and prophet;-in the fourth, the visions which had been given to the prophet Daniel:-in a word, the oracles of God, which were committed to the Jewish Church. (Rom. iii. 2.) In the next place, the first three quotations prove that the book was not sealed at the time when the Prophet was writing, but was to become sealed at some future period. In the third place, this future period is fixed by the context to the time of the rejection of the Messiah by the Jews, and of the national punishments, which they by that rejection incurred. In the last place, it is not obscurely intimated that the book, thus to be sealed up in the day of God's wrath, is to be again unsealed at the time of the end; and that its unsealing will be productive of the most blessed effects. When, therefore, the Old Testament was exhibited in vision to the Apostle John as a book sealed with seven seals, which seals the Lamb of God alone could open, the Holy Ghost was only embodying in a visible symbol those metaphorical images, which holy men of God, speaking as they were moved by the same Holy Ghost, had already rendered familiar to his mind. And there can be little doubt that he at the time clearly understood the symbol, and applied it according to its real meaning.

CHAPTER IV.

ON THE ANCIENT INTERPRETATION OF THE SEALED BOOK.

THE interpretation now offered of the Sealed Book involves in it two principal propositions:—that this book is the Old Testament,—and, that it became sealed at the destruction of Jerusalem. And having endeavoured in the preceding chapter to ascertain the degree of support which this suggestion receives from the inspired writers of the Old Testament, we now turn to the earliest class of uninspired writers, whose works can illustrate the subject, the Fathers of the Christian Church.

PROPOSITION I.

THAT THE SEALED BOOK IS THE OLD TESTAMENT.

THE reader will perhaps be surprised to learn that this proposition was distinctly asserted by the earliest writers both of the Greek and Latin Churches; and that either this precise opinion, or some slight modification of it, formed the basis of nearly all the interpretations of the Apocalypse till the beginning of the fourteenth century. The writings of the Fathers, indeed, even the earliest extant, do not exhibit what the present writer conceives to be the true interpretation of the symbol: but they shew the reasonings and conjectures of men, who had but just missed the truth, and were beginning to lose them

selves in the labyrinth of error. So that, if the proposed interpretation be the true one, it will furnish a key to the commentaries of the Fathers on this subject and the author cannot but look on the very existence of such commentaries, proceeding from such men under such circumstances, as affording a strong confirmation of the correctness of his views.

Let any person, then, acquainted with none but modern works on the Apocalypse, and accustomed to regard the sealed book as the book of God's decrees, or the book of futurity, by the opening of which the fortunes of the Christian Church are revealed to us, sit down to study the commentary of any one of the Fathers on this portion of Scripture. He will find it not only new and strange, but utterly inexplicable. But let the same person take our proposed interpretation as his basis, and imagine this view of the subject to have been generally entertained in the age immediately following that in which the Revelation was given; that is to say, during the early part of the second century: he will then find that the interpretations, which the Commentators of the next age built upon it, were neither far-fetched nor irrational: but that in process of time men gradually deviated farther and farther from the truth, and indulged in speculation and fanciful conjecture. To state this point a little more in detail. Suppose the earliest writers extant to have known that the book means the Old Testament, which in some sense is sealed, and which no creature, none but the Lord Jesus Christ himself can open; but at the same time to have lost sight of the real meaning of this sealing and unsealing, that the sealing refers to the delivery of the book into the secret custody of Rome at the

4

destruction of Jerusalem, and the unsealing to an event yet future, which is immediately to precede the second coming of Christ:-under such circumstances what could be more natural, than that they should refer the whole interpretation back to the time and events of Christ's first coming? that they should regard the book as sealed up during the continuance of the old dispensation, inasmuch as its truths were hid under the obscurity of types and prophecies; and look upon our Lord's first advent and the consequent preaching of the gospel as its true and complete and final unsealing? In process of time the symbol would be interpreted more loosely, as containing the whole of Divine revelation, which none but our Lord Jesus Christ can effectually open and explain;—or as a symbol of the dispensation of the gospel contained in that revelation, which dispensation the coming of Christ had unsealed and brought to light; or again, as an emblem of Christ himself, which the several events of His life, death, resurrection and ascension have unsealed and made known to the Christian Church. These and other varieties of opinion appear to be the natural offspring of minds acquainted at first with the true meaning of the sealed book, but gradually deviating from the correct application of the symbol, and wandering farther and father into error. The author will now endeavour to shew the progress of these opinions by extracts from the Commentators, and other writers who have alluded to the sealed book, accompanied by such remarks as their farther elucidation may require.

It is, necessary, however, to premise, that there is another passage in the Apocalypse, which the early

Fathers looked upon as very closely connected with that which is the subject of our inquiries; and that their remarks on the two texts will materially illustrate each other. The passage here alluded to is this: And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith He that is holy, He that is true, He that hath the key of David, He that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth and no man openeth; I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it. (iii. 7, 8.) To have the key of David was supposed to mean, having power and authority to open and make known the difficulties and mysteries, which are contained in the Psalms, and, by an easy inference, in the other books of the Old Testament. This power, therefore, to unlock the secrets of David, and the right to open the seals of the sealed book, were regarded as nearly equivalent expressions; each indicating the fact that our Lord Jesus Christ by that dispensation of the gospel, which he had introduced at His first advent, had removed the vail, which until that time had concealed the meaning of the Old Testament.

SECTION I.

WRITERS WHO INTERPRET THE SEALED BOOK STRICTLY AS THE OLD TESTAMENT.

1. Greek Writers.

ORIGEN. In the fourteenth Homily on Ezekiel, on the words: This gate shall be shut, &c. (xLiv. 2.) Origen remarks that some things are for ever shut, as those which are known to God only: but that