the testimony of Jesus Christ that he saw." In the passage before us, however, no such restrictive clauses have preceded, nor is there to be found any such reason for the more general mode of expression, as occurs above, in the allusion to the gospel and the epistles; here, therefore, the discourse can only be of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus in general. But were the phrase," for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus," doubtful in themselves, they would still receive from the connection in two ways a more precise and definite import. First, by the preceding context: your companion in the tribulation and the patience of Jesus Christ; the words, "I was in the isle that is called Patmos," etc., representing more definitely the part which the Seer had in the tribulation and patience of Jesus Christ. Then, by the sojourn on the island. This was fitted for no other purpose than as a place of banishment. Not for the preaching of the gospel, to which several in earlier times referred the expression, "on account of the word of God," etc. For, the island, which, according to Pliny, H. N. iv. 12, was thirty thousand paces in circuit, was too insignificant to draw toward it the regard and labours of an apostle, or of any one occupying so high a place as to have intrusted to him the oversight of the churches in Asia. Nor had it any peculiar fitness as a place where the Revelation was to be received. This might as well have been imparted to the Seer in his own dwelling. The only circumstance, which, with any appearance of probability, might be alleged as a reason for the apostle undertaking a visit to Patmos, in order to receive the Revelation there, is the nearness of the sea--a circumstance which has actually been adduced by Züllig, in his Revelation of John Th. i. p. 233. One might point with that view to ch. xiii. 1, "And I stood upon the sand of the also an explanation of the otherwise strange generalness of expression, the want of any direct reference to the prophetical matter. We must the less, too, think of refusing to acknowledge this connection of the Revelation with the gospel and epistle, as it goes hand in hand with other references in the Revelation to the gospel. Comp. for example ch. iii. 20, with the expression of the Lord in John xiv. 21, 23; ch. v. 5 with John xvi. 33 ; ch. v. 6 with John i. 29, 36; ch. vii. 16, with John vi. 35; ch. xi. 7 with John vii. 6, viii. 30; ch. xii. 9 with John xii. 31, 32; xix. 13, with the introduction to the gospel. The facts now mentioned are also in so far of importance as they evince the priority of the Gospel and the Epistle to the Revelation, and so forbid us transferring the composition of the Apocalypse to an early period. But as this argument is not of a palpable kind, we satisfy ourselves with merely indicating it. sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea." But it were to overlook the power of the Spirit, if we should suppose, that the prophet must, or even could make a voyage, in order to have the sea within view. Daniel, when far in the interior of the solid land, saw the four winds striving on the great sea. It was also in the Spirit only that Daniel found himself on the river Ulai, in ch. viii. 2. In the Revelation we can the less think of any thing else, as the Seer had before him constant examples of the use of the sea as a symbol by the older men of God. Nor is there to be found a single case, in which a prophet undertook a journey to a distant place, that he might there receive a vision. The argument from the manner of expression and the connection is still farther strengthened by a comparison of the passage, ch. xiii. 10, which implies, that at the time when the Book was composed, beside capital executions there were also banishments to different places on account of the faith of Christ-a passage, which entirely accords with the one before us in the sense we put on it. In regard also to the particular expressions, see the passages ch. vi. 9, "I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held ;" xi. 11, "And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony;" xx. 4, "Those that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God ;"—in all which unquestionably it is faithfulness in confessing Christ in the midst of sufferings, which is denoted by these expressions. Finally, the reference of our passage to the martyrdom of John is still farther confirmed by comparing it with Matth. xx. 22, 23, Mark x. 38. There the Lord announced to James and John that they should drink of his cup and be baptized with his baptism. A literal fulfilment of this declaration is what, both from its own nature and from the example of James, as well as the analogous case of Peter, we naturally expect to find. At the same time, we are not to overlook the circumstance, that in respect to John it was tempered by another announcement in John xxi. 20-22, according to which a martyrdom in the proper sense, as involving the loss of life for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, does not come into view. The exile to Patmos is the only event in which the fulfilment can be sought. This was recog Miserable nized already by Origen in Matth. Exception has been taken against the reference of the passage to the exile of John, because only the greater culprits were doomed to this punishment; criminals of an ordinary kind were appointed instead to work in the mountains. But it is easy to shew, that the fact on which this argument is based does not rest on a solid foundation.1 There is at any rate no want of proof that this punishment was especially suspended over those who were accused of misdemeanour against the state religion of Rome." III. The persecution of the Christians, which proceeded from the supreme magistrate himself, from the Roman state and its rulers as such-this forms the historical starting-point of the Revelation. Such a persecution, being intended to repel the invasion which the new religion made upon the state's sovereignty, its pretended divinity, implied that the conflict between the deified world-power, and the worship of the true God and his Son, had already begun. The beast, the world-power, has, according to 1 That the punishment was applied even to common criminals is certain alone from Juvenal i. 73: Aude aliquid brevibus Gyaris et carcere dignum, si vis esse aliquid: probitas laudatur et alget. Comp. x. 169. According to Suetonius, Tit. c. 8, the delatores of Titus were banished in asperimas insularum. What Pliny says in the Panegyr. c. 34 of the conduct of Trajan towards the delatores, we shall give at length; as it is well fitted to supply us with an exact copy of the situation of the Seer: Congesti sunt in navigia raptim conquisita ac tempestutibus dediti. Abirent fugerentque vastatas delationibus terras, ac si quem fluctus ac procellae scopulis reservassent, hic nuda saxa et inhospitale litus incoleret, ageret duram et anxiam vitam. With this let the history of Flaccus, in Philo, p. 987, A., be compared: Μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἀφαίρεσιν τῆς οὐσίας κατέγνωστο αὐτοῦ φυγὴ, καὶ ἐξ ἁπάσης μὲν λαύνετο τῆς ἠπείρου, τόδ ̓ ἐστὶ μεῖζον καὶ ἄμεινον τμῆμα τῆς οἰκουμένης, ἐξ ἁπάσης δὲ νήσου τῶν εὐδαιμόνων. 2 Lampe, in his Comm. on the Gospel of John i. 65: Religionis ab idololatria Ro mana abhorrentis professioni exilium pro poena decrevit Marcus imperator: Modestinus Juris consultus lege xxx. digest. de poenis: Si quis aliquid fecerit, quo leves homi um animi superstitione numinis terrentur: divus Marcus hujusmodi homines in insulam relegare rescripsit. ch. xiii. 1 (comp. xvii. 3), upon its heads the name of blasphemy. Its adherents, according to ch. xiii. 4 (comp. xviii. 8), ask in a confident and insulting tone, Who is like the beast? It opens its mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, and His tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven (xiii. 6). According to xiii. 8, it is worshipped by its adherents as a polemical demonstration against the Lamb. According also to xiii. 12, the false prophet directs to this worship, and according to ver. 15 he has power to compass the death of those who do not worship the image of the beast. We have here an important proof that the Revelation could not be composed before Domitian's time. "Domitian," says Reimarus, on Dio Cassius, p. 1112, "was the first, Caligula perhaps excepted, who among the Romans laid claim to the name of God, and therefore nearly the whole odium connected with that ought to rest upon him." Certain approaches, indeed, to this claim are to be met with in the earlier Cæsars, in particular in Augustus. But in those cases it was the flattery of others which prompted what was done, and the emperor himself rather exercised a restraining influence. But here the emperor took the initiative, and the claim was so extravagantly urged, that scarcely any thing of a similar kind is to be met with among the later emperors, and on this very account Domitian is quite notorious in antiquity. Philostratus, in the life of Apollonius, B. viii. c. 4, p. 324, makes Apollonius defy the claim of Domitian, "who would have himself regarded as the god of all men." According to Suetonius, he began his letters thus, "Our Lord and God commands that it should be done so and so ;" and formally decreed that no one 1 Spanheim, de usu numismatum dissert. III. f. i. p. 141: "No one will be surprised that the fawning and idolatrous Greeks should have worshipped with divine honours and titles the emperors themselves, as supreme lords of the world, or a kind of present Deity; and not such merely as had died, but those also who were still alive. Respecting Augustus, indeed, what is recorded by Tranquillus is well known: "Templa, quamvis sciret etiam Proconsulibus decerni solere, in nulla tamen provincia, nisi communi suo Ro maeque nomine receipt: nam in urbe quidem pertinacissime abstinuit" (in Augusto, c. 52). Tacitus, however, reports the matter a little differently, when he mentions how persons of a sober cast of mind reflected against Augustus, that nothing peculiar in divine honour was left to the gods, since he wished himself to be worshipped at temples and statues by flamens and priests. This is confirmed also by Victor Schotti, and Horace says in reference to it: Praesenti tibi maturos largimur honores, jurandasque tuas per nomen ponimus aras." Suetonius also states, beside what is quoted above by Spanheim: Atque etiam argenteas statuas olim sibi positas conflavit omnes, exque iis aureas cortinas Apollini dedicavit. 3 should address him otherwise either in writing or by word of mouth. According to Dio Cassius, Nerva caused the gold and silver images of Domitian, which were very numerous, to be melted.2 Pliny says, that he regarded any slight to his gladiators as an act of impiety toward his divinity. He states, that Trajan was content with the place next to the gods, but that Domitian put himself on a footing of equality with them; nay, raised himself above them, and as if he alone almost had any claim to godhead, chose for his statues the most hallowed sites in the temple, and caused entire hosts of victims to be offered to himself. In the downfal of Domitian Pliny saw an irony in real life on his pretended divinity.5 Hence, it is self-evident that under Domitian Christianity had to enter on a struggle of life or death with the imperial power, which always claimed, even in the hands of its most discreet possessors, more than Christians could yield. A sharp collision was now, therefore, inevitable. It is true, we cannot produce distinct historical statements to the effect that Domitian urged his impious claim precisely against the servants of God and his Son, and considered the honour given to these as a robbery of that due 1 Sueton. Domit. c. 13: Pari arrogantia, cum procuratorum suorum nomine formalem dictaret epistolam, sic cœpit: Dominus et Deus noster hic fieri juber. Unde institutum posthac, ut ne scripto quidem ac sermone cujusquam appellaretur aliter. 2 Dio Cassius Nerva c. l.: Μίσει δὲ Δομετιανοῦ αἱ εἰκόνες αὐτοῦ πολλαὶ μὲν ἀργυρ αἴ, πολλαί δὲ καὶ χρυσαῖ οὖσαι συνεχωνεύθησαν· καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν μεγάλα χρήματα συνελέγη. 3 Plinius Panegyr. c. 33: Demens ille verique honoris ignarus, qui crimina magistatis in arena colligebat, ac se despici et contemni, nisi etiam gladiatores ejus veneraremur, sibi maledici in illis, suam divinitatem, suum numen violari interpretabatur, cum se idem quod deos, idem gladiatores quod se putaret. 4 Panegyr. c. 52: Tu delubra nonnisi adoraturus intras, tibi maximus honor excubare pro templis, cum vice custodis aut satellitis statuae tuae ponuntur in vestibulis templorum, at non in ipsis, postibusque praetexi (apponi). . . . At paulo ante aditus omnes, omnes gradus totaque area, hinc auro, hinc argento relucebat, seu potius relucebat, seu potius polluebatur, cum incesti Principis statuis permixta Deorum simulacra sorderent Simili reverentia, Caesar, non apud genium tuum bonitati tuae gratias agi, sed apud numen Jovis optimi max. pateris; illi debere nos quidquid tibi debeamus, illius quod bene facias muneris esse, qui te dedit. Ante quidem ingentes hostiarum greges per Capitolinum iter, magna sui parte velut intercepti, divertere via cogebantur, cum saevissimi domini atrocissma effigies, tanto victimarum cruore coleretur, quantum ipse humani sanguinis profundebat. 5 Ille tamen, quibus sibi parietibus et muris salutem suam tueri videbatur, dolum secum et insidias et ultorem scelerum deum inclusit. Dimovit perfregitque custodias |