Of the two Apocalyptical Prophecies.

The first prophecy, that of the seals, comprehends the fates of the empire: The other, that of the little book, the fates of the Church, or of the Christian Religion, until at length both shall coalesce in the reign of the Church triumphant, “when the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of the Lord and his Christ.” For as Daniel in the Old Testament, according to the succession of empires, both presignified the coming of Christ, and explained in order the fates of the Jewish Church; so is the Apocalypse to be understood as measuring out the Christian system by the proceedings of the Roman empire, which was still remaining after Christ. Nor does the event contradict this supposition. The interpretation of the first prophecy thus proceeds upon this general hypothesis.

APPENDIX.

From the ancient monuments of the Egyptians, Persians, and Indians, from the authors Tarphanes, interpreter of Pharaoh; Baramus of Saganessa, king of the Persians (a contemporary of Diocletian); Syrbachamus, interpreter of the king of the Indians; Apomasar, or, according to others, Achmet, F. Scirim, an Arab, collected Ὀνειροκριτικὰ, or interpretations of dreams, as that people were very much devoted, from the earliest antiquity, to pursuits of this nature, as well as of other kinds, so were they, while their empire flourished, eager to translate the writings of all nations into Arabic. This little book, which was formerly in Greek, by what author is uncertain, John Leunclavius published in the last century, translated into Latin by himself, out of the library of Joseph Sambucus. The same afterwards, in the year 1603, Nicolas Rigaltius communicated from the library of the most Christian king, in his Oneirocritics, having supplied what was wanting in the copy of Sambucus. In this book you may see that many prophetic images, which create so much difficulty to our countrymen, were familiar to the Oriental nations, and were certainly not unusual in their divinations. Of the authors from whom the collection is made, the most ancient of all appear to be Tarphan, the Egyptian, as one who not only calls himself the interpreter of Pharaoh, but every where in his interpretations, uses the name of Pharaoh for a king.

It would therefore appear, that he lived at a time when Egypt had still kings of its own, and while the same were called Pharaoh. The Persian, with his king Saganissa, was, as I have said, of the same age as Diocletian. The Indian is of a later age, as lie every where proclaims himself a Christian.

But there is a wonderful agreement of both with the Egyptian.

Since, then, we are not unwilling to learn the meaning of words and phrases in the sacred writings from those nations which were formerly the nearest to the Hebrew people, and most connected with them in manners, and the use of language, why should we undervalue the same advantages here, in the signification of figures and prophetic images? (for, according to the Hebrew masters, the determination of prophecy is that of dreams.)

Let no one, then, impute it to me as a fault, if I annex out of this author those passages which appear to me to make the figures of the seal just explained, more intelligible.

The same, likewise, I shall do hereafter, with the reader’s good leave, as occasion may offer, on the trumpets, and the other visions.

The Reason of the Order of the Sons of Leah.

Judah, Reuben, Gad, Aser, constitute, as you see, the first quaternion of the sons of Leah, as superior to the rest in respect to Him of whom the type points out the nobility.

Among those, the first place, as justly due, is bestowed on Judah, on account of Christ, the King of the faithful, descended from that tribe. The second on Reuben, whom that illustrious protestation concerning building the altar of remembrance on the banks of Jordan, ennobled, and which he deserved, that he might not yield the prerogative of his nativity (for he was the first-born) to any other than to the royal tribe of Judah. The third place is allotted to Gad, as the associate of Reuben in that celebrated protestation of retaining the true worship of God, and illustrious besides for Elias the prophet, and him the king, the destroyer of Baalism.

The Reason of the Order of the Sons of Rachel.

Observe that among the posterity of Rachel, two of them paired together, Naphtali and Manasseh, head the family: Joseph and Benjamin bring up the rear. Naphtali and Manasseh are preferred, because he was illustrious, as well in Barak, the conqueror of Sisera the Canaanite, as in Hiram, a Naphtalite on his father’s side, the artificer of the instruments and furniture of the temple of God; (1 Kings, c. vii. v. 14. 2 Chron. c. ii. v. 14.) and in a name yet greater, of whom hereafter; the latter was noted for Gideon, the subverter of Baal, and Elisha the prophet.

But the glory of Christ’s inhabitation exalts Naphtali, though the son of a maid-servant, above Manasseh, as when Christ was about to enter on his office, he fixed his residence and seat of his preaching in the noblest city of the tribe of Naphtali, and the metropolis of all Galilee, Capernaum, whence, as from an episcopal city, he went forth many times over all Galilee with his apostles, into all the synagogues and villages, teaching the gospel of the kingdom, and shining forth with miracles of healing. For, Reader, I wish to remark, from the Evangelical History, (because it escapes many,) that our Saviour dwelt in Galilee during the whole time that he abode on earth; but that he was seen in Judea, the principal seat both of the nation and of his own tribe, only at the time of the festivals. And this is what Isaiah of old had predicted, Isa. c. ix. Matt. c. iv. v. 14.; that “the wonderful Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, (Sept. the Father of the age to come,) the Prince of Peace,”—in one word, the Messiah, should be a Galilean; and, as if in compensation and consolation of the captivity, which Galilee, first of all the regions in the Holy Land, had then recently undergone from the Assyrian, (2 Kings, c. xv. v. 29.) that the tract in question should be peculiarly enlightened by his presence; apparently, indeed, that public way, called “the Way of the Sea,” which, coming out of Syria to Jordan, passes through the middle of Capernaum, and from thence, proceeding near the Sea of Galilee, leads into Egypt. Let us hear what he says, (vide Hebrew.) “As in former times he rendered vile the land of Zabulon and the land of Naphtali, (viz. as 1 have observed by Tiglathpileser,) so at the last he will render it glorious.” For “the way of the sea (trodden by the Assyrian) to the passage of Jordan, (where Capernaum was situated,) Galilee of the Gentiles,—the people which walked in darkness, (namely, of afflictions,) have seen a great light; to those who dwelt in the region of the shadow of death, on them has the light shined,” &c. Would you know whence and under whose influence Galilee will be so blessed, and within that maritime way where the passage of the Jordan was? he immediately subjoins, “For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Father of Eternity, the Prince of Peace.”

But those words (with which our transcribers, almost treading in the footsteps of the Jews, who never understood this prophecy, begin the chapter with a great disturbance of the sense,) I annex with Jerome and the Royal Bibles to the last sentence of the preceding chapter; and I render them, “For there is no obscurity in Him who is the cause of their trouble,” that is, in the calamitous and afflicted state of things into which the Israelitish republic at that time is reported to have fallen, according to the threatening of the law, and which is as it were submitted to our sight; men were driven to indignation and despair because they saw the enemy by which they were oppressed enjoy perpetual success, and that no misfortune befel him. It is of great importance to the Christian faith, that this oracle concerning the Galilean Messiah should he clearly understood, and the fidelity of Matthew, who alleges it, should be asserted; on which account I. was desirous of throwing some light upon it on this occasion, hoping that the Reader would not consider it as unacceptable. I return to the Apocalypse, and I will add one thing more before I dismiss Naphtali; that, as among the sons of Leah, the first place was allotted to Judah, on account of the generation of Christ, so among those of Rachel Naphtali was noticed on account of his dwelling, that the prerogative of Christ might be supereminent on both sides, in whose name, as that of Lord and Emperor, the assembly (as we shall hear in its proper place) is enrolled.

Joseph and Benjamin remain, transferred to be the last pair of Rachel’s children, and of whom the sirname of Ephraim degraded to this place, since it is Ephraim, in truth, who is concealed under the name of Joseph, having been unworthy, on his own account, (because he was the leader of the Israelitish idolatry introduced by Micah, and also because of that enormous apostasy of which Jeroboam and Ahab were the founders,) to have his name repeated in the catalogue. Benjamin likewise, beside being the youngest born, the hatred of Saul the Benjamite, against David, and the curses of Shimei against him who was the head of the family and the type of Christ, deprived of a higher station.

A MEMORABLE SENTENCE,

Formed from the signification of the names by which the tribes were called, by which both the order of the tribes sealed, the disposition of the assembly itself, its contest and reward by God are declared.

The blessed assembly, the assembly of those who are sealed, confess or celebrate God, by looking to his Son, that is, to Christ the only Mediator. They contend with those who are forgetful of their obedience, that is, with the antichristians. Adhesion to Christ will add to the Son of His right hand, (that is, to him whom God highly values) the reward of a habitation or eternal mansion. Or otherwise, the Son of His right hand (that is, Christ) will add to those who adhere to God, the reward of a habitation, or mansion of eternal life.

THE MEANING

Of the Interior Court measured by the Reed of God.

The inner court of the temple, with those who worship therein, to be measured by the Divine reed, denotes the primeval state of the Church, examined, and accurately proved to be holy, according to the rule of the Divine word.—Not yet in truth, as it was afterwards, (when we arrive at the times of the outer court,) varying from measure, without symmetry, from the contagion of idolatrous worship, but serving God for some ages, regularly, through one only Mediator, Jesus Christ.

For it appears to me that a measure of this kind was intended, even under the type of the angelical dimension in Ezekiel; because it is said to him, c. xliii. from v. 7 to 10, and in the following verses, “But thou, O son of man, show the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed for their iniquities, and let them measure the pattern.” See the passage. But if any one should think differently, and had rather refer the type of dimension to the signification of building, as what is displayed in architectural engravings, or graphically, may be the measurement by God, according to the prophets, that will still correspond to the same sense. For what then will this court denote, measured by the Divine reed, but the state of the Church so represented to be the workmanship of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ himself being the chief corner-stone? opposed to the following court, which God did not acknowledge for his building, and therefore John is prohibited from measuring. Whether you interpret it in the latter or the former manner, the substance, as you see, will be the same. But he that shall interpret it in a different sense, unless I am mistaken, can bring no example of his interpretation from Scripture.

How appositely indeed the situation of the altar in this court may adumbrate the frequent sacrifices of martyrs, under that state of the Church, will appear, both from the circumstance itself, and from the contemporary vision of the red dragon fighting with Michael for the offspring of the woman, when we come to the interpretation thereof.

THE MEANING

Of the Outer Court with the Holy City trodden under foot by the Gentiles, and on that account to be omitted and rejected from measurement.

The outer court trodden under foot by the nations, and rejected from the divine measurement, designates the holy city of God, or the Christian Church, soon after the end of the times of the regular court, (to which it immediately succeeds) to be given up to new idolatries, and its affairs having been confirmed by the entire demolition of the Gentile worship under the first court, it was now to be profaned by the contagion of renewed idolatry, as of revived ethnicism; in one word, the anti-christian apostasy which was to flourish in the Church for forty-two months of yearsThere is an allusion to the profanation of Antiochus, which is described Ps. lxxix. Vide 1 Macc. c. vii. v. 17, and Ps. lxxix. 1, 2, 3. “O God! the heathen are come into thine inheritance, and made Jerusalem a heap of stones,” &c.. Concerning which, in the history of the Beast, in a vision of a like nature contemporizing with this court, we shall fully and particularly treat.

But let us consider the words of the text in the interpretation of which we are now engaged. “And there was given me, says he, a reed like a rod; and the angel stood, saying, Arise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and those that worship therein. But the court, which is without the temple, leave out, and do not measure it, for it is given up to the Gentiles, and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty-two months.”

In order that we may rightly understand the meaning of these words, it is to be understood that ΤΟ ἹΕΡΟΝ (by which name I embrace the whole edifice of the temple,) was distinguished by a double court, the one interior, in which the Nah, or temple itself, together with the altar of burnt-offering before its doors was situated, and was open to the Priests and Levites only; the other exterior, which is called (2 Chron. c. iv. v. 9.) the great court, and by Ezekiel, more than twelve times, the court without, or the outer court. This was the court of the Israelites, or of the Israelitish people, and therefore not improperly called the court of Israel, though that part belonging to the men, was more especially called so by the Jews. The first court was known by the names of the temple and the altar of sacrifice. “Rise, said he, and measure the temple of God (Ναὸν) and the altar of sacrifice.” Where the thusiasterion does not mean the altar of burnt-offerings only which was there situated, but the space which surrounded it, that is, the whole space of the altar and sacrifice; as is to be collected from the words immediately connected with it, “and those who worship therein;” that is, in the place of sacrifice. How, likewise, Θυσιαστήριον is taken c. xiv. v. 18, and c. xvi. v. 7, vide Beza. Whence the old lexicon in Greek and Latin interprets Θυσιαστήριον altarium, sacrarium, altar, sacred place, and vice versâ, the glossary of Philoxenus, sacrarium Ἡρῶον Θυσιαστήριον. Temple of a hero, place of the altar. But this Θυσιαστήριον, together with the area of the temple (i. e. τοῦ Ναοῦ) I learn to be rightly comprehended within the name of the interior court, from the description of the tabernacle, where, in like manner, the whole enclosure which surrounded the dwelling-place, and altar of burnt-offering is reckoned under the denomination of one court, as appears Ex. c. xl. v. 33. So much of the first court which John is ordered to measure; but the latter court is designated clearly enough by its name—“The court which is without the temple, that is, by an ellipsis of the former substantive,—the court which is exterior to the enclosure of the temple and altar, and since the Gentiles admitted without right and justice were stabled in this, it is ordered by no means to be measured, but to be cast forth, and considered as profane. But you will say, it is not the outer court, but the holy city which is to be trodden down by the Gentiles. I answer, that the outer court and the holy city mutually explain each other, since the outer court was the place for the holy city or people of Israel to meet in for divine purposes: Nay, in the wilderness, the tabernacle having only one court, (which it was not lawful to enter ordinarily, unless for the Priests and Levites), there was no outer court, beside the camp of Israel, or the holy city. Therefore the sense is the same as if it were said, “The court which is without the temple cast out, and do not measure it, for it is given up to the Gentiles, and they shall tread it under forty-two months. For the relative it, a substantive is substituted, and that of the same kind, so as to point out the subject intended by the antecedent. “The holy city, says he, shall they tread under forty-two months.” The change of the substantive for the relative often occurs both in this book and elsewhere, namely, when either the substantive which precedes, is repeated in the place of the relative, or its synonyme is substituted instead of the relative. An example of the latter kind you have here, and Acts c. xxv. v. 21. And indeed what else shall we say could be given to the Gentiles to have the power of occupying, so as to trample under foot? And what could the Gentiles trample on, but that which was given them? so that these words, not less than the court and holy city, seem mutually to explain one another.

THE ICHNOGRAPHY

Of the Holy Place, that is, of the Temple, and its Courts.

THE MYSTERY

Of the Two Witnesses prophesying in Sackcloth.

Two witnesses or prophets sent by God, clothed in sackcloth, are to preach, while the Gentiles are treading under foot the court of the people of God, or the holy city. These are the interpreters and assertors of Divine truth, who should deplore that foul and lamentable contamination of the Church of Christ, by continual complaints, and whom God would raise up as unceasing monitors to the Christian world, committing whoredom with the Gentiles, and as guides to his saints preserving the faith. After the example of those illustrious pairs, under the Old Testament, Moses and Aaron in the Wilderness, Elijah and Elisha under the Baalitical apostasy, Zorobabel and Jeshua under the Babylonian captivity. From their number, condition, power and actions, these Apocalyptical witnesses seem to be manifestly described, as likewise the state of the church in which they prophesied, agreeably with that of Israel, under the images of Babylon, the Wilderness and Gentilism, or Baalism. Let the reader examine with his own eyes what I have said of the description of the witnesses in the following table:

Now let us come to the text. “And I will give power, (says he,) to my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy 1260 days, clothed in sackcloth.” Where it is first to be remarked, that the whole prophecy which follows, from this comma to the sounding of the seventh trumpet, as the nature of the subject demands, was not exhibited to sight in a vision, but dictated to John by the angel sustaining the person of Christ, the observation of which renders the genius of the allegory or type much more easy to be perceived. “To my two witnesses.” He calls them two with reference to the type, which is, as I have observed, of pairs; as if he had said I will give to my Zorobabel, and Jeshua, to my Elijah and Elisha, to my Moses and Aaron:—To which is to be added, that he calls them witnesses: Now witnesses by the law ought to be two, to establish every word. Add that they may be called two on account of the number of the tables of God, which the witnesses of the Old and New Testament, as of two Testaments, might apply in their prophecyWhy should not the two witnesses be considered as the Old and New Testament, which during the apostasy of 1260 years were to be neglected and vilified as we see they are in Popish countries; but in the hands of sincere believers, properly applied, would produce the effects described?—R. B. C..

“That they should prophesy clothed in sackcloth,” that is, by woefully lamenting the trampling down of the Holy City, in consequence of the introduction of Gentile worship, by affording testimony to the truth of God, and by exhorting to repentance, “For 1260 days”—which indeed Are contained in forty-two months, and these it is plain are not days of hours; both from those three days and a half, part of those days a little after, assigned to the death of the witnesses, and which the things predicted to be done in them, prove, cannot be taken for days of hours; and because the beast (whose duration is the same), is contemporary with the company of 144,000 sealed: the company of the sealed is contemporary with the six first trumpets, and the affairs of the trumpets cannot possibly be run through in so very short a time as 1260 horary days, or three years and a half. But why, you will say, should the profanation of the Gentiles be measured by months, and the prophecy of the witnesses asserting the pure worship of God in days? Namely, because the worship of idols and every sin and error is under the power of darkness and night, over which the moon presides; on the other hand, true religion may be compared to the light and the day, the presidency over which belongs to the sun. Therefore (Acts c. xxvi. v. 18.) the mission of Paul to convert the Gentiles from idols, is said to be, “to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God.” With the same meaning also it is said “what fellowship has light with darkness?” Now months are directed by the motion of the moon the queen of darkness, but days and years by that of the sun who presides over light. For the same cause, as we shall see hereafter, the blasphemy of the beast will be reckoned in like manner according to the motion of the moon, by months, but the residence of the woman in the wilderness by days and years with reference to the motion of the sun. “These are the two olive-trees and the two candlesticks, standing before the Lord of the earth.” That is, they are like Zorobabel and JeshuaAs these witnesses prophecy for 1260 years, (the whole time of the apostasy) to whom can the allusion be made, but to two testimonies, which might be constantly produced by the faithful against the corruption of the times; and I know not where we are to look for them, but in the books of the Old and New Testament, combined in the Bible?—R. B. C. whom the Lord anciently anointed over the Jewish church, ruined under the Babylonian captivity, at length to be restored and superintended by these witnesses in a similar manner, under the bondage of the Gentiles. For the allusion is to “those two olive-trees,” which Zacharias saw growing on each side of the golden candlestick, and supplying oil to its lamps, (Zach. c. iv.) of which the angel being asked what they meant, “these, said he, are the two sons of oil, or the anointed ones, which stand before the Lord of the whole earth, pointing out the two heads of the church, then in subjection to the Gentiles.—Zorobabel, the general, and Jeshua, the high priest, of whom he had prophesied a little before. For the candle then with its seven lights, designated the temple, and by its type the church of that time, whose instauration and conservation, the two holy ones were to take charge of, not by force, not by strength, not by any human aid, but by the power of God alone, operating in a certain invisible and wonderful manner, as those olive-trees, standing on each side of the candlestick, supplied oil to its lights in a very extraordinary and imperceptible way. But why, you will say, is mention here made by John, not of one as in Zacharias, but of two candlesticks, to which likewise and not to the anointed ones, the two prophets seem to be compared? I confess that I am here at a stand, nor have I yet found a sufficiently prompt and clear reason for this difference. In the mean time I think there lurks a Hebraism in the words, and it is as if he had said:—These are the two olive-trees, at or near the two candlesticks, standing before the Lord of the earth; so that the comparison of the witnesses may be only with the olive-trees, but the addition of the candlesticks may be judged only to pertain to the description of those olive-trees. For the copulative in the Hebrew has sometimes the force of the preposition עם, that is, with, near by; as (1 Sam. c. xiv. v. 18.) “Because the ark of God was at that time, and the children of Israel;” e. with the children of Israel. Vide Lex. Schindleri. But there will still remain a difficulty about the two candlesticks. May it be said, that the one only in Zacharias may here be reckoned for a double candlestick on account of the double rank of lights on each side of the stem; and the two olive-trees pouring in oil secretly on each side? There is, likewise, in Zacharias the mention of seven and seven and twice seven infusers, but what the meaning is does not sufficiently appear. But may we not suppose that this duplicate alludes to the private designation of the Christian church? as being compounded of two people, of Jews and Gentiles; or what, perhaps, is nearer the truth, because, at the time, in which the witnesses clothed in sack-cloth, were uttering their lamentation, it was to be divided together with the Roman empire into that of the east and west.

However it may be, it is certain that the candlesticks signify not the prophets or presidents of the churches, but the churches themselves, because in chapter i. the angel interprets the seven candlesticks, as so many Churches. “The seven candlesticks, (says he,) which thou sawest, are the seven Churches.

If this was a difficulty to Mede, it is almost presumptuous in any other to attempt an explanation. But there have been two revelations of light from God, under two dispensations, and preserved by two Churches or holy societies—the Jewish and the Christian. In the time of Zachariah, there was only one revelation, one church, one candlestick, and if we may be allowed to apply the two olive-trees to two figurative infusers, rather than to two persons, we may suppose them in the first instance to have designated the law and the prophets.

But in the time of St. John there were two revelations, two churches, two candlesticks, the one illuminated by means of the Old Testament, now combining the law and the prophets, the other by the New Testament comprising the doctrines of Christ and his apostles. Reference is made to Zachariah, because be described the one and prefigured the other. May not then the two witnesses be summarily intended for the law and the gospel, or rather for the Old and New Testament?— R. B. C.

THE MEANING

Of the Red Dragon with Seven Heads fighting with Michael about the new-born Child.

The first vision of the little book, of which we treated in the eleventh chapter, ran through the whole Apocalyptical course, from the beginning to the end, and that, as we elsewhere observed, to point out its connexion with the seals and trumpets. Now to that vision the remaining prophecies of the same interval, and of the affairs of the Church are to be accommodated, in order to complete the system of the little book. Of which, “the war of the red seven-headed dragon with Michael,” comprises the same period as the measured court of the ecclesiastical state, in which the dragon, inhabiting the Roman empire, raged with dire persecutions against the Church with child, and travailing to bring forth ChristQuery if this be the right interpretation?—R. B. C. as king over the Roman world, and for nearly three hundred years waged war against the Spirit of Christ, powerfully operating in his servants. But the woman at length, after throes in delivery, spoliations, and butcheries, gave birth to such a ChristIs not Constantine intended?—R. B. C., brought forth a King “who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron,” and the dragon, being dispossessed of the Roman throne, “there was” in that world “salvation and power, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ.”

This summary of the whole matter being premised, for the sake of clearness, let us come to the particular explanation of the text.

“And a great sign (he says) was seen in heaven,” whither John was called in the beginning to behold, and where he had seen all the foregoing visions. I do not think any other sense of this circumstance is to be sought for. For it is manifest even from the end of the preceding chapter, that John had hitherto beheld what passed in heaven. “A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.” A sign, and a very beautiful image of the primitive Church in a state of pregnancy, resplendent on all sides with the faith of Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, and treading under her feet the elements of the world, (whether the shadows of the Law, or the darkness of Gentile superstition;) glittering, lastly, with the insignia of apostolical origin. Many are inclined to consider the moon as a symbol of terrestrial and mutable things, which the Church of Christ looks down upon as beneath her. Though this may be true, yet never, I believe, in the whole Scripture, is the moon celebrated under this allusion. But the interpretation of prophetic symbols is not readily to be sought for elsewhere, but in those properties, by which, in some place or other, Scripture bears testimony to it. Now it is certain that most of the feasts on which they performed their holy rites, in typical worship, were described according to the changes of the moon; as the new moons, the passover, pentecost, the feast of tabernacles; nay, that the calculation of the whole ecclesiastical year, depended on its revolution. To which, perhaps, that passage in the 104th Psalm, v. 19, may refer: “He appointed the moon for seasons,” לטוֹעֲדִים that is, for feasts. Why, then, may not the symbol of the moon be referred to the Mosaic worship? which the Church, in truth, by the revelation of Christ, beholds as prostrate, and placed under her feet; according to that observation of the apostle to the Colossians, ch. ii. v. 14, in which he asserts that “Christ had blotted out the hand-writing of ordinances which was against us, and had taken it away, having nailed it to his cross.” Moreover, as God may be said to have created the sun as the greater luminary, for the dominion of the day, and the moon, the lesser luminary, for the dominion of the night, why should not the symbol of the moon, appointed to the presidency over the night, signify what is the display of the power of darkness, or blindness, that is, the worship of Satan and his demons in idols? So that indeed the whole matter may be transferred to baptism, in which the Church, illuminated, and from thenceforth to be clothed with Christ, tramples under foot the worship of idols, with a renunciation of Satan and his angels, his service, and his pomps. For all these things the ancient formula of renunciation expressly contained; and besides, the abjurors turned to the West, as to that part of heaven from whence the night arises, as, on the contrary, the professors of faith in Christ, and in the true Triune God, turned to the East, as the quarter from whence the sun, after the night has passed away, brings back the day. (Dionys. Arcop. de Hierarch Eccles. ch. ii. Cyril Hierosol. Catech. i. Mystagog.—Greg. Nazian. Orat. xl.—Hieron. to ch. vi.—Amos. Ambrosius. Of those who are initiated into Mysteries, ch. ii.) Moreover, with a regard to the same figure (as was also observed above), the duration of the apostasy, or of Christianity defiled by idols, is described by months, according to the motion of the moon, but that of the woman and the witnesses persevering in the faith of Christ, by years and days, with reference to the motion of the sun. To which interpretation I should in preference accede, I am somewhat in doubt, and whether to one only, or to both. In truth, the apostle to the Galatians, ch. iv. seems to call both, as well the Mosaic tutorship as the worship of Gentile idols, promiscuously the elements of the world, and the Church of Christ rejoices that both are subdued under her feet. Let the reader use his own judgment.

“And being with child, she cried out in pain, and labouring to be delivered.” The Church, whenever she is regarded universally and abstractedly as an imaginary person, is a mother, but when with respect to individuals, who are produced in her continually, she has offspring which she is said to bring forth to God. This is so obvious in the prophets, that it is unnecessary to add a word more respecting it. Vide Ezekiel, ch. xvi. to v. 21, also ch. xxiii. v. 4, Isa. ch. liv. Hosea, ch. ii. v. 4, 5. The allegory, then, is not to be disturbed by the unreasonableness of any one, because he would distinguish the mother from her offspring, which, however, in another sense, coalesce in one and the same Church. Kimschi on Hosea, ch. ii. v. 2, 3, “The synagogue or congregation is compared to a mother by way of universality, but the several individuals to children.”

Those pains and torments on account of which the woman in childbirth cried out, were those severe persecutions which the primitive Church endured at the time of her delivery. For it is well known that tribulations and distresses are compared to the pangs of childbirth. Whence those words of Isaiah, ch. lxvi. v. 7, “Before she travailed she brought forth; before her pain came she was delivered of a male child.” The Chaldee has this paraphrase: “Before tribulation come upon her, she shall be redeemed; before trembling come upon her as the pains of a woman in labour, her King shall be revealed, that is, the Messiah.” But Jeremiah himself interprets this image, ch. xxx. v. 6, 7, “Ask now and see, if a man do travail with child? Wherefore do I see every man with his hand on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness? Alas! because that day is great, and there is none like it. It is even the time of Jacob’s trouble, but he shall be saved out of it.” See also what our Saviour calls ὡδῖνας, Matt. ch. xxiv. v. 8, 9, Mark, ch. xiii. v. 9, “These are the beginning of sorrows,” ὠδίνων, &c.

“And there appeared another sign in heaven, and, behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns; and upon his heads seven crowns. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them upon the earth.” This is the sign or image of the heathen Roman empire worshipping the dragon; inasmuch as his emblems universally are seven heads and ten horns; seven heads both on account of the seven hills on which the city was built, and on account of the seven orders of kings or dynasties which would successively rule the empire of that city; but the ten horns are so called on account of the ten kingdoms, which were to rise in the time of its last head (upon which they grew,) which interpretation is not mine, but that of the angel, ch. xvii. where there will be a more convenient opportunity of treating on these matters, if any thing requires to be added. In the mean time, another character of the Roman empire is here subjoined, for it is said to have drawn “a third part of the stars of heaven with its tail, and cast them on the earth;” that is, to have subjected a third part of the princes and dynasties of the world to its empire. For so much, namely a third part of the globe known in the age of John, the Roman dominion circumscribed within its boundaries,

Now the tail, according to the doctrine of the Indians in Achmet, generally signifies attendants and followers of power, Apot. 152; but what more the tail of the serpent may imply, will be seen *by-and-by. And these, indeed, were the characters of the Roman empire universally; but the representation of a dragon determines the worshipper of the dragon and the enemies of the woman’s seed specifically, that is, as heathen, and the adversary of the Christian name; and since he is red likewise, it points him out as cruel, and crimson with the blood of the saints. Add that, under the type of a dragon, reference seems to be had to Pharaoh, the dire and malignant enemy of the ancient synagogue, travelling in Egypt, as the Roman of the Christian Church in childbirth. For he also, in a similar manner, and on the same account, is clothed with the image of a dragon, Psalm lxxiv. v. 13, 14, “Thou hast divided the sea by thy strength. Thou hast broken the heads of the dragons, (that is, of the Egyptians) in the waters. Thou hast broken the heads of Leviathan (Chaldee, of Pharaoh). Thou hast given him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.” Isaiah, ch. li. v. 9, “Awake, awake! put on strength, O arm of the Lord! Awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not he that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon?” Ezek. c. xxix. v. 3, “I am against thee, Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the great dragon.” In all these passages the Hebrew word is r which the Septuagint, Symmachus, and Jerome, interpret the dragon; and, indeed, the Syrian interpreter always calls the dragon in the Apocalypse by the same word. For the confirmation of which, Drusius says, that it is the Arabic language in which the dragon is called Thennin. And Exod. ch. vii. “Aaron threw down his rod before Pharaoh, and it became לתַפִין a serpent, or dragon:” It signifies, indeed, elsewhere, a whale or grampus, but then as a marine dragon, whose form in some respects it resembles. But why, you will say, is so much stress laid upon this word? Why, in order to show that in the resemblance which Satan first abused, in subverting Adam, it is the custom of the Holy Spirit, under the type of that disgraced and accursed animal, to designate the kingdoms infested by the devil, and hostile to his church, the seed of the woman.

“And the dragon stood before the woman, who was about to be delivered, that when she should bring forth, he might devour her child.” That is, as Pharaoh did to the ancient Israel springing up in Egypt, and as afterwards Herod did to Christ, the Son of Mary, our Lord, so the Roman dragon laid wait for the mystic Christ, whom the Church was about to bring forth, that he might oppress him immediately after his birth.

“And she brought forth a male child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron” (or an iron sceptre). That is, she brought forth a mystic Christ, or Christ formed in his members, not the Son of Mary, but of the Church, according to that of the Apostle to the Galatians, c. iv. v. 19. “My little children, of whom I travail in pain again, till Christ be formed in you.” For since the words are a periphrasis of Christ, it is necessary that some Christ should be intended by them, as in the prophetic types is frequently the case, not truly, but analogically spoken; “who,” says he, “was to rule all nations with an iron sceptre,” that is, with power produced by the force of iron, or war, as he was about to have dominion over those who were not originally his citizens, but either enemies, or foreigners, whom it would be necessary to subjugate before he governed. The words are taken from Ps. ii. v. 9. not according to the present Masoretic reading, but the ancient one of the Septuagint, and of the apostles. Of which authors, I think I can collect, that this is the meaning, from c. xix. v. 15. where in like manner as in the Psalm, they are applied to Christ our Lord, to whom they primarily belong. “Out of his mouth,” says he, “went a sharp sword, that with it he might smite the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron.” Here the words are applied to the mystic Christ, or the Christian man, the offspring of the church among the Gentiles, who is represented under the type of Christ his Head, and to whom the Lord promises that he would sometime give a power of a similar nature with his own, under the name of the Church of Thyatira. “He that overcometh,” says he, “and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will 1 give power over the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to pieces; as I also have received of my Father.” It will be some assistance here, to attend to the words of Andrew, in which, according to the opinion of Methodius, he comments upon this place. “The Church,” says he, “without intermission, by those who are initiated in baptism, generates Christ, as to be formed in them, to the complete fulness of spiritual growth. The male child is the people of the church, by whom Christ, as God, by the hands of the Romans, strong as iron, rules the nations.” He alludes to the type of the fourth kingdom in Daniel, in which I do not agree with him, (for how could David have alluded to that?) otherwise he is not wide of the mark, as will soon appear.

“And her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.” A hendiadysἒν δια δυοῖν, i. e. one thing divided into two by a conjunction.—R. B. C. for the throne of God. The son of the woman was caught up to the throne of God, that is, was elevated to the Roman throne, where, with that power with which it was declared that he was about to rule, he did rule the nations. Christ, the Son of Mary, was indeed truly raised to the throne of God; but the mystical, or supposed Christ, whom the apostolical Church brought forth analogically, since the throne of the higher powers is, as the apostle calls them, Rom. c. xiii. the throne of God, the terrestrial heaven. “For there is no power,” says he, “but of God.” Whence, in the divination of dreams, “If any one should appear in a dream to be carried up into heaven,” they interpret it of a royal exaltation. It is well known, likewise, in the sacred language, that magistrates are called אלהים, that is, gods. “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he is a Judge among gods.” Ps. lxxxii. 1. “I have said ye are gods, and ye are all the children of the Most High.” v. 6. As those then are said to sit in the seat of Moses, who teach the doctrine delivered by Moses; so those may be said to sit on the throne of God, who exercise his functions in the earth. When, therefore, the offspring of the apostolical Church is said to be caught up, or taken to the throne of God, it is the same thing as to be elevated to such a height, as to sit as it were next to God, which, I say, is true of royal eminence. Now this was fulfilled, when the Christians under Constantine the Great, and his successors, became possessed of power, after the Dragon was cast out.

But you will say, since the mystic Christ is said to be appointed to rule the nations over which he presided, in the same manner as Christ the Lord, with an iron sceptre, in what warfare, or by what battles (if this be the signification of the iron sceptre), did the offspring of the apostolic Church subjugate to himself the Roman world? I answer, by a double warfare. The first, spiritual, wonderful, and divine, against demons, the princes and gods of this world, which, indeed, with an army of celestial angels fighting with him against his enemies, he manfully waged, of which we shall treat in the sequel; the second, strictly corporal, when he had just attained the throne, which so many illustrious victories prove partly of Constantine over Maxentius, Maximinian, and Licinius; partly of Theodosius the Great against others, as well as Eugenius and Arbogastes, the standard-bearers of demons, before the contumacy and pride of the Gentile worshippers of the Dragon, rebelling against Christian government, was fully broken, subdued, and laid to rest.

But before we leave this subject, one thing still remains to be observed, namely, that not immediately as the offspring of the woman was brought forth, was he raised to the throne of God, but as soon as he came to maturity in the kingdom. Therefore she is said to have brought forth a son, who was to rule, that is, not immediately, but when he came of age. As Christ, the Son of Mary, our Lord, (to whose image this mystic Christ, the offspring of the Church, is in all things conformed), was in like manner, not as soon as he was born, but when he had arrived to a proper age, raised to the throne of God, and took possession of the kingdom, there to sit till he had reduced his enemies under his footstool.

“And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she bath a place prepared for her by God, that they should nourish her there, one thousand two hundred and sixty days;” of which, as it is afterwards repeated, and somewhat more fully described, we will defer the explanation to that place.

“And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon fought, and his angels: And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven.” It was said, that the mother having brought forth, as soon as her child was safe, escaped the snares of the dragon. But how it came to pass, that he who had so diligently watched her, should yet have failed in his attempt, now at length begins to be related. We learn that this happened by the aid, and under the auspices of Michael, who went strenuously to oppose the dragon, as he lay in wait; and when at length he became his superior, threw him down from heaven to earth. Thence the son of the woman not only escaped unhurt, but was raised to the throne of God, and she withdrew into a secure place from the fury of the dragon. “And there was war in heaven.” Namely, while the woman was bringing forth, not after she had brought forth, as many suppose. For it is certain from v. 14. that this war was carried on before the flight of the woman into the wilderness. But the woman did not flee into the wilderness before she had brought forth, and before her son was caught up to the throne of majesty, v. 5 and 6. “Michael and his angels fought with the dragon,” not alone, but with the assistance of the martyrs and confessors of Christ their King, by whose grace they fought; of whom, therefore, it will soon be sung in the hymn of victory, that “they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and for the word of his testimony, and they loved not their lives unto the end;” which cannot be said of angels only. “And the Dragon fought, and his angels,” that is, demons, with the assistance likewise of their worshippers, the Roman tyrants and their ministers.

But who, you will ask, is Michael? Not, I think, Christ himself, but, as it appears from Daniel, unless I am mistaken, one of the chief princes, or seven archangels, nay, the first, c. x. namely, that great angel, who is said by the same author, to stand up on the part of the people of God, c. xii.; and whom, therefore, Christ, the great General in chief, and the King alike of angels and men, employed in opposition to the fury of Satan and his followers against his people. For the angels are sent forth for the salvation of those who are the heirs of God,” Heb. c. 1.Rather “to minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation.”—R. B. C. and who protect and defend them according to a mode of acting secret and unseen, against evil spirits, who operate on such men as are enemies of God, and his Christ, although they do not appear in a visible shape. So in this war, in which we are treating of the primitive Church of Christ against the Roman worshippers of the dragon, the angels took part under Michael their leader, either by confirming the holy martyrs and confessors of Christ against the threats and power of tortures, and in diminishing their pains in their last agonies, and sometimes taking away entirely even the sense of pain; or by breaking and debilitating the attacks of their spiritual adversaries, and by throwing in the way of their persecutors, who acted under their influence, sometimes obstacles, and impediments, arising on a sudden, and so stifling their attempts; sometimes by infusing terrors and other alienations of mind, so that suddenly desisting from their undertakings, they even unwillingly granted to the Church a truce, and breathing time; until at length, after a war of three hundred years, when Christ saw that his people were sufficiently tried, and he determined to give a full victory to his angels, when the offspring of the woman was placed on the imperial throne, and the Christians were possessed of power, the kingdom of the devil being vanquished, fell with a wonderful ruin. For this is what he says,—“The devil prevailed not, neither was a place found for him any longer in heaven;” that is, routed and chased with all his forces, he was cast out of heaven, (“Prevailed not,” is a Hebraism, of which hereafter.) “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent which is called the devil, and Satan, who deceived) the whole habitable world;” (that is, impels it to idolatry, and had hitherto been seated in the Roman empire;) “he was cast out to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” That is, he, with all his demons, hitherto worshipped as gods, were hurled down from the summit of divinity in which they gloried, to the depth of execration and contempt. As what we read to have been done formerly in the liberation of Israel from the tyranny of the Egyptian Pharaoh, to whom the dragon bears a resemblance, that “God executed judgment on all the gods of the Egyptians,” (Ex. c. xii. v. 12; Num. c. xxxiii. v. 4,) the same found a place here likewise, at least, according to the words. The Jews have a tradition, that it took place there likewise. Vide both Targums, R. Salomon, R. Aben Ezra, with R. Moses, Ben Nachman, &c. Nor is there ground for any one to pervert the clear words of Scripture to any other sense, especially since Isaiah appears to allude to it, c. xix. v. 1.

“Prevailed not,” for was conquered, is a Hebrew figure, as I observed; by which adverbs of denying signify the contrary of that to which they are applied. As in this very vision it is said a little farther, “They loved not their lives unto the end;” that is, they reckoned their lives of no account, or they gave them up for Christ. For this mode of speaking among the Hebrews is not diminution, but augmentation. So Prov. c. xii. v. 3, “A man shall not be established by wickedness;” that is, he shall be utterly removed and eradicated. Id. c. x. v. 2, “The treasures of wickedness profit not;” that is, they are hurtful, they are destructive. Id. c. xvii. v. 21, “The father of a fool shall not rejoice;” that is, he shall be affected with sorrow. And 1 Cor. c. xvi. v. 22, “If any one love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema;” that is, whoever hates and curses him. Vide Burtorf Thesaur. Gramm. lib. 2, c. xix. So here,—the dragon and his angels prevailed not, is the same as they were completely overcome.

But I have already given a fuller history of this victory in the interpretation of the sixth seal. with which this fall of the dragon contemporises; nay, it is the subject of that seal, as far as it regards the remarkable change of the Roman empire. But what 1 have said of the offspring of the woman placed on the imperial throne, and of the Christians then possessed of power, is clear and manifest from the song of triumph which is subjoined—“And I heard a loud voice in heaven saying, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ, for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, who accused them before our God day and night.”—“And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony, and they loved not their life unto the death.” Which words, as they are very clear, and delivered without any veil of allegory, so they are a key to the interpretation of the whole vision. For, from hence it may be clearly perceived, in the first place, what the elevation of the offspring of the woman to the throne of God would be, namely, the introduction of “salvation and might, and the kingdom of God, and the power of his Christ,” to the Roman throne; and likewise by the conquest of what enemy, he should come to the kingdom; namely, by the overthrow of that accuser, who calumniates and traduces the brethren clay and night before God; and lastly, what kind of forces Michael and his angels should employ in this battle against the dragon and his satellites, namely, the holy martyrs and confessors, “who overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of his testimony, because they loved not” (that is, they gave up) “their lives unto the death.” And, indeed, it is utterly impossible that the elevation of the offspring of the woman, the overthrow of the dragon, and the introduction of the kingdom of God, and of his Christ, should not correspond with one and the same event, since the flight of the woman into the wilderness begins from all as from one termination of affairs. But why is Satan here called by the name of Κατήγορος, or Accuser? It is to be understood that this arose from the usage of the Hebrews, by whom he was anciently called by the same name, which they made their own. For they call him קטגור, Kategor. R. Juda, in the book Musar, as cited by Drusius, says, Kategor is Satan, the wicked adversary or calumniator, who is an adversary to man, and calumniates him before the blessed Creator. Maimonides in Pirke Avoth, (where in a sentence of R. Eliazar, both this, and the word Paraclit of a contrary signification, likewise derived from the Greek, occur,) says, He is called Paraclit, Παράκλητος, or the Intercessor, who intercedes with the King, for a good blessing for man; the opposite to whom is Kategor; for he it is who traduces man to the king, and endeavours to destroy him. And, indeed, if ever Satan deserved the name of accuser or calumniator on any other occasion, strictly deserved it during the time of this childbirth, and the war attending it. Witness the many calumnies and reproaches with which the dragon-worshippers overwhelmed the Christians, during this whole time, objecting to them Thyestœan feasts, Edipodian incests, adultery, promiscuous concubinage, homicides, conspiracies against princes, pestilence, famine, fires, and whatever public calamity took place. But there rather appears here to be a reference to the book of Job, where Satan, by calumniating and accusing him, was the cause of Job’s being permitted by God to be proved by him with temptations and tribulations. Which here, likewise, the Holy Spirit intimates, was done by him after his accustomed manner. The intelligent reader will understand what I mean. Then follows in a song of triumph—“Wherefore rejoice, ye heavens! and those who dwell therein,” (that is, holy angels, and blessed spirits, by whose exertions this victory has been obtained.) “Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea,” (that is, to the terrene world,) “for the devil is come down to you, having great wrath, (and therefore prepared to contrive some new mischief,) knowing that he hath but a short time.”

For though from the time when he was cast down by Constantine the Great, from the Roman throne, the worship of the dragon continued for a short space among the people; yet when he foresaw that not long after he should be expelled likewise, and that the whole Roman world would be sprinkled with the baptism of Christ, in the progress of events; being wholly inflamed with anger and fury, he took counsel how he might bring the victory of the Church into hazard, by whatever means he could employ; and if lie should fail in the attempt, even when cast out, he might subvert it by some new contrivance. In both of which designs we shall see that the most wicked spirit was not wanting to himself.

THE MYSTERY

Of the Woman dwelling in the Wilderness.

The woman delivered of a child, when the dragon was overcome, from thenceforth dwelt in the wilderness, by which is figured the state of the Church, liberated from Pagan tyranny, to the time of the seventh trumpet, and the second Advent of Christ, by the type, not of a latent, invisible, but, as it were, an intermediate condition, like that of the lsraelitish Church journeying in the wilderness, from its departure from Egypt, to its entrance into the land of Canaan; a state, therefore, safe from the fury of that red dragon, who resembled Pharaoh, but not yet arrived at that pitch of glory, to which it should finally arrive, when the rest of her enemies should be subdued, as by the possession of Canaan. A state, indeed, which was externally better than the servitude of that heathen tyranny, (out of which, as from Egyptian slavery, the Christian people emerged by the power of Christ,) as from thenceforth endued with a power, under the auspices of Christian emperors and kings, of worshipping Christ freely, as the Israelites in the wilderness of worshipping Jehovah; with temples, likewise, as the tabernacles of Christian worship, magnificently built, with an ecclesiastical polity, constituted by kings, with sacred revenues, tithes, and oblations, but unhappy by its apostasy of various kinds, not less than Israel in the wilderness, with the calf, Baal-peor, Balaam, Korah, &c. Nor, perhaps, should that circumstance be passed over, that the forty-two months of the Christian woman’s residence in the wilderness answers to the number of resting-places of Israel in the wilderness. Vide Numbers, c. xxxiii.

The reason and tendency of the type being thus explained, let us illustrate the text particularly, and apply it to the event.

“And when the dragon saw that he was cast down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who brought forth the male child. And there was given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might flee into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and a half, from the face of the serpent. And the serpent cast forth water out of his mouth after the woman, like a river, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood.”

This was the first attempt of Satan, when he was cast down, but not yet entirely cast out, remaining, on the contrary, a short time below. That he might, if it were possible by any means to do so, overwhelm the woman, who, when her offspring was possessed of power, was departing to a station in the wilderness, before she should retreat thither wholly secure from his fury. For she did not immediately, as she began to escape, arrive in the wilderness, but after some space of time and delay had intervened; as Israel consumed some time in the journey which he had undertaken from Egypt. But the words here used are so to be understood, that they may appear in some way to be referred to what was said above of the same flight of the woman into the wilderness, either in this, or in a similar sense. “When the dragon saw that he was cast down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who had brought forth the male child.” For since (as was observed above) “there was given to the woman,” after the birth and exaltation of her offspring to the throne, (by two wings of a great eagle furnished to her, as if for flight) “to depart into the wilderness, where she was to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time; he cast out of his mouth after her a flood of water, that he might cause her to be carried away with the flood.” So, likewise, Pharaoh persecuted the people of Israel, departing into the wilderness out of his dominion, by a flood of another kind.

The great eagle is the Roman empire. Its two wings, the two Cæsars of the now divided empire of the West and East, under whose protection and authority the church departed into its eremitical state. For it is well known, that the Roman empire, as soon as it had received the Christian faith, became bipartite, and was borne up as it were on the two wings of the Cæsars. The eagle being the ensign of the Roman empire, renders this interpretation obvious to any one. But what forbids us from confirming the interpretation of the prophetical type by an apocryphal writer? This is Esdras the prophet, for under this denomination does Clemens of Alexandria quote him, (Strom, book 3d, a little before the conclusion) according to whom, the type of an eagle signifies the fourth kingdom, the twelve feathered wings as many first Cæsars. Vide c. xi. and xii. But tell me, Reader, would you not also say, that here is a reference also to that saying of the Lord concerning the departure of Israel out. of Egypt. Exod. c. xix. v. 4. “Ye have seen,” says he, “what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself,” that is, into the wilderness. But there is something else in this verse which requires to be expounded. Why is the time of the woman’s inhabitation in the wilderness, which was reckoned a little before by days, here changed into years, or a time, and times, and half a time? I seek no other cause of this alternation, than that it might be the key to a similar notation of time in Daniel, and might inform us that the Church was now arrived at those very times, which he described by the period of a time, times, and half a time. And, indeed, without this index, that designation of time would have been very uncertain, and inexplicable. For from what source, or by what indication, could it have been known, that time denoted a year? or if so, that times did not mean more than two years? But now, from this communication it is clear, that the period may be resolved into 1260 days, and therefore, signifies a year, two years, and a half.

These difficulties having been explained in this manner, let us now examine what that water was which the dragon vomited out of his mouth like a flood, that he might. overwhelm the woman while she was preparing to take her journey into the wilderness. The gushing out of water is language and doctrine according to Prov. c. xviii. v. 23. “The words of a man’s mouth are deep waters, the well-spring. of wisdom is a flowing brook.” Whence the word נָכַע, which signifies to burst forth, and gush out as a fountain, is applied to doctrine, as Ps. lxxviii. v. 2. “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter, or pour forth, things hidden from the foundation of the world;” which is alleged of the doctrine of our Saviour, Matt. c. xiii. v. 35. So Prov. c. i. v. 23. Wisdom is said to preach in the streets; “I will pour out my Spirit upon you; I will make known my words unto you.” What, then, is the effusion from the mouth of the serpent, a venomous beast, but pestiferous doctrine, that is heresy? according to that verse of Prov. c. xv. v. 28. “The mouth of the wicked poureth forth evil things.” Now the history of this time exhibits it as proceeding like a flood from the mouth of the dragon,—I speak of Arianism and its offspring. By this his flood the dragon had nearly caused the woman to be carried away. He intended it no doubt. And, in truth, it was wonderful that the Roman emperors, who had so recently given their names to Christ, and had not fully settled the Christian establishment, offended and alienated as they were at the horrid dissension in so primary a point of doctrine among Christians (only just respiring from persecution), at such deadly party feuds, tumults, and credulity, among the brethren, even equally to that of the Pagans, should not have cast off the faith.

“But the earth succoured the woman, and the earth opened its mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.” That is, the multitude of Christians in the councils persisting in the orthodox faith, exhausted the diabolical inundation, as the earth does water, when it has long continued in a state of drought. For if water, (but of a poisonous and pestiferous nature) such as proceeds out of the serpent, represents heresy; the mode of analogy undoubtedly required that the substance which should have the effect of absorbing and removing the same, should be figured by the earth, as that whose property it is to exhaust an inundation of waters by its aridity.

Which, indeed, happens in this matter so much the more agreeably to the explanation of the subject, because elsewhere likewise in historical and simple expression, the earth is commonly used for the inhabitants of the earth. Vide Gen. c. xli. v. 37. 1 Sam. c. xiv. v. 25. Deut. c. ix. v. 28. and elsewhere at large.

Of the Ten-horned Beast blaspheming God, and of the Two-horned Beast, or False Prophet, his Founder and Hierarch.

A new scene of evils invaded the woman, as soon as she had entered the bounds of the wilderness; for she immediately encountered a double sort of beast, less formidable indeed in appearance than that of the dragon, or serpent; whose figure only she dreads, professing to be nothing but a panther, or a lamb, but being truly an agent of the dragon, who has been cast down, and in his stead prepared to bring troubles on the offspring to which she should give birth in the wilderness.

“And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and departed to make war with the rest of her seed, (viz. with those which she should produce in the wilderness,) who keep the commandments of God, and hold the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

“And he stood on the sand of the sea.” That is, when the dragon saw that he who was now expelled from the Roman empire, that he had not succeeded in overwhelming the woman, as she was hastening into the wilderness, by the inundation of Arianism, but that she nevertheless had arrived there in safety; and besides, that he should no longer be suffered to possess the sovereignty of the Roman world, as he had formerly done, in his own name, he now attempts it in another way, by tacitly substituting a kingdom dependent on himself, and for that purpose he stood on the sea shore, that he might form a new appearance of the Roman kingdom, thence to arise, subservient to him. The history of the double beast, prepared to transact the affairs of Rome, now follows; one ten-horned, and the other two-horned, connected by the strictest necessity with each other, and both reigning at the same time, and in the same part of the world. The first of which, that is, the ten-horned beast, you may call if you will secular; the other, or two-horned, ecclesiastical.

Of the Ten-horned Beast.

The ten-horned, or secular beast, is that university of ten kingdoms, more or less, (into which the empire of the Cæsars, after the expulsion of the dragon, had settled after the Barbaric plague,) coalescing at length into one Roman republic, through the renewed impiety of the dragon.

“I saw,” said he, “a beast ascending out of the sea, having seven heads, and ten horns, and upon his horns ten diadems, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.” The same beast is here described as that which afterwards, c. xvii. carries the harlot; the seven-headed Roman beast, under the state of its last head. “I saw,” says St. John, “the type of that last state of the Roman kingdom, in which, acting under its seventh head, it was divided into ten kingdoms; and yet in the same manner, as it had done under its former heads, he blasphemed the great God Almighty by the worship of idols.” For the number of seven heads is a particular mark of the Roman kingdoms, as well as the furniture of ten horns. The name of blasphemy is the mark of idolatry. The diadems, or crowns, placed on the horns, (which are on the last head only,) point out that the kingdom is exhibited under the government of its last head, which will be amply confirmed by the remaining description of the beast.

“And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet as those of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion.” That is, this kingdom, partly in respect of its regimen, and its state, partly in respect of its disposition, was so composed, that it represented the three monarchies, anciently pourtrayed by these beasts in Daniel, in a certain blended association. Since it was Greek in the remaining appearance of the body, it stood on feet in their march and action, like the Persian kingdom; with its mouth, like that of Babylon, it issued its edicts to be performed. For the leopard is the type of the kingdom of the Greeks, the bear of the Persians, the lion of the Babylonians. First, then, that kingdom was plainly like the Grecian in its body, for instance, a kingdom like that divided into many parts, Dan. c. vii. v. 6. and c. viii. v. 8. 22. For the Greek was divided into four parts; this last Roman kingdom was separated into ten kingdoms, to which type is referred the bearing ten horns on the last head of the beast, which the angel afterwards interprets, c. xvii. are ten kings, or kingdoms, into which the Roman empire of the sixth head, having been dilacerated, coalesced into a new kingdom, under the seventh, for the purpose of carrying the harlot. That the ten horns were upon the last head only, that is, the seventh, and not, as commonly supposed, promiscuously on all, I thus demonstrate. While the head flourishes, the horns flourish, and when it falls, the horns also arising from it must necessarily fall. On the first five heads, then, there could not be horns, because those five heads, as the angel says in c. xvii. were already fallen; neither could there be on the sixth, because while that was reigning in the age of John, (as the angel expressly affirms,) the time of horns was not yet come, for says he, “The ten horns are ten kings, which have not yet received their kingdom.” They are reserved, therefore, for the last head. Away, then, with such painters as distribute the ten horns according to their fancy, on seven heads, giving single ones to some, and two to others, out of their liberality, which, how inconsistent it is, and remote from the groundwork of the text, yea, and plainly repugnant to the interpretation of the angel, there is no one, who, having been already informed on the subject, shall seriously weigh it in his mind, that will not be induced to confess. Therefore, it is to be taken as true and certain, that the seventh head alone in the scale of heads, raising themselves one after another, towered over the rest, the highest in situation, the last in place.

Now then I proceed to explain the remaining appearance of this last beast. By the feet on which the body rests, and on which it is moved, and walks, and of which those before answer the purpose of hands and arms to beasts, in holding, seizing, and fighting; by the feet, I say, it alludes closely to the Persian empire; since, as they relied on the councils of their Magi in the management of their affairs, so the Roman kingdom in its last state is governed by the authority of idolatrous monks and clergy, like those Magi. To which that future saying refers of the other falsely prophetic beast, “that it exercises all the power of the ten-horned beast before him.” For the feet are to be considered here, not as the lowest and most dishonourable parts of the body, but of the same kind as they are in beasts; not merely the instruments of walking, but also of fighting, and seizing their prey, in which, and in bears especially (I speak of the fore feet), the chief strength of the body consists. Nor are the feet to be here understood as that part only which makes an impression on the ground, but that which comprehends the thighs also, and arms, as well as the smaller part commonly called the foot.

Lastly, the ten-horned beast issues edicts to be observed with a Babylonian mouth, by commanding the worship of deities and idols, with pain of death, and burning alive, denounced against those who refuse it, in the same manner as Nebuchadnezzar did to those Jews, who would not adore the golden image which he had set up, sixty cubits high, to his god Bel. Dan. c. iii. At the same time, I do not wish, by this interpretation of mine, to excite a prejudice against that of others; namely, of those who may think that regard should be had rather to the natural disposition of those beasts, whose qualities or fierceness the ten-horned beast might express. Let every one judge for himself. “And the dragon (who had been cast down, and stood on the sea-shore,) gave him his power, (that is, his strength or forces,) and his throne, and great authority.”

Power, Δύναμις, signifies, with the Hellenists, forces or army, according to the use, as it appears to me, of the Hebrew חֵיל, by which is denoted both strength and bravery, and an army likewise. The Seventy say, in Exod. c. xiv. v. 28. of the army of Pharaoh overwhelmed in the sea, “The waters covered, πᾶσαν τὴν δύναμιν, all the host of Pharaoh,” and c. xv. v. 4, “he hath cast, τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ, his host into the sea.” And so in various passages, not only in these, but in profane writers. From this notion spring those expressions, Κύριος δυνάμεων, the Lord of hosts, and Matt. c. xxiv. v. 29. δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν, the powers of the heavens, or the celestial hosts, shall be shaken. So, in the next verse, the Son of man is said to be about to come in the clouds of heaven, μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης πολλῆς, with power and great glory, which is explained in the following chapter, us “coming in his glory, and all the holy angels with him.” So in this place, the dragon or Satan delivered to the ten-horned beast, τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ, that is, his forces, or his army. But the forces of Satan are his angels or demons, and idols, the receptacles of demons. These forces he delivered over to this last beast, to be worshipped and reverenced, together with his throne, and great authority; that is, in one word, all that power from which he had lately fallen, when conquered and overthrown by Michael, and the holy martyrs and confessors of Christ. So that, indeed, the dragon, or Satan, in this beast of the last state of the empire, recovered in some measure the ancient dominion which he had exercised in the red one; but in a form so dissimilar from the former one, that the seed of the woman in the wilderness did not immediately perceive it. For the dragon did not now make his advances as before, in the form of a dragon, that is, did not profess himself to be what he was, the sworn enemy of the Christian name. For if he had done this, the seed of the woman would have known him immediately, and been upon his guard against him, as his deadliest foe, from that innate antipathy which God had denounced from the beginning of the world should subsist between them. “I will put enmity between thy seed and her seed.” But, in truth, when he had assumed the form of another beast, having no affinity with the serpent, it was not so difficult for him to impose upon the seed of the woman, that is, the Christian Church, rejoicing in its late victory, and now secure from the dragon, and to allure it to adopt his customs. Which, indeed, the arch impostor so covertly and deceitfully did, under the mask of a beast not friendly to him, that the Church did not acknowledge till late, that she had been deceived by her ancient enemy, and led to venerate the dragon under this mask. For who would have suspected that the dragon lay hid under the figure of a leopard, or (what is the same) of a pantherIsidore says he is called Πανθῆρ, omnis fera, because he is friendly to all animals except the dragon., that is, under the appearance of an animal, which, while other beasts, attracted either by the beauty of his skin, or the sweetness of his smell, love to approach and behold, the dragon alone is said to abhor and avoid? Or, to explain the matter a little more clearly, who would have supposed, that under the empire of the Christian religion, the destroyer of idols assuming worship for herself, heinous idolatry, and long since exploded heathenism, would be restored with the utmost labour, and promoted by laws and edicts?

“And I saw one of its heads, (namely, the sixth,) as it were, wounded to death, (which was done in the battle with Michael and the holy martyrsQuery?—R. B. C.,) and his deadly wound was healed,” by the medicine of this vicarious power. That this seven-headed dragon, (or the Roman empire, possessed by the ancient serpent, that is, the heathen empire,) was the beast with the sixth head, may be shown by what is afterwards said of these heads. Five in the age of John had fallen, one (which is the sixth) then ruled the Roman states, and chiefly because this beast of the last dynasty immediately succeeded the fifth, on the same throne. The dragon, I assert, is here said to have given up his throne to the beast of the last dynasty, or the seventh head. Therefore he was the immediate successor, or the beast of the last head. Nor let any one be disturbed, that during the continuance of the sixth head, it appears seven-headed in the vision. For though the heads performed their parts, not at the same time, but in order, and successively, yet the beast is exhibited with all its apparatus of heads and horns, under every state, that it may every where designate the same Roman kingdom, though under different successions of dynasties.

But to return to the text, in which, in the Complutensian edition, according to the testimony of Irenæus, Aretas, the Syrian paraphrast lately published, and among the Latin authors, Primasius does not acknowledge the words “I saw,” but joins the words, “one of the heads,” with the word “gave,” as in this sentence, “The dragon delivered unto him his power and throne and great authority, and one of its heads mortally wounded, that it might be cured.” I suspect also that the Latin Vulgate read it so formerly, on account of the words “de capitibus suis,” instead of “ejus.” But whether this reading is to be preferred to the other, I will not hastily affirm, but only that it appears to be very ancient, so that I wonder it was not noticed by R. Stephen. But whichever it may be, the received reading, if rightly interpreted, and as the subject actually requires we should interpret it, evidently gives the same sense. “I saw (says he) one of the heads, as it had been wounded to death ,” namely, not at the time the apostle saw it, but before it emerged in this form from the sea, ὑπερσυντελικῶς, or in the

preter-pluperfect tense, as in ch. v. ver. 6, he had said, he “saw in the midst of the elders and of the animals a Lamb standing, as if it had been slain,” not slain at the time he saw it. What is added, however, about the healing of the wound, that he saw done, either while the beast was just emerging from the sea, or as soon as it had arisen from thence? For that healing was not, (as is still believed by many,) some subsequent fate, but the very nativity of the last beast. From each of the remaining heads, it had passed to the turn of the successor without a wound; but in the transition from the sixth to the last, the beast sunk under a deadly wound; from the cure of which I say, and not before or sooner, the ten-horned beast, or that of the last state, took its beginning, and did not deduce its origin any higher. That this is the case, the whole series of the following narration evinces. For whatever evil the beast is related to have perpetrated, whatever worship and adoration was paid to him by the inhabitants of the earth, all is said to have been done after the cure of his wound. “I saw (says he) one of his heads as if it had been wounded to death, and the wound of death, or the deadly wound, was healed, and all the world followed, wondering after the beast,”—namely, that just healed,” and they worshipped the dragon,” &c. Then likewise “was given to him a mouth speaking great things, and blasphemies,” &c. And “he opened his mouth against God,” &c. All those things were done after his cure; but before that, no evil deeds are predicated of the beast, no mention of subjection or honour paid to him by the nations. Whatever is commemorated before, partly relates to the form of the beast, partly to the occasion and manner of his rise. And why, I beseech you, should we represent to ourselves an antichristian beast, of whom for some time, no facts are related, no persecution recorded? Nay, if we follow the reading of Irenæus and the Complutensian version, by expunging “I saw,” there will be no longer a place for such an interpretation. “And all the earth wondered after the beast;” that is, with the utmost approbation and consent, they went over to the party of the beast. “And they worshipped the dragon, which gave power to the beast, and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?” That is, they did not simply worship the beast as a beast, but also as a vicegerent of the dragon. Therefore they did not venerate the beast alone, but the dragon himself likewise, under the mask of the beast. For to worship the beast, unless so far as idolatry discharged the functions of the dragon, in the sense in which it is here used, would not have been more impious than to obey any kind of mundane power.

The beast, in truth, denotes a kingdom. To adore the beast, then, according to the usage of the Hebrew and Oriental languages, is the same thing as to be subject to him, which the explanation subjoined to the word worship, not obscurely points out. “They adored (says he) the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is capable of contending with him?” As if he had said, They devoted themselves willingly to the obedience of the beast, as to one who so far excelled others in power, that there was no one that would resist or make war with him. In which also, ver. 12, the earth itself, not merely its inhabitants, is said to have worshipped the beast; that is, to have yielded to his dominion. “And he caused (says he) the earth, and those that dwell therein, to worship,” &c. So in the benediction of Jacob, Gen. c. xxvii. v. 29, “Let the people serve thee, and nations worship (or bow down to) thee. Be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee.” For this meaning of the words τοῦ προσκυνεῖν, vide Gen. c. xxxvii. v. 7, and c. xlix. v. 8, in the benediction of Judah; so also Isa. c. xlv. v. 11. But to be subject to the beast according to his religious constitution, as it refers to the seven-headed dragon, is blasphemous, and impious towards God. Whence, they who so adore the beast, are said to adore the dragon in adoring the beast.

“And there was given to him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and there was given him power to continue forty-two months.”