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!"