CHAPTER VI.

REMARKS ARISING OUT OF THE PRECEDING INQUIRY.

BEFORE we quit the testimony of the early Fathers of the Church, and enter upon other topics connected with the subject of our inquiry, it may be well to pause, and consider what support the extracts, which have been adduced from their writings, will afford to that interpretation of the sealed book, which the author has ventured to propose.

REMARK I. It is worthy of observation, that, though in the several ages of the Church great variety has existed in the explanations given of the Apocalyptic visions, when considered in detail, yet with regard to the primary symbol, that of the Sealed Book, there have been only two interpretations generally received, which are strictly independent of each other. From the ancient interpretation, which understood the word 'book' literally, and pronounced that book to be the Old Testament, we have seen how easily and naturally men glided into the more general notions, that this book means 'all scripture;' or, the revelation con'tained in scripture;' or, the dispensation of the gospel,' which is the grand subject of that revelation ; or, Christ himself,' to whom all the revelations of scripture point, or, in whom the whole dispensation of the gospel centers. From the modern interpretation, which understood the word 'book' metaphorically, and explained it as a symbol of the Divine knowledge, the progress was equally easy towards those kindred

6

expositions, which have been proposed by different modern writers :—such as, the book of God's decrees ;' 'the book of futurity;' 'the book of prophecy,' generally; or of the particular prophecy contained in the 'Apocalypse itself.' It is a great step towards the complete elucidation of the whole subject, to be able thus clearly and decisively to reduce the varying shades of opinion to two grand classes, which are separated from each other by a broad and distinct line: and that too, in interpreting the leading symbol, the meaning of which must give the form and feature, the colouring and character to the exposition of the whole.

REMARK II. Whatever may be thought of the character of the expositions of the sealed book, which prevailed among the early Christians, and of the judgment displayed by those who maintained them, the fact at least is indisputable;-that, for a thousand years and upwards, the Church did understand that book to mean the Old Testament, which was so sealed, that nothing but the advent of Christ could unseal it. How, then, is this fact to be accounted for? There must have been some cause, either real or imaginary, for an opinion, which arose so early, and was received so generally, and remained unchanged and unquestioned for so long a period. If the interpretation now offered be the true one, these facts are easily and naturally explained. The notions of the Fathers will then have originated in truth: and their first step towards error consisted, not in misconceiving the general scope and object of the prophecy, but, in anticipating the time of its accomplishment:-in referring to the first advent of Christ events which belong to the second. If, then, the author may without presumption borrow an illustration from those, who in

other departments have most successfully laboured in the search after truth, he would argue in the same manner as men reason on the Copernican theory of the earth's motions, or the Newtonian theory of gravitation, or any other theory in natural philosophy:— That hypothesis, which affords a simple and natural interpretation of all the facts of the case,-facts inexplicable on any other supposition, has very strong claims to be regarded as the truth. In the present case the hypothesis will solve the phenomena.

REMARK III. If the metaphorical interpretation of Lyranus, or any modification of it, be regarded as the truth, the early Christian Church must either have been, from the very day when the Apocalypse was published, ignorant of this truth, and have continued in that ignorance till after the close of the thirteenth century, or, if the contemporaries of St John were in possession of this knowledge, their descendants must have totally lost it, and have been all involved in the same fundamental error, before the time of the earliest writer extant, who has mentioned or alluded to the subject. The latter alternative will hardly be maintained by those, who call to mind the remark already made,' that Origen, who was born within a century after the publication of the Apocalypse, does not appear to have ever heard of any other explanation of the sealed book, than that which is exhibited in our extracts. And if the former supposition be thought more probable, what reason can be assigned for the fact, that the persons, to whom St John delivered this prophecy, were left in total ignorance with regard to the true principle of its interpretation?

1 See Chap. IV. Prop. 1. Sect. 1. §. 1.

REMARK IV. The opinion that the sealed book means the Old Testament, in the sense in which the Fathers understood this proposition, namely, as having been unsealed by the introduction of the Christian dispensation, was open to very grave objections, which

2

nevertheless could not shake their confidence in their own views. There must therefore have been some strong foundation for their opinion; otherwise its own inconsistencies would have overthrown it. In the first place, this interpretation was inconsistent with the whole character of the Apocalypse, as a prophecy of future events, and expounded it rather as a record of things which were already past. At the time when this vision, of the unsealing of the book, was given to the aged Apostle, the real unsealing, according to their interpretation of the symbol, had taken place at least sixty years ago: how then could St John be invited to see things which should be hereafter, when the first and most important of those things had already occurred, and the effects of it had been already extended far and wide over a large portion of the earth? In the next place, the interpretation of the Fathers was inconsistent with itself: -To unseal the book was to unseal the Old Testament; that is, to unfold its mysteries, enlighten its obscurities, and make that revelation, which before was perplexed and difficult, plain to the understanding of all men.-What parts, then, or what mysteries of the Old Testament are afterwards explained by

This indefinite phrase, 'the introduction of the Christian dis

pensation,' is used in order to inIclude those writers, who refer the unsealing to different periods of that introduction: such as, the birth of

Christ; His death;- His resurrection; the period after His resurrection, when he opened the understanding of the disciples that they might understand the Scriptures;the day of Pentecost.

170

MEANING OF THE SEALED BOOK. [PART II. CH. VI.

the opening of the several seals? What mystery is explained by the white horse and his rider? What by the red horse? What by the black? and so on through the whole series? On examining the explanations of these subsequent visions, we find them for the most part discussed without the slightest allusion to the Old Testament, and referred to events altogether unconnected with it:-to events, which were to take place at the revelation of Antichrist, or which were then occurring in the existing history of the Christian Church. Some few of the Fathers, indeed, adopted a mystical interpretation of the seals, more consistent with their exposition of the sealed book; and conceived them to relate to seven principal events in our Lord's history, which had been hidden under a typical or prophetical vail in the Old Testament. But this view of the subject served only to involve its defenders yet more deeply in the preceding difficulty, that of making the Apocalypse a record of things past, instead of a prophecy of things to come. Yet, notwithstanding these objections, which are fatal to the system of the Fathers, they still pertinaciously adhered to it for a period of thirteen centuries. How, then, is this fact to be accounted for? To the present writer there appears to be but one solution. Though their actual interpretation was erroneous, it was yet founded on truth: and the true foundation upheld that mass of inconsistency, which was built upon it; and which, without such a support, would long before that period have crumbled into ruins.

1 See Chap. IV. Prop. 11.