66

ancient writers are not agreed with respect to the time when the Apocalypse was written; for though Irenæus says it was written (πρὸς τῷ τελεὶ τὴς Δου μeтiavo άgxãs,)" at the end of Domitian's reign;"* yet Epiphanius asserts it was written in the reign of the emperor Claudius; † and the churches of Syria have thus inscribed their version, "The Revelation made to John the Evangelist by God in the island of Patmos into which he was banished by Nero the Cæsar." The great uncertainty, therefore, in this point is a sufficient refutation of Lord Napeir's opinion; for it is totally incredible that such an important part of the description of the Beast, as the one we are now considering, should be suffered to rest upon such doubtful history. Secondly, it is the Beast that was, and is not, and yet is; therefore an interregnum cannot be alluded to, for the Beast is an empire, and not an emperor or emperors. Mr. Mede's interpretation is as follows: "The beast that had already been in the course of five of his heads, was not then in that state of sovereignty in which the whore should ride him; and yet was even then (in St. John's time) in present being in the sixth head, the Cæsars then reigning."§ This is also ingenious, but upon examination will be found not to comport with the words of the text. For the text does not say, that the Beast

* Adversus Hæreses, Lib. v. c. 30.

+ See Bishop Newton's Dissertation on the Prophecies, in Apoc. i. + Ibid.

See his Works, p. 922, Edit. Lond. 1662.

was not then in that state in which the Whore should ride him, but absolutely was not, that is, had no existence in the time of St. John. Fr. Junius's gloss upon the phrase, "The beast that was, and is not, and yet is," is to the following effect: by the Beast, understanding the Roman empire, he thus comments upon it: "It was in the kindred or house of Julius; and now it is not in that kindred, having been translated into another at the death of Nero yet the family that at present occupies the throne of the Cæsars shall soon pass away, and another family be raised to the imperial dignity; and yet it is the same beast still, for though different families have had dominion over the Romans, yet each monarch has had equal power with any of his predecessors; and through these various mutations of ruling families, the Roman empire has nevertheless continued to be as extensive and as powerful as in the time of Augustus."* This opinion is overthrown by the consideration that the phrase was, is not, and yet is, is in reference to the empire, and not to the imperial families. Dr. Johnston's comment upon this text is as follows: "He was, before John's day, in the imperial and other preceding heads of Roman government. He is not in John's day, in his public and visible character as the Papal and last head of Roman government: yet in another sense he then actually existed. That spiritual pride, ambition, desire of pre-eminence,

* See Thomson's English Bible, in loc.

fondness for abrogated and uninstituted modes o religious worship, implicit attachment to men's persons, and the robbing Christ of his real glory, which are the essential qualities of the Papal constitution, were in the world, and had discovered many symptoms of their existence in the apostolic age. Hence, in this view, John, the last of the apostles, could say of the Beast,' He is.' To this purpose John thus expresses himself, in his first Epistle, chap. iv. 5. And this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof you have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world.' By the influence of Satan these essential qualities of Antichrist were nourished and gradually strengthened in the world, even in the apostolic age. In a succeeding period, they were to become more visible; when that person, the constitution of whose government should be made up of them, should be raised to his throne. But before he could be raised to his throne, it must be left vacant by the demise of that king who then possessed it."* This appears to have considerably more evidence in it than the preceding; yet, it is subject to a similar objection, viz. that it is an empire, and not the spirit of Antichrist, which was, is not, and yet is. Another interpretation of the passage is the following, upon the supposition that the words are in reference to the Roman pontificate. The office of Pontifex Maximus was separate from the Roman

* See his. Commentary on the Revelation, in loc.

*

civil power, previously to the imperial government; is not a separate office, because at present absorbed in the imperial power, the Roman monarch being. Pontifex Maximus as well as Imperator; but shall again be separated from the civil power in the time of the Papacy, when the Pope will assume that title; and yet is, for though the office be not separate, yet it is still retained in the person of the emperor. This is extremely ingenious, and is one of the best I have met with. Its grand error lies in considering the Pontificate the Beast, instead of the different monarchies in communion with the church of Rome. But the opinion which is most generally received, is that given by Dr. Henry ` More, and adopted by Bishop Newton and others. It is as follows: "The Roman empire, which is understood by the beast with seven heads and ten horns, is represented here under such a state and condition, that at some time it might be said truly of it in its prefiguration that it is the beast that was and is not; which was only true in the time of pure Christianity obtaining in the empire, that is, from Constantine's time, suppose, to the apostasie of the church into Antichristianism or idolatry. For the beast is the empire idolatrizing, which idolatrizing empire ceased to be in the reign of the pure Christian Cæsars but being there, would be an apostasie again into a kind of Pagano-Christian idolatry in the empire, and so the empire become a beast

*See Poli Synopsis Criticorum, in loc.

again; it is therefore called the Beast that was, namely, under the Paganical idolatry, but is not, namely, in that time that pure Christianity is the religion of the empire, but should be afterwards, which is expressed by, And shall ascend out of the bottomless pit. The empire becoming PaganoChristian, and exercising their idolatry upon other objects than the old Pagans did, could not properly be said to be the same Pagan empire revived again, but rather the image thereof, that is, an idolatrous empire, bearing an analogie or similitude to the old Pagan idolatrous empire, in a manner in all their strokes of idolatry. From whence it is rightly termed that was, as being idolatrous, as the Pagan empire; and is not, that is to say, is not that very Pagan empire, their idolatry having now new objects; and yet is, (viz.) because the idolatry is the same though disguised under new titles and objects." This opinion seems to me much more exceptionable than the preceding. In the first place, it does not explain the phrase was, and is not, in any probable sense; for the words were evidently spoken to St. John, by the angel, in reference to the time in which the apostle lived; but the Roman empire was in its Pagan state till the time of Constantine, which was long after that of St. John, therefore the words cannot be taken in the sense of Dr. More. Secondly, the words and yet is, must be understood of the time of St. John,

*See his Apocalypsis Apocalypsews, in loc.