PREFACE

THE   SECOND   EDITION.

IN order to save readers and critics trouble, the author
takes this opportunity of saying that the principle of his
book, Christ already come, is set forth in Lecture 16.
That Lecture may be consulted first, and if the proba-
bility of its correctness is found to be such as to induce
further investigation, the study of the rest of the Book
will follow as a matter of course.
He also desires to express his deep sense of the import-
ance of the present subject of inquiry both in itself and in
its consequences. If he is right, the expositions of the
Apocalypse with which, alas, hundreds of pulpits are now
resounding, must be as utterly at variance with Truth and
Scripture as they are with reason and common sense ; and
views like those advocated in Dr. Gumming's "End of
the World," must be as false and presumptuous as they
are deficient in argument and in a due consideration of
the rules of biblical interpretation. If he is wrong, it is
incumbent on those in authority to expose his error, and
not to suffer heresy to stalk through a Second Edition
unreproved.

 
VI PREFACE TO THE
John defines as " that old serpent called the Devil and
Satan," transmuted into heathen Rome, and of his casting
out of his mouth an eruption of Visigoths, Vandals, arid
Huns, into Italy, all of whom were Arians III
1 learnt, to my amazement, that the earth opening her
mouth and swallowing up the flood emitted by the dra-
gon, prefigured the swallowing up of these heterodox
Arians into the orthodox Trinitarian population of Italy.
I stood aghast at the omnipotence of the magic wand,
which could with a touch change a mighty angel into our
Lord Jesus Christ, and then with another touch could
transform the Saviour into Pope Leo X. I felt the sub-
ject to be wholly out of the reach of my limited percep-
tion, which could resolve the mighty voice of the angel
into the roaring of Pope Leo X. against Luther, and
the seven thunders into the thunders of the Vatican. I
found, to my great surprise, that the image of the beast
meant general councils; and the power to give life to the
image of the beast prefigured the right of the clergy to
vote at those councils. I found, — what did I not find
that did not savour of the apocryphal and the marvellous?
— I found that no limit would be put to my credulity,
and that at last I was required to believe that a certain
hail-storm which injured parts of Frame, on Sunday,
July 13, 1788, was foretold in the Apocalypse, and that
a little frog called the Tractarian heresy had been heard
by St. John to croak all the way from St. Barnabas to
Patmos, at a distance of nearly 2000 years !
Now this was really too much. It would require an
opening of the earth, such as that which swallowed up
the heterodox Arians into the Trinitarian population of
Italy, to believe it all; and it occurred to me (and I hope FIRST EDITION. Vll
I may say so without presumption, although Dr. Gum-
ming affirms he has never yet read anything to make him
dissatisfied with the correctness of his interpretations),
that the exposition of the Apocalypse might not be
finally settled, and that there might be room for another
attempt.
Accordingly I resolved to use my Protestant privilege
of searching the Scriptures for myself, and with the help
of the Commentary of the learned American expositor
Moses Stuart, and the aid of those Jewish, Heathen, and
Christian writers who lived nearest to those days, I
plunged into the Book, of which Dr. South said, " It
either finds a man mad or makes him so."
The principle upon which I have conducted this in-
vestigation is founded on that most clear, universally ex-
pressed, and Scriptural truth, that our Lord came, a$ he
said, to destroy Jerusalem, and to close the dispensation.
No doctrine of Christianity stands on more ample evi-
dence, and none is capable of more complete and definite
proof. The reason why it is not more generally insisted
upon, is that we are accustomed to look at the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem, and the close of the Jewish dispensa-
tion, in the same light as the destruction of any other
city and people. This is a false point of view. That
awful consummation was the grandest event, both in its
nature and in its consequences, which has rolled along
the stream of time. It was the breaking up, not of a
dynasty, but of a dispensation ; not of a city and nation,
but of a religion — a religion established by God himself,
and which for 2000 years was the only religion vouch-
safed to man.
As a sequence to this indisputable fact follows the ga-thering of the elect at the same period. The two events
are inseparably connected together in Holy Scripture.
If our Lord came, as he said, before that generation had
passed away, — if he came, as he said, to destroy that
city and people, and to close the age, — if he came, as he
said, before his disciples had gone through the cities of
Israel, and if some who heard his words did not taste of
death till they saw the " Son of Man coming in his king-
dom,"— then he also gathered his elect at the same time.
There is no alternative; this must either be true, or the
Bible must be false. That he did so come is proved to a
demonstration by his effecting the objects for which he
. came : that he also gathered his elect (although the sub-
ject is necessarily incapable of the same kind of proof) is
the natural consequence, and the deducible corollary from
the coming of the Son of Man.
I look upon this Book, as its title imports, as the Apo-
calypse of Jesus Christ— as the revealing and unfolding
of those scenes and events which accompanied his coming.
One note rings through all its seals, trumpets, and vials,
and the note struck is the " Lord is at hand." One bur-
den is heard through all its symbols and allegories, and
that is,- "Maran Atha," the Lord cometh. One cry is
distinguishable in the midst of sounds of terrific vengeance
taken upon a particular land, a particular people, and a
particular city, and that—" Behold he cometh with clouds,
and every eye shall see him." The Book from beginning
to end, from A to /2, is nothing else than a prophetical
drama, an allegorical representation of the Apocalypse (as
our Lord's coming is frequently called in Scripture) of
Jesus Christ. It contains no new prophecy distinct from
those uttered by our Lord. Had such prophetic teaching FIRST EDITION. IX
been necessary, it is not likely that he would have left it
to his disciples to make such announcement. They but
repeated their Master's words; and the Apocalypse is only
a recapitulation, a reiteration, of his awful sayings : " Im-
mediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun
be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and
the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the
heavens shall be shaken, and then shall appear the sign of
the Son of Man in heaven, and then shall all the tribes of
the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming
in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory; and
he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet;
and they shall gather together his elect from the four
winds, from one end of heaven to the other."1
It gives additional weight to this principle of interpre-
tation, that under its application the difficulties of the
Apocalypse are no longer insurmountable. It is notorious
the Book has never yet received a satisfactory explana-
tion, and that great and good men have shrunk back from
its symbols in despair. Much that has been written upon
it is mere guess-work, and not a little so completely
shrouded in mysticism as to render it " confusion worse
confounded."
By applying this principle, an interpretation can be
given, easy, simple, natural, and, above all, one suited to
the circumstances of the case, and to the date and age of
the Apocalypse. By applying this principle,—a principle,
be it remembered, distinctly recognised in Holy Scripture,
— the Book is no longer unintelligible ; its mysteries
vanish, its figures and allegories shape themselves into
palpable truths, its enigmas are resolved, a clue can be
1 Matt. xxiv. 2J), 30, 31.

X PRIBITMJB TO THE
found for all its varied symbols, and an exposition can be
offered for all its hieroglyphic machinery.
By applying this principle, the propriety of that angelic
interposition so continuously exerted throughout the
Apocalypse is seen at once ; an interposition, let us bear
in mind, which prevailed in the world up to that period,
but which has never since been heard of amongst men.
By applying this principle, an exposition can be found for a
Book containing more complicated variety, more hetero-
geneous matter, more opposite symbols, and more diver-
sified allegory, than any other book in the world.
A Book which mixes together in one apparent mass of
inextricable confusion, earth and heaven, men and angels,
Christ and demons, a perishing earthly city and the city
of our God.

A Book, containing within a very limited compass, cha-
racters, events, times, places, circumstances, so widely
different from each other, that this world alone cannot
supply them.
A Book introducing upon the theatre of its complicated
action, Roman invaders and Euphratean allies; Kings of
the east, Kings of the earth, and Kings of the whole
world; Nero and Vespasian; Titus and John of Gischala;
Antiochus and Sohemus ; Malchus and Agrippa ; Michael
and Satan ; the false Prophet and Him called Faithful and
True; the great red Dragon and the Word of God.
A Book describing upon its variegated map the Tiber
and the Jordan ; the Mediterranean and the Euphrates ;
Patmos and Sodom; Ephesus and Egypt; Rome and
Great Babylon ; the Wilderness and Mount Zion ; the
Bottomless pit and the New Jerusalem.
A Book comprising within the many-coloured sphereFIRST EDITION XJ
of its development, Heathen persecutors and Christian
martyrs; Jewish Prophets and holy Apostles ; the Beast
and the Lamb, dypiov, apviov; the Whore and the Bride,
iropvrj, yvv*i; the Apostasy and the Church ; the Rene-
gades and the Witnesses ; the Image of the Beast and the
King of Kings ; his Mark and the Number of his Name,
and the Lord of Lords; ihe idol-branded in their fore-
heads and in their hands, the angel-sealed in their fore-
heads with the seal of the living God ; the worshippers of
the Beast and the worshippers of Him that made heaven,
and earth, and sea; the fire and brimstone, and the pre-
sence of the Lamb ; the first resurrection and the second
death.
A Book detailing in awe-struck language, a reign of
terror, a triumph of sublime agony and despair, mingled
with notes of ecstatic gladness and of pealing conquest;
the measure of wheat for a penny and the measure of
barley for a penny, and the " tree of life bearing twelve
manner of fruits ;" death on the pale horse, and hell fol-
lowing him, and the "river of life clear as crystal; " ene-
mies of Christ gnawing their tongues for pain, and ser-
vants of the Lord shouting victory ; the scorpion-stricken
longing for death, and the redeemed from among men, the
redeemed from the earth, singing Alleluia ; the great city
divided into three parts, and the holy city coining down
from God out of heaven ; the outer court of the temple
given unto the Gentiles, and the golden city which had
no temple therein ; the tribes of the earth mourning, and
the elect gathered ; the supper of the great God and the
marriage of the Lamb; the wine-press trodden without
the city, and the Book of Life ; the harvest of the earth,
and the sealing of the 144,000 ; the armies of heaven, and

Xll PREFACE TO THE
the resurrection of the just; thrones and judgment, and
the coming of the Son of Man.
Such the diversified, the miscellaneous, the unearthly,
the unique character of this wonderful Book : heaven, and
earth, and hell provide the actors on its mysterious pages,
and the scenes of its awful disclosures reach from the
throne of the Eternal to the bottomless pit. Who shall
unfold its hidden mysteries ? who shall penetrate into its
dark recesses ? " Here is wisdom.'1
A key must be found to fit a lock whose wards are so
intricate and so complicated that no false key can make
its springs revolve. A demonstration must be given to a
problem so knotty and tangled, that a mistake in the pre-
mises must lead to a wrong conclusion. An answer must
be discovered for an enigma so sphinx-like and so per-
plexing, that an uncertain reply tells its own tale imme-
diately of impotence and error. An exposition must be
found for an Apocalypse which has defied the world.1
That key—that demonstration —that answer—that expo-
sition can he found. Like all great truths, it is of simple
and easy comprehension.
The key to the Apocalypse, and the only key, is the
1 " No competent, and at the same time unprejudiced, judge will
deny, that after all the labour bestowed on its explanation, no book of
the New Testament has so defied all attempts to settle its interpretation."
— Bloomfield.
" My readers will naturally expect that I should either give a decided
preference to some one of the opinions stated above, or produce one of
my own. I can do neither, nor can I pretend to explain the Book. I
do not understand it; and in the things which concern so sublime and
awful a subject, 1 dare not, as my predecessors, indulge in conjecture*"
— Dr. Adam Clarke.
" Mihi tota apocalypsis valde ohscura videtur: et talis, cujus expli-
catio citra periculum vix queat tentari. Fateor me hactenus in nullius
Scripti Biblici lectione minus proficerc quam in hoc obscurisshno vaticinio."
— Grawrus.

FIRST EDITION.
dosing of the Jewish dispensation, the gathering of the
elect, and the coming of the Son of Man.
The nature of the interpretation about to be offered
proceeds upon this principle. It takes for granted, that
the Book really is, what at the outset it professes to be,
viz. "The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave
unto him, to show unto his servants things which must
shortly come to pass/' It assumes, that if it was a Reve-
lation it must have been intelligible ; if it was a Revelation
shown to the servants of Christ, it must have been intelli-
gible to them; if it was a Revelation of " things which must
shortly come to pass," it is folly, nay more, it is impiety,
to look for an exposition in the distant future, for it must
have a distinct and specific reference to the circumstances
of the Church in those days.
It only remains for me to add, that although I have fre-
quently found it necessary to vindicate the Church of
Rome from what I considered unfair attacks, I am neither
a Tractarian nor a Jesuit in disguise. My sole aim and
object has been to elicit truth, and, to attain this, I have
done what my readers must do likewise,— I have renounced
all dependence upon commentaries, canons, councils,
or Fathers, and have searched the Scriptures for myself.
The result is the exposition now offered: if it is to be
condemned for its novelty, that novelty may be considered
as an indication of the genuine Protestant feeling which
has prompted such an investigation. To affirm that pro-
gress may be made in mental, moral, physical, but not in
spiritual science, is a thought worthy of the dark ages.
Wolvcrhampton, September, 1854.CONTENTS.

LECTURE I.

PAGE

Date of the Apocalypse ------- I

LECTURE II.
The Sealed Book --..-. 30

LECTURE III.

Opening of the First Four Seals - - - » -49

LECTURE IV.

The Fifth Seal. The ^Era of Martyrs - - - - -66

LECTURE V.

The Sixth Seal -------- 84

LECTURE VI.
God's Sealed Ones - ... - . 105

LECTURE VII.

The First Four Trumpets and Vials - A. - 131

LECTURE
The Fifth Trumpet and Vial - - - - - - 1GI
LECTURE IX.
The Sixth Trumpet and Sixth Vial - - - - -186

XVI CONTENTS.

LECTUKE X.

PAGE

The Open Book.......209
LECTUKE XI.
The Resurrection of the Two Witnesses - - - - 244
LECTURE XII.
The Seventh Trumpet and the Seventh Vial .... 286
LECTURE XIII.
The Church in the Wilderness - - - - . . 307
LECTURE XIV.
The Beast rising from the Sea, and the Beast coming up out of (lie
Earth........32,5
LKCTUKK XV.
Babvlon - - - - - - - -357
LECTURE XVI.
The Coming of Christ ----.-. 390
LECTURE XVII.
The Millennium, the Judgment, and the Kingdom ... 433
LECTURE XVIII.
The New Jerusalem -----.. 472
APPENDIX.
The Identity betoreen the Trumpets and Vials .... 508

APOCALYPSE FULFILLED,

CONSUMMATION OF THE MOSAIC ECONOMY, AND THE COMING OF
THE SON OF MAN.

LECTURE L
DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE.
1 REV. 1, 2, 3. 22 REV. 6, 7- 16.
i
1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ, (). And he said unto me, These
which God gave unto him, to shew sayings arc faithful and true : and
unto his servants things which W/M.V/ the Lord God of the holy prophets
shortly come to paxs : and he sent and ; sent his angel to shew unto his ser-
signifted it hy his angel unto his ser- vants the things which mu&t shortly
vant John : he done.
2. Who hare record of the word 7- Behold, I conic quickly: blessed
of God, and of the testimony of Jesus i,v he that keepeth the sayings of the
Christ, and of all things that he saw. ; prophecy of this hook.
3. Blessed ?V he that readeth, and j I(>. I Jesus have sent mine angel
they that hear the words of this pro- : to testify unto you these things in
phecy, and keep those things which the churches*
are written therein : for the time is
at hand.
OUR first Lecture must be devoted to establish certain prelimi-
naries upon which the whole theory of the subsequent interpre-
tation is to be grounded. Here it is of the utmost importance
that the base of the future superstructure should be firm and
strong.

2 DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE. [LECT. I.

We are about to erect a building, to raise story upon story,
to pile up casement upon casement; it is well then to look to
the foundation that it is securely laid, "lest haply after we have
begun to build, we should not be able to finish," and the edifice
erected at so much cost and care should fall headlong to the
ground. As a preliminary of the highest moment with regard
to the subsequent interpretation, it is proposed to consider in
this Introductory Lecture the question of the date of the Apo-'
calypse.

Here is a material difference of opinion.

We have men of high classical attainments and critical
acumen maintaining the Neronic date, I. e. that the Apoca-
lypse was written during the reign of Nero, and consequently
before the destruction of JerusalemJ; and others of equally high
reputation defending the Domitianic date, /. e. that it was
written during the reign of Dornitian, and consequently after
the destruction of Jerusalem. Who shall decide ? And yet a
decision must be come to; all subsequent interpretation depends
upon this question ; it is a point of all others most necessary to
be attained. If the Apocalypse was written in the time of Nero,
before the destruction of Jerusalem, a consistent, reasonable,
and satisfactory explanation can be given of the book : if written
in the reign of Domitian, after the destruction of Jerusalem,
that line of interpretation only can be adopted which rests on
the will and caprice of the interpreter ; and this opens so \vi<le
a field, and is capable of such unlimited extravagance, that it is
no uncommon event for hermeneutical opponents to take eontra-

1 Bishop Newton : " These prophecies were written a few years l>efore the
destruction of Jerusalem." Professor Lee : 4' I take it for granted that the
author lived some time before the destruction of Jerusalem/' Moses Stuart:
" That the Apocalypse was written under the bloody reign of Nero, or shortly
after, is a matter agreed on by nearly all the recent critics who have studied
the literature of this hook." To these rnav lie added, Sir J. Newton, Ilen-
tenius, Harduin, Orotius, Lightfoot, Schleusner, Hammond, Dr. A. Clarke,
Wetstein, and many others. " \Vetstein contends, and he is supported by
very great men among the ancients and moderns, that the Book of Revelation
was written before the Jewish war and the civil wars in Italy. That the im-
portant events which took place at that thru*, the greatest that ever happened
since the foundation of the world, were worthy enough of the Divine notice, as
the affairs of his church were so intimately connected with them."—Dr. Adam
Clarke.

LECT. L] DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE. 3
dictoryl views of the same symbol, or for interpreters holding
the same religious tenets, to place an interval of 1000 years
more or less between their several interpretations.
Now before any argument in favour of the Neronic date can
have weight, it must be shown that sufficient ground exists for
receiving with diminished confidence the common opinion that
the Revelation was seen by St. John in the reign of Domitian;
and as the question of the date is not determined in Scripture,
it will be necessary to examine the opinions of the early Chris-
tian Fathers upon this point.
The defenders of the Domitianic date rely chiefly on a pas-
sage of IreiWHis2, quoted verbatim by Eusebius in the 3rd and
5th books of his Ecclesiastical History :—" For had it been
necessary that his name should be in open publication at the
present time, it would have been mentioned by him, especially
as being the one who saw the Apocalypse; for it is not so long
a^o since it was seen, but almost in our own generation, at the
close of the reign of Domitian." This statement of Irenseus is
considerably weakened, if not shown utterly unworthy of credit,
by a similar statement of the same writer, professedly derived
from those who had received it from the Apostle John and the
other Apostles, that Christ lived to be near fifty years of aye. —
(Con. Hair. lib. vi. cap. 20.)
If we add to this his belief in the absurd opinion of the Alex-
andrian Jews respecting the miraculous version of the LXX.
(Eus. Eccles. Hist. v. 8.), and his adoption of the millennial
views of Papias (Ens. Ecrles. Hist. iii. 3[).), it will be seen
that no implicit reliance can be placed upon a writer guiJty of
1 Lufher asserted that the Beast, Rev. xvii., was the Pope. The Pope
asserted that the Beast was Luther, and the false prophet Calvin. Luther
said that the number of the Beast indicated by the numerals u'6'6 was to be
found in the name of the Pope. The Pope retaliated by finding the number
of the Beast in the name of Luther.
" The common method of interpretation founded on the hypothesis that the
book was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, is utterly destitute of
certainty, and leaves every commentator to the luxuriance of his own fancy,
as is sufficiently evident from what has been done already on this book." —
Wetstein's Gr. Test vol. ii. p. 88.0.
2 " El Si test di'(i0(mY;r eV TM rvi' k'cupfi tctjpvmffOat Tovro^a avrov tY
twlt'ov ai' IpptOtj rov KCI] rijr inroi;u\v\l>ti' twpak'oroc;. OvCf yap Trpu Tro\\ov
\poi'ov EutpaOrj ciXXci rr^ttV)!' t7Ti n/f >//ier*p(i£ ytrecce Tpoc Tfri\£i Ao/uc-
rmrov a/>x>/c."—Irciifeus; in Hter. v. 30. ; Eus. Eccles. Hist. iii. 18., v. 8.
B 2

4 BATE OF THE APOCALYPSE. [LECT. I.
such gross blunders, and that nothing is more probable than
that he should have committed an error with regard to the date
of the Apocalypse.
Eusebius1, however, appears to have relied entirely on this
passage of Irenams as determining the time when the Apocalypse
was seen, and to have drawn from it the conclusion that St. John
saw the Apocalypse in the reign of Domitian.2 He says: "In
this persecution it is handed down by tradition that the Apostle
and Evangelist John, who was yet living, in consequence of his
testimony to the Divine word, was condemned to dwell on the
Island of Patmos ;" and then he quotes the passage of Irenanis
before referred to as the source from whence this tradition sprang.
This is of great consequence, because it serves to show, that the
opinion of Eusebius /',? not independent testimony, but simply a
repetition of the statement of Irenreus ; and this observation is
also applicable to the testimony of Jerome, who only reiterates
the opinions of Jrenfeus and Eusebius.
This tradition is further supported by Virtoriuus 3, who as-
serts: "When John saw the Apocalypse, he was in the island
of PatmolJ banished by Caesar Domitian." "Domitian being
slain, John, dismissed from banishment, afterwards committed
to writing this same Apocalypse which he had received from
the Lord.'7
But Victorinus on Rev. iv. 14.4 says: "For he wrote
1 u 'E»> TOVTO) KaTi-^tt Xoyoc TOV aTrooToXor upa KT(i €vayy£\ioTi/i' 'Iwarrj?!'
tri TO) /3/6> ivCta.T(>i£oi'Ta9 rrjc tie; ror £tior Xoyoi' treKa paprvpidQy Ilcir-
pov olKt.1v Kara^iKatrdrji'at rrji' i'»/flr0r, yp<«^wi> yt. rot v Eip/ru7o£," K. r. X.
Eus. Eccles. Hist. iii. 18. 4i'ErOa Trji' uTrokaXi^tr loipcik'tr, u>e CtjXol Klp?/-
valoc"—Eus. Chronicon.
- That Eusebius was not very careful in preserving the strict meaning of
the authors quoted by him, may be proved from the circumstance that he
renders the words of Tertullian "cum maxime Rom IF orientem" (Tert. Apol.5.)
" then chiefly springing up at Rome," by " //n\-a /utXtora eV'Pw^p r»yi' ara-
ToXtjv tratrav i/TrorciSat,"—translated by Dr. ('ruse " particularly then, when
after subduing all the East, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome/'—
giving a totally different meaning from the original.
3 "Quando hoc vidit Johannes, erat in insula Patmos, in metallum darnna-
tus, a Domitiano Caesare." ft Interfecto Domitiano, Johannes de metallo di-
jnissus, sic postea tradidit bane eandem quarn acceperat a Domino A]>oca-
lypsin."—In Bib. Max. iii. p. 419-
4 "Nam Evangeliuin postea scripsitcum essent Valentinus, et Cerinthus, et
Ebion, et caeteri scbol® Sathanae diffusi per orbem, convenerunt ad ilium de
finitimis provinciis omnes, et compulerunt ut ipse testimonium conscriberet."

LECT. I.] DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE. 5
his Gospel afterwards, when Valentinus, and Cerinthus, and
Ebion, and others of Satan's school, were scattered over the
world: all from the neighbouring provinces came together to
him, and compelled him also to write his Gospel." Yet Epi-
phanius l declares, that John wrote his Gospel after the return
from Patmos in the time of Claudius Ca?sar, A. D. 54. A
fragment of Hippolytus places the date of that Gospel A.D. 61,
and Sir Isaac Newton, quoting from Caius, says that " Cerin-
thus lived so early that he resisted the Apostles at Jerusalem in
or before the iirst year of Claudius, that is, 26 years before the
death of Nero, and died before John." Victorinus is followed
by Sulpicius Sever us, Orosius, and others.
It appears then matter of fact that a tradition originated with
Iremeus 2 (a writer by no means infallible), which was subse-
quently propagated by successive ecclesiastical writers, who fol-
lowed one another much on the same principle as the Chiliasts
followed Papias on the question of the Millennium, — "He was
the cause that by far the greater number of Church writers after
1 ec'Merd rt}if avrou CITTO r//t' Harjjiov erraroco)', r/)r iirl K\a,$$iov y&'QjJii-
i )))' Kaiarapos"—Epiphan. Ihur. 51.
2 ct Irenteus introduced an opinion that the Apocalypse was written in the
time of Domitian ; but then he also postponed the writing of some others of
the sacred books, and was to place the Apocalypse after them. He might
perhaps have heard from his master Polycarp that he had received this book
from John about the time of Domitian's death ; or indeed John might him-
self at that time have made a new publication of it, from whence Irena^us
might imagine it was then but newly written. Eusebius in his Chronicle and
Ecclesiastical History follows Iremeus, but afterwards in his Evangelical De-
monstrations he conjoins the banishment of John into Patmos with the deaths
of Peter and Paul, and so do Tertullian and Pseudo-Prochorus as well as the
first author, whoever he was, of that very ancient fable that John was put by
Nero into a vessel of hot oil, and coining out unhurt, was banished by him
into Patmos. Though this story be no more than a fiction, yet was it founded
on a tradition of the first Churches, that John was banished into Patmos in
the days of Nero. Epiphanius represents the Gospel of John as written in
the time of Claudius, and the Apocalypse even before that of Nero.
" Arethas in the beginning of his Commentary quotes the opinion of Iremcus
from Eusebius, but follows it not , for he afterwards affirms the Apocalypse
was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and that former commentators
had expounded the Sixth Seal of that destruction. With the opinion of the first
commentators agrees the tradition of the churches of Syria preserved to this
day in the title of the Syriac version of the Apocalypse, which title is this, —
' The Revelation which was made to John the Evangelist by God, in the
island of Patmos, into which he was Vanished by Nero the Ctesar." — Sir 1.
Newton.
B a

6 DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE. [LECT. I.

him held the like doctrine, pleading the antiquity of the man"
(Eus. Eccles. Hist. iii. 39.), that the Apocalypse was seen by
St. John in Patinos at the close of Domitian's reign.

The question arises was this tradition universally received ;
and if not, is there positive evidence to show that a contrary
opinion was entertained even from the earliest times?

The first testimony which I shall adduce to show that the
tradition of Irenteus was not universally adopted, is that of
Epiphanius1, who says of St. John, — " Who prophesied in the
time of Claudius (A.D. 54) .... the prophetic word accord-
ing to the Apocalypse being disclosed."

In a fragment of an antient Latin writer2, attributed by
some to Caius, it is found — " Paul, following the order of his
predecessor John, wrote only to seven churches by name in
similar order/7 In this passage John is called the predecessor
of Paul, and Paul is said only to have written to seven churches
by name, following the example of John, who wrote only to
the seven churches of Asia. Now as Paul suffered martyr-
dom A.D. 68, this would place the date of the Apocalypse prior
to the destruction of Jerusalem.

The title of the Syriac version is " The Revelation which
was made to John the Evangelist by God in the island of
Patmos, into which he was banished by Nero the Ca\sar"
Tertullian3 conjoins the banishment of John with the martyrdom
of Peter and Paul at Rome, under Nero — " O happy Roman
church, where Peter is deemed worthy to share the passion of
the Lord, where Paul is beatified by the same death as John
(the Baptist), where the Apostle John plunged into burning oil,
escapes unhurt, arid is condemned to banishment." Andreas4,

oc ir ffltoi'OiG KXai/ctow .... oa/v'rv/u'rou rov Kara r;/i'
Xoyov Trpo^jyrik'ou." — Hair. 5J.
2 " Paulus, sequens praetkcessoris sui Johannis ordinein, nonni^i noininatim
septem ecclesiis scribal online tali." — Muratori, Antiq. Ital. iii. p. 85-1.
3 "Felix ecclesia Rom an a, ubi Petrus passioni Dominicse adi&quatur, ubi
Paulus Jobannis exitu coronatur, ubi Apostolns Johannes postcaquam in
oleum igneum demersus, nihil passus est, in insularn relegatur."
4 Andreas and Arethas, tbe earliest commentators excepting a few frag-
ments of Victor-inns, whose interpretations have come down to us, not only
expound the Apocalypse of tbe woes which fell upon the Jews,, but declare
that other* had done .vo ako. Arethas moreover shows that be was acquainted
with the tradition of Jrenams,which he evidently considered incorrect. This is
invaluable, because it shows that from early times the symbols of the Revelation

LECT. L] DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE. 7
bishop of Ceesarea, in his Greek commentary on the Apocalypse,
still extant, (c. vi, 16.) says, "John received this revelation
under the reign of Vespasian" On Rev. vi. 12.: " There are
not wanting those who apply this passage to the siege and de-
struction of Jerusalem by Titus" On Rev. vii. 2. he says :
" Although these things happened in part to Jewish Christians,
who escaped the evils inflicted on Jerusalem by the Romans, yet
they more probably refer to Antichrist." Arethas, who suc-
ceeded Andreas, mentions the statement of Iremeus before
alluded to ; he says : " That John was banished to the isle of
Patmos under Domitian, Eusebius alleges in his Chronicon."
But on Rev. vi. i£J. he affirms : " Some refer this to the siege of
Jerusalem by Vespasian, interpreting all tropically." On Rev.
vii. 1. : "Here, then, were manifestly shown to the Evangelist
that things were, to hefal the Jews in their tear against the
Romansy in the way of avenging the sufferings inflicted upon
Christ." On Rev. vii. 4. : " When the Evangelist received
these oracles, the destruction in which the Jews were involved
was not yet inflicted by the Romans" To all this may be
added the testimony of Origen1, upon which Moses JStuart, from
whom this evidence is chiefly taken, lays great weight: " The
King of the Romans, as tradition teaches, condemned John,
who bare witness for the word of truth, to the island of Patmos.
John, moreover, teaches us the things respecting his testimony,
without saying who condemned hint, when lie utters these
things in the Apocalypse." It must have been impossible for
Origen, the greatest critical scholar of the first three centuries,
not to have known the statement of Ireiueus respecting the
Domitianic date, and this makes his silence all the more marked,
lie mentions neither Nero nor Domitian. "The King of the
Romans," he says, "condemned John to the isle of Patmos," and
he remarks tluit St. .John is silent respecting the author of his
exile,—"without sayiny trho condemned him"
Even on the supposition that the evidence adduced for the
wore applied to the closing scenes of the Jewish dispensation, and that the
fable of the Pope and the scarlet lady is the myth of yesterday.
1 '() <?£ 'V'hiiu (<i)r /HirrtXf t>f o;c »/ TcafiuCofru; fttCuvxei KctT^ik'nfff ror'Iw«r-
TU fttct TOT rj/c u/\j;0v':./'nc \oyor f?c Harbor r»)»-' i'ji/<ro»'. ^u'«-
i TOV naprvptou tavrov 'Iwarri/c, /<»} \iytor TIC aurov xaTiCt-
/;«<rf, tyiuTKMV .v Ttj tA7roK'a\v\//ec rai/r«." — Opp. in Matt. iii.

8 BATE OF THE APOCALYPSE. [LECT. I.
Neronic date is not so conclusive as that brought forward for the
Domitianie date (although when it is considered that Eusebius
followed Iremeus, and that Jerome followed Eusebius, and so
on, the testimony becomes that not of many individuals but of
one), yet still it must be admitted there is positive external
evidence in favour of the Neronic, as well as of the Domitianic
date, and all that can be done is to array father against
father, and testimony against testimony, weighing the proba-
bilities of the truthfulness of each in the balances of our own
judgment.
It is plain the question cannot be settled by external testi-
mony. What, then, is the fair and manly course to be taken
in bringing this point to a right issue ? If the conflicting tra-
ditions of the early church make it impossible to determine
whether John was banished to Patmos in the reign of Nero or
Doinitian, let an appeal be made to the internal eridaice of the
book itself. Let the words traced by the Spirit of God teach us
that knowledge which we cannot learn from the surmises of the
early fathers, or from the traditions of the Church. Let the
love of "science falsely so called," which would exhaust human
wisdom in building up a position drawn from sources from which
no valid argument can be drawn, turn from the fables of an-
tiquity to the truth of revelation. The Scriptures are silent;
the voice of antiquity is divided ; one only course remains (a
course the supporters of the Domitianic date are very reluctant
to adopt), and that is, to rest the question upon far surer
grounds than the tradition of Irerueus, or the hesitations of
Eusebius, who does not seem to have believed that St. John
wrote the book at all.1 Let us then inquire—Is there internal
1 Eusebius affords almost a solitary example amongst the early fathers of
indecision and douht respecting the authorship and canonical rank of the Apo-
calypse : he says, (Eccles. Hist. iii. 24.) : " The opinions respecting the Reve-
lation are still greatly divided"—u T>7c' c' 'A7rona\v\lsf.iij£ tfy tvarf/ior tVi
rvv Trapa TOIQ rroXXolc iripU\k'tTai if 3V'£a."
Speaking of canonical books. " To these may be added, if it seem good, (tt
<j)aveiri,} the Apocalypse of John,". . .. '* which some reject, but others reckon
it among the acknowledged books."—Eus. Kccles Hist. iii. 25. He gives at
some length the opinions of Dionysius, who supposed the author of the Apo-
calypse not to be the same John who wrote the Gospel: <l That it is a John
who wrote these things we must believe, as he. says it ; but what John it is, is
uncertain." " I am of opinion, there were many of the same name with John
the Apostle."... " I think, therefore, that it was another one of those in Asia, for

LECT. I.] DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE. 9
evidence from the book itself which makes it morally certain
that the Revelation must have been written before the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem ? I answer,—there is overwhelming evidence
in favour of this position in every page and line of the Apoca-
lypse, whilst there is no internal evidence, deserving the name,
to show that it was written after that period.
* 1. Our first argument is, that St. John speaks continually of
the speedy coming of Christ.
Rev. i. 7-—" Behold Me cometh with clouds."
Rev. in. 11----"Behold I come quickly."
Rev. xiv. 1 Jk—" Behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud
one sat like unto the Son of Man."
Rev. xvi. 15.—" Behold I come as a thief."
Rev. xix. 11.—" I saw heaven opened, and behold a white
horse, and he that sat upon him.....is called the
Word of God."
Rev. xxii. C20—" He which testifieth these things, saith,
surely I come quickly."
No scriptural statement is capable of more decided proof
than, that the coming of Christ is the destruction o£ Jerusalem,
and the close of the Jewish dispensation.1
they say that there arc two monuments at Ephesus, and that each bears the name
of John."—(Eus. Eccles. Hist. vii. 25.) I do not mention tthis to cast any doubt
upon the authorship of the Apocalypse, for the testimony of antiquity may be
said to he universally agreed that the Apocalypse was written by St. John.
This is also confirmed by the internal evidence of the Book: — Compare
" If I will that he tarry till I come/' John, xxi. 22.
" Even so, come,, Lord Jesus." Rev. xxii. 20.
" Behold the Lamb of God." John, i. M.
"A Lamb stood on the Mount Sion." Rev. xiv. 1.
li In the beginning was the Word." John, i. 1.
(( His name is called the Word of God.*' Rev. xix. 13.
" They shall look on him whom they pierced." John, xix, 37.
" Every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him." Rev. 1. 7-
These and many other interesting peculiarities of style and language, found
only in the Apocalypse and in the Gospel of St. John, render it highly pro-
bable that he was the author. These doubts of Eusebius are only adduced to
show that no great dependence can be placed upon him with regard to any
decision respecting the date, and if that in his opinion, the claim to authorship
was not completely settled, bis testimony with regard to the date must neces-
sarily be looked upon as liable to suspicion.
1 Bishop Newton says : " Our Saviour's repeating so frequently in this
book,—'Behold, I come quickly;' l Behold, he cometh with clouds, and

10 DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE. OUcx. I.
At this part of the subject I cannot stop to adduce the many
and varied proofs which establish this—a few must suffice : —
Matt, xxiv. 29.—"Immediately after the tribulation of
those days.....they shall see the Son of Man
coming in the clouds of heaven/*
Mark xiii. 24___"In those days, after that tribulation
. . . . then shall they see the Son of Man coming- in the
clouds with power and great glory."
Luke XXK 22—27—" These be the days of vengeance . . .
for there shall be great distress in the land, eVt TTjsyrJs, Judaxi,
and wrath upon this people, but woe to them that are with child
and to them that give suck in those days , . . . they
shall fall by the edge of the sword .... and Jeru-
salem shall he trodden down of the Gentiles .... and
then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with
power and great glory."
Nothing can be plainer than that our Lord said his advent
should take place, according to St. Matthew, " Immediately
after the tribulation of those days;" according to St. Mark,
"In those days after that tribulation;" according to St.
Luke, when 4f Jerusalem should be trodden down of the
Gentiles" and there should be " yreat distress in the land and
ivrath upon this people" At that time, and at no other, did
our Lord say that he would come. At the outset, then, I state
with what may be thought great boldness, but with the
strongest conviction of truth, that the coming of Christ is the
destruction of Jerusalem, and the close of the age, crwreXeta
TOV aloivos, and that no other coming is spoken of in the
Scriptures.
If so, and the Apocalypse be written after the destruction
of Jerusalem, it must be the work of some higher arch-enemy
than Cerinthus, for it represents Christ as yet to come after
the object for which he said he would come had been fulfilled.
And be it remembered, the proof of our Lord's coming at
every eye shall see him ;' and the like expressions, cannot surely be so well
understood of any event as of the destruction of Jerusalem ; which coining
was also spoken of in the Gospels; and what other coming was there HO
speedy, and so conspicuous ?" Add to this, "they ulso which pierced him, '
were to look upon him ; and who were they " which pierced him " but the
Jews ?

LECT. L] DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE* 11

that period does* not depend upon the Apocalypse. That truth
would have remained the same had the Apocalypse never been
written. The Apocalypse only confirms the statements in the
Gospels. It is only when viewed as written after that event
that the whole question is encircled with irreconcileable diffi-
culties. For if the Gospels and Epistles state explicitly that
Christ was to come within a certain defined period, and for a
certain defined object, and the Apocalypse represents him as yet
to corne, after that event had taken place, and that period
passed away, not only is Scripture set against Scripture, hut
the whole of the sacred canon is involved in one irremediable
mass of contradiction and mystery.

2. The woes of the Apocalypse (and I presume I may take it
for granted that the Book from the opening- of the first seal to
the final consummation of the destruction of Babylon, is one
unmixed and uninterrupted series of terrible calamity) are said
to fall upon the dwellers in a particular land, upon the Princes
and Lords, and merchants of a particular land, and upon a par-
ticular city.

These are described as " they that dwell on the earth,"1 "01
ovvres CTTC T^9 y??9«" " The kings of the earth," " )8a~
rfjs yr?9." " The great men of the earth," " p.ey toravcs
7779." " The merchants of the earth," " e/u-Tropot rrjs
"The great city which had dominion over the kings of
the earth," " rj 710X15 rj ptyokri rj e^ovcra fiao'iXeiav CTTI raw

Let us see first whether the woes of the Apocalypse descend
upon " them that dwell on the earth."
This can be confirmed by numerous passages scattered
everywhere throughout the Book, thereby proving that the
Apocalypse embraces only one grand subject, and that the
miseries about to fall on one particular people.
" Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth," (Rev.
1 " They that dwell on the earth," CTTI r//c y*k — m every passage this
uityht to bv translated, "ON THE LAND,"*'.*', the land of Judsen. Compare
Luke, xxi. 23. : ** there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon
this people," — 4*'"Koreu yap untyo; pfyaXrj irrl rrjfc yJ/C» Kdt opyy iv TM \af
Tovru" — where our translators, driven to the right meaning of the words by
the qualifying clause, " this people,'* have translated CTT* r//c yyc *' in the
land/'

12 DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE. [LECT. L
viii. 13.) " Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the
sea/' (Rev. xii. 12.) "And there fell a noisome and a
grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast,
and which worshipped his image," (Rev. xvi. 2.) Now the
men who had " the mark of the beast, and who worshipped his
image," are defined as " they that dwell on the earth." " And
all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him," «. e. the
beast, (Rev. xiii. 8.) " He . . , causeth the earth and them
that dwell therein to wrorship the first beast," (Rev. xiii. 12.)
66 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth . . . saying
to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an
image," (Rev. xiii. 14.) (Compare also Rev. iii. 10., Rev.
vi. 10., Rev. xvii. 2., Rev. xvii. 8.) I trust then it will be
admitted as an irrefragable position, that the woes of the Apo-
calypse were to foil upon a particular people specially marked
out and defined as " Them that dwell on the earth."
Now who are " they that dwell on the earth ?"
The words " the earth," "^ y^," are not unfrequently used
in the Apocalypse in connection with other clauses which qua-
lify their meaning, making it evident that no particular land is
pointed out, but the earth generally. I would adduce in support
of this such passages as the following :—" And no man in
heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth,77 (Rev. v. o.) ;
" And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth,
and under the earth, and such as are in the sea," (Rev. v.
13. So also Rev. xi. ()., xiv. 7»? xviii. 1., xx. U. &c.) In
all which passages it is at once evident from the qualifying
adjuncts that no particular land can be intended, but the earth
generally as part of creation.
In some other passages, the obscurity of which does not
admit of a positive interpretation, it is possible that the earth
generally or a particular land may be intended. I allude to
such texts as "The seven spirits of God sent forth into all
the earth," (Rev. v. 6.); "The stars of heaven fell to the
earth," (Rev. vi. 13.) ; " And he set his right foot upon the
sea, and his left foot on the earth," (Rev. x. 2.) ; although,
if we bring our Lord's prophecies and the prevailing opinions
of the Jews into the scale, it will seem most probable that a
particular land was intended. But the words in question are
sometimes found qualified by governing considerations whichLECT. L] DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE. ' 13
define and determine their meaning, and this is always the
case, when they are found in connection with the governing
clause " they that dwell," " ot /carot/cowres." Then they have,
and can have, only one meaning ; then they refer only to one
land and to one people ; and this land and this people must be
the land and people of Judiea.
This will be reduced to demonstration from a consideration of
the passages in which these words occur.
They are found put in apposition and contradistinction to
" every tongue and kindred, and people and nation," " iraora
<j>v\r) /cat yXwcrcTT?, /cat Xaos *at €0vo$" It is well known
that one only land claimed this distinction ; one only people as-
serted this separation from the Gentile world. The Greeks
were not more anxious to be held distinct from the Barbarians,
than the Jews from the heathen,—than "they that dwell on
the earth," from the tongues, and kindreds, and peoples, and
nations.
The first passage which I shall bring forward in proof of
this is Rev. vii. 4., where the 144,000 are said to be sealed
" of all the tribes of the children of Israel." By turning to
Rev. xiv. 3., it will be found that the same 144,000 are said
to be " redeemed from the earth" These are contrasted (Rev.
vii. 9«) with " a great multitude ... of all nations and kindreds,
and people and tongues." Here it is evident that the 144,000
of all the tribes, defined as the " redeemed from the earth," are
put in apposition to " the great multitude . . . of all nations and
kindreds, and people and tongues." The inference is un-
avoidable that the writer of the Book intended to draw a dis-
tinction between Jew and Gentile, between the sealed " of all
the tribes of the children of Israel," (and these tribes are enu-
merated by name in order to show that a literal Israel is in-
tended,) and the gathered from "all nations and kindreds, and
people and tongues ;" and by comparing Rev. vii. 4. with Rev.
xiv. 3. it is made matter of positive certainty that the " re-
deemed from the earth" are identical with the sealed from "all
the tribes of the children of Israel." This at once gives us
the position we contend for, that " the earth " is the land of
Juda»a.
Rev. xi. 9. 10. " And they of the people and kindreds and&ATI OF THE APOCALYPSE. [LECT. I.
tongues mid nations shall see, &c. ... and they that dwell
upon the earth shall rejoice over them/'
Rev, xiii. 7, 8. " And power was given unto him over all
kindreds, and tongues, and nations, and all that dwell upon
the earth shall worship him/'
Ilev. xiv, 0. " And I saw another angel . . . having the
everlasting1 Gospel to preach u