neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon." (Chap. v. 1-3.)

Here an occurrence takes place which suspends the divine service until it is resumed (verse 8) under new circumstances occasioning great joy to the Church. John sees a book in God's right hand. When Jehovah is represented in a bodily form it is in condescension to our infirmity; he is a pure spirit, and is then only rightly seen when we regard him as the object of our intelligence and affections; hence a literal sense is here altogether out of place. As in the Jewish Church God's presence was denoted by the Shekinah, and men approached it in token that God was there, so the Divine presence in the militant Church is here described as one sitting on a throne surrounded by the four beasts and twenty-four elders, his ministering servants. The sealed book, too, is equally a symbol denoting something which professes to be Divine or to come from God. To be in His right hand cannot claim less than a divine origin either in pretence or in reality. But then it forms part of a vision relating to things which must be hereafter, centuries after John's death, things of moment to God's servants, since they were revealed to them in particular, and things which would probably be of an evil nature and tendency, since they precede an advent of Christ which all the tribes of the land lament. The book was also written within and without, or it was partly known and partly hidden; and it was sealed or under powerful restraint; for to seal a book can only mean to forbid its perusal. Put all these things together and they will amount to high pretensions to Divine authority set up in the Church long after revelation had ceased to make further communications. Now what is all this but an unexaggerated description of the corrupt doctrines and practices which obtained in the Church before and during the fourth century? What indeed they were will be better explained hereafter. The sealing of the book, too, supposes a restraint imposed by a power extraneous to the Church, or that the Church also was

under the same restraint. And this, indeed, is denoted by the silence of the service, which was not broken till the Lamb took possession of the book. But what power opposed to the Church do the seven seals represent? My reply then is, that the Pagan Roman empire at its close under Diocletian, Galerius, and others, is here intended. That power had existed from apostolic days and was adverse to the Church, and the apostle intimates that when it should become a let or hindrance to the mystery of iniquity, preventing its development into the Man of Sin, it would be taken away. * That period had now arrived. The mystery of iniquity is here under restraint, and it will appear as the history proceeds that first the paganism of the empire, and then the empire itself, will be removed to make way for the full expansion of the apostasy under the guidance of the Man of Sin. I fix the period of this persecution under Diocletian, because that alone was succeeded by unparalleled changes in the visible Church. It was, moreover, like this, almost universal, and had for its object the total annihilation of Christianity and of its name, whilst also that persecution alone was immediately followed both by the establishment of Christianity as the state religion and by the rapid growth of corrupt doctrine and practices then already considerable for magnitude and extent in the Church. No power for a while stood up in its defence, the courage of the Christians in many woeful cases gave way, martyrdom, though it was then well nigh idolised, had feeble adherents, for that very reverence in which martyrs were held was evidence of the loss of its true spirit.

This great danger to Christianity is implied in what next arrests the attention of the prophet. A strong angel with a loud voice called for some one from heaven, earth, or under the earth to come forward and break the seals, or as here interpreted, to give toleration and free course to Christianity. The Church had gradually so identified grace with forms

* 2 Thess. ii. 3-8,

and ceremonies, and much of its worship had become so manifestly formal, superstitious, and idolatrous, whilst the better features of Christianity that yet remained were so responsive to the felt wants of humanity, that very many heathen stood ready to enter the church, and only waited for the removal of the law's heavy penalties against it. For Christianity was then ignored, the law supposed its non-existence, and favour shown it, and much more the profession of it, made one amenable to the final severities of the law. Some authorities by bribes were occasionally tempted to wink at its observance, but the laws of Diocletian did in fact wholly forbid its existence. On these, and perhaps on other accounts, it is probable that the strong angel symbolises the feeling of the times, both in the church and among the heathen, that toleration, if not something more, could no longer be denied to Christianity.

66

And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. And one of the Elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. And I beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the Elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth." (Verses 4-6.)

Nothing was more natural than John's grief that a book apparently divine (being in God's right hand) could not be broken open. But as he here describes things which must be hereafter it was not necessary that he should understand their meaning, and being moreover in an ecstasy, his emotions personated those of others, and were not his own. According to the theory here laid down, John described the feelings of the Church during the Diocletian persecution.

So many then relapsed or wavered that both the feeble and resolute were equally dismayed, and the latter began to regard the safety of the church as nearly compromised. But just at that criti

cal moment, relief was at hand, and that one of the Elders anticipated its arrival implies that the leaders of the Church were observant of the signs of the times and of the conflicting measures concerning the church that were at work, and that were gravely canvassed in the empire.

No sooner had John described the deliverer as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, than a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, comes forward and takes the book. The lion and lamb are therefore identical. John saw that no one, as it is in the original, and not as our version renders it, no man, could open the book. This altogether precludes both from being a person, and drives us to the conclusion that they represent a power or principle. Jacob in his prophecy calls the tribe of Judah a lion's whelp, and in Daniel and elsewhere the same term denotes a kingdom. On this principle the lion would designate the kingdom of Judah which was the root and source of David and of the line of kings that reigned over Judah. But that economy no longer existed when John saw the vision. Besides, as the Apocalypse is for the most part symbolical, and especially what was presented to John's senses, the kingdom, laws, and religion of the Jews would here describe the kingdom of God under the Gospel. These phrases therefore denote the Christian Church and kingdom with the king at their head. But no such visible church and kingdom were erected by the Apostles, nor did they exist till the fourth century, when Christianity was made the religion of the Roman empire by Constantine called great. We must determine therefore whether his church and kingdom are here described in the Lamb with seven horns and seven eyes, which is the next subject of inquiry, and which is identical with the lion, forasmuch as it does what it is affirmed the lion was to do.

Many regard the Lamb as Jesus Christ, which, however, cannot be, for Christ is a person, and it is expressly declared that no one could open the book. But this is not all, for a still greater objection to such an

application of it remains. The Lamb is not only a complex creature, having no likeness in the Divine works, but it is also a symbol receiving Divine worship. This altogether forbids its application to Christ. If we may worship the God-man under a symbol, why may we not also worship a symbol of the Deity? But Scripture would condemn such an action as gross idolatry. This symbol, therefore, can only be taken in a bad sense. Nothing is more guarded against in Holy Scripture than a symbol of the Deity made an object of worship. Moses reminded the children of Israel that they saw no manner of similitude at Sinai; a voice only was heard. Neither the Shechinah nor the pillar of cloud and fire; neither the Lamb, whether for atonement or for any other purpose; nor yet the cherubim, which were in the Divine presence, rather than the divine presence itself, were ever objects of worship; and when the Jews in the days of Hezekiah perverted to idolatry the brazen serpent on a pole, evidently a complex symbol of Christ crucified, he had it destroyed. Nor is there an instance in the Old Testament of a symbol approvingly made an object of worship. And has the clearer revelation of the New Testament rendered such precaution unnecessary? Witness the idolatry which early sprang up in the Christian Church. Witness the pertinacy with which it is even now But all this speciously defended. God foresaw. Would he then even seemingly give countenance to such an error? Surely not. And though it has hitherto been taken for granted that the God-man, Jesus Christ, is here worshipped, I have no hesitation in denouncing it as the positive idolatry set up in the Christian Church in the fourth century. This I will now endeavour to prove. He saw a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes. As this, if literally taken, would be a monstrosity, we are driven to the conclusion that we have here a group of symbols; and occurring, as we have shown, in the fourth century, it pourtrays what then existed. But a lamb slain in the

or

Jewish temple would have denoted a sacrifice either of atonement thanksgiving; and as the heavenly temple here symbolises the Christian Church of the fourth century, it describes the worship then and there observed. But the sacrifices under the law represented Christ's atonement for sin, made once, and only once, for the sins of the whole world. Have we, then, here a reference merely to that atoning death, or a memorial of it only? Certainly not. A present, or at least a recent death, is here implied. But though "as it had been slain," the lamb continued to live, and stood in the midst of the holy of holies, not only in the place, but also an object of worship. Now was there any dogma of the fourth century that this scene would represent? There was, and it has been handed down even to the present day. The minister then began to be held a priest, and the bread and wine of the ordinance the real and true body and blood of Christ. They were consequently regarded with a reverence that eventually degenerated into positive and undisguised worship. Christ was then firmly believed to be presented in the Lord's Supper as a sacrifice for sin, notwithstanding that he was then bodily present in a glorified state in and before the throne of God. Now what can more plainly represent these errors than the scene here before us. It being Jewish throughout, the sacrament that memorialises the atonement is here denoted by a Lamb as it had been slain, whilst its life is yet continued in it. What feature moreover in the fourth century was more fitted to characterise the Church than this dogma concerning the Lord's supper? was a giant and master sin and error, and such it has remained to the present day. In perfect agreement with this view, the four beasts and twenty-four elders are here officiating priests. But if the Lord's supper be more than a memorial-if it be propitiatory-if it nourish the soul not by faith only, but by something additional, then Christ's atonement is not a full, perfect, and sufficient oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, and faith alone, or without an

It

adjunct, cannot purify the heart and work effectually by love as Paul maintains it does. As the sacrifices under the law were not efficacious in themselves, for it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats can take away sin, but were merely symbolical of the meritorious death of Christ, so the Lord's supper in like manner, the cross, and crucifix, ought to be regarded as memorials only of the transactions of Calvary, whilst the benefit of their observance or their efficacy will depend altogether on the faith and thanksgiving that attend them. Such was visible Christianity or its crying cardinal error when Constantine made it the national religion of the Roman Empire.

But whilst the Christianity of the fourth century is here described by its predominant erroneous featurethe worship of the sacramental clements-its union and incorporation with the empire as its church is here denoted by seven horns and seven eyes. If we compare together the Lamb, the fourth beast of Daniel, (chapter vii. 7, 8,) and those of the Apocalypse, (chapters xii. xiii. xvii.) we shall find sufficient resemblance to justify the theory that they all alike denote the same kingdom at different periods of its history. Now the Lamb and the fourth beast of Daniel have horns and eyes, and if Popery, the last of the seven forms of government of the Roman domination is there in Daniel denoted by a horn and an eye, why may not the seven forms of government be so represented as in the Lamb? In such case, the seven horns and seven eyes would denote the seven forms of government by which the Roman domination during the empire was to be distinguished. But I shall hereafter show that the beast (chapter xii. of the Apocalypse), had crowns on its heads, and none on its horns, in order to distinguish the Roman empire from the Republic that preceded and from the popish kingdoms that followed, and which had crowns on their horns, and none on their heads. As then the Lamb and the beast (Apoc. xii.), have nominally each seven forms of government, they describe the period of the empire

which succeeded the Republic, and preceded the Popedom. This empire was first pagan as described (Apoc. xii.), and then nominally Christian, as represented by the Lamb. Cæsar, on becoming supreme in Rome, allowed the seven republican forms of government to remain in use, in order not to wound the feelings and prejudices of the people, which practice. was continued down to the destruction of the western empire. The seven eyes are here declared to be symbolical, and are interpreted to denote the seven spirits of God sent into all the earth. But can the true God be here intended? Certainly not, and for the reason already given, that they form part of an idolatrous worship, and can only be referred to the spirit of propagandism that arose out of Constantine's adoption of the cross as the standard of his army. This he himself avowed. He was perplexed on the subject of religion, and prayed to his father's god to remove his doubts, whereupon, says Eusebius, in the afternoon of October 26, A.D. 312, the day before his battle with Maxentius, he and his whole army saw in the heavens, just above the sun, a brilliant cross, with its motto, "By this conquer;" and in the same night Jesus Christ appeared to him in a dream, with an image of the cross, and promised him success by his making it the standard of his army. Lactantius and Sozomen speak only of the dream. Now, I have no hesitation in saying, that this vision and dream, whatever their origin, were not of heavenly birth. Not only have they no resemblance to those approved in Holy Scripture, but they recommend what is there condemned as gross idolatry. When we bear in mind that the Roman soldiers worshipped their standards, together with the image of Cæsar and the fortunes of the Empire, and that the Christian Church had already from the third century reverenced the cross, I cannot believe this message came from Christ with

*The historian does not mention the name of the god of Constantius Chlorus. It remains very doubtful whether, though he favoured, he ever professed Christianity.

out allowing that it sanctions what the true Church has hitherto regarded as undisguised idolatry. If Constantine were commanded by Christ to look for protection from the presence of the cross in his army, can Protestants condemn the worship of the cross by Romanists? Certainly not. There is no escape from this dilemma. But it is not so. God has never sanctioned dependence on a symbol, but always requires his worshippers to look not at it, but through it, and recognise Himself as the sole object not only of worship, but of dependence. The children of Israel in Eli's days were punished for a superstition bordering on idolatry. They took the ark into the camp, hoping that its presence would preserve them from defeat, or at least from capture. They trusted in the ark, not in God; in the symbols of worship, not in Him who appointed them merely to lead the worshipper to Himself. That is our idol which we depend upon or substitute for God, though we perhaps offer it no bodily worship. If Constantine had been directed by Christ to make the cross, which was then idolised by the Church, the standard of the army, which was equally worshipped by the soldiers, then I have no hesitation in maintaining, that the idolatry of the cross cannot be condemned. But whilst I leave every one to form his own opinion as to the origin of this remarkable story, no one can deny that from that time the cross was the standard of Constantine and of the Empire, and that he attributed to it his victories over his competitors, the promoters of Paganism; whilst it is equally true that he did not himself profess Christianity for many years after that event. Thus the worship of the cross was enlisted against the old Pagan idolatry, and obtained the sole dominion over the Empire, forming one of the most remarkable epochs of history. Thus it was not Constantine who obtained victory over Paganism, but a new form of error which sprang up in the bosom of the Church, whereby he restored Christian worship, and placed it upon a new basis. The Christian Church from that time began a new career by drawing the

sword against Paganism, and in fayour not of pure ancient Christianity, but of a profession wherein error and superstition chiefly prevailed.

Now, the object fought for, the standard of the cross, or the labarum, as it was termed, was not the cross simply, it was a shaft surmounted by a crown, with the monogram, or letters "ch," intersected by the letter "r" the image of the Emperor was underneath, and lower still the bar from which depended the flag or drapery. These were combined into one, and it must be admitted, that it was accommodated, whether by design or accident, to gratify both the Pagan and the Christian: the image of Cæsar suited the idolatry of the one, and the cross the superstition of the other. If, however, the dependence of the mind, given to something else instead of God, be condemned as idolatry—and who can deny it?— surely the worship of the labarum by the soldiers, must be of the same character. Behold, then, the spurious work of Constantine! But was there nothing good in this achievement? I do not affirm that true Christianity ceased to exist because the Church availed itself of the civil power to obtain protection from its enemies, and to diffuse abroad its influence. Why, then, do I describe as spurious the great work which Constantine accomplished? For this simple reason, that what was good of the Christianity of that day was not his work, but the Apostles' and their followers', since Constantine found the spirit and essence of the Gospel deeply rooted in the hearts of his people when he began his career, whilst the work which made him notorious was the strong infusion of superstition which he laid hold upon and promoted, and was instrumental in pouring into the Church, by which it was eventually surcharged as by a deluge.

This was an epoch or era to the Church. All the subsequent Emperors, except Julian, favoured Christianity, and discountenanced paganism, down to Theodosius the Great, when heathenism was almost extinct, and visible Christianity, by the seeds of error gradually sown, was ripe for