Albert Barnes Commentary Revelation 10

CHAPTER X

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER

THIS chapter contains the record of a sublime vision of an angel which, at this juncture, John saw descending from heaven, disclosing new scenes in what was yet to occur. The vision is interposed between the sounding of the sixth, or second woe-trumpet, and the sounding of the seventh, or third woe-trumpet, under which is to be the final consummation, Revelation 11:15, seq. It occupies an important interval between the events which were to occur under the sixth trumpet, and the last scene—the final overthrow of the formidable power which had opposed the reign of God on the earth, and the reign of righteousness, when the kingdoms of the world shall become the kingdom of God, Revelation 11:15. It is, in many respects, an unhappy circumstance that this chapter has been separated from the following. They constitute one continued vision, at least to Re 11:15, where the sounding of the seventh and last trumpet occurs.

The tenth chapter contains the following things:

(1.) An angel descends from heaven, and the attention of the seer is for a time turned from the contemplation of what was passing in heaven to this new vision that appeared on the earth. This angel is clothed with a cloud; he is encircled by a rainbow; his face is as the sun, am/his feet like pillars of fire:—all indicating his exalted rank, and all such accompaniments as became a heavenly messenger.

(2.) The angel appears with a small volume in his hand, Revelation 10:2. This book is not closed and sealed, like the one in chapter 5, but was "open"—so that it could be read. Such a book would indicate some new message or revelation from heaven; and the book would be, properly, a symbol of something that was to be accomplished by such an open volume.

(3.) The angel sets his feet upon the sea and the land, Revelation 10:2: indicating by this, apparently, that what he was to communicate upperrained alike to the ocean and the land—to all the world.

(4.) The angel makes a proclamation—the nature of which is not here stated—with a loud voice, like the roaring of a lion, as if the nations were called to hear, Revelation 10:3.

(5.) This cry or roar is responded to by heavy thunders, Revelation 10:3. What those thunders uttered is not stated, but it was evidently so distinct that John heard it, for he says (Revelation 10:4) that he was about to make a record of what was said.

(6.) John, about to make this record, is forbidden to do so by a voice from heaven, Revelation 10:4. For some reason, not here stated, he was commanded not to disclose what was said, but so to seal it up that it should not be known, The reason for this silence is nowhere intimated in the chapter.

(7.) The angel lifts his hand to heaven in a most solemn manner, and swears by the Great Creator of all things that the time should not be yet—in our common version, "that there should be time no longer,"Revelation 10:5–7. It would seem that just at this period there would be an expectation that the reign of God was to begin upon the earth; but the angel, in the most solemn manner, declares that this was not yet to be, but that it would occur when the seventh angel should begin to sound. Then the great "mystery" would be complete, as it had been declared to the prophets.

(8.) John is then commanded, by the same voice which he heard from heaven, to go to the angel and take the little book from him which he held in his hand, and eat it—with the assurance that it would be found to be sweet to the taste, but would be bitter afterwards, Revelation 10:8–10.

(9.) The chapter concludes with a declaration that he must yet prophecy before many people and nations, (Revelation 10:11,) and then follows (Revelation 11.) the commission to measure the temple; the command to separate the pure from the profane; the account of the prophesying, the death, and the resurrection to life of the two witnesses—all preliminary to the sounding of the seventh trumpet, and the introduction of the universal reign of righteousness.

The question to what doer the chapter refer, is one which it is proper to notice before we proceed to the exposition. It is unnecessary to say, that on this question very various opinions have been entertained, and that very different expositions have been given of the chapter. Without going into an examination of these different opinions—which would be a task alike unprofitable and endless—it will be better to state what seems to be the fair interpretation and application of the symbol, in its connexion with what precedes. A few remarks here, preliminary to the exposition and application of the chapter, may help us in determining the place which the vision is designed to occupy.

(a) In the previous Apocalyptic revelations, if the interpretation proposed is correct, the history had been brought down, in the regular course of events, to the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, and the complete overthrow of the Roman empire by that event, A.D. 1453, Revelation 9:13–19. This was an important era in the history of the world; and if the exposition which has been proposed is correct, then the sketches of history pertaining to the Roman empire in the book of Revelation have been made with surprising accuracy.

(b) A statement had been made, (Revelation 9:20,21,) to the effect that the same state of things continued subsequent to the plagues brought on by those invasions, which had existed before, or that the effect had not been to produce any general repentance and reformation. God had scourged the nations; he had cut off multitudes of men; he had overthrown the mighty empire that had so long ruled over the world; but the same sins of superstition, idolatry, sorcery, murder, fornication, and theft prevailed afterwards that had prevailed before. Instead of working a change in the minds of men, the world seemed to be confirmed in these abominations more and more. In the exposition of that passage (Revelation 9:20,21) it was shown that those things prevailed in the Roman church—which then embraced the whole Christian world—before the invasion of the Eastern empire by the Turks, and that they continued to prevail afterwards: that, in fact, the moral character of the world was not affected by those "plagues."

(c) The next event, in the order of time, was the Reformation, and the circumstances in the case are such as to lead us to suppose that this chapter refers to that. For

(1) the order of time demands this. This was the next important event in the history of the church and the world after the conquest of Constantinople producing the entire downfall of the Roman empire; and if, as is supposed in the previous exposition, it was the design of the Spirit of inspiration to touch on the great and material events in the history of the church and the world, then it would be natural to suppose that the Reformation would come next into view, for no previous event had more deeply or permanently affected the condition of mankind.

(2.) The state of the world, as described in Re 9:20,21, was such as to demand a reformation, or something that should be more effectual in purifying the church than the calamities described in the previous verse had been. The representation is, that God had brought great judgments upon the world, but that they had been ineffectual in reforming mankind. The same kind of superstition, idolatry, and corruption remained after those judgments which had existed before, and they were of such a nature as to make it every way desirable that a new influence should be brought to bear upon the world to purify it from these abominations. Some such work as the Reformation is, therefore, what we should naturally look for as the next in order; or, at least, such a work is one that well fits in with the description of the previous state of things.

(d) It will be found, I apprehend, in the exposition of the chapter, that the symbols are such as accord well with the great leading events of the Protestant Reformation; or, in other words, that they are such that, on the supposition that it was intended to refer to the Reformation, these are the symbols which would have been appropriately employed. Of course, it is not necessary to suppose that John understood distinctly all that was meant by these symbols, nor is it necessary to suppose that those who lived before the Reformation would be able to comprehend them perfectly, and to apply them with accuracy. All that is necessary to be supposed in the interpretation is

(1) that the symbol was designed to be of such a character as to give some general idea of what was to occur; and

(2) that we should be able, now that the event has occurred, to show that it is fairly applicable to the event; that is, that on the supposition that this was designed to be referred to, the symbols are such as would properly be employed. This, however, will be seen more clearly after the exposition shall have been gone through.

With this general view of what we should naturally anticipate in this chapter, from the course of exposition in the preceding chapters, we are prepared for a more particular exposition and application of the symbols in this new vision. It will be the most convenient course, keeping in mind the general views presented here, to explain the symbols, and to consider their application as we go along.

And I saw. I had a vision of. The meaning is, that he saw this subsequently to the vision in the previous chapter. The attention is now arrested by a new vision—as if some new dispensation or economy was about to occur in the world.

Another mighty angel. He had before seen the seven angels who were to blow the seven trumpets, (Revelation 8:2) he had seen six of them successively blow the trumpet; he now sees another angel, different from them, and apparently having no connexion with them, coming from heaven to accomplish some important purpose before the seventh angel should give the final blast. The angel is here characterized as a "mighty" angel—iscuron—one of strength and power; implying that the work to be accomplished by his mission demanded the interposition of one of the higher orders of the heavenly inhabitants. The coming of an angel at all was indicative of some Divine interposition in human affairs; the fact that he was one of exalted rank, or endowed with vast power, indicated the nature of the work to be done—that it was a work to the execution of which great obstacles existed, and where great power would be needed.

Clothed with a cloud. Encompassed with a cloud, or enveloped in a cloud. This was a symbol of majesty and glory, and is often represented as accompanying the Divine presence, Exodus 16:9–10; 24:16; 34:5; Numbers 11:25; 1 Kings 8:10; Psalms 97:2.

The Saviour also ascended in a cloud, Acts 1:9; and he will again descend in clouds to judge the world, Matthew 24:30; 26:64; Mr 13:26; Revelation 1:7.

Nothing can be argued here as to the purpose for which the angel appeared, from his being encompassed with a cloud; nor can anything be argued from it in respect to the question who this angel was. The fair interpretation is, that this was one of the angels now represented as sent forth on an errand of mercy to man, and coming with appropriate majesty, as the messenger of God.

And a rainbow was upon his head. In Re 4:3, the throne in heaven is represented as encircled by a rainbow. See Barnes on "Revelation 4:3".

The rainbow is properly an emblem of peace. Here the symbol would mean that the angel came not for wrath, but for purposes of peace; that he looked with a benign aspect on men, and that the effect of his coming would be like that of sunshine after a storm.

And his face was as it were the sun. Bright like the sun, (Barnes on "Revelation 1:16") that is, he looked upon men with

(a) an intelligent aspect—as the sun is the source of light; and

(b) with benignity—not covered with clouds, or darkened by wrath. The brightness is probably the main idea, but the appearance of the angel would as here represented, naturally suggest the ideas just referred to. As an emblem or symbol, we should regard his appearing as that which was to be followed by knowledge and by prosperity.

And his feet as pillars of fire. See Barnes on "Revelation 1:15".

In this symbol, then, we have the following things:

(a) An angel—as the messenger of God, indicating that some new communication was to be brought to mankind, or that there would be some interposition in human affairs which might be well represented by the coming of an angel;

(b) the fact that he was "mighty"—indicating that the work to be done required power beyond human strength;

(c) the fact that he came in a cloud— an embassage so grand and magnificent as to make this symbol of majesty proper;

(d) the fact that he was encircled by a rainbow—that the visitation was to be one of peace to mankind; and

(e) the fact that his coming was like the sun—or would diffuse light and peace.

Now, in regard to the application of this, without adverting to any other theory, no one can fail to see that, on the supposition that it was designed to refer to the Reformation, this would be the most striking and appropriate symbol that could have been chosen. For,

(a) as we have seen above, this is the place which the vision naturally occupies in the series of historical representations.

(b) It was at a period of the world, and the world was in such a state, that an intervention of this kind would be properly represented by the coming of an angel from heaven. God had visited the nations with terrible judgments, but the effect had not been to produce reformation, for the same forms of wickedness continued to prevail which had existed before. Barnes on "Revelation 9:20".

In this state of things, any new interposition of God for reforming the world would be properly represented by the coming of an angel from heaven as a messenger of light and peace.

(c) The great and leading events of the Reformation were well represented by the power of this angel. It was not, indeed, physical power; but the work to be done in the Reformation was a great work, and was such as would be well symbolized by the intervention of a mighty angel from heaven. The task of reforming the church, and of correcting the abuses which had prevailed, was wholly beyond any ability which man possessed, and was well represented, therefore, by the descent of this messenger from the skies.

(d) The same thing may be said of the rainbow that was upon his head. Nothing would better symbolize the general aspect of the Reformation, as fitted to produce peace, tranquillity, and joy upon the earth. And

(e) the same thing was indicated by the splendour—the light and glory— that attended the angel. The symbol would denote that the new order of things would be attended with light; with knowledge; with that which would be benign in its influence on human affairs. And it need not be said, to any one acquainted with the history of those times, that the Reformation was preceded and accompanied with a great increase of light; that at just about that period of the world the study of the Greek language began to be common in Europe; that the sciences had made remarkable progress; that schools and colleges had begun to flourish; and that, to a degree which had not existed for ages before, the public mind had become awakened to the importance of truth and knowledge.

For a full illustration of this, from the close of the eleventh century and onward, see Hallam's Middle Ages, vol. ii. pp. 265-292, chap. ix. part ii. To go into any satisfactory detail on this point would be wholly beyond the proper limits of these Notes, and the reader must be referred to the histories of those times, and especially to Hallam, who has recorded all that is necessary to be known on the subject.

Suffice it to say that, on the supposition that it was the intention to symbolize those times, no more appropriate emblem could have been found than that of an angel whose face shone like the sun, and who was covered with light and splendour. These remarks will show that, if it be supposed it was intended to symbolize the Reformation, no more appropriate emblem could have been selected than that of such an angel coming down from heaven. If, after the events have occurred, we should desire to represent the same things by a striking and expressive symbol, we could find none that would better represent those times.

And he had in his hand a little book open. This is the first thing that indicated the purpose of his appearing, or that would give any distinct indication of the design of his coming from heaven. The general aspect of the angel, indeed, as represented in the former verse, was that of benignity, and his purpose, as there indicated, was light and peace. But still, there was nothing which would denote the particular design for which he came, or which would designate the particular means which he would employ. Here we have, however, an emblem which will furnish an indication of what was to occur as the result of his appearing. To be able to apply this, it will be necessary, as in all similar cases, to explain the natural significance of the emblem.

1. The little book.

   The word used here—biblaridion—occurs nowhere else in the New Testament except in Revelation 10:8-10. The word biblion—book—occurs frequently (e.g., Matthew 19:7; Mark 10:4, where it is applied to a bill of divorcement; Luke 4:17, 20; John 20:30; John 21:25; Galatians 3:10; 2 Timothy 4:13; Hebrews 9:19; Hebrews 10:7). In the Apocalypse, this word is of common occurrence: Revelation 1:11; Revelation 5:1–5, 7-9; Revelation 6:14 (rendered scroll); Revelation 17:8; Revelation 20:12; Revelation 21:27; Revelation 22:7, 9-10, 18-19.

   The word was evidently chosen here to denote something that was peculiar in the size or form of the book, or to distinguish it from that which would be designated by the ordinary word employed to denote a book. The word properly denotes a small roll or volume; a little scroll (Rob. Lex; Pollux, Onomast. 7, 210). It is evident that something was intended by the diminutive size of the book, or that it was designed to make a distinction between this and that which is indicated by the use of the word book in the other parts of the Apocalypse. It was, at least, indicated by this that it was something different from what was seen in the hand of him that sat on the throne in Revelation 5:1.

   That was clearly a large volume; this was so small that it could be taken in the hand, and could be represented as eaten (Revelation 10:9–10). But, of what is a book an emblem? To this question, there can be little difficulty in furnishing an answer. A book seen in a dream, according to Artemidorus, signifies the life, or the acts of him that sees it (Wemyss). According to the Indian interpreters, a book is the symbol of power and dignity. The Jewish kings, when they were crowned, had the book of the law of God put into their hands (2 Kings 11:12; 2 Chronicles 23:11), denoting that they were to observe the law, and that their administration was to be one of intelligence and uprightness.

   The gift of a Bible now to a monarch when he is crowned, or to the officer of a corporation or society, denotes the same thing. A book, as such, thus borne in the hand of an angel coming down to the world, would be an indication that something of importance was to be communicated to men, or that something was to be accomplished by the agency of a book. It was not, as in Revelation 6:2, a bow—emblem of conquest; nor, as in Revelation 10:4 (this seems to be a typo in the original, likely referring to another passage for the sword, e.g. Revelation 6:4), a sword—emblem of battle; or, as in Revelation 6:5 , a pair of scales—emblem of the exactness with which things were to be determined: but it was a book—a speechless, silent thing, yet mighty; not designed to carry desolation through the earth, but to diffuse light and truth.

   The natural interpretation then would be, that something was to be accomplished by the agency of a book, or that a book was to be the prominent characteristic of the times—as the bow, the sword, and the balances had been of the previous periods. As to the size of the book, perhaps all that can be inferred is that this was to be brought about, not by extended tomes, but by a comparatively small volume—so that it could be taken in the hand; so that it could, without impropriety, be represented as eaten by an individual.

2. The fact that it was open: a little book open—anewgmenon.

   The word here used means, properly, to open or unclose in respect to that which was before fastened or sealed, as that which is covered by a door (Matthew 2:11); tombs, which were closed by large stones (Matthew 27:60, 66); a gate (Acts 5:23; Acts 12:10); the abyss (Revelation 9:2)—“since in the East pits or wells are closed with large stones” .—Rob. Lex.

   The meaning of this word, as applied to a book, would be that it was now opened so that its contents could be read. The word would not necessarily imply that it had been sealed or closed, though that would be the most natural impression from the use of the word. For the use of the word rendered “open,” compare Revelation 3:8, 20; Revelation 4:1; Revelation 5:2–5, 9; Revelation 6:1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12; Revelation 8:1; Revelation 9:2; Revelation 10:8; Revelation 11:19; Revelation 20:12.

   This would find a fulfillment if facts such as the following should occur:

   If there had been any custom or arrangement by which knowledge was kept from men, or access was forbidden to books or to some one book in particular; and

   If something should occur by which that which had before been kept hidden or concealed, or that to which access had been denied, should be made accessible. In other words, this is the proper symbol of a diffusion of knowledge, or of the influence of A BOOK on mankind.

3. The fact that it was in the hand of the angel.

   All that seems to be implied in this is that it was now offered, or was ready to be put in possession of John—or of the church—or of mankind. It was open, and was held out, as it were, for perusal.

In regard to the application of this, it is plain that, if it be admitted that it was the design of the author of the vision to refer to the Reformation, no more appropriate emblem could have been chosen. If we were now to endeavor to devise an emblem of the Reformation that would be striking and expressive, we could not well select one which would better represent the great work than that which is here presented. This will appear plain from a few considerations:

1. The great agent in the Reformation, the moving cause of it, its suggestor and supporter, was a book—the Bible. Wycliffe had translated the New Testament into the English language, and though this was suppressed, yet it had done much to prepare the people for the Reformation. All that Luther did can be traced to the discovery of the Bible, and to the use which was made of it.

   Luther had grown up into manhood and had passed from the schools to the university of Erfurt. There, having during the usual four years' course of study displayed intellectual powers and an extent of learning that excited the admiration of the university, and that seemed to open to his attainment both the honor and emolument of the world, he appeared to have been prepared to play an important part in the great drama of human affairs.

   Suddenly, however, to the astonishment and dismay of his friends, he betook himself to the solitude and gloom of an Augustinian monastery. He had found a Bible—a copy of the Vulgate—hidden in the shelves of the university library. Until then, he had supposed that there existed no other Gospels or Epistles than what were given in the Breviary, or quoted by the Preachers. (For the proof of this, see Elliott, ii. 92.)

   To the study of that book he now gave himself with untiring diligence and steady prayer; and the effect was to show to him the way of salvation by faith, and ultimately to produce the Reformation. No one acquainted with the history of the Reformation can doubt that it is to be traced to the influence of the Bible; that the moving cause, the spring of all that occurred in the Reformation, was the impulse given to the mind of Luther and his fellow-laborers by the study of that one book.

   It is this well-known fact that gives so much truth to the celebrated declaration of Chillingworth, that "the Bible is the religion of Protestants." If a symbol of this had been designed before it occurred, or if one should be sought for now that would designate the actual nature and influence of the Reformation, nothing better could be selected than that of an angel descending from heaven, with benignant aspect, with a rainbow around his head, and with light beaming all around him, holding forth to mankind a book.

2. This book had before been hidden, or closed; that is, it could not until then be regarded as an open volume.

   It was in fact known by few even of the clergy, and it was not in the hands of the mass of the people at all. There is every reason to believe that the great body of the Romish clergy, in the time that preceded the Reformation, were even more ignorant of the Bible than Luther himself was. Many of them were unable to read; few had access to the Bible; and those who had, drew their doctrines rather from the Fathers of the church than from the word of God. Hallam (Middle Ages, ii. 241) says, "Of this prevailing ignorance [in the tenth century, and onward] it is easy to produce abundant testimony. In almost every council the ignorance of the clergy forms a subject for reproach. It is asserted by one held in 992, that scarcely a single person could be found in Rome itself who knew the first elements of letters. Not one priest of a thousand in Spain, about the age of Charlemagne, could address a letter of common salutation to another. In England, Alfred declares that he could not recollect a single priest south of the Thames, (the best part of England,) at the time of his accession, who understood the ordinary prayers, or who could translate the Latin into the mother tongue."

   There were few books of any kind in circulation, and, even if there had been an ability to read, the cost of books was so great as to exclude the great mass of the people from all access to the sacred Scriptures. "Many of the clergy," says Dr. Robertson, (Hist. of Charles V., p. 14. Harper's Ed.), "did not understand the Breviary which they were obliged daily to recite; some of them could scarcely read it." "Persons of the highest rank, and in the most eminent stations, could neither read nor write." One of the questions appointed by the canons to be put to persons who were candidates for orders was this, "Whether they could read the Gospels and Epistles, and explain the sense of them at least literally?" For the causes of this ignorance, see Robertson's Hist. of Charles V., p. 515.

   One of those causes was the cost of books. "Private persons seldom possessed any books whatever. Even monasteries of considerable note had only one Missal. The price of books became so high that persons of a moderate fortune could not afford to purchase them. The Countess of Anjou paid for a copy of the Homilies of Haimon, bishop of Alberstadt, two hundred sheep, five quarters of wheat, and the same quantity of rye and millet," etc. Such was the cost of books that few persons could afford to own a copy of the sacred Scriptures; and the consequence was, there were almost none in the hands of the people. The few copies that were in existence were mostly in the libraries of monasteries and universities, or in the hands of some of the higher clergy.

   But there was another reason that was still more efficacious, perhaps, in keeping the people at large from the knowledge of the Scriptures. It was found in the prevailing views in the Roman Catholic communion respecting the private use and interpretation of the sacred volume. Whatever theory may now be advocated in the Roman Catholic communion on this point, as a matter of fact, the influence of that denomination has been to withhold the Bible from a free circulation among the common people. No one can deny that, in the times just preceding the Reformation, the whole influence of the Papal denomination was opposed to a free circulation of the Bible, and that one of the great and characteristic features of the Reformation was the fact that the doctrine was promulgated that the Bible was to be freely distributed, and that the people everywhere were to have access to it, and were to form their own opinions of the doctrines which it reveals.

3. The Bible became, at the Reformation, in fact an "open" book. It was made accessible. It became the popular book of the world; the book that did more than all other things to change the aspect of affairs, and to give character to subsequent times. This occurred because:

   The art of printing was discovered, just before the Reformation, as if, in the providence of God, it was designed then to give this precious volume to the world. The Bible was, in fact, the first book printed, and has been since printed more frequently than any other book whatever, and will continue to be to the end of the world. It would be difficult to imagine now a more striking symbol of the art of printing, or to suggest a better device for it, than to represent an angel giving an open volume to mankind.

   The leading doctrine of the Reformers was that the Bible is the source of all authority in matters of religion and, consequently, is to be accessible to all the people.

   The Bible was the authority appealed to by the Reformers. It became the subject of profound study; was diffused abroad; and gave form to all the doctrines that sprang out of the times of the Reformation. These remarks, which might be greatly expanded, will show with what propriety, on the supposition that the chapter here refers to the Reformation, the symbol of a book was selected. Obviously, no other symbol would have been so appropriate; nothing else would have given so just a view of the leading characteristics of that period of the world.

And he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot upon the earth. This is the third characteristic in the symbol. As a mere description, this is eminently sublime. I was once (at Cape May, 1849) impressively reminded of this passage. My window was in such a position that it commanded a fine view at the same time of the ocean and the land.

A storm arose such as I had never witnessed—the clouds from the different points of the compass seeming to come together over the place, and producing incessant lightning and thunder. As the storm cleared away, the most magnificent rainbow that I ever saw appeared, arching the heavens, one foot of it far off in the sea, and the other on the land—an emblem of peace to both—and most strikingly suggesting to me the angel in the Apocalypse.

The natural meaning of such a symbol as that represented here would be that something was to occur which would pertain to the whole world, as the earth is made up of land and water. It is hardly necessary to say that, on the supposition that this refers to the Reformation, there is no difficulty in finding an ample fulfillment of the symbol.

That great work was designed manifestly by Providence to affect all the world—the sea and the land—the dwellers in the islands and in the continents—those who go down to the sea in ships, and do business in the great waters (Psalms 107:23), and those who have a permanent dwelling on shore. It may be admitted indeed, that, in itself, this one thing—the angel standing on the sea and the land, if it occurred alone, could not suggest the Reformation; and, if there were nothing else, such an application might seem fanciful and unnatural. But taken in connection with the other things in the symbol, and assuming that the whole vision was designed to symbolize the Reformation, it will not be regarded as unnatural that there should be some symbol which would intimate that the blessings of a reformed religion—a pure gospel—would be ultimately spread over land and ocean—over the continents and islands of the globe; in all the fixed habitations of men, and in their floating habitations on the deep. The symbol of a rainbow, bending over the sea and land, would have expressed this: the same thing would be expressed by an angel whose head was encircled by a rainbow, and whose face beamed with light, with one foot on the ocean and the other on the land.

And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth (Revelation 10:3). The lion is the monarch of the woods, and its roar is an image of terror. The point of the comparison here seems to be the loudness with which the angel cried, and the power of what he said to awe the world—as the roar of the lion keeps the dwellers in the forest in awe.

What he said is not stated, nor did John attempt to record it. Professor Stuart supposes that it was "a loud note of woe, some interjection uttered which would serve to call attention, and at the same time be indicative of the judgments which were to follow." But it is not necessary to suppose that this particular thing was intended.

Any loud utterance—any solemn command—any prediction of judgment—any declaration of truth that would arrest the attention of mankind—would be in accordance with all that is said here. As there is no application of what is said, and no explanation made by John, it is impossible to determine with any certainty what is referred to.

But, supposing that the whole refers to the Reformation, would not the loud and commanding voice of the angel properly represent the proclamation of the gospel as it began to be preached in such a manner as to command the attention of the world, and the reproof of the prevailing sins in such a manner as to keep the world in awe?

The voice that sounded forth at the Reformation among the nations of Europe—breaking the slumbers of the Christian world, awakening the church to the evil of the existing corruptions and abominations, and summoning princes to the defence of the truth—might well be symbolized by the voice of an angel that was heard afar.

In regard to the effect of the "theses" of Luther, in which he attacked the main doctrines of the Papacy, a contemporary writer says, "In the space of a fortnight they spread over Germany, and within a month they had run through all Christendom, as if angels themselves had been the bearers of them to all men."

To John it might not have been known beforehand—as it probably would not have been—what this symbolized. But could we now find a more appropriate symbol to denote the Reformation than the appearance of such an angel, or better describe the impression made by the first announcement of the great doctrines of the Reformation, than by the loud voice of such an angel?

And when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices (Revelation 10:3). Professor Stuart renders this, "the seven thunders uttered their voices," and insists that the article should be retained, which it has not been in our common version. So Elliott, Bishop Middleton, and others.

Bishop Middleton says, "Why the article is inserted here I am unable to discover. It is somewhat remarkable that a few manuscripts and editions omit it in both places (Revelation 10:3–4). Were the seven thunders anything well known and preeminent? If not, the omission must be right in the former instance, but wrong in the latter; if they were preeminent, then it is wrong in both. Bengel omits the article in Revelation 10:3, but has it in Revelation 10:4."

He regards the insertion of the article as the true reading in both places and supposes that there may have been a reference to some Jewish opinion, but says that he had not been able to find a vestige of it in Lightfoot, Schoettgen, or Meuschen.

Storr supposes that we are not to seek here for any Jewish notion and that nothing is to be inferred from the article (Middleton, on the Gr. Article, p. 358). The best editions of the New Testament retain the article in both places, and indeed there is no authority for omitting it.

The use of the article here naturally implies either that these seven thunders were something which had been before referred to, either expressly or impliedly; or that there was something about them which was so well known that it would be at once understood what was referred to; or that there was something in the connection which would determine the meaning. Compare Barnes on Revelation 8:2.

It is plain, however, that there had been no mention of "seven thunders" before, nor had anything been referred to which would at once suggest them. The reason for the insertion of the article here must, therefore, be found in some preeminence which these seven thunders had; in some well-known facts about them; in something which would at once suggest them when they were mentioned—as when we mention the sun, the moon, the stars, though they might not have been distinctly referred to before.

The number "seven" is used here either:

1. as a general or perfect number, as it is frequently in this book, where we have it so often repeated—seven spirits; seven angels; seven seals; seven trumpets; or
2. with some specific reference to the matter in hand—the case actually in view of the writer.

It cannot be doubted that it might be used in the former sense here, and that no law of language would be violated if it were so understood, as denoting many thunders. But still, it is equally true that it may be used in a specific sense, denoting something that would be well understood by applying the number seven to it.

Now let it be supposed, in regard to the application of this symbol, that the reference is to Rome, the seven-hilled city, and to the thunders of excommunication, anathema, and wrath that were uttered from that city against the Reformers. Would there not be all that is fairly implied in this language, and is not this such a symbol as would be appropriately used on such a supposition?

The following circumstances may be referred to as worthy of notice on this point:

1. The place which this occupies in the series of symbols—being just after the angel had uttered his voice as symbolical of the proclamation of the great truths of the gospel in the Reformation, if the interpretation above given is correct. The next event, in the order of nature and of fact, was the voice of excommunication uttered at Rome.
2. The word thunder would appropriately denote the bulls of excommunication uttered at Rome, for the name most frequently given to the decrees of the Papacy, when condemnatory, was that of Papal thunders. So Le Bas, in his life of Wycliffe, p. 198, says, "The thunders which shook the world when they issued from the seven hills sent forth an uncertain sound, comparatively faint and powerless, when launched from a region of less devoted sanctity."
3. The number seven would, on such a supposition, be used here with equal propriety. Rome was built on seven hills, was known as the "seven-hilled" city, and the thunders from that city would seem to echo and re-echo from those hills. .
4. This supposition, also, will accord with the use of the article here, as if those thunders were something well known: "the seven thunders;" that is, the thunders which the nations were accustomed to hear.
5. This will also accord with the passage before us, inasmuch as the thunders would seem to have been of the nature of a response to what the angel said, or to have been sent forth because he had uttered his loud cry. In like manner, the anathemas were hurled from Rome because the nations had been aroused by the loud cry for Reformation, as if an angel had uttered that cry.

For these reasons, there is a propriety in applying this language to the thunders which issued from Rome condemning the doctrines of the Reformation, and in defence of the ancient faith, and excommunicating those who embraced the doctrines of the Reformers.

If we were now to attempt to devise a symbol which would be appropriate to express what actually occurred in the Reformation, we could not think of one which would be better fitted to that purpose than to speak of seven thunders bellowing forth from the seven-hilled city.

And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices. After he had listened to those thunders, or when they had passed by.

I was about to write. This means he was about to record what was uttered, supposing that this was the design for which he had been made to hear them.

From this it would seem that it was not mere thunder—brutum fulmen—but that the utterance had a distinct and intelligible enunciation, or that words were employed that could be recorded.

It may be observed, by the way, as Professor Stuart has remarked, that this proves John wrote down what he saw and heard as soon as practicable, and in the place where he was. This also suggests that the supposition of many modern critics—that the Apocalyptic visions were written at Ephesus a considerable time after the visions took place—has no good foundation.

And I heard a voice from heaven saying to me. Evidently, this was the voice of God; at all events, it came with the clear force of command.

Seal up those things. Regarding the word seal, see the comments on Revelation 5:1.

The meaning here is that he was not to record those things; instead, what he heard he was to keep to himself, as if it were placed under a seal that was not to be broken.

And write them not. Make no record of them. No reason is mentioned why this was not to be done, and none can now be given that can be proved to be the true reason.

Vitringa, who regards the seven thunders as referring to the Crusades, supposes the reason was that a more full statement would have diverted the mind from the course of the prophetic narrative and from more important events concerning the church. He also believed that nothing occurred in the Crusades worthy of being recorded at length: Nec dignae erant quae prolixius exponerentur—"for," he adds, "these expeditions were undertaken with a foolish purpose, and resulted in real detriment to the church" (pp. 431, 432).

Professor Stuart (vol. ii. pp. 204-206) supposes that these "thunders" refer to the destruction of the city and temple of God, and that they were a sublime introduction to the last catastrophe. He suggests the meaning is not that John should keep "entire silence," but only that he should state the circumstances in a general manner without going into detail.

Mede supposes that John was commanded to keep silence because it was designed that the meaning should not then be known, but should be disclosed in future times. Forerius believed it was because the wise should be able to understand them, while they were not to be disclosed to the wicked and profane.

Without attempting to examine these and other proposed solutions, the question properly before us from the course of the exposition is whether, on the supposition that the voice of the seven thunders referred to the Papal anathemas, a rational and satisfactory solution for the reasons of this silence can be given. Without pretending to know the reasons that existed, the following may be referred to as not improbable and as those that would meet the case:

1. In these Papal anathemas, there was nothing worthy of record; there was nothing important as history, nothing that communicated truth, and nothing that really indicated progress in human affairs. In themselves, there was nothing more deserving record than the acts and doings of wicked men at any time—nothing that aligned with the main design of this book.

2. Such a record would have retarded the progress of the main statements about what was to occur and would have diverted attention from these to less important matters.

3. All that was necessary in the case was simply to state that such thunders were heard. That is, on the supposition that this refers to the Reformation, that great change in human affairs would not be permitted to occur without opposition and noise—as if the thunders of wrath should follow those engaged in it.

4. John evidently mistook this for a real revelation, or for something to be recorded as connected with the Divine will regarding the progress of human affairs. He was naturally about to record this, just as he recorded what was uttered by the other voices he heard. If he had made the record, it would have been with this mistaken view. There was nothing in the voices, or in what was uttered, that would manifestly mark it as distinct from what had been uttered as coming from God, and he was about to record it under this impression. If this was a mistake, and if the record would do anything—as it clearly would—to perpetuate the error, it is easy to see a sufficient reason why the record should not be made.

5. It is remarkable that there was an entire correspondence with this in what occurred in the Reformation. Luther and his fellow-laborers were, at first and for a long time, disposed to receive the announcements of the Papacy as the oracles of God and to show them the deference due to Divine communications. Such was the force of education and the habits of reverence for Papal authority in which they had been reared.

   The language of Luther himself, if the general view taken here is correct, will be the best commentary on the expressions used here. "When I began the affairs of the Indulgences," he says, "I was a monk, and a most mad Papist. So intoxicated was I, and drenched in Papal dogmas, that I would have been most ready to murder, or assist others in murdering, any person who should have uttered a syllable against the duty of obedience to the Pope." And again: "Certainly at that time I adored him in earnest."

   He adds, "How distressed my heart was in that year 1517—how submissive to the hierarchy, not feignedly but really—those little know who at this day insult the majesty of the Pope with so much pride and arrogance. I was ignorant of many things which now, by the grace of God, I understand. I disputed; I was open to conviction. Not finding satisfaction in the works of theologians, I wished to consult the living members of the church itself. There were some godly souls that entirely approved my propositions. But I did not consider their authority of weight with me in spiritual concerns. The popes, bishops, cardinals, monks, and priests were the objects of my confidence. After being enabled to answer every objection that could be brought against me from sacred Scripture, one difficulty alone remained: that the Church ought to be obeyed. If I had then braved the Pope as I now do, I should have expected every hour that the earth would have opened to swallow me up alive, like Korah and Abiram."

   It was in this frame of mind that, in the summer of 1518, a few months after the affair with Tetzel, he wrote that memorable letter to the Pope, the tenor of which can be judged by the following sentences. What could more admirably illustrate the passage before us, on the interpretation suggested, than this language?

   "Most blessed Father! Prostrate at the feet of your blessedness I offer myself to you, with all that I am and all that I have. Kill me or make me live; call or recall; approve or reprove, as shall please you. I will acknowledge your voice as the voice of Christ presiding and speaking in you." (See the authorities for these quotations in Elliott, ii. pp. 116, 117).

6. The command not to record what the seven thunders uttered was in the nature of a caution not to regard what was said in this manner; that is, not to be deceived by these utterances as if they were the voice of God. Thus understood, if this is the proper explanation and application of the passage, it should be regarded as an injunction not to regard the decrees and decisions of the Papacy as containing any intimation of the Divine will, or as having authority in the church. That this is to be so regarded is the opinion of all Protestants; and if this is so, it is not a forced supposition that this might have been intimated by such a symbol as the one before us.

And the angel which I saw stand, etc. (Revelation 10:2). That is, John saw him standing in this posture when he made the oath that he proceeds to record.

Lifted up his hand to heaven. The usual attitude in taking an oath, as if one called heaven to witness. See Genesis 14:22; Deuteronomy 32:40; Ezekiel 20:5–6. Compare Barnes on Daniel 12:7.

Happily, we also have the means of fixing the exact date of this event, so as to make it accord with singular accuracy with the period supposed to be referred to.

The general time specified by Mr. Gibbon is A.D. 1055. This, according to the two methods referred to for determining the period embraced in an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, would reach, if the period were 391 years, to A.D. 1446; if the other method were referred to, making it 396 years and 106 days, to A.D. 1451, with 106 days added, within less than two years of the actual taking of Constantinople. But there is a more accurate calculation as to the time than the general one thus made.

In vol. iv. p. 93, Mr. Gibbon makes this remark: "Twenty-five years after the death of Basil, his successors were suddenly attacked by an unknown race of barbarians, who united the Scythian valor with the fanaticism of new proselytes, and the art and riches of a powerful monarchy." He then proceeds (p. 94 and following) with an account of the invasions of the Turks.

In vol. iii. p. 307, we have an account of the death of Basil. "In the sixty-eighth year of his age, his martial spirit urged him to embark in person for a holy war against the Saracens of Sicily; he was prevented by death, and Basil, surnamed the slayer of the Bulgarians, was dismissed from the world, with the blessings of the clergy and the curses of the people." This occurred A.D. 1025. "Twenty-five years" after this would make A.D. 1050. To this add the period here referred to, and we have respectively, as above, the years A.D. 1446, or A.D. 1451, and 106 days. Both periods are near the time of the taking of Constantinople and the downfall of the Eastern empire (A.D. 1453), and the latter strikingly so; and, considering the general nature of Mr. Gibbon's statement and the great indefiniteness of dates in chronology, may be considered remarkable.

But we have the means of a still more accurate calculation. It is by determining the exact period of the investiture of Togrul with the authority of caliph, or as the "temporal lieutenant of the vicar of the prophet." The time of this investiture, or coronation, is mentioned by Abulfeda as occurring on the 25th of Dzoulcad, in the year of the Hegira 449; and the date of Elmakin's narrative, who has given an account of this, perfectly agrees with this.

Of this transaction, Elmakin makes the following remark: "There was now none left in Irak or Chorasmia who could stand before him." The importance of this investiture will be seen from the charge which the caliph is reported by Abulfeda to have given to Togrul on this occasion: "The caliph commits to your care all that part of the world which God has committed to his care and dominion; and entrusts to you, under the name of vicegerent, the guardianship of the pious, faithful, and God-serving citizens." (Mandat Chalifa tuae curae omne id terraium quod Deus ejns curae et imperio commisit; tibique civium piorum, fidelium, Deum colentium, tutelam sublocatorio nomine demandat.) The exact time of this investiture is stated by Abulfeda, as above, to be the 25th of Dzoulcad, A.H. 449.

Now, reckoning this as the time, we have the following result: The 25th of Dzoulcad, A.H. 449, would correspond to February 2, A.D. 1058. From this to May 29, 1453, the time when Constantinople was taken, would be 395 years and 116 days. The prophetic period, as above,Isaiah 396 years and 106 days—making a difference of only 1 year and 10 days—a result that cannot but be considered remarkable, considering the difficulty of fixing ancient dates.

Or if, with Mr. Elliott (i. 495-499), we suppose that the time is to be reckoned from the period when the Turkman power went forth from Bagdad on a career of conquest, the reckoning should be from the year of the Hegira 448, the year before the formal investiture; then this would make a difference of only 24 days.

The date of that event was the tenth of Dzoulcad, A.H. 448. That was the day on which Togrul with his Turkmans, now the representative and head of the power of Islamism, quitted Bagdad to enter on a long career of war and conquest. "The part allotted to Togrul himself in the fearful drama soon to open against the Greeks was to extend and establish the Turkman dominion over the frontier countries of Irak and Mesopotamia, so that the requisite strength might be attained for the attack ordained by God's counsels against the Greek empire. The first step to this was the siege and capture of Moussul; his next was Singara. Nisibis, too, was visited by him; that frontier fortress that had in other days been so long a bulwark to the Greeks. Everywhere victory attended his banner—a presage of what was to follow."

Reckoning from that time, the coincidence between the period that elapsed from that event and the conquest of Constantinople would be 396 years and 130 days—a period that corresponds, with only a difference of 24 days, with that specified in the prophecy according to the explanation given above.

It could not be expected that a coincidence more accurate than this could be made out on the supposition that the prophecy was designed to refer to these events; and if it did refer to them, the coincidence could have occurred only as a prediction by Him who sees with perfect accuracy all the future.

The effect. This is stated in Revelation 9:20-21 to be that those who survived these plagues did not repent of their wickedness, but that the abominations which existed before still remained. In endeavoring to determine the meaning of this, it will be proper first to ascertain the exact sense of the words used, and then to inquire whether a state of things existed subsequent to the invasions of the Turks which corresponded with the description here.

The explanation of the language used in Revelation 9:20-21.

The rest of the men. That portion of the world on which these plagues did not come. One-third of the race, it is said, would fall under these calamities, and the writer now proceeds to state what would be the effect on the remainder. The language used—"the rest of the men"—is not such as to designate with certainty any particular portion of the world, but it is implied that the things mentioned were of general prevalence.

Which were not killed by these plagues. The two-thirds of the race who were spared. The language here is such as would be used on the supposition that the crimes here referred to abounded in all those regions which came within the range of the apostle's vision.

Yet repented not of the works of their hands. That is, of those things that are immediately specified.

That they should not worship devils. Implying that they practiced this before. The word used here—daimonion—means properly a god, deity (spoken of the heathen gods, Acts 17:18); then a genius, or tutelary demon (for example, that of Socrates); and, in the New Testament, a demon in the sense of an evil spirit. See the word fully explained in Barnes on 1 Corinthians 10:20.

The meaning of the passage here, as in 1 Corinthians 10:20, they sacrifice to devils, is not that they literally worshipped devils in the usual sense of that term, though it is true that such worship does exist in the world, as among the Yezidis (see Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, vol. i. pp. 225-254, and Rosenmuller, Morgenland, iii. 212-216); but that they worshipped beings which were inferior to the Supreme God: created spirits of a rank superior to men, or the spirits of men that had been enrolled among the gods.

This last was a common form of worship among the heathen, for a large portion of the gods whom they adored were heroes and benefactors who had been enrolled among the gods—as Hercules, Bacchus, etc.

All that is necessarily implied in this word is that there prevailed in the time referred to the worship of spirits inferior to God, or the worship of the spirits of departed men.

This idea would be more naturally suggested to the mind of a Greek by the use of the word than the worship of evil spirits as such—if indeed it would have conveyed that idea at all; and this word would be properly employed in the representation if there was any homage rendered to departed human spirits that came in the place of the worship of the true God.

Compare a dissertation on the meaning of the word used here, in Elliott on the Apocalypse, Appendix I. vol. ii.

And idols of gold, and silver, etc. Idols were formerly, as they are now in heathen lands, made of all these materials. The most costly would, of course, denote a higher degree of veneration for the god, or greater wealth in the worshipper, and all would be employed as symbols or representatives of the gods whom they adored.

The meaning of this passage is that there would prevail, at that time, what would be properly called idolatry, and that this would be represented by the worship paid to these images or idols.

It is not necessary to the proper understanding of this to suppose that the images or idols worshipped were acknowledged heathen idols, or were erected in honor of heathen gods, as such.

All that is implied is that there would be such images—eidōla—and that a degree of homage would be paid to them which would be in fact idolatry.

The word here used—eidōlon, eidōla—properly means an image, spectre, shade; then an idol-image, or that which was a representative of a heathen god; and then the idol-god itself—a heathen deity.

So far as the word is concerned, it may be applied to any kind of image worship.

Which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk. The common representation of idol-worship in the Scriptures, to denote its folly and stupidity. See Psalm 115; compare Isaiah 44:9-19.

Neither repented they of their murders. This implies that, at the time referred to, murders would abound; or that the times would be characterized by that which deserved to be called murder.

Nor of their sorceries. The word rendered sorceries—pharmakeia (from which our word pharmacy is derived)—means properly the preparing and giving of medicine (English: pharmacy).—Rob. Lex.

Then, as the art of medicine was supposed to have magical power, or as the persons who practiced medicine, to give themselves and their art greater importance, practiced various arts of incantation, the word came to be connected with the idea of magic, sorcery, or enchantment.

See Schleusner, Lexicon.

In the New Testament the word is never used in a good sense, as denoting the preparation of medicine, but always in this secondary sense, as denoting sorcery, magic, etc. Thus in Galatians 5:20, the works of the flesh—idolatry, witchcraft, etc. In Revelation 9:21, Of their sorceries. In Revelation 18:23, For by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. In Revelation 21:8, Whoremongers, and sorcerers.

The word does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament; and the meaning of the word would be fulfilled in anything that purposed to accomplish an object by sorcery, by magical arts, by trick, by cunning, by sleight of hand, or by deceiving the senses in any way.

Nor of their fornication. Implying that this would be a prevalent sin in the times referred to, and that the dreadful plagues which are here predicted would make no essential change in reference to its prevalence.

And of their thefts. Implying that this, too, would be a common form of iniquity. The word used here—klemma—is the common word to denote theft.

The true idea in the word is that of privately, unlawfully, and feloniously taking the goods or movables of another person. In a larger and in the popular sense, however, this word might embrace all acts of taking the property of another by dishonest arts, or on false pretense, or without an equivalent.

The next point then is the inquiry whether there was any such state of things as is specified here existing in the time of the rise of the Turkish power, and in the time of the calamities which that formidable power brought upon the world. There are two things implied in the statement here:

1. That these things had an existence before the invasion and destruction of the Eastern empire by the Turkish power; and

2. That they continued to exist after that, or were not removed by these fearful calamities.

   The supposition all along in this interpretation is that the eye of the prophet was on the Roman world, and that the design was to mark the various events that would characterize its future history.

   We look, then, in the application of this, to the state of things existing in connection with the Roman power, or that portion of the world that was then pervaded by the Roman religion.

   This will make it necessary to institute an inquiry whether the things here specified prevailed in that part of the world before the invasions of the Turks and the conquest of Constantinople, and whether the judgments inflicted by that formidable Turkish invasion made any essential change in this respect.

1. The statement that they worshipped devils; that is, as explained, demons, or the deified souls of men. Homage rendered to the spirits of departed men, and substituted in the place of the worship of the true God, would meet all that is properly implied here. We may refer, then, to the worship of saints in the Romish communion as a complete fulfillment of what is here implied in the language used by John.

   The fact cannot be disputed that the invocation of saints took the place, in the Roman Catholic communion, of the worship of sages and heroes in heathen Rome, and that the canonization of saints took the place of the ancient deification of heroes and public benefactors. The same kind of homage was rendered to them; their aid was invoked in a similar manner, and on similar occasions; the effect on the popular mind was substantially the same; and the one interfered as really as the other with the worship of the true God.

   The decrees of the seventh general council, known as the second council of Nice, A.D. 787, authorized and established the worshipping (proskuneō)—same word used here (proskunēsōsi ta daimonia)—of the saints and their images. This occurred after the exciting scenes, the debates, and the disorders produced by the Iconoclasts, or image-breakers, and after the most careful deliberation on the subject.

   In that celebrated council, it was decreed, according to Mr. Gibbon (iii. 341), "unanimously," "that the worship of images is agreeable to Scripture and reason, to the fathers and councils of the church; but they hesitate whether that worship be relative or direct; whether the Godhead and the figure of Christ be entitled to the same mode of adoration." This worship of the "saints," or prayer to the saints, asking for their intercession, it is well known has from that time everywhere prevailed in the Papal communion.

   Indeed, a large part of the actual prayers offered in their services is addressed to the Virgin Mary. Mr. Maitland, "the able and learned advocate of the Dark Ages," says, "The superstition of the age supposed the glorified saint to know what was going on in the world; and to feel a deep interest, and to possess a considerable power, in the church militant on earth. I believe that they who thought so are altogether mistaken; and I lament, abhor, and am amazed at the superstition, blasphemies, and idolatries, which have grown out of that opinion."—Elliott, ii. p. 10.

   As to the question whether this continued after the judgments brought upon the world by the hordes "loosed on the Euphrates," or whether they repented and reformed on account of the judgments, we have only to look into the Roman Catholic religion everywhere. Not only did the old practice of "daemonolatry," or the worship of departed saints, continue, but new "saints" have been added to the number, and the list of those who are to receive this homage has been continually increasing.

   Thus in the year 1460, Catharine of Sienna was canonized by Pope Pius II.; in 1482, Bonaventura, the blasphemer (In the Hereford Discussion, between the Rev. J. Venn and Rev. James Waterworth, it was admitted by the latter, an able and learned Romish priest, that Bonaventura's Psalter to the Virgin Mary, turning the addresses to God into addresses to the Virgin, was blasphemy.—Elliott, ii. 25.), by Sixtus IV.; in 1494, Anselm by Alexander VI.

   Alexander's bull, in language more heathen than Christian, avows it to be the Pope's duty thus to choose out, and to hold up the illustrious dead, as their merits claim, for adoration and worship. (Romanus Pontifex viros claros, et qui sanctimonia floruerunt, et eorum exigentibus clarissimis meritis aliorum sanctorum numero aggregari merentur-inter sanctos praedictos debet collocare, et ut sanctos ab omnibus Christi fidelibus coli, venerari, et ADORARI mandare.)

2. The statement that idolatry was practiced, and continued to be practiced, after this invasion: Repented not that they should not worship idols of gold, silver, and brass. On this point, perhaps it would be sufficient to refer to what has been already noticed regarding the homage paid to the souls of the departed; but it may be further and more clearly illustrated by a reference to the worship of images in the Romish communion.

   Anyone familiar with church history will recollect the long conflicts that prevailed respecting the worship of images; the establishment of images in the churches; the destruction of images by the "Iconoclasts;" and the debates on the subject by the council at Hiera; and the final decision in the second council of Nice, in which the propriety of image-worship was affirmed and established.

   See, on this subject, Bowers' History of the Popes, ii. 98 and following, 144 and following; Gibbon, vol. iii. pp. 322-341. The importance of the question respecting image-worship may be seen from the remarks of Mr. Gibbon, iii. 322. He speaks of it as "a question of popular superstition which produced the revolt of Italy, the temporal power of the Popes, and the restoration of the Roman empire in the West."

   A few extracts from Mr. Gibbon—who may be regarded as an impartial witness on this subject—will show what was the popular belief, and will confirm what is said in the passage before us in reference to the prevalence of idolatry. "The first introduction of a symbolic worship was in the veneration of the cross, and of relics. The saints and martyrs, when intercession was implored, were seated on the right hand of God; but the gracious, and often supernatural favours, which, in the popular belief, were showered round their tombs, conveyed an unquestionable sanction of the devout pilgrims who visited, and touched, and kissed these lifeless remains, the memorials of their merits and suffering. But a memorial, more interesting than the skull or the sandals of a departed worthy, is a faithful copy of his person and features delineated by the arts of painting or sculpture. In every age, such copies, so congenial to human feelings, have been cherished by the zeal of private friendship or public esteem; the images of the Roman emperors were adorned with civil and almost religious honours; a reverence, less ostentatious, but more sincere, was applied to the statues of sages and patriots; and these profane virtues, these splendid sins, disappeared in the presence of the holy men, who had died for their celestial and everlasting country. At first the experiment was made with caution and scruple, and the venerable pictures were discreetly allowed to instruct the ignorant, to awaken the cold, and to gratify the prejudices of the heathen proselytes. By a slow, though inevitable progression, the honours of the original were transferred to the copy; the devout Christian prayed before the image of a saint; and the Pagan rites of genuflexion, luminaries, and incense, again stole into the Catholic church. The scruples of reason or piety were silenced by the strong evidence of visions and miracles; and the pictures which speak, and move, and bleed, must be endowed with a Divine energy, and may be considered as the proper objects of religious adoration. The most audacious pencil might tremble in the rash attempt of defining, by forms and colors, the infinite Spirit, the devout Father, who pervades and sustains the universe. But the superstitious mind was more easily reconciled to paint and worship the angels, and above all, the Son of God, under the human shape, which on earth they have condescended to assume. The Second Person of the Trinity had been clothed with a real and mortal body; but that body had ascended into heaven; and if some similitude had not been presented to the eyes of his disciples, the spiritual worship of Christ might have been obliterated by the visible relics and representatives of the saints. A similar indulgence was requisite, and propitious, for the Virgin Mary; the place of her burial was unknown; and the assumption of her soul and body into heaven was adopted by the credulity of the Greeks and Latins. The use, and even the worship of images was firmly established before the end of the sixth century; they were fondly cherished by the warm imagination of the Greeks and Asiatics; the Pantheon and the Vatican were adorned with the emblems of a new superstition; but this semblance of idolatry was more coldly entertained by the rude barbarians and the Arian clergy of the West," vol. iii. p. 323.

   Again: "Before the end of the sixth century, these images, made without hands, (in Greek it is a single word—acheiropoiētos) were propagated in the camps and cities of the Eastern empire; they were the objects of worship, and the instruments of miracles; and in the hour of danger or tumult their venerable presence could revive the hope, rekindle the courage, or repress the fury of the Roman legions," vol. iii. pp. 324, 325.

   So again (vol. iii. p. 340 and following): "While the Popes established in Italy their freedom and dominion, the images, the first cause of their revolt, were restored in the Eastern empire. Under the reign of Constantine the Fifth, the union of civil and ecclesiastical power had overthrown the tree, without extirpating the root, of superstition. The idols, for such they were now held, were secretly cherished by the order and the sect most prone to devotion; and the fond alliance of the monks and females obtained a final victory over the name and the authority of man."

   Under Irene a council was convened—the second council of Nice, or the seventh general council, in which, according to Mr. Gibbon (iii. 341), it was "unanimously pronounced that the worship of images is agreeable to Scripture and reason, to the fathers and councils of the church."

   The arguments which were urged in favour of the worship of images, in the council above referred to, may be seen in Bowers' Lives of the Popes, vol. ii. pp. 152-158, Dr. Cox's edition.

   The answer of the bishops in the council to the question of the empress Irene, whether they agreed to the decision which had been adopted in the council, was in these words: "We all agree to it; we have all freely signed it; this is the faith of the apostles, of the fathers, and of the Catholic church; we all salute, honour, worship, and adore the holy and venerable images; be they accursed who do not honour, worship, and adore the adorable images."—Bowers' Lives of the Popes, ii. 159.

   As a matter of fact, therefore, no one can doubt that these images were worshipped with the honour that was due to God alone— or that the sin of idolatry prevailed; and no one can doubt that that has been continued, and is still, in the Papal communion.