Chapter X (1)

AND I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven,
clothed with a cloud; and a [317]rainbow _was_ upon his head,
and [318]his face _was_ as it were the sun, and his feet as
pillars of fire:

1. _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 (ch. viii. 2), he had seen six of them successively blow the trumpet, he now sees _another_ angel, different from them, and apparently having no connection 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――ἰσχυρὸν――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, Ex. xvi. 9, 10; xxiv. 16; xxxiv. 5; Nu. xi. 25; 1 Ki. viii. 10; Ps. xcvii. 2. The Saviour also ascended in a cloud, Ac. i. 9; and he will again descend in clouds to judge the world, Mat. xxiv. 30; xxvi. 64; Mar. xiii. 26; Re. i. 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 {250} majesty as the messenger of God. ¶ _And a rainbow |was| upon his head._ In ch. iv. 3 the throne in heaven is represented as encircled by a rainbow. See Notes on that verse. 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 (Notes, ch. i. 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 Notes on ch. i. 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――on 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 already, 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. Notes, ch. ix. 20, 21. 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 anyone 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, ch. 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 {251} 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.

2 And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his
right foot upon the sea, and _his_ left _foot_ on the earth,

2. _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 significancy of the emblem. (1) _The little book._ The word used here――βιβλαρίδιον――occurs nowhere else in the New Testament except in ver. 8, 9, 10 of this chapter. The word βιβλίον――_book_――occurs frequently:――Mat. xix. 7; Mar. x. 4――applied to a bill of divorcement; Lu. iv. 17, 20; Jn. xx. 30; xxi. 25; Ga. iii. 10; 2 Ti. iv. 13; He. ix. 19; x. 7. In the Apocalypse this word is of common occurrence: ch. i. 11; v. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9; vi. 14, rendered _scroll_; xvii. 8; xx. 12; xxi. 27; xxii. 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 ch. v. 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, ver. 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 Ki. xi. 12; 2 Ch. xxiii. 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 ch. vi. 2, _a bow_――emblem of conquest; or ver. 4, _a sword_――emblem of battle; or ver. 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_”――ἀνεῳγμένον. The word here used means, properly, to open or unclose in respect to that which was {252} before fastened or sealed, as that which is covered by a door, Mat. ii. 11; tombs, which were closed by large stones, Mat. xxvii. 60, 66; a gate, Ac. v. 23; xii. 10; the abyss, Re. ix. 2――“since in the east pits or wells are closed with large stones, comp. Ge. xxix. 2” (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. Comp. for the use of the word rendered _open_, Re. iii. 8, 20; iv. 1; v. 2, 3, 4, 5, 9; vi. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12; viii. 1; ix. 2; x. 28; xi. 19; xx. 12. This would find a fulfilment if some such facts as the following should occur:――(a) 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 (b) 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 endeavour 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; and 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; had passed from the schools to the university of Erfurt, and 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 honour and emolument of the world, he appeared to have been prepared to play an important part on 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. There he found a _Bible_――a copy of the Vulgate――hid in the shelves of the university library. Till then he had supposed that there existed no other Gospels or Epistles than what were given in the Breviary, or quoted by the preachers.[319] 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-labourers 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 till then be regarded as an _open_ volume. (a) 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 {253} 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,” &c. 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. (b) 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 (a) 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; and 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. (b) 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. And (c) 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 {254} 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 on 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 fulfilment 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,” 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.

3 And cried with a loud voice, as _when_ a lion roareth: and
when he had cried, seven [320]thunders uttered their voices.

3. _And cried with a loud voice, as |when| a lion roareth._ The lion is the monarch of the woods, and his 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 of 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, awaking 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 {255} themselves had been the bearers of them to all men_.” To John it might not be known beforehand――as it probably would not be――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._ 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 [ver. 3, 4]. Were the seven thunders anything well known and pre-eminent? If not, the omission must be right in the former instance, but wrong in the latter; if they were pre-eminent, then is it wrong in both. Bengel omits the article in ver. 3, but has it in ver. 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 _Greek 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. Comp. Notes on ch. viii. 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 pre-eminence 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 (a) 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 (b) 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 as 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; and 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:――(a) 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. (b) 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.” (c) 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. Comp. ch. xvii. 9. (d) This supposition, {256} 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. (e) 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.

4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was
about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me,
[321]Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered,
and write them not.

4. _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._ That is, he was about to record what was uttered, supposing that that 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 that John wrote down what he saw and heard as soon as practicable, and in the place where he was; and 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 unto me._ Evidently the voice of God: at all events it came with the clear force of command. ¶ _Seal up those things._ On the word _seal_, see Notes on ch. v. 1. The meaning here is, that he was not to record those things, but what he heard he was to keep to himself _as if_ it was placed under a seal which 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 to have been that a more full statement would have diverted the mind from the course of the prophetic narrative, and from more important events which pertained to the church, and that nothing occurred in the Crusades which was worthy to be recorded at length: Nec dignæ erant quæ 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, and that the meaning is not that he 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, because it was the design that the wise should be able to understand them, but that they were not to be disclosed to the wicked and profane. Without attempting to examine these and other solutions which have been proposed, the question which, from the course of the exposition, is properly before us is, whether, on the supposition that the voice of the seven thunders referred to the Papal anathemas, a rational and satisfactory solution of the reasons of this silence can be given. Without pretending to _know_ the reasons which existed, the following may be referred to as not improbable, and as those which would meet the case:――(1) In these Papal anathemas there was nothing that was _worthy_ of record; there was nothing that was important as history; there was nothing that communicated {257} truth; there was nothing that really indicated _progress_ in human affairs. In themselves there was nothing more that deserved _record_ than the acts and doings of wicked men at any time; nothing that fell in with the main design of this book. (2) Such a record would have retarded the progress of the main statements of what was to occur, and would have turned off the 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 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 who were engaged in it. (4) John evidently _mistook_ this for a real revelation, or for something that was to be recorded as connected with the divine will in reference to the progress of human affairs. He was naturally about to record this as he did what was uttered by the other voices which he heard; and 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; in the fact that Luther and his fellow-labourers were, at first, and for a long time――such was the force of education, and of the habits of reverence for the Papal authority in which they had been reared――disposed to receive the announcements of the Papacy as the oracles of God, and to show to them the deference which was due to divine communications. The language of Luther himself, if the general view here taken is correct, will be the best commentary on the expressions here used. “When I began the affairs of the Indulgences,” says he, “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 knew 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, 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 of by the following sentences: and what could more admirably illustrate the passage before us, on the interpretation suggested, than this language? “Most blessed Father! Prostrate at the feet of thy blessedness I offer myself to thee, with all that I am, and that I have. Kill me, or make me live; call or recall; approve or reprove, as shall please thee. I will acknowledge _thy voice as the voice of Christ_ presiding and speaking in thee.” See the authorities for these quotations in Elliott, vol. ii. pp. 116, 117. (6) The command _not_ to record what the seven thunders uttered was of 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 of 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 {258} that this might have been intimated by such a symbol as that before us.

5 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the
earth [322]lifted up his hand to heaven,

5. _And the angel which I saw stand_, &c. Ver. 2. That is, John saw him standing in this posture when he made the oath which 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 Ge. xiv. 22; De. xxxii. 40; Eze. xx. 5, 6. Comp. Notes on Da. xii. 7.

6 And sware by [323]him that liveth for ever and ever, who
created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth,
and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things
which are therein, [324]that there should be time no longer: