« הקודםהמשך »
tensive and voluminous for the sketch I now offer * ; but, as I am not altogether unpractised in these researches, I feel myself justified in making this general assertion, that, upon comparing the Apocalypse with the acknowledged books of divine Scripture, I have almost universally found the very same notions, images, representations, and divine lights, as in other sacred Scriptures ; yet not delivered in such a manner as to be apparently copied from other inspired writers, but from some original prototype of the same kind, which these other writers also seem to have copied. There is, in short, between the writer of the Apocalypse, and his predecessors in the sacred office of Prophet, that concordia discors, that agreement in matter, but difference in manner, which is observed in painters, who delineate and colour in different stations from the same original object; and this will be allowed to be a strong internal evidence of the divine origin of the Apocalypse. I should feel myself obliged to treat more at large this subject, if much had been advanced by the adversaries of the Apocalypse, to deny this fact. The ancient objection made by some before Dionysius, that “ the Apocalypse is unworthy of
any “sacred writer,” is not now persisted in, and deserves not a particular refutation; it will indeed be refuted in every step as we proceed.
Michaelis has allowed that the internal struc
• It is attempted in soine measure in the Annotations which follow.
ture of the Apocalypse is noble and sublime; that “ the imitation of the ancient Prophets is, for the “ most part, more beautiful and more magnificent “ than the original * ; more short, more abound“ing in picturesque beauties t." Whilst I
agree with him in this decision, I would point out the cause of it. It is not to be accounted for from the superior ability or art of the writer (for there is in him no aim at eloquence), he drew simply, nay,
with rude lines, from the heavenly ojects before himn; they were frequently the same objects from which other sacred pennen had coloured ; but they were presented to the writer of the Apocalypse in a more noble attitude and appearance, by his Divine Conductor.
The DocTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY are by no means a principal subject of the Apocalypse; but if we advert to the doctrines delivered in this book, we shall find a perfect congruity with those delivered in other apostolical writings. No doctrines are herein taught, which are in the least degree at variance with any divine revelation of the New Testament. Michaelis entirely acquits the Apocalypse of the general and unfounded charge advanced by Luther, that “ Christ is not “ taught in it *;"
in it $;" but I am sorry to observe that he afterwards qualifies this just concession, by asserting that “ the true and eternal Godhead of “ Christ is certainly not laught so clearly in the “ Apocalypse, as in St. John's Gospel.” Could * P. 553, 531.
+ P. 543,
# P. 538.
he expect so clear an exposition from a prophecy, which respects chiefly future events, as from a Gospel which the ancients have described as written principally, with the view of setting forth the divine nature of Christ? But this divine nature is also set forth in the Apocalypse; and as clearly as the nature of the book, and as symbols, can express it. He is described as sitting on the throne of his Father's glory, “in the midst” of that throne, far beyond the cherubim, far above all principalities and powers; and all the heavenly inhabitants are described as falling prostrate before him, as to their God *. And all this is exhibited in a book which denies worship to angels t. But lest symbols should not carry sufficient expression with them, words unequivocal are added. He is called (and no-where else in Scripture but in St. John's writings) “ the Word of God I," which (notwithstanding all that our author has advanced to lower the meaning of the expression) can be understood only in the same sense as the same words of the Gospel, to which indeed it evidently refers. The primitive Christians understood it in this sense; and because it could be understood in no other, the Alogi rejected the Apocalypse for the same reason that they rejected the Gospel of St. Johng. Our Lord is also described in the Apocalypse, as the “ Alpha “ and Omega,” the first and the last; which
• Rev. iii. 21. v. 6. ad fin. + Ch, xix. 1S.
+ Ch. xxii. 8.
expression, expression, notwithstanding any attempts to lower its signification, will be understood by orthodox Christians to mean that divine nature, which from “ the beginning was with God,” the original Creator and final Judge of the world.
With the same view of supporting his argument, Michaelis has represented the dignity of Christ as lessened in the Apocalypse, because he happens to be mentioned after the Seven Spirits, which our author supposes to represent seven angels. But this cannot be thus interpreted; because the Seven Spirits stand before the throne, but Christ has his seat upon it, and in the midst of it. And, indeed, reasons may be assigned, why Christ is mentioned after the Seven Spirits. They are represented standing in presence of the throne, before he enters to take his seat. They compose a part of the heavenly scenery, and are so necessarily connected with the throne, and with Him that sate thereon, that the mention of the one brings the mention of the other. But our Lord was not seen till afterwards And if he be mentioned last, it is only to dwell the longer upon his divine glories, which occupy four verses in this description; whereas the Seven Spirits are only named.
There is one passage in the Apocalypse, which, by having been literally and improperly interpreted, has given offence to pious Christians in all ages of the Church, as introducing doctrines inconsistent with the Gospel purity. This is the description contained in a part of the twentieth
chapter, where the servants of Christ are seen raised from the dead, to reign with him a thousand years.
But this is no doctrine, it is a prophecy, delivered in a figurative style, and yet unfulfilled. Such a prophecy, no judicious person will attempt to explain otherwise than in very general terins: much less will he draw from it any doctrine, contradictory to, or inconsistent with, the known word of God. The prophecy, we trust, will, in its due time, be fulfilled, and thereby the truth of God will be gloriously manifested. In the mean time it must be received as the word of God, though we understand it not. The extravagant notions of the Chiliasts
are, therefore, no just imputation on the Apocalypse; which must not be accused of containing unscriptural doctrines, in passages which cannot yet be understood. Other places of the Apocalypse, which are objected to by our author in his section on “ The Doctrine delivered in the Apocalypse,” will be found to contain no doctrines, but figurative representations of future events, which he appears to have misconceived.
We may, therefore, truly assert of the Apoca. lypse, that, fairly understood, it contains nothing which, either in point of doctrine, or in relation of events, past or to come, will be found to contradict any previous divine revelation. It accords with the divine counsels already revealed. It expands and reveals them more completely. We see the gradual flow of sacred prophecy (accord