Augustine's time (about A. D. 400), we find the same views still cherished, August. De Civit. Dei, XX. 19.

The question is not now, at least with me it is not, whether the writer of the Apocalypse did himself participate in this vulgar belief respecting Nero's reappearance. I have no apprehension that he cherished such views as these; certainly not, if he were (as I believe) an inspired

My apprehension is, that in describing the beast, i. e. Nero, instead of calling him by name, (which would have been, in connection with what he said, a treasonable offence), he has adverted to him as the person respecting whom the reports in question were current, and purposely adverted to him in such a way, in order that his readers might easily know who was meant.

Several circumstances serve to confirm this view of the case. After describing the beast whose deadly wound was healed, in Rev. 13: 3-8, he adds immediately: "If any man has an ear, let him hear," i. e. let the reader very attentively consider who is meant in this case. He then subjoins : "If any one leads into exile, he shall go away into exile;" Rev. 13:10. In other words: 'He of whom I have been speaking, is the individual who exiles Christians; but mark well! He shall himself speedily be exiled." In chap. XVII., the effort to guide his readers and put them on their guard against an erroneous construction of his words, is still more visible. After speaking of "the beast which was, and is not, and will come up from the abyss,” he exclaims : Ωδε ὁ νοῦς ὁ ἔχων σοφίαν, here is a meaning which comprises wisdom." In other words: Some special sagacity is needed in the interpretation of this passage.

By speaking in this way does not John show, that he does not expect his words, i. e. his description of the beast, to be understood as if he employed them simply to express

his own individual belief, but only that he introduces upon the scene the person of whom such things are reported, viz., such as that his deadly wound is healed, and that he will again resume his imperial power?

Is there any more difficulty in such a supposition, than there is when the Saviour says to the Pharisees: "If I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out?" Matt. 12: 27. Is there any more, than when Jesus speaks of "unclean spirits as walking through desert places, seeking rest and finding none?" Matt. 12: 43. In both cases the popular opinion is cited, without any remark whether it is true or untrue. The speaker had

another and different purpose in view. So here; John's object was secretly to intimate to his readers, who was meant by the beast; and in order to accomplish this object, he has repeated those things which popular rumor had spread abroad respecting him, or at least alluded to them. But, as I have already noted, he has taken care in each case, to give a caution to his readers how they interpret this, or what use they make of it. On any other ground, why should these cautions be inserted in these particular places, and omitted in all the other symbolical parts of the Apocalypse?

If the reader is satisfied, with me, that John might describe Nero in this way, it will be easy to show him how well the description comports with the substance of the common rumor. According to this, Nero was to be assassinated, and to receive a wound apparently deadly, and yet to recover from it. So says Rev. 13: 3, "One of the heads [i. e. Nero] was smitten as it were unto death, and yet his deadly wound was healed." What can be more exact? To detail the widely diverse, contradictory, and ineffectual efforts that have been made to explain and apply this in a different way, would occupy too much time here, and there

fore be incompatible with my design. The most ingenious among them is that of Bertholdt, who supposes Julius Caesar (who was assassinated) to have been the head that received the wound. But a conclusive objection to this is, that not only was his wound not healed, but there was not any report abroad that it was healed. Another conclusive objection is, that the head which was wounded is described, in the sequel, as persecuting Christianity. This could not be true of Julius Caesar, who perished half a century before the Christian era.

Common report made Nero, after reigning a while, to disappear for some time, then to make his appearance again, as if he had come up from the region of the dead, and finally to perish. So Rev. 17: 8, "The beast which thou sawest, was, and is not, and will come up from the abyss [the world of the dead, or the grave], and go to destruction." To the same purpose exactly is the last clause of the verse just quoted: "Beholding the beast, that he was, and is not, and will make his appearance, nάgeσrai.” In v. 11 of the same chapter, a kind of paradoxical description is given of this same beast: "The beast which was, and is not, even he is an eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth to destruction." This passage resisted all the efforts of commentators, before they began to follow in the path where the history of Nero's times led them. Now it becomes comparatively easy. Nero, who at first was emperor, then was deposed and assassinated, and afterwards was, according to general belief, to appear again, would on his reappearance, make an eighth (öydoos, not ööydoos); while, at the same time, Nero had already been reckoned as one of the seven, and in fact belonged to them. If the reader will compare this part of v. 11, with the expressions "will come up from the abyss"-"xai лágeσrαι, and will make his appearance"—in v. 8, he will see that

all three expressions are only diverse modes of designating one and the same thing. To say that he, "who had been one of the seven," will be an eighth, is of course the same as to say, that he will reappear, and stand again in his former place. This, according to all but universal report and belief, Nero was expected to do.

So paradoxical are all other interpretations of this passage, or so arbitrary, so conjectural, so diverse, and therefore unsatisfactory, that one is constrained to wonder how critics could have ever acquiesced in them. But in the interpretation of any book, where the reins are given without check to fancy and imagination, difficulties of this kind are leaped over instead of being removed.

Enough to show the probability, I might almost say the certainty, that Nero is aimed at in this part of the Apocalypse. This supposed, all the difficulties of the writer's language appear to be solved, and every thing moves on harmoniously.

We return then to our principal theme, viz. the designations of time in the book before us.

To the beast, which we have just endeavoured to describe," is given power to do [his own will] forty and two months;" Rev. 13: 5. The context shows that the power and will in question have respect to the persecuting of Christians. Bitter and bloody was this persecution; but it was to last only 31⁄2 years.

Turn we now to the pages of history, and we shall find that Nero commenced his horrible persecutions of Christians, about the middle or in the latter part of Nov. A. D. 64. All agree that this persecution ended immediately on the death of Nero; and this took place on the day that Galba entered Rome and was proclaimed emperor, i. e. on the 9th of June, A. D. 68. Here then is the often repeated and peculiar period of 3 years, being only a few days of

excess beyond that measure of time. By this small excess of only a few days, no one of course can be stumbled; for how is it reasonable to suppose, that in respect to a celebrated period, so often repeated and already become so famous, a statistical exactness would or could be aimed at? Enough that only a few days at most can be considered as supernumerary.

Thus becomes apparent the truth of the writer's most solemn declarations, both in his prologue and epilogue, that the time is short or near, when what. is predicted will take place. It is not necessary, as we have already seen, to suppose that these declarations pertain to any more than the leading and essential parts of the book; but so much as this we must suppose, in order to elicit from them any thing like their real meaning. The views which I have given above, aim at interpreting the book in consistency with those declarations. They do so by appeal to historical facts-facts which evidently accord with the spirit and language of the book.

In order to prevent all misconception of my meaning, I must here suggest, that while the destruction of the beast is by implication predicted in Rev. 13: 5, as taking place after forty-two months, and thus relief and deliverance as being given to the church, yet the manner in which the second catastrophe in the Apocalypse, viz. what is contained in chap. XII-XIX., is presented, makes on the whole the distinct impression, that the first routing of the beast or destruction of Nero, does not complete the whole of the catastrophe. Let the reader compare the 16th chap., specially the close of it, with chap. xvIII. xIx., and he will easily discern, that although the beast of John's time is destroyed, and thus the heathen persecuting power paralyzed for a time, yet the writer evidently supposes the contest not to be wholly at an end, but continued for a period