Imagini ale paginilor

space immediately above Patmos, into which John was taken in the Spirit, was simply as a place—because God revealed himself there, and was worshipped—a symbol of the church on earth ; then Patmos, in which Christ revealed himself to John, was a symbol of the church. But the supposition that that desert island was a symbol of the church is confuted by the fact that the seven golden candlesticks in the midst of which Christ stood were symbols of the churches. Were the places in which Daniel beheld his visions of the great image, the wild beasts, and the ram and goat, symbols of the church? Why not, on Mr. G.'s theory? The assumption, indeed, on which Mr. Gascorne proceeds, implies, moreover, that Eden, also, in which God revealed himself to our first parents, the burning bush in which he appeared to Moses, and the flaming fire of Sinai, in which he manifested himself to the Israelites, were symbols of the church, although they were not the scene of symbolic prophecies. For, if the mere fact that God manifests himself in a place, and is worshipped in it—which is all Mr. Gascoyne has to support his theory that heaven in these visions is symbolical—is a proof that it is a symbol of the church, Eden, Horeb, and Sinai must have been symbols of the church as much as heaven was, or Patmos, which is groundless and absurd.

How could Eden, while the scene of unsullied innocence, be the symbol of human beings under the pollution and defacement of sin? How could Mount Sinai, clad at once in darkness and in fire, and resounding with the thunder of Jehovah's voice, be the symbol of the Israelites in the plain beneath, to whom it was death to approach the mount, and who were trembling and recoiling at those signals of the divine presence? What analogy was there between the barren isle of Patmos, to which the objects of imperial vengeance were exiled as a punishment, and the heaven in which Jehovah unveiled himself in glory and grace to the apostle? The fancy that the scenes in which he has manifested himself in our world, or our atmosphere, fill any such symbolic office, is wholly unauthorized and preposterous.

2. He founds his construction, however, partly on the assumption that it was not in mere space, but in a temple in the heavens modelled after the temple at Jerusalem that

God revealed himself in the visions. Inasınuch as the Israelitish temple was the scene in which God dwelt and revealed himself to Israel, he assumes that that supposed heavenly ternple, was a symbol of the church in which he dwells and manifests himself on earth. But in this also he is mistaken.

The apostle does not represent the Almighty as enthroned in a temple, nor indicate in his description of the scenery of the fourth and fifth chapters, that such a structure was embraced in the vision. His language is, “ Behold there was a throne set in heaven,"—not in a temple—“and upon the throne there was one who sat, and before the throne was a sea of glass, like unto crystal ;" that is, a pavement of glass, like a sea in extent, and like glass in the resplendence of the tints it reflected. As there were more than four hundred, perhaps many thousands of millions of angels stationed on that pavement in a halt circle in front of the throne, its area must have been immense; and as Jehovah who was seated on the throne, the living creatures, the elders and the angels were beheld by the prophet, while at the same time the earth, on which the symbols of the seals and trumpets were exhibited, was visible to him, it is apparent that the scene must have been the open heaven, not the interior of a temple. And this is indicated also by the rainbow, that was round about, that is, arched over the throne, as a rainbow would be natural only under the cope of heaven. It is indicated, indeed, under the fifth and seventh seals, that an altar was embraced in the vision ; but it was probably the altar of sacrifice, which stood not in the temple but in front of it. That a temple was embraced in the vision at a later period, is clear: chap. xi. 19; but that it was opened at that epoch, the sounding of the seventh trumpet, so that the ark of the covenant was seen in it, implies that it had not been opened at any earlier stage of the visions.

Mr. Gascoyne is not justitied therefore in assuining that the scene in which God appeared enthroned, received the worship of the beings by whom he was surrounded, and made his revelations under the seals and trumpets, was a temple. The whole basis on which he founds his construction is thus an unauthorized and gratuitous postulate.


On the supposition, however, that the scene of the reve. lation was a temple in heaven, it would form no ground whatever for the construction Mr. Gascoyne places on it. The fact that the scene or place in which God revealed himself at Jerusalem, was a real temple, surely does not prove nor imply, that the scene in which he revealed himself to the apostle, was a type of the church on earth. For that temple was not the type of the church on earth. It was the place in which God manifested himself to the church on earth, and the church received those manifestations of his presence and paid him its worship. So far as it was a type, it was a type of the heavenly temple, not of earthly worshippers. If the fact that the place in which God revealed himself at Jerusalem was a temple, proved any thing therefore in regard to the scene in which he revealed himself to the apostle in heaven, it would prove simply that that scene was a real temple, like the earthly structure that was formed after it; not that it was a type of the church on earth. In assuming that it was a symbol of the church on earth, Mr. Gascoyne reverses the scriptural representation that the tabernacle and temple were made after the pattern of heavenly things and were types of them; not the heavenly things types of the earthly.

3. He regards his construction as justified by Paul's denominating the believers at Corinth and the body of each believer, the temple of God. But even on the supposition that the scene of the revelation was a temple in heaven, it yields it po support. For it is only by a metaphor that each believer's body, and the body of believers at Corinth, were called the temple of God, because the Spirit of God dwelt in them: It no more follows from that that the supposed temple in heaven is a symbol of the church at large on earth, or any part of it, than from the fact that God is said to inhabit eternity, as though it were a place, it follows that the temple in hearen is a symbol of eternity. That a slight resemblance subsists between individual believers and a group of believers, and the temple in heaven-as a residence of God, a scene in which he reveals himself—is no more ground for assuming that that temple is a type of the church and each believer, than it is that it is a type

of any other of the thousands and myriads of scenes in which the Spirit of God dwells and exerts his infinite power. He enters at times into the minds of the unbelieving, awakening, convincing them of sin, and disclosing to them the way of salvation. Is the temple in heaven for that reason a type of such sinners? He at all times fills the universe with his presence. Is the universe therefore a type of the church, and of each individual believer? What can be more inconsiderate and unwarrantable than thus to confound a mere resemblance in a single particular, with the representative office of a symbol, which requires a general analogy? But his assumption from the fact that the church at Corinth, and each individual in it, is said to be the temple of God, that the supposed temple in the visions is the symbol of the church, if legitimate, wonld prove too much and confute his theory. For if, as he assumes, that supposed temple was the symbol of the church on earth ; and if, as he maintains, the church which it symbolized was an apostate church ; then it would follow that every individual of the church, as well as the church generally, was an apostate, and thence that no true worshippers have existed on the earth, from the opening of the first seal to the present hour. For it was in the scene of the vision of the fourth and fifth chapters which Mr. G. holds was the temple in heaven, that all the seals were opened, and from that scene that all the angels proceeded that sounded the trumpets. But the supposition that there has been no true church and no true believer on the earth since the opening of the first seal—which Mr. Gascoyne holds was in the fourth century--is inconsistent with the prophecy, which exhibits a body of true worshippers and witnesses, as subsisting at every period, though persecuted and compelled to fly to the seclusion of the wilderness for safety. It is also against his own theory. The supposition indeed that the Spirit of God dwells in an apostate church, as he dwells in heaven-is false in the utmost degree and revolting. Does he dwell in the fanes of idols? Is Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, and doomed for her sins to eternal perdition, the temple of his residence ? Mr. Gascoyne cannot have discerned the real import of his theory.

4. His construction implies that God's visible manifestation of himself in the supposed temple in heaven, was a symbol of a visible manifestation of himself in the church on earth. For if the alleged temple in heaven was the symbol of the church on earth, then the agents—God and creatures who appeared in the temple in heaven, must be symbols of agents who were to appear in the church on earth, and the acts they exerted in heaven, symbols of acts that were to be exerted by them, or those whom they symbolized in the church on earth. If God's visible manifestation of himself is a symbol of a manifestation of himself --it must be a symbol of a visible manifestation. Otherwise, instead of a correspondence, there would be total unlikeness. There is no analogy between a manifestation and concealment, between a dazzling visibleness, and absolute invisibleness. But God made no visible manifestation of himself in the church in the fourth and following centuries, when, according to Mr. G., the revelations that were made in the temple in heaven were accomplishing, nor at any time during the long series of ages that followed. Mr. Gi's construction is therefore mistaken.

5. His theory implies, moreover, that the exact revelation made in the alleged heavenly temple in the visions, was made also in the church on earth at the periods to which they severally refer. For if the temple in heaven is a symbol of the church on earth; and God, the living creatures, elders, and angels in that temple, symbols of God, and other agents in the church on earth, then the acts of God, and of the living creatures, elders, and angels, in the heavenly temple, must be symbols of their acts, or the acts of those whom they represent in the church on earth : and thence the greatest of the acts in the heavenly temple—the revelation of the future through the seals, trumpets, and other symbols, must represent the like revelation of the future in the church on earth. There is no escape from this conclusion. Mr. Gascoyne indeed admits it in a measure ; in holding that many of the acts of the living creatures, elders, and angels, are symbolic of acts that were to be exerted by the church on earth. But if they were symbols of persons in the church on earth, and most of their acts symbols of acts of those in the church whom they represent

, then

« ÎnapoiContinuați »