those who acquiesce in the former view, some consider the arguments "quite conclusive." It may be conceded that much may be advanced, and with great plausibility, in support of this position.
Perhaps the most specious arguments to this purpose are such as the following:--"That the New Jerusalem is distinguished from the Old, because of the superior light and grace of the present dispensation of the Covenant. Moreover, the glowing descriptions of the church militant given by the prophets, especially Isaiah, are thought to be as boldly rhetorical as those of John; yet those lofty flights are confessedly descriptive of the church on earth. Besides, who can conceive how "the kings of the earth bring their glory and honour into" the heavenly state? or how are "the leaves of the tree of life for the healing of the nations," when there _are no nations to be healed?_ etc.
To these arguments the following answers may be given.
The church is one under all changes of dispensation, and by what names soever she is called: but it does not appear that we are warranted by Scripture usage to view the New Jerusalem as a designation of the church in her militant state. She is indeed sometimes called in the New Testament by Old Testament names: as when Paul calls her by the name Zion, (Heb. xii. 22.) But he does not say, _new_ Zion. Again, when our Lord promises, (as in Rev. iii. 12,) to reward "him that overcometh," it must be supposed from the connexion, that, as in all similar cases of spiritual conflict, this reward is to be conferred in a future state,--heaven. But part of the reward he describes in these words:--"I will write upon him the name of the city of my God, which is New Jerusalem." Surely it may be supposed without presumption, that in this place New Jerusalem means heaven. Nor is the assumption true,--that the descriptive language of the Old Testament prophets is always to be understood of the church on earth. For instance, can the following language (Is. xxxiii. 24,) be predicated of the saints while in the body:--"The inhabitant shall not say, I am sick?" "The glory and honour of the nations" are the "saints of God, the excellent;" who while here, are "the light of the world, the salt of the earth;" and doubtless nations as well as families and individuals "have learned by experience that the Lord hath blessed them for their sakes:" (Gen. xxx. 27; xxxix. 5;)--and that he has also "reproved kings" and destroyed nations for their sakes, (Ps. cv. 14; Is. xliii. 3, 4.) And when all the saints who are to rule the nations, (Rev. xx. 4, 6,) for a thousand years, shall have been brought home to glory, then emphatically will the glory and honour of the nations be brought into the New Jerusalem.
As to the "leaves of the tree for the healing of the nations," it may be remarked, that their sanative virtue will have been experienced by national societies on earth: and there is not, there never was, nor will there ever be, any other healing medicine for them, (Ezek. xlvii. 12) In addition to what has been said, it is worthy of notice that the tree of life, in allusion to the delights of the garden of Eden, which was an emblem of heaven, is mentioned in the Apocalypse, near the beginning and near the end of the book, (chs. ii. 7; xxii. 2.) Now, we are told expressly that this tree is "in the midst of Paradise." But we learn both from our Lord and the apostle Paul that Paradise signifies heaven:--"To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise," said Christ to the penitent thief. "I was caught up into Paradise;" that is, "the third heaven," said Paul. Did Christ and Paul mean the visible, or the invisible church militant by the name Paradise? But the tree of life flourishes there, and all the redeemed eat of its fruit. They are where the tree is, the tree is in Paradise, and Paradise is heaven itself: therefore we are warranted to conclude with certainty that New Jerusalem is a symbol of the church triumphant; and, consequently, that those parts of chapters twenty-one and twenty-two, which are of symbolic structure, are descriptive of the heavenly state.
THE ANTICHRIST.
This word does not occur in the Apocalypse, nor in any other book of the New Testament except the first and second epistles, by the apostle John. There it is found in the singular and plural form. (1 John ii. 18, 22; iv. 3; ii. 7.) The apostles in their ministry had spoken frequently and familiarly to the disciples of this personage, as an enemy of God and man. "Ye _have heard_ that Antichrist shall come." "Remember ye not," asks Paul, "that, when I was yet with you, I _told you_ these things?" (2 Thess. ii. 5.) Paul blames his countrymen, the Hebrews, that they had need that one should teach them again which be the first principles of the oracles of God, (Heb. v. 12.) And it is just so now, in the case of most professing Christians, learned and illiterate; they yet need to be taught again what is meant by Antichrist.
All who are acquainted with the sentiments of the reformers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are aware that their conceptions of this enemy were vague and confused. Persecuted as heretics and apostates from the only true church, the church of Rome, the reformers very naturally concluded that the Pope, or the church of which he is the visible head, was the Antichrist. And this opinion is very generally held at the present day.
Mr. Faber, however, dissents from this popular notion, and with much confidence and plausibility broaches a new theory of his own. His style is always forcible, and so perspicuous that he cannot be misunderstood. In his "Dissertation on the Prophecies," he lays down the following canon or rule for expositors:--"Before a commentator can reasonably expect his own system to be adopted by others, he must show likewise that the expositions of his predecessors are erroneous in those points wherein he differs from them." To enforce this rule he adds,--"It will be found to be the only way, in which there is even a probability of attaining to the truth." I can neither admit the justness of his rule, nor the conclusiveness of his reason; for by its adoption, "of making many books there would be no end; and the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." To deduce the truth from any portion of God's word, it is by no means necessary that the expositor shall undertake the Herculean task of refuting all the heresies and vagaries which "men of corrupt minds" have pretended or attempted to wring out of it. But as Mr. Faber is not to be reckoned in this category, I shall pay him so much deserved respect as to apply to himself _his own rule_ in some following particulars:--
By a formal syllogism Mr. Faber proposes to overthrow the generally received interpretation of the term _Antichrist_, that it means, the _Papacy_, or, the _Church of Rome_. Thus he reasons:--"He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son: but _the Church of Rome_ never denied either the Father or the Son: therefore _the church of Rome_ cannot be the _Antichrist_ intended by St. John." Now, in this argument, which seems to be so clear and conclusive, there is a latent sophism, an assumption contrary to the Scriptures. The false assumption is, that the word _denieth is univocal_; that is, that it has in the Bible, and on this doctrinal point in particular, only _one sense_; whereas this is not the case. The Church of Rome does indeed "profess to know" the Father and the Son, but "in works denies" both, (1 Tim. v. 8; Tit. i. 16.) Therefore Mr. Faber's conclusion is not sustained by his premises, and the Church of Rome might be the Antichrist for any thing that his syllogism says to the contrary.
Mr. Faber imagined that "Republican France,--infidel and atheistical France,"--was the Antichrist; and he labored with much ingenuity to sustain his position by applying to revolutionary France the latter part of the eleventh chapter of Daniel, together with the prophecies of Paul, Peter and Jude. I presume that most divines and intelligent Christians are long since convinced, by the developments of Providence, that he was mistaken. The commotions of the French Revolution and the military achievements of the first Napoleon, however important to peninsular Europe, were on much too limited a scale to correspond with the magnitude and duration of the great Antichrist's achievements. They were, however, owing to their proximity to Britain and their threatening aspect, of sufficient importance to excite the alarm and rouse the political antipathies of the Vicar of Stockton upon Tees! Mr. Faber's Antichrist is an "infidel king, wilful king, an atheistical king, a professed atheist," of short duration, and his influence of limited geographical extent. He is not in most of these features the Antichrist of prophecy, whose baleful influence is co-extensive with Christendom, and whose duration is to be 1260 years. Mr. Faber's erudition is to be respected, his imagination admired, but his political feelings to be lamented. Indeed, his very ecclesiastical title of office,--"Vicar," is itself partly indicative and symbolical of the prophetic Antichrist.
I do not believe that infidel France, whether republican or monarchical, nor the Papacy, nor the Church of Rome, is the Antichrist of the apostle John; yet I do believe that all these are essential elements in his composition. The following are the principal component parts of that complex moral person, as defined by the Holy Spirit, by which any disciple of Christ without much learning may identify John's Antichrist. His elemental parts are three, _and only three_, and all presented in the thirteenth chapter of Revelation. The "beast of the sea," (vs. 1, 2,) the "beast of the earth," (v. 11,) and the "image of, or to the first beast," (v. 14,) that is, the Roman empire, the Roman church and the Pope: all these in combination, _professing Christianity_; these, with their adjuncts as subordinate agencies constitute the Apocalyptic Antichrist. Besides this personage, well defined by the inspired prophets, Daniel, Paul, John and others, there is no other Antichrist. An "infidel king, a professed atheist," as distinct from this one and symbolized in prophetic revelation, I find not. I conclude that such a personage is wholly chimerical, framed as a creature of a lively imagination.
THE IMAGE OF THE BEAST.
Mr. Faber is unsuccessful in his interpretation of the "image of the beast." His reasoning is ingenious, specious and intelligible as usual. He labours to prove that the worshipping of images by the Papists is the meaning of the symbol. Material images, however, whether of papal origin or otherwise, are harmless vanities: "for they cannot do evil, neither also _is it_ in them to do good," (Jer. x. 5.) The case is quite otherwise with this image. It has "life, speaks, and has power to _kill_," (Rev. xiii. 15.) These properties of John's "image" are so opposite to those of the Papal images, that they effectually confute Mr. Faber's fanciful, not to say whimsical theory. It has been already shown that the "image" symbolizes the Papacy, the _fac-simile_ of the Roman emperor.
THE BEAST'S "_deadly wound_."
The Erastian heresy, the usual concomitant of prelacy, will readily account for Mr. Faber's explanation of the "deadly wound," which the first beast received in his sixth head. Constantine, he thinks, inflicted that wound by abolishing paganism. He writes as though the beast had been _actually killed_, and had lain literally dead for a period of nearly three centuries! (viz., from 313 till 606.) Yet the apostle assures us that the "deadly wound was healed." The _beast did not die_. Daniel gives no hint of the death of his fourth beast, which is the same as John's beast of the sea, until his final destruction at the close of the 1260 years. It was in fact under the reigns of Constantine and his successors, that ambitious pastors were nurtured into antichristian prelates, and passed by a natural transition into Popery. The empire never ceased to be a beast during the whole period of its continuance. The sixth _head_ was wounded, but the beast still survived. The sixth or imperial form of government was changed, but that change brought no advantage to the Christian church either in her doctrine or order. As a distinct horn of this beast the British nation with her hierarchy is easily traceable to mystic Babylon in point of maternity. Since, as well as before the time of Henry the Eighth, spiritual fornication has ever been the crime of the "British Establishment." This historical fact requires no proof.
Mr. Faber seems to me to give too little prominence in his exposition to Daniel and John's beast of the sea, as an enemy to Christ. Indeed, he appears to overlook the leading idea involved in the name Antichrist, as a _substitutionary_, false, and therefore inimical or hostile christ. Instead of keeping before his mind the glorious person of the Mediator as the special object of Antichrist's enmity, as prophecy requires, he places before him the church or the gospel instead of Christ. Hence he writes thus:--"We find in the predictions of St. John,--(why not _St_ Daniel?) two _great enemies_ of the _gospel_, Popery and Mohammedism." Then he adds,--"a third power is introduced," (Preface, p. 7.) This "third power" he calls "a wilful infidel king," and, as already noticed, interprets it of "atheistical France." Now, it will be evident to the intelligent reader that among his "three powers" considered by him as "enemies to the gospel," he has entirely lost sight of the _seven headed ten horned beast_, and _his hostility to Christ_! He has, in fact, manifestly substituted his imaginary "wilful king",--infidel France, for the Roman empire, the beast of Daniel and John, the agent that slays the witnesses, (Rev. xi. 7.) To almost every expositor, and in his lucid moments, even to Mr. Faber himself, it is apparent, that the Roman empire is the primary element in the complex personage that wars against the Lamb. Even kings are but _horns of the beast_, and Popery but a _horn_. (Dan. vii. 20; Rev. xvii. 12, 13.)
It is therefore a great mistake on the part of this learned author, to feign an Antichrist distinct from the three confederated enemies of Christ and his witnesses,--enemies so clearly pointed out in prophecy by appropriate and intelligible symbols:--the beast with ten, and the beast with two horns, and the image of the first. These three, all professing the Christian religion, and practically denying it, without the shadow of a doubt, constitute the Antichrist of John, (1 John ii. 19-21.) This is the identical enemy described by Daniel, and according to the inspired predictions of both prophets, doomed to eternal destruction, (Dan. vii. 11; Rev. xix. 20.) Hence it is obvious that Mr. Faber's "wilful king" is wholly a creature of his own fancy, constituting no feature of the prophetic Antichrist.
THE LITTLE BOOK.
This symbol is in the tenth chapter evidently distinguished from the one in the fifth chapter. It is considered by several interpreters as containing all that follows to the end of the book. According to this view, it would be larger than the sealed book, (ch. v. 1.) Such a view is altogether untenable, involving, as it does, almost a palpable contradiction. The little book is indeed comprehended in the sealed book, as a part of the whole; or it may be viewed as an appendix or codicil, or perhaps still more correctly as a _parenthesis_, interrupting the series of the trumpets, that the object of the seventh or last woe-trumpet maybe thus described and rendered intelligible when sounded.
Mr. Faber is correct in saying, "the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth chapters, in point of chronology run parallel to each other;" but he is mistaken when he says the "little book comprehends these four chapters." It comprehends only so much as intervenes between the close of the ninth chapter and the fifteenth verse of the eleventh chapter; or, in other words, between the sounding of the sixth and seventh trumpet. To be more correct and explicit,--the tenth chapter introduces the little book, and the eleventh chapter, from the first to the fourteenth verse inclusive, exhibits an abstract of its contents,--a condensed narrative or mere outline of the contest during the 1260 years.
THE DEATH OF THE WITNESSES.
Many divines have considered the death of the two witnesses, as consisting in a moral slaying, equivalent to apostacy. Mr. Faber views their life and death as altogether political. He censures Mr. Galloway for "want of strict adherence to _unity of symbolical_ interpretation," but he inadvertently falls into the same error. Assuming, as he does, that the two witnesses are the Old and New Testament _Churches_, where is the "unity of symbolical interpretation" when he tells us that the witnesses were politically slain in the "disastrous battle of Mulburgh in the year 1547, by the total route of the protestants under the lead of the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse?" The _political_ death of two churches in the battle of Mulburgh!--Such language exemplifies neither the accuracy of historic narrative, nor the "unity of symbolical interpretation:" nor does it accord with another rule of the writer, one of his three cardinal rules, namely,--That "no interpretation of a prophecy is valid, except the prophecy agree _in every particular_ with the event to which it is supposed to relate." Mistaking the character of the witnesses, as one of the primary symbols in the Apocalypse, he is unable to ascertain in history either their identity or work, their life or their death. Having imagined their political death in 1547, he supposes their resurrection to political life in 1550,--"by the accession of Edward the Sixth to the throne of England!" and "the defeat of the Duke of Mecklenburgh in the October of that year!!" Of course, these witnesses, according to Mr. Faber's interpretation, resumed their function of prophesying so soon as they were restored to political life: but we look in vain for the prophesying of the mystic witnesses after their ascension to the symbolic heaven, (Rev. xi. 12.) As we have shown to the readers of these Notes, their lives and their testimony, or prophesying, terminate together, (ch. xi. 7; xii. 11.)
THE MARK OF THE BEAST.
"With regard to the mark of the beast," Mr. Faber "thinks, with Sir Isaac Newton, that it is _the cross_," (p. 176.) This _thought_ has indeed been almost universal in the minds of protestants. So deep-seated is this conviction in the popular belief, that one is deemed chargeable with temerity, if not something worse, who would call its grounds in question. Popular opinion, or belief in matters of this spiritual and mystical nature, is, however, of very little weight in the estimation of such as are accustomed to "try the spirits." Although the mark was to be received at the instance and by the authority of the two horned beast of the earth, it was not enjoined as a mark of devotion to _himself_. It was manifestly commanded by him as a _tessera_ of loyalty to the ten-horned beast of the sea, the obvious symbol of corrupt and tyrannical civil power. Instead therefore of the cross as a sign of devotion to Popery,--of membership in the church of Rome, as identifying with the beast's mark, this mark is evidently and demonstrably the tessera of loyalty to the Roman empire,--immoral civil power; and this, too, in any of the dependencies of that iron empire, (Dan. ii. 40; vii. 7.)
From the errors and vagaries of this learned and acute expositor, some of which have been pointed out, it is apparent that no amount of intellectual culture, no natural powers of discrimination, no logical or metaphysical acumen, will compensate for the want of early and accurate training in the knowledge of supernatural revelation. On the prophetical and priestly offices of our Redeemer, some of the English prelates have written with a force, perspicuity and zeal against the heresies of the Romish apostacy, not excelled by the writings of those who have dissented from the semi-papal hierarchy of the Anglican Church. But on the _royal_ office of Immanuel, their prelatic training and associations seem to have blinded their minds. "No bishop, no king," is a maxim which seems to lie at the foundation of all their political disquisitions and speculations, and which gives a tincture to all their expositions of prophecy. Nevertheless, even in this field of labor, the diligent student may consult with much advantage the learned works of such writers as the two Newtons, Kett, Galloway, Whitaker, Zouch, with their predecessors, Lowman, Mede and others.
After all, the best works to be obtained as helps to understand the prophetic parts of Scripture, will be found in the labors of those who, from age to age, have obeyed the gracious call of Christ,--who have "come out from mystic Babylon," from the Romish communion,--from the mother and her harlot daughters, and who have associated more or less intimately with the _witnesses_. Among these may be consulted with profit the works of Durham, Mason and M'Leod. But while searching after the mind of God revealed in this part of his word, let us never exercise implicit faith in the teachings of any fallible expositor. Let us always regard the injunction of our apostle:--"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God." Of course, the only infallible standard by which we can try the spirits is the whole word of God,--"comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
THE FIRST RESURRECTION.
Bishop Newton, among those divines distinguished in ecclesiastical history as Millenarians, may be regarded as one of the most learned, judicious and cautious. The amount of the deductions which this class of writers draw from the scripture phrase "first resurrection," and its context, confirmed as they suppose by many other parts of Scripture, appears to be the following:--All the righteous shall be raised from their graves to meet our Saviour coming from heaven at the beginning of the Millennium: he and these saints, clothed in real human bodies, are to dwell and reign together upon a renovated earth during that happy period. Indeed, writers on this interesting subject differ so much in details, that no well-defined theory or system can be discovered among them. The _literal resurrection_ of the bodies of the saints, and the _corporeal presence_ of Christ among them, seem to be the cardinal points of agreement with this class of expositors; and from this literal interpretation of the resurrection of the righteous and bodily appearance of the Saviour, they either took or received the name _Millenarians_. Other Christians, however, who differ from them in the interpretation of symbols, are no less believers in a millennium than they,--a thousand years of righteousness and peace _on the earth_.
Bishop Newton understands "this 'first resurrection' of a particular resurrection preceding the general one at least a thousand years." "It is to this first resurrection," says he, "that St. Paul alludes, (1 Thess. iv. 16,) when he affirms that the 'dead in Christ shall rise first,' and (1 Cor. xv. 23;) that every man shall be made alive in his own order, Christ the first fruits, afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming." It is surprising that a person of the Bishop's learning should so readily mistake the _sound_ for the _sense_ of the words which he quotes. While the apostle is, for the "comfort" of the saints, treating of _their_ resurrection, he is evidently speaking of the general resurrection at the _end of time_. In the morning of the resurrection Christ's members will be raised after the manner and in virtue of his resurrection,--"the first fruits" securing the following harvest, in obvious allusion to the ceremonial law. In the other case, when Paul says, "the dead in Christ shall rise first," does he mean,--before "the rest of the dead?" No, but before those of their _redeemed brethren_ who shall then be "alive and remain;" for these "shall not prevent (_anticipate_) them which are asleep," (_in the grave_.) That is, the bodies of the saints who have died shall be raised in glory, _before_ those then alive shall undergo a change equivalent to that of the resurrection. Such is manifestly the meaning of the apostle's plain language which has no reference whatever to the millennium, not even the remotest allusion. Nothing but a groundless preconception of the nature of the millennium will account for the sound of words taking the place of their sense in the reader's mind, and no degree of mere scholarship can obviate this propensity of the human mind in "the things of the Spirit of God."
Not only does the learned prelate misapprehend and misapply the texts above quoted to support his theory, but he makes a gratuitous concession, which is at once fatal to his scheme and inconsistent with himself. He says,--"Indeed, the _death_ and _resurrection_ of the witnesses before mentioned, (Rev. xi. 7, 11,) appears from the concurrent circumstances of the vision to be _figurative_." The Bishop evidently viewed the witnesses of the eleventh chapter as a company altogether different from those of whom John speaks in the twentieth chapter, (vs. 4, 5.) This is another of his surprising mistakes; for that the _identical party_ as a moral person appears in both parts of the symbolic and allegorical representation will readily appear to any unbiassed mind by an induction of the following particulars.
These witnesses are to continue "prophesying 1260 days (_years_,) (Rev. xi. 3.) Then they are killed, (v. 7.) But we learn that _in death_ they are _victorious_, (ch. xii. 11) They triumph "with the Lamb on Mount Zion," (ch. xiv. 1) In a similar attitude of triumph they again appear "standing on the sea of glass, (ch. xv. 2.) They are with their victorious King, (ch. xvii. 14.) They are exhorted to retaliate upon mystic Babylon, (xviii. 6.) They are also engaged in the last campaign with the Captain of their salvation, (ch. xix. 14, 19, 20.) And at length they are advanced to thrones of civil power to "rule the nations," (ch. xx. 4,) in fulfilment of Daniel's prophecy and their Saviour's promise, (Dan. vii. 27; Rev. ii. 26, 27.) The death and resurrection of the witnesses is compendiously stated in the former part of the eleventh chapter, (vs. 7-14;) but these events, epitomised again in the "little book," are amplified in the subsequent chapters, where we are made acquainted more fully with their enemies, their conflicts, death, resurrection, ascension and exaltation; and in all these respects is exhibited their conformity to the example of their Captain and Leader. If, therefore, according to the Bishop's conception, "the death and resurrection" of the witnesses in the eleventh chapter be _figurative_, and if the witnesses of the twentieth be the same as those of the eleventh chapter, which identity I have proved, it follows incontrovertibly, that the "first resurrection" is to be understood in a figurative sense. This interpretation may be abundantly confirmed in the following manner:--The witnesses prophesy 1260 years. But since no individual persons live so long, a succession _must_ be supposed. They are, in fact, mystic characters, having their real counterpart in actual history on this earth. The scarlet colored beast and woman, (ch. xvii. 3,) are of equal duration with the witnesses, and of similar mystic character, and have their real counterpart in history. The witnesses are slain by the beast at the instigation of the woman; but their death is only temporary, (ch. xi. 7, 11;) their enemies "have no more that they can do:" while, on the other hand, the death of the beast is "perdition,"--eternal death, (ch. xvii. 8,) and in this death the woman,--"the false prophet" participates, (ch. xix. 20.) All this symbolical language respects Christ's enemies as corporate or organized bodies.
Here it is proper to notice an objection of Bishop Newton. He asks,--"With what propriety can it be said, that some of the dead who were beheaded "lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years; but the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished;" unless _the dying_ and _living again_ be the same in both places?" Very true, the dying and living are doubtless "the same in both places." The Bishop's mistake consists in taking these expressions in a literal sense, "a proper death and resurrection." He evidently assumes that "the rest of the dead," here mentioned, are to be literally raised at the last day. This is undoubtedly true, for there shall be a resurrection ... of the unjust." (Acts xxiv. 15,) but it is not the truth contained in the words in question. From the assumption of the _literal_ raising of "the rest of the dead," he infers the _literal_ raising of those that were beheaded. The converse of this is obviously the correct way of reasoning. We have found that the witnesses are spoken of, (xi. 14,) as _figuratively_ raised by the Bishop's own acknowledgment, therefore it is most natural and logical to infer that "the rest of the dead" were to be raised in the same manner, namely, _figuratively_. As at the beginning of the millennium,--the martyrs, not some of them only, as the Bishop hints, will be raised in the persons of their legitimate successors in faith and practice; and their faith and practice will constitute the happy state of the world for a thousand years, so, when that period shall have expired, Satan, being "loosed out of his prison," (ch. xx. 8,) will deceive the nations as before, and during the "little season" of liberty, will succeed in raising from the dead as it were, a multitude of the same character as those who killed the witnesses,--"Gog and Magog." This maybe called the _second_ resurrection, and there will never be a _third of that kind_, for the Lord will destroy them for ever, (ch. xx. 9.) The character of the witnesses and their unparalleled conflicts with Antichrist sufficiently identify them in the Apocalypse throughout the 1260 years, as also during the thousand years of their reign; and the character of their enemies identifies them in the time of conflict for 1260 years; but during the succeeding period of righteousness and peace for a thousand years, they will not be permitted to lift up the head. And so soon as they are organized under the conduct of Satan, and like Pharaoh, most confident of victory, (Exod. xv. 9,) then "sudden destruction cometh upon them, and they shall not escape."
THE IDENTITY OF THE TWO WITNESSES.
The late Rev. Alexander M'Leod, D. D., who had the works of learned predecessors before him, has successfully corrected many of their misinterpretations in his valuable publication, entitled "Lectures upon the Principal Prophecies of the Revelation." At the time when he wrote that work, he possessed several advantages in aid of his own expositions. He had access to the most valuable works which had been issued before that date, (1814.). He was then in the vigor of youthful manhood; and he was also comparatively free from the trammels which in attempts to expound the Apocalypse, have cramped the energies of many a well-disciplined mind, _political partialities_. At the time of these profound studies, he occupied a position "in the wilderness," from which as a stand point, like John in Patmos, he could most advantageously survey the passing scenes of providence with the ardor of youthful emotion, and with unsullied affection for the divine Master. With all these advantages, however, the dispassionate and impartial reviewer may discover, in the rapid current of his thoughts, that the active powers of the expositor some times took precedence of the intellectual. Two special causes may be assigned for this, hereditary love of liberty, and the actual condition of society at the time. Born in Scotland, the cradle of civil and religious liberty from the days of John Knox, Dr. M'Leod's traditions and mental associations were necessarily imbued with the atmosphere of such surroundings. To such causes may be attributed occasional declamation, extravagant verbosity and unconscious inconsistencies, not well comporting with the solidity and self possession so desirable on the part of an expositor. Yet even in such outbursts of impassioned eloquence we may sometimes discover noble conceptions commanding our admiration, if not altogether such as to secure our approbation. It ought to be considered, moreover, that the "Lectures" came from their author in a turbulent, if not in a revolutionary condition of society. Peninsular Europe was convulsed by the successful military career of that brilliant general, Napoleon. England and the United States were also at war. The independence and even the existence of the young Republic were apparently in peril. The lecturer very naturally sympathized with the land of his adoption, in which resided his domestic treasures and many of the "excellent ones of the earth," to whom he was bound by conjugal, paternal and covenant ties. In a condition of actual warfare, he could not but feel most keenly the constriction of these manifold and endearing bonds, especially when thought to be jeopardized.
With these preliminaries, and expressing my obligation to the Doctor's labors, to whose system of interpretation as well as to most of his details, I cheerfully give my approbation in preference to all other expositors whose works it has been in my power to consult; it is proposed briefly to review some of his expositions and sentiments, from which I crave liberty to dissent. "It is not the interest of any man to be in error."
In his interpretation of the seals and trumpets of the Apocalypse, Dr. M'Leod has unquestionably corrected many misapprehensions of his learned predecessors, especially Bishop Newton and Mr. Faber: and it is perhaps to be regretted that he did not favor the public with his view of the vials also, a work which he seems to have had in contemplation when the "Lectures" were published. The three last named interpreters did certainly improve upon the expositions of all who went before them in this field of investigation; and in most cases of disagreement the Doctor excelled in accuracy the other two, as will readily appear on careful examination.
In attempting to ascertain the import of the mystic "witnesses," as of the Antichrist, expositors widely differ. Bishop Newton says positively,--"The witnesses cannot be ... any two churches." Mr. Faber is equally peremptory, that they "must be two churches," and he attempts to sustain his position by many citations of Scripture, and by much plausible argumentation. The Bishop is substantially correct in saying, "They are a succession of men, and a succession of churches." Mr. Faber is also correct in the main when he says,--"The two witnesses signify the spiritual members of the catholic church:" but his notion of _two churches_, the "Old and New Testament churches," betrays his imperfect conception of the _essential unity_ of the church of God. Both he and the Bishop overlook too often the important fact that civil magistracy is a divine ordinance, which, as corrupted, constitutes the first beast of the Apocalypse, and the most prominent feature of the great Antichrist.
Doctor M'Leod's definition or description of the witnesses is as follows:--"They are a small company of true Christians, defending the interests of true religion against all opposition, and frequently sealing with their blood the testimony which they hold," (p. 314.) This description is more definite than either of the two preceding, and is therefore worthy of preference; yet the reader will still wish for something more precise and tangible. Since the prophets of the Old and New Testaments reveal the hostility of the Devil to Christ and his people, and since both Daniel and John represent this hostility by appropriate and intelligible symbols, as carried out by corrupting the two great ordinances of _church_ and _state_, would it not follow that the witnesses are those Christians who, for 1260 years, apply the word of God to these two ordinances, contending for a _scriptural magistracy_ and a _gospel ministry_,--the "Two Sons of Oil;" and testifying against their _Counterfeits_? Such appears to be the import of those mystical characters of whom we read, Zech. iv. 14; Rev. xi. 4.
In tracing the witnesses through their eventful history for 1260 years as portrayed in the Apocalypse, and in fixing with precision their _continuous identity_, I am constrained reluctantly to dissent from the Doctor and agree with Faber. Adopting the language of "Frazer's Key," Dr. M'Leod says, "These witnesses differ as much from their cotemporaries, the one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed ones, (Rev. vii. 4,) as Elijah differed from the seven thousand in Israel in his time." The attempt is made to prove this assertion by the following plausible argument:--"God is never for a moment without a people upon earth." This is true,--"And the visible church is an indestructible society." Is this assertion true? It is partly true, and partly untrue:--"true of her _existence_ and moral identity, but not of her _visibility_ as an organized body." For example, where was the visible church while Elijah "dwelt by the brook Cherith?" (1 Kings xvii. 3, xix. 10;) or while the "woman was in the wilderness?" (Rev. xii. 6.) Is it consistent with propriety to contemplate the woman as _literally visible_, when she is symbolically "in the wilderness?" This seems to be impossible. I am therefore prepared to give my decided preference to the sentiment of Mr. Faber contained in the following words of his "Dissertation:" "The one hundred and forty-four thousand here mentioned, (Rev. xiv. 1,) are the immediate successors of the one hundred and forty four thousand sealed servants of God; (ch. vii. 4.) They are the same in short, as _the two witnesses_.... They constitute the _persecuted church in the wilderness_."--I cannot but think the evidence of identity here irresistible; and in the pithy language of the Doctor on another point, I say,--"A man must shut his eyes not to see" the correctness of Mr. Faber's interpretation of this identity. The Doctor's censure of English expositors in one of his notes will too often justly apply to other divines in expounding prophecy:--"They have greatly diminished the value of their publications, by permitting themselves to indulge so much of the spirit of political partiality." Doctor M'Leod and Mr. Faber I consider among the best expositors of the prophecies on which they severally wrote; and therefore their valuable works have been principally contemplated in these animadversions. On material points they have shed much light where those who preceded them left the reader in darkness, or involved him in perplexing labyrinths. Faber preceded M'Leod, and the latter availed himself of all the aid furnished by the former; yet till the "mystery of God shall be finished," his people will be receiving accessions of light from the "sure word of prophecy."
SOUNDING OP THE SEVENTH TRUMPET.
At the time when those learned divines wrote, the political agitations in Europe and America, as already noticed, gave a peculiar tincture to their opinions and expositions of the Apocalyptic symbols. This state of feeling on the part of these distinguished men, and on opposite sides of the Atlantic, is very strikingly illustrated in their conflicting interpretations of the "third woe,"--the seventh trumpet. Amidst the conflict of arms and the booming of cannon, in both hemispheres, those writers thought the first blast of the seventh trumpet and third woe could be distinctly heard. They differed widely, however, in their interpretations of its import and effects. To Mr. Faber, Napoleon, who was the most conspicuous figure in the passing drama, appeared as a terrific Vandal at the head of his legions, threatening to uproot and lay waste the fair fabric of European civilization. To the Doctor, on the other hand, Napoleon seemed the possible minister of Providence, destined to prepare the way of the Lord, and to introduce a better, a scriptural civilization. As time has sufficiently demonstrated the fallacy of their respective expositions of the seventh trumpet, it is needless to quote or review their speculations.
The principal defect pervading the "Lectures," and one which most readers will be disposed to view in an opposite light, appears to be, a charity _too broad_, a catholicity _too expansive_, to be easily reconciled with a consistent position among the mystic witnesses. Their author, however, deriving much information from the learned labours of English prelates on prophecy, could not "find in his heart" to exclude them from a place in the _honourable roll of the witnesses_. I am unable to recognize any of those who are in organic fellowship with the "eldest daughter of Popery," as entitled to rank among those who are symbolized as "clothed in sackcloth." The two positions and fellowships appear to be obviously incompatible and palpably irreconcilable. It is true that there have been and still are in the English establishment divines who are strictly evangelical; but the reigning Mediator views and treats individuals, as he views and treats the moral person with which individuals freely choose to associate; and we ought to "have the mind of Christ." (1 Cor. ii. 16.)
Assuming that the third woe trumpet was sounding in his ears, the Doctor, transported with the imaginary but delightful prospect, that the kingdoms of this world were speedily to become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, speaks of France as follows:--"She had given assistance to the sons of freedom on the plains and along the shores of Columbia, until the republican eagle snatched the oppressed provinces from the paw of the royal lion of England."--We may admire the metaphors of the _orator_, while we deplore the political feeling of the _divine_. It is true, as the orator in calmer moments reflects,--"The political conduct of professing Christians is generally lamentable;" and alas! this "lamentable conduct" is usually tolerated and too often exemplified by their spiritual guides. It has been generally so since the days of Jeroboam who "made priests of the lowest of the people," and thereby rendered the ministry the stipendiaries of the state. And as it was then, even so it is now, whether in the kingdoms, empires or republics of the earth. "Let us," with the Doctor, "lament the political conduct of Christians in the present age of the world."
Allusion has been already made to seeming inconsistencies in the Doctor's sentiments. There is truth in the adage,--"_tempora mutantur et nos mutamur cum illis_,"--"times change, and we change with them." And indeed changes are allowable in matters of a circumstantial nature which do not affect moral principle. Moral principle, however, is in its nature immutable. In the early period of the Doctor's public life he had nobly proved "Negro Slavery Unjustifiable." But this accursed system was from the first interwoven with the very framework of that "Republican America," which in his "Lectures" he takes occasion thus to eulogize! "We never formed a street of the mystical Babylon.... Let this be the asylum of the oppressed.... She (Republican America) has not, either by sea or land, encouraged oppression (?) or despoiled of his goods him that was at peace with us?"--I confess my inability to credit these statements, or to reconcile them with "the great moral principles" which the author justly tells his readers it was the object of the Author of the Apocalypse to illustrate before the world.
I have thus noticed some of the most important particulars in which I dissent from the interpretations of the Doctor and others, that the reader may be guided by all accessible way-marks in searching after the mind of God in this mysterious but highly instructive part of his precious word. I can again cordially recommend to his attention the Lectures of Doctor M'Leod, as the best exposition of those parts of the Apocalypse of which he treats, that has come under my notice. In the Notes will be found minor points of dissent from the Doctor's views, and from multiplied aberrations of many others. I have studied great plainness of speech, abstaining from the introduction of many verbal criticisms on the original text, and from the use of terms and phrases not familiar to the unlearned reader. Let no sincere Christian be deterred by seeming difficulties from reading the Apocalypse, or be dissuaded from searching it, by the discrepancies of interpreters; for this is equally true of "the other Scriptures." (2 Pet. iii, 16.)
THE TITLE OF THIS BOOK.
In our authorized version of the Bible, this last book is correctly translated "Revelation." It is otherwise designated "The Apocalypse," by simply Anglicising the Greek title,--_Apokalupsis_. A distinguished modern divine, Doctor Seiss, has furnished the public with a novel interpretation of the title. But it is remarkable that he does not propose an _interpretation_ at all; he merely gives what he conceives to be a _correct translation_. It is this:--"The Book of the _Unvailing_ of Jesus Christ!" In this singular translation two things are transparent,--affectation of scholarship, and the (_proton pseudos_) the cardinal error of Millenarianism. Learned men, however, are not devoid of fancy. Of this fact those who are historically designated Millenarians have given many illustrations from the primitive ages down to our own time. The Doctor's rendering of the name of this book discloses the predominant idea conceived in his imagination and cherished there, that Christ is to appear upon earth in glorified humanity at the beginning of the millennium, and that the Apocalypse is intended chiefly to apprize the church and the world of this momentous event.
"The unvailing of Jesus Christ," indeed! Why, the Lord Jesus Christ was revealed,--"unvailed" to the faith of our first parents in the promise of the "woman's seed" as every intelligent Christian knows, (Gen. iii. 15.) We are assured that "to him give all the prophets witness," (Acts x. 43.) Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day, (John viii. 56.) His advent in the flesh was so well known that Old Testament believers spoke of him familiarly as of "Him that was to come," (Matt. xi. 3.) Surely he was "unvailed" to his disciples all the time that he went in and out among them before his death. And after his resurrection he appeared unto them the third time,--"was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once," (1 Cor. xv. 5, 6.) After his ascension Stephen "saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God," (Acts vii. 56) How preposterous then, since the whole Bible "unvails" the Saviour, to insinuate that the _specific object_ of the Apocalypse is to _unvail Jesus Christ_!
That Doctor Seiss and those who endorse his _mistranslation_, or, as it ought to be called, his _false exposition_ of the title to this book, do totally misapprehend and misinterpret the mind of the Holy Spirit, is further evident from the obvious import of the plain words in the first verse;--this "Revelation of Jesus Christ, God gave unto him."--Christ. Did God the Father "unvail" Christ to Christ himself? How gross the absurdity! We do not transgress the law of charity in pronouncing as impious, such manifest "wresting of the Scriptures." Moreover, the declared object of this book is to "show unto God's servants _things_,--(not to show Christ,) which must shortly come to pass:" namely, events of providence which were then future,--the evolution of the purposes of God. It is indeed true that in the sublime scenery presented in vision to John, the Lord Jesus often appears as a very conspicuous object; but he is only one among a multiplicity of other objects, and generally as the principal agent in executing the divine decrees. In this attitude he appears immediately on the opening of the seals of that book, which all sober expositors consider as the symbol of God's purposes, especially of those "unvailed" in this prophetic book. When in the sixth chapter, the "four animals" say in succession, "Come and see," is Jesus Christ the only object to be seen?--the exclusive object unvailed? or even always the _primary_ object? By no means.
Thus it is evident that at the very beginning of his career as an expositor of this sacred book, Doctor Seiss gives loose reins to his fancy; and then it is not difficult to foresee through what mazes of error the credulous reader will be conducted, who in his simplicity, follows such a reckless guide. The hallucinations of Millenarians of old and of late have greatly discouraged the disciples of Christ, and seriously hindered them in obeying his command,--"Search the Scriptures," especially this precious book. Their unscriptural error, which some might call an _antiscriptural heresy_, of the pre-millennial corporeal appearance of our Saviour, with its carnal concomitants, has been a temptation to not a few to look upon this part of the Bible as wholly unintelligible, _contrary to its very name_,--REVELATION, The hereditary and inveterate misconception by Millenarians of the nature of the thousand years' reign of the saints, bears a striking analogy to that of the Jews concerning the kingdom of their Messiah, and suggests a remark by that prince of divines among English Dissenters, Doctor Owen, in his "Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews." He says truly,--"There are precious, useful, significant truths in the Scripture, so disposed of, so laid up, as that if we accomplish not a diligent search, we shall never set eye on them. The common course of reading the Scriptures, nor the common help of expositors, who for the most part, go in the same track, and scarce venture one step beyond those that are gone before them, will not suffice, if we intend a discovery of these hid treasures." And again he says, "How hard it is to dispossess the minds of men of inveterate persuasions in religion!"