Roman kingdom, when dissolved into ten.-The second Beast's two horns like a lamb he explains as indicating a show of piety, and pretence of being a lamb, when in fact a wolf.—The Image of the Beast he supposes to be literally meant of images, through which the Devil would speak, as by the heathen idols.-Antichrist's miracles he explains as impostures: his name, with the number 666, as perhaps (besides Hippolytus λαμπετις and βενεδικτος, or αμνος αδικος) the Persian word Σαρμναιος : a name evidently meant to be written Σαρμνεος,1 as so only its number is 666; but the intent of which is not to myself intelligible.—With regard to the Harlot seated on the Beast in Apoc. xvii, he observes that Rome had been judged by the earlier fathers to be the city intended, because of its being on seven hills: but objects its having then for some time lost its imperial majesty ; unless indeed, says he very remarkably, this should some way be restored to her. Also he notices the fact of Jerusalem being called a harlot; and the special fitness of the Persian capital to be called Babylon. "Drunk with the blood of saints" applied alike, he says, to Old Rome, from Nero to Diocletian; to New Rome, or Constantinople, under Julian and the Arian Emperors; and to the Persian capital; for who can tell the sufferings of the saints in Persia ?—The "Beast that was, and is not, vet shall be," he explains to signify the Devil, broken by Christ's death, and sent into the abyss, yet fated at length to revive in Antichrist. The Beast's seven heads he interprets, as meaning the seven successive seats of the world's supremacy, Nineveh, Ecbatana, Babylon, Susa, Pella, Rome, Constantinople: or perhaps, as Hippolytus, seven ages: the seventh, in either case, not having come in St. John's time. The Beast, or Beast's eighth head, is Antichrist; called " one of the seven," because" ab uno ex illis prognatus." For he is to perish not as a foreigner, but as king of the Romans. The ten horns that were to reign one hour with the Beast, he identifies with Daniel's ten horns: and construes the one hour very singularly as perhaps a quarter of a year: I presume because άp in Greek means sometimes one of the year's four seasons.

Reverting to Apoc. xiv, I may observe that Andreas views the 144,000 with Christ on the Mount Zion (or Christian Jerusalem) as 1 So they numbered aprovuaι as if written apvoupe; (see p. 342, Note 3 ;) the pronunciation of the ai and being then, I presume, the same; just as now among the modern Greeks.

probably different from those of Apoc. vii, because of their being noted (which the others are not) as virgins. The earth's harvest in the same chapter, he makes to be Christ's gathering of the good, while the vintage is of the bad. Then, advancing to the Vials in Apoc. xv, xvi, he explains the harpers by the glassy sea to be the saved ones; and the glassy sea itself, mixed with fire, to symbolize their tranquil happy state, yet as those that had been saved as by fire: the song of Moses being that sung by the saved ones of the Old Testament dispensation, that of the Lamb by the saved ones of the New. The statement that none might enter the temple till the plagues of the seven Vial-Angels' had been fulfilled, he expounds to mean that the saints might not enter on the inheritance of the New Jerusalem, till after the finishing of God's indignation against the wicked. The plague of the first Vial he makes to be the inward corroding ulcer of heart-grief at the plague suffered; and perhaps also literally outward ulcers, the fit symbol of that within. Again, the statement under the sixth Vial respecting the way of the kings from the East being prepared, he expounds as meaning that a way would be opened for Gog and Magog to come across the Euphrates ; or perhaps Antichrist, with other kings from the East, bringing death with them, whether to men's souls, or bodies, or both. The pouring out of the seventh Vial into the air, he supposes to indicate lightnings and elemental convulsions, such as once at Mount Sinai; in fulfilment of Heb. xii. 27, " Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven."-As to the great city tripartited as the result of this seventh Vial's outpouring, he judges it to be Jerusalem, great from its religious celebrity, rather than from its actual extent; and which is then and thereupon to be divided in respect of its population, into Christians, Jews, and Samaritans.

I need only add that as to the millennium, he explains it anagogically, as Augustine: notes there being two deaths, that of the flesh and of sin temporary, that of hell eternal: also two resurrections; that by baptism, and that to incorruption; the first, and its accompanying millennial rule of the saints over sin and Satan, being but an introduction to the other.-Gog and Magog meant the Scythian or Hunnish nations; even in Andreas' time a mighty power, In referring to the dress ascribed to the Vial-angels, he follows the curious reading f λιθον instead of λινον ; “ Clothed in stone pure and white."

and only restrained by God till the time of Antichrist: that these will, on Antichrist's coming, gain the empire of the world; surround the Church, or camp of the saints; and even assail the New Jerusalem, the city loved by God, whence the Gospel went forth.-The Heavenly Jerusalem he explains as the body of saints of which Christ is the head: the state, one of perfect union, many mansions, and eternal joy; its full fruition taking place not till after the saints rising again. Such expressions as that the nations of the earth bring their glory into it, he seems to explain of the Church's previous earthly state, during which the draftings are taking place of the elect out of the world, and so the New Jerusalem forming.—Let me observe in fine that there is an air of much piety in this Commentary. I may exemplify in his almost closing remark, on the sin of adding to, or taking from, divine Scripture,2 Apoc. xxii. 18, 19. Andreas waxes quite warm in speaking of the superiority of Scriptural to all classical or dialectic knowledge.3

Arethas, a successor of Andreas in the Bishopric of Cæsarea, was his follower also in great measure in the Commentary that he wrote on the Apocalypse. Thus much he tells us himself.4 Respecting his date there seems to me to have been a considerable mistake, on the part of most that have expressed an opinion about it. Alike Coccius, the Editor of the B. P. M. (which work gives a Latin translation of Arethas' Commentary in its ixth Volume,5) and

1 Professor M. Stuart is quite mistaken in supposing Andreas to view it simply as a state of the Church's earthly prosperity. Thus e. g. on the call on all to praise God, both small and great, in Apoc. xix. 5, just preparatorily to the introduction of the New Jerusalem, Andreas says, with reference to such as have died young; "Existimo illos novissimo illo die magnos resurrecturos, Deumque cùm cæteris beatis laudaturos." 2 So Andreas understands the passage; and not as referring simply to taking from, or adding to, the Book of the Apocalypse.

3. Quantum autem intervalium inter eos qui apud nos celebres extiterant, (viz. the Evangelists and Apostles,) et eos qui apud illos, intercedat, id mente complecti vix valemus." B. P. M. 634.

On Apoc. viii, speaking of the incense-Angel, he says; "Huic Angelo Andreas, qui antè me dignè Cæsarea Cappadocia Episcopatum sortitus est, quemque Pontificem assimilat." And the heading of his Commentary in the Latin translation, and I presume in the original Greek also, is as follows:-" Aretæ, Cæsarea Cappadocia Episcopi, in D. Joannis Apocalypsim compendiaria explanatio, ex beatissimi Andreæ Archiepiscopi Cæsarea Cappadocia, Deo gratis, commentariis concinnata." Dupin is evidently mistaken in saying that there is no ground for regarding this Arethas as a Bishop of Cæsarea. 5 Pp. 741-791.

Cave too, and Lardner, and just recently Professor M. Stuart 1 assign to him the date of A.D. 540 or 550. On the other hand Casimir Oudin and Fabricius incline to identify him with a Presbyter of the same Cappadocian Cæsarea, of the name Arethas, who, about A.D. 920, translated a work of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Euthymius. But, says Cave, Oudin had no argument or evidence to adduce in favour of his conjecture. Nor indeed Fabricius either; if (not having access to his work) I may judge from the reference to him in Lardner.3 I have observed, however, very decisive evidence in the Commentary itself, of Arethas having lived as late at least as near the end of the eighth century. For he speaks of the capital and palace of the Saracens as being then still at Babylon, evidently meaning Bagdad: 4-a capital not built till A.D. 762;5 and where the Saracen Caliphs continued to hold a waning empire through the ninth century, till its extinction, A.D. 934 by the Bowides. A curious reference to Constantinople, which will be found in my page 360 following, may possibly appear to furnish a further indication. The identity of our Cæsarean Bishop with the Cæsarean Presbyter that translated Euthymius, seems to me doubtful. But I think we can scarcely err in reckoning his date as somewhere within the limits of from about A.D. 780 to A.D. 920.

In the heading of his Apocalyptic Commentary there is, as hinted by me just before, an intimation of its having been very much taken from that of Andreas. He almost always indeed gives the opinions of the latter sometimes in the form of direct quotation, and by name; more often silently. Hence it is only the chief variations from Andreas that need here to be noticed. And these are as follows.

Under the Sixth Seal he singularly explains the earthquake, &c., there figured, of the literal earthquake and elemental convulsions at

On the Apocalypse Vol. i. p. 268.

Hist. Litt. i. 408, ad ann. 540. "Verum id gratis affirmat Oudinus; nec enim præsto ei est argumentum quâ sententiam suam confirmet."

3 Hug too, i. 230, assigns him to the xth Century, but without reason given.

On Apoc. xiii. 2: "Per os leonis regnum designatur Babyloniorum: cui Saracenorum regnum manifestè successit ; quòd in hoc usque tempus regia eorum Babylone sit." B. P. M. 771.-I have noted this already in my Vol. i. P. 43. 5 See my Vol. i. p. 437, and Vol. iii. pp. 391. 7 Note 2.

See my Vol. i. 440.

Christ's death and resurrection : 1 particularly dwelling on the adjective in attached to σλŋŋ in his copy :2 the moon having been (just agreeably with it) whole, and at the full, on occasion of its eclipse at the time of Christ's death, and so the eclipse miraculous.—He adds, however, a notice of the interpretation by certain other expositors, explaining it of the destruction of Jerusalem; and that of Andreas referring it to the convulsions under Antichrist.

Under the Sealing Vision he suggests the possible reference of the four angels of the winds to the desolations of Judæa by the Romans, as well as to the desolations by Antichrist: then, in speaking of the sealing itself, more distinctly and decidedly explains the sealed 144,000 of Jews converted to Christianity before the destruction of Jerusalem: asserting that Jerusalem was not destroyed when John received these revelations; the Virgin Mary having only lived fourteen years after Christ's ascension, and John immediately after her death removed to Ephesus.3 Which passage has been naturally adduced by the advocates of an early date to the Apocalypse, in support of that opinion; but of which the value as an authority, small in itself as being of so late a writer, is rendered yet smaller by the fact of Arethas having not once only, but twice, stated from Eusebius, that it was under Domitian's reign that John was banished to Patmos.4-On the Angel's charge, "Thou must prophesy again," Arethas observes

1 Like those alluded to by Andreas on the first Seal, as observed by me p. 352, Note 3, and who explained the sixth Seal of Christ's sepulture.

2 So Tregelles, as the true reading, και ἡ σεληνη όλη εγενετο ὡς αἱμα· it being alike in the three most authoritative MSS. A B C; i. e. the Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Ephraemi.

Nondum enim vastatio à Romanis illata Judæos involverat, ubi hæc Evangelista oracula suscipiebat; neque Hierosolymis, sed Ioniâ quæ apud Ephesum. Equidem post passionem Domini quatuordecim tantùm annis permansit in Hierusalem theotocum Domini tabernaculum in hâc temporariâ vità, post passionem ac resurrectionem incorruptæ suæ prolis; cui etiam (Joannes), tanquam matri sibi à Domino commendatæ, semper aderat. Post hujus enim mortem nequaquam jam in Judæâ mansisse fertur; sed Ephesum migrasse;" &c.-The statement is palpably incorrect.

First on Apoc. i. 9; B. P. M. 743: "Relegatum autem ipsum in Patmos insulam sub Domitiano fuisse, Eusebius Pamphili in Chronicâ suâ citat." Next on Apoc. iii. 10, B, P. M. 751; "Horam tentationis persecutionem illam dicit quæ secunda post Neronem sub Domitiano excitata fuit, quemadmodum in Historiâ suâ Eusebius Pamphili testatur: quando etiam idem Evangelista in Patmum ab eodem Domitiano exilio relegatus fuit." In which last passage he does not say that Eusebius asserts that St. John was then banished; but rather gives it as his own assertion. See my Vol. i. p. 51.