but that it would have been of a character more mystical than those we have yet had to do with; though Victorinus' exposition of the sym. bols of the primary Apocalyptic vision furnishes us indeed with a partial specimen. Origen's principle of anagogical1 or spiritualizing exposition, (a principle not altogether to be exploded, but needing in its application to Scripture a cautious attention to the requirements of context, Scriptural analogy, and good sense, abundantly greater than Origen cared to use,)" could not but have been largely applied the Apocalypse; being commanded to keep silence, and not write what the seven thunders uttered." Comment on Joh. Tom. v. (Ed. Huet. ii. 88.) A passage noted by Eusebius, H. E. vi. 25. I suppose he had some anagogic solution of what he deemed an apparent contradiction.

1 avaywyn, a passing to a higher sense than the literal; i. e. to a more literal sense. 2 Scripture, like man, said Origen, has a body, soul, and spirit :-viz. the literal sense, useful to those who preceded the Christians, i. e. the ancient Israel; the internal sense (intra literam), to Christians; and the shadowing forth of heavenly things, to saints arrived in heaven. So he remarks on Lev. vi. 25, about the sin-offering.-Elsewhere he speaks of the historic sense, the moral, and the mystical.*

He carried his inclination to the anagogical so far, as to depreciate, and sometimes even nullify, the literal and historic sense. He often says that the literal sense is "proculcandum et contemnendum."-So, 1. of things typical; as the sin-offering, Lev. vi. 25; "Hæc omnia, nisi alio sensu accipias quàm linea texta ostendit, sicut sæpe diximus, obstaculum majus Christianæ religioni quàm ædificationem præstabunt." -2. Of historic statements. So in his Hom, vi. on Genesis: "What the edification of reading that Abraham lied to Abimelech, and betrayed his wife's chastity? Let Jews believe it; and any others that, like them, prefer the letter to the spirit." So again on the Mosaic history of the creation; the statement of there having been three days without sun, moon, or stars, being pronounced by him impossible and again on that of the devil leading Christ to a high mountain; &c.-3. Of precepts: e. g. that which says, "If a man smite thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other." Now it is evident that St. Paul himself has authorized the ascription of an anagogical or spiritual sense, as well as the literal, to the types of the law. They were shadows of things to come. And to certain facts of Old Testament history he has also ascribed an allegorical, as well as literal sense. So in the allegory of Sarah and Isaac, Hagar and Ishmael. But surely in historical narratives to allegorize beyond what Scripture itself teaches, is unsafe: and to allegorize away a scripturally asserted historic fact, whether from judging it to be unedifying or impossible, most unjustifiable.

As regards prophecy Origen lays down the rule :-Whenever the prophets have prophesied anything of Jerusalem or Judea, of Israel or Jacob, then this (agreeably with St. Paul's own teaching) is to be referred anagogically to the heavenly Jerusalem, Judea, and Israel; as also in what is said of Egypt, Babylon, Tyre: "cum sint in cœlo loci terrenis istis cognomines, ac locorum istorum incolæ, animæ scilicet."-I presume he would have thus spiritualized, not merely where there was other evidence of the terms being figuratively meant, but even where the local reference was most pointed and precise.

I have thought it well to abstract the above from a chapter in the Abbé Huet's OriBishop Marsh thinks that the three may be reduced to two; 1. the literal, grammatical, or historical; 2. the spiritual or allegorical. He also remarks on Origen's admission (T. i. p. 180) that the grammatical or historical applies in many more instances than the more spiritual interpretation. Lecture xi., on Scriptural Interpretation, p. 483.

second Augustus. To which his opinion I must again beg my readers' special attention; the rather because, while expressing it, as I find from the original Greek,' he had the more usual reading before him in Apoc. xvii. 16 of та dɛKа KEρаTа Kαι Tо Onρioν, not, as his Latin translation first seen by me represents it, ra dɛka k. επι το θηριον ; the reading adopted, as it seems, by Tertullian. But how so? Because it was the old imperial Rome that Hippolytus evidently looked on as that which both Beast and horns would unite to burn: this being a mere temporary burning from which the Beast would in a new form next resuscitate it; and quite distinct from the everlasting fire from God described in Apoc. xviii., as its subsequent and final doom. On the Apocalyptic Babylon's meaning Rome all agreed.-Once more, as to the time of Antichrist's duration, though all reckoned it literally as 3 years, (how but for this could they have looked for Christ's coming as near? 2) yet, very remarkably, the testimony of Cyprian and of his Biographer was incidentally given even thus early to the year-day principle as a Scriptural one: all ready for its application to the prophetic chronological periods at God's own fit time afterwards.3

4. As to the Apocalyptic Judaic symbols there seems to have been a general reference of them in this æra to the Christian Church or worship. So Irenæus, Tertullian, Victorinus, Lactantius expounded the Apocalyptic temple and altar: so Tertullian, Methodius, Lactantius the Apocalyptic 144,000 sealed ones out of the 12 tribes, and Apocalyptic New Jerusalem. A point important to be marked in the primitive exposition."

On which point, and the general subject of the intent of Scripture symbols and figures, we have to remember that Origen, already briefly noticed by me, lived and taught about the middle of the third century. And, had he fulfilled his declared intention of giving the Christian world an Apocalyptic commentary, we can scarcely doubt

6

1 Viz. in Fabricius' Edition. Compare my Notes Vol. iii. 74, and p. 30 suprà. See my Vol. iii. pp. 264, 265.

See my Vol. iii. p. 281, where the citation from Pontius is given; together with a notice of Mr. C. M.'s strange objection to its parallelism or force on the year-day question.

For it is, of itself, fatal to each Judaic futurist or semi-futurist system of Apocalyptic interpretation. He died at Tyre A. D 253, aged 70.

6 "Omnia hæc exponere sigillatim de capitibus septem draconis (Apoc. xii. 3) non est temporis hujus: exponentur autem tempore suo in Revelatione Johannis." In Matth. Tr. 30.-Elsewhere Origen thus singularly notes this prophecy; "John wrote

1

but that it would have been of a character more mystical than those we have yet had to do with; though Victorinus' exposition of the sym. bols of the primary Apocalyptic vision furnishes us indeed with a partial specimen. Origen's principle of anagogical or spiritualizing exposition, (a principle not altogether to be exploded, but needing in its application to Scripture a cautious attention to the requirements of context, Scriptural analogy, and good sense, abundantly greater than Origen cared to use,)' could not but have been largely applied the Apocalypse; being commanded to keep silence, and not write what the seven thunders uttered." Comment on Joh. Tom. v. (Ed. Huet. ii. 88.) A passage noted by Eusebius, H. E. vi. 25. I suppose he had some anagogic solution of what he deemed an apparent contradiction.

1 avaywyn, a passing to a higher sense than the literal; i. e. to a more literal sense. 2 Scripture, like man, said Origen, has a body, soul, and spirit :-viz. the literal sense, useful to those who preceded the Christians, i. e. the ancient Israel; the internal sense (intra literam), to Christians; and the shadowing forth of heavenly things, to saints arrived in heaven. So he remarks on Lev. vi. 25, about the sin-offering.— Elsewhere he speaks of the historic sense, the moral, and the mystical.*

He carried his inclination to the anagogical so far, as to depreciate, and sometimes even nullify, the literal and historic sense. He often says that the literal sense is "proculcandum et contemnendum."-So, 1. of things typical; as the sin-offering, Lev. vi. 25; "Hæc omnia, nisi alio sensu accipias quàm linea texta ostendit, sicut sæpe diximus, obstaculum majus Christianæ religioni quàm ædificationem præstabunt." -2. Of historic statements. So in his Hom. vi. on Genesis: "What the edification of reading that Abraham lied to Abimelech, and betrayed his wife's chastity? Let Jews believe it; and any others that, like them, prefer the letter to the spirit." So again on the Mosaic history of the creation; the statement of there having been three days without sun, moon, or stars, being pronounced by him impossible: and again on that of the devil leading Christ to a high mountain; &c.-3. Of precepts: e. g. that which says, "If a man smite thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other." Now it is evident that St. Paul himself has authorized the ascription of an anagogical or spiritual sense, as well as the literal, to the types of the law. They were shadows of things to come. And to certain facts of Old Testament history he has also ascribed an allegorical, as well as literal sense. So in the allegory of Sarah and Isaac, Hagar and Ishmael. But surely in historical narratives to allegorize beyond what Scripture itself teaches, is unsafe and to allegorize away a scripturally asserted historic fact, whether from judging it to be unedifying or impossible, most unjustifiable.

As regards prophecy Origen lays down the rule:-Whenever the prophets have prophesied anything of Jerusalem or Judea, of Israel or Jacob, then this (agreeably with St. Paul's own teaching) is to be referred anagogically to the heavenly Jerusalem, Judea, and Israel; as also in what is said of Egypt, Babylon, Tyre: "cum sint in cœlo loci terrenis istis cognomines, ac locorum istorum incolæ, animæ scilicet."-I presume he would have thus spiritualized, not merely where there was other evidence of the terms being figuratively meant, but even where the local reference was most pointed and precise.

I have thought it well to abstract the above from a chapter in the Abbé Huet's Ori

Bishop Marsh thinks that the three may be reduced to two; 1. the literal, grammatical, or historical; 2. the spiritual or allegorical. He also remarks on Origen's admission (T. i. p. 180) that the grammatical or historical applies in many more instances than the more spiritual interpretation. Lecture xi., on Scriptural Interpretation, p. 483.

by him to the Apocalyptic prophecy: especially as one involving constantly symbolic language, besides those allusions to Babylon, Israel, Jerusalem, which, we saw, were always, according to him, to be construed anagogically in Scripture. But this commentary he in effect did not write: and it remained for others fully to apply his principles to Apocalyptic exposition in a later æra.

5. On the millennary question, all primitive expositors except Origen, and the few who rejected the Apocalypse as unapostolical, were premillennarians; and construed the first resurrection of the saints literally.

PERIOD 2. FROM CONSTANTINE TO THE COMPLETION OF THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, A.D. 476.

The great Constantinian revolution, accomplished (as I before observed) just after Lactantius' publication of his 'Institutions,' could hardly fail of exercising a considerable influence on Apocalyptic interpretation. A revolution by which Christianity should be established in the prophetically-denounced Roman Empire, was an event the contingency of which had never occurred apparently to the previous exponents of Christian prophecy; and suggested the idea of a mode, time, and scene of the fulfilment of the promises of the latter-day blessedness, that could scarcely have arisen before:-viz. that its scene might be the earth in its present state, not the renovated earth after Christ's coming and the conflagration; its time that of the present dispensation; its mode by the earthly establishment of the earthly Church visible. For it does not seem to have occurred at the time, that this might in fact be one of the preparatives, through Satan's craft, for the establishment after a while of the great predicted antichristian ecclesiastical empire, on the platform of the same Roman world, and in a professing but apostatized Church.

1. Eusebius (my first author of this æra) seems in earlier life to

geniana; as there occurs so much of Origenic interpreters, such as Tichonius, Primasius, &c.

anagoge in subsequent Apocalyptic

The dates of Eusebius' life are as follows. Born in Palestine in the reign of Gallienus, about A.D. 267: after ordination to the Christian ministry studied with and assisted Pamphilus in his school at Cæsarea, whence his cognomen of Pamphili : in the Diocletianic persecution witnessed the martyrdoms in Palestine which he

have received the Apocalypse as inspired Scripture; and interpreted its Seals, somewhat like Victorinus, of the difficulties of Old Testament prophecy opened by Christ.' When the extraordinary Constantinian revolution established itself, though doubts now commenced as to its apostolic authorship, yet he still continued to refer to its prophecies; with an application changed however, accordantly with the change in the times. Thus he applied to this great event both Isaiah's promises of the latter day, and also (as his language indicates) the Apocalyptic prophecy of the New Jerusalem;2 at the same time that the symbolic vision of the seven-headed dragon of Apoc. xii., cast down from heaven, was with real exegetic correctness (as Į conceive) applied to the dejection of Paganism, and the Pagan emperors, from their former supremacy in the Roman world.3—As regards Daniel's hebdomads, let me add, Eusebius, like most of the expositors before him, explained them continuously; and as long before altogether fulfilled."

describes, and ministered to Pamphilus, who was for two years in prison: at the end of that persecution, about 314, was made Bishop of Cæsarea: soon after published his "De Demonstrat. et de Preparat. Evangelicà: " in 325jassisted at, and was appointed to address Constantine in, the Nicene Council: in 326 published his Chronicon, and then his Ecclesiastical History, both of which he brought down to that year. In the year 335 he assisted in the Council of Tyre, convened by Constantine to consider charges made by Arius against Athanasius; and thence went to the consecration of Constantine's new church at Jerusalem. Afterwards he visited Constantinople, to make report to Constantine about the Council; and then pronounced before him the tricennalian oration; about which time Constantine told him of his vision of the cross, and showed him the labarum made accordantly with it. After this he wrote his Book on the Eastern Festival, 5 Books against Marcellus, and last of all his Life of Constantine: then about the end of 339 died.

Demonstr. Evang. B. vii.

See my Vol. i. p. 256, Note*. See Vol. iii. pp. 30, 31, 34, 35, with the Notes. This his view of the vision we may compare with that of the expositor Andreas afterwards. Eusebius intimates that Constantine may have alluded possibly to Isa. xxvii. 1, “The Lord shall punish Leviathan, that crooked serpent." But the casting down of the Dragon, which Constantine notes prominently, is not in Isaiah's prophecy, but that of the Apocalypse.

In speaking of the dejection of Pagan emperors I mean of course that Eusebius, like myself, intended the Devil acting in them.

But this in a point of view somewhat strange and peculiar.

By the holy one to be anointed Eusebius understood the anointed high priests and rulers of the Jews, after their return from the Babylonish captivity. This is the point on which his explanation turns. And so he makes his chronological calculations in the form of the series of high priests and rulers afterwards succeeding :-first Joshua and Zerubbabel, then Ezra and Nehemiah, Joachim, Eliasub, Jehoiada, John, Jaddua; (the same that showed Daniel's prophecy to Alexander the Great ;) then Onias, Eleazar, (in whose time the Septuagint version was begun ;) a 2nd Onias, Simon, (contemporary with the writing of the Book of Sirach,) a 3rd Onias, (the same that was high priest when Antiochus Epiphanes desolated the temple,) Judas Maccabeus, and his two brothers successively Jonathan and Simon, with whose death ends the 1st