so clearly anticipative as the former, error might arise), yet we must certainly assume, that he did do it.

702. The command to arise and measure the temple implies, that the seer was so situated as to be able to do this. We have been led by No. 657 to observe, that he had been removed visionally from the heaven to the earth. And this mandate further indicates the precise place, namely, the temple at Jerusalem.-This might suffice to show what temple is meant. But as there have been those, who have thought, that the temple in the heaven is had in view, we may further observe, that, when that temple is intended, and the context does not make this evident, the phrase 'in the heaven' is added, as in C. 14; 17 : 15; 5: 16; 17. Moreover, the mention of the holy city in connexion with this temple clearly establishes our interpretation. Others, however (as Heinrich, Ewald, and Bleek), have spoken as if the real temple were contemplated. To remove this error it should suffice to call to mind, that this is a vision, and that the whole is only supposed to be seen "in spirit." Unquestionably, the symbolic temple on that symbolic earth, on which the angel's left foot was placed, is meant.— The whole of the temple enclosure, however, is not (strictly speaking) intended. The word used is not iepov (cp. Mt. 4; 5: 21; 12, &c.), but ναος, which means the temple-proper or sanctuary: and the context fully confirms this.-Here it will be apposite to draw an inference from the manner in which the temple is introduced. It is brought forward as "the temple," a thing in existence, perfectly well known, and needing no distinguishing nor identifying marks. I say, 'a thing in existence;' for it makes no difference in this respect, that the one spoken of is a symbol, since a symbol necessarily supposes the existence in the real world of the thing or things, after which it is modelled. May we not, then, infer hence, that Jerusalem and its temple had not been destroyed, when the Apocalypse was written; and consequently, that the date of writing must have been prior to A.D. 70? If the temple had not been in existence, I cannot think, that a symbol derived from it would have been thus introduced. (See Guide, p. 18 ss.)

703. The altar' (as I have shown on 418 and 527, and as appears also from this altar being outside the temple-proper) must be the altar of burnt-offerings, which stood before the porch in the court of the priests. And hence it might be said, as in Mt. 23; 35, "between the temple and the altar;" or, as in Lu. 11; 51, "between the altar and the house."-Those that worship in it. In what? Most expositors say 'in the temple,' supposing the pronoun to refer (as is not uncommonly the case) to the more remote antecedent. But others would render at it, considering that the altar must be meant. In such a case as this, however, it cannot be thought, that worshippers at the

altar to the exclusion of those in the temple, and still less the converse, can be intended. Neither, indeed, could the distinctions be made; since the same parties would be the worshippers in each. For the office of the priests was, after offering the burnt-sacrifices, to carry the live coals from the altar to the golden altar within the temple. And consequently they would be the worshippers both at the altar and in the temple. The most probable view seems to me to be, that both are included, and that in it means in the space that would be marked off for preservation, when the line of separation had been carried round the altar and the temple. This space would in fact be the court of the priests, within which the sanctuary stood. XI; 2. 704. Instead of the court without, Stephens's text has the court within. But this is unquestionably an error. The authorities and the sense are alike opposed to it.-What court is intended will be made to appear more clearly by the help of a quotation from Cruden. He says; "The great courts belonging to the temple were three: the first or outer called THE COURT OF THE GENTILES; because the Gentiles were allowed to enter so far, and no farther: the second called THE court of Israel; because all Israelites, if purified, had a right of admission the third was THE COURT OF THE PRIESTS, where the altar of burnt-offerings stood, and where the priests and Levites exercised their ministry." Now it is evident, that the last could not have been meant; because, as the line of separation went round the altar and the worshippers which were in it, this was not left out.' Neither could the outer court be meant; because this was always open to the Gentiles whereas it is implied, that the one not to be measured was now to be 'given' to them. Not the outer court' then, but the court without' the sacerdotal enclosure, that is to say, the court of Israel must be intended. And this is confirmed by the fact, that between this court and the court of the Gentiles was the principal wall of separation, the grand line of demarcation between God's ancient people and others. Moreover, on this view the passage before us will be in exact accordance with what S. Paul says in Eph. 2; 14; "He hath made both (Jews and Gentiles) one, having broken down the middle wall of partition between us.' S. Paul's allusion will be better understood by the citation of a few lines from Josephus (Wars V. v: 6). 'Before the temple-proper stood the altar, which was square, and had corners like horns. The passage up to it was by an insensible acclivity. A wall of partition, about a cubit high, encompassed the holy house and the altar, and kept the people that were on the outside from the priests. A similar wall of partition, only three cubits high, separated the court of the Gentiles from the court of Israel; and on it were pillars, having notices affixed to them, warning foreigners not to go within 'The Sanctuary,' as the second court was called.'

mea

705. The repetition of the direction-leave out entirely, sure it not, must be designed to throw great stress on the instruction (cp. Lu. 6; 22). So also must the repetition of the Greek preposition. The latter I have indicated by the word entirely.

706. Instead of to the nations, the A. V., Stuart, Tregelles, and the generality of translators, render by to the Gentiles or to the heathen. Now, this I hold to be not a legitimate way of rendering, seeing that neither Gentiles nor heathen is used in any other of the twenty-two places, in which the same Greek word occurs in the Apocalypse, and that the context did not require the use of either here. In this place in particular the term Gentiles is specially objectionable, inasmuch as, from our habit of speaking of Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians, the transition is easy to supposing, and the English reader in particular may be readily led to believe, that Christians may be meant: whereas by the phrase rà čovŋ, the nations, is always meant the heathen, in contradistinction to the worshippers of the true God; and in this place, from the contrast with the Jewish temple and the holy city, they must be had in view emphatically. And this fact is decisive against the interpretation, which supposes Christians to be intended. I may add, that the existence of such a view, coupled with the fact, that this is the only place out of so many in which the term Gentiles is used, may well lead us to suspect, that the general adoption of that word here has not been wholly uninfluenced by the wish to make this passage wear an appearance of accordance with that view, which the text does not in reality exhibit.

707. That by the holy city Jerusalem is primarily meant will not, I suppose, be doubted. Such was the designation of that town from old times see Ne. 11; 1, 18: Is. 48; 2: 52; 1: Da. 9; 24: Mt. 4; 5: 27; 53. And that this was the city intended will appear from the texts, which I shall have occasion to cite presently. Indeed, the fact of the temple of God' being in this city is alone sufficient to place the point beyond doubt.-But this city, Wordsworth says, p. 240 n., the Gentiles are, not to tread under foot, as in the A. V., but to walk in, that is, be members of the Visible Church." And he refers in support of this sense to the LXX. version of 1s. 1; 12; Who hath required this at your hands, warew τyv avλŋv μov, to tread my court?" But surely the meaning in this text (as the context places beyond doubt) is not simply to walk in,' but to treat the courts of the Lord' with indignity (cp. Lev. 21; 24). And consequently this 'source of the phrase' makes against Wordsworth's construction. On the other hand, Stuart says; "shall tread down, trample upon, which of course implies thorough subjection, and treating with great indignity." And if there can be any doubt, as to this being the sense in which the word is used, the other places (14; 20: 19; 15) in which it

occurs will conclusively establish Stuart's interpretation.-Note here the force of the tenses. The court of Israel, that is, the non-essentials in Judaism, which constituted the partition-wall and led to the distinction into Jews and Gentiles, is given up from the epoch at which the Vision has arrived; but the holy city, the Jewish state and polity, only will be trodden down at a future period. And so, in point of fact, the decree which doomed the Mosaic system virtually went forth from the birth of Christ; but the desolation by the Romans was not consummated, till 70 years afterwards.-The 42 months, I hesitate not to say, after the refutation of the year-day theory which I have made in pp. 41 ss., mean primarily 42 months (that is, 3 years or 1260 days), and have no other definite meaning. But at the same time I doubt not, that the period is a mystical one, which may be representative of a larger and undefined period; and so the phrase may have a secondary signification.

Historical application.-Having now ascertained satisfactorily (as I think) the primary and literal meaning of the several particulars, we must proceed to determine their secondary and true significations. The question will be; What do the city, temple, &c., signify? To this question Zegerus, Vitringa, and many others make answer; The city is the Christian Church, the Gentiles are nominal Christians, and so forth. And each interpreter of course professes to make out a selfconsistent scheme, which will satisfy the several requirements of the text; to do which, with more or less of plausibility, is no very difficult task on the aliquid ex aliquo method by which they proceed. Still they will find it no easy matter to answer the following questions to the satisfaction of any, but their own partisans. Where is the propriety of Jerusalem, the metropolis of the bitter adversaries of Christianity, being made a symbol of the Christian Church ?-the old Jerusalem of the new, to which it is opposed as a contrast? What can the Jewish temple, altar of burnt-offerings, worshippers, and courts represent respectively in the Christian Church? Wherein consists the separation of the thing signified by the court of Israel from those signified by the rest of the symbols; and when did any such separation take place in the Christian Church, followed by the preservation of the latter in their integrity, and the giving of the former to the nations of the heathen, and the treading down by the latter of the Christian Church during 42 months? And how can the heathen be made to represent nominal Christians ?-Without entering on a refutation in detail of this scheme (for which I cannot afford space), I will proceed to state what is, in my opinion, the true interpretation of the several symbols. The holy city Jerusalem, then, stands for the Jewish nation, state, and polity as a whole, according to the common practice of putting the metropolis of a country for the state in its entirety, as

Rome for the Roman empire in the widest sense, or (even in our days) as Paris is sometimes put for France (e.g., in The Times of 12th Dec. 1858). The temple, &c., represent the religion and entire ecclesiastical constitution of the Jews. Of these the temple-proper or sanctuary, and specially the Holy of Holies, are put for the fundamental doctrines, the eternal truths which constitute the essentials of the Jewish faith. The altar specially represents the centre-doctrine of atonement. The worshippers in the innermost court, being priests, signify, that those only who 'present unto God a living sacrifice,' and that sacrifice 'themselves,' will be separated for acceptance in His sight. The court of Israel and the worshippers in it stand for the non-essentials of the Jewish religion (e.g., the 'unbearable burden' of ritual ordinances, and in particular the separating rite of circumcision), and for those who were 'Jews only outwardly,' and through the observance of the prescribed rites. The court of the Gentiles and those in it are heathenism and heathens. The nations are the heathen Romans. The measuring denotes the separation of one portion for preservation and of the other for destruction. The portion included within the line of conservation being the essential truths of Judaism, the fundamental doctrine of atonement, and the worshippers of a sacred character, it must hereby be signified, that these will be preserved and for what, but to be engrafted into and to form part of the permanent and spiritual faith, which was now about to take the place of the temporary and carnal system of Judaism? By the giving up of the excluded portion to the heathen will further be signified, that all that is ritual and external, and all mere professors, will be put on an equal footing in God's esteem with the heathen and their abominations, and will by the heathen Romans be overthrown and scattered to the winds. These heathens will also during 42 months tread under their feet the Jewish state and nation, and in particular the once holy city of the Jews. The implied breaking down of the wall of separation between the court of Israel and that of the Gentiles denotes, that henceforth circumcision will avail nothing, nor uncircumcision,' but all will be baptized into one body,' and there will be 'neither Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor uncircumcision,' but all will be one in Christ.'

It will tend to give satisfactory confirmation to this exposition to contemplate a few passages from other parts of the New Testament, which show a perfect accordance in sentiment with the views symbolically expressed in the passage before us. And, at the same time, it will be convenient to intersperse a few remarks in reference to the actual fulfilment of the symbolization as now interpreted. 1. Jerusalem is frequently put for the country, people, or nation of the Jews in general see 2 Kgs. 19; 31: 23; 27: 2 Chr. 32; 19: Is. 40; 2, 9: