" be as scarlet they shall be white as snow;" the horse is a spirit; the bow an emblem of strength; and the d crown, of royalty and priesthood. Who then is this rider in purity of spirit, armed with strength, and crowned with regal priesthood? Let the Psalmist answers, "Gird "thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with

thy glory and thy majesty. And in thy ma"jesty ride prosperously, because of truth " and meekness and righteousness; and thy "right hand shall teach thee terrible things. "Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the " king's enemies; whereby the people fall un"der thee. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and "ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right "sceptre." This seal then is the primitive state of Christianity. And the rider himself is our Priest and King.

In reverting to the notes of Dr. Woodhouse, I perceive that I have not exactly coincided with his ideas, but the difference between us is so small, that I think it is of no consequence; we both come to the same conclusion, that this first seal represents the preaching of pure, true, and primitive Christianity.

It may be observed here, that we do not see the sword girded upon this warrior's thigh, but

a

Isaiah i. 18. b Zech. vi. 5. Gen. xlix. 24. Job xxix. 20. Jer. xlix. 35. Hos. i. 5. d Exod. xxix. 6. • Psal. xlv. 3.

we see it afterwards, issuing from his mouth when he returns upon his white horse conquering and having conquered; neither do we see his arrows, but they are to be inferred, as the bow is useless without them; and this weapon is beautifully emblematical of God's merciful method of promoting the religion of the Messiah 5.

I must not dismiss this seal without making a few observations upon Bishop Newton's interpretation. He seems to be particularly anxious to do away a notion, which, he says, "some have been obliged to take up, in order " to support a former supposition, that this first "seal exhibits a representation of the person " and dignity of Christ, and of the triumphs of "the Christian religion over the powers of pa"ganism. And," says he, "at the same time

66

they allow (as is generally allowed) that the " six first seals especially relate to heathen "Rome, and comprehend so many notable "periods of the Roman history." A very strange allowance I must confess, and the ar

Rev. xix. 15.

See Bp. Horsley, Sermon vii. "Now both these weapons, " both the sword and the arrow, are emblems of one and the "same thing; which is no other than the word of God, in its "different effects and different manners of operation on the "minds of men, represented under these two different "images." Vol. i. p. 125.

gument is strongly put; for he thus concludes it. " But where then is the propriety or con"sistence of understanding this first seal of "Christ and the Christian religion, and the " succeeding seals of the successive revolutions " in the Roman empire, during its pagan and " unconverted state?" Certainly none, and the inconsistency is striking: but I cannot agree with the Bishop in the inference which he draws from these premises; on the contrary, it appears to me that the interpretation which they give is right, and the allowance which they make is wrong; and for this good reason, because the object throughout these prophecies, in the contemplation of the prophet, is the church of God. This point I must ever insist upon, as this alone is an object of sufficient dignity to call forth the immediate interference of divine wisdom. The redemption and salvation of mankind was the only thing worthy to bring down from the glory of his Father the Son of the eternal God; and the affairs of his church, which he planted in his own blood, are the things most worthy of the inspiration of his Holy Spirit. For a further illustration of this material point, I will refer my reader to Dean Woodhouse in his Introduction, p. 11, 12, 13, 14.

But another observation arises from this same argument, as stated by Newton. He says, "They

CATA

73

" who suppose this book to have been written in " Domitian's time, some years after the destruc" tion of Jerusalem, are obliged to give another "explanation of this first seal, applicable to "some subsequent event, that it may not be " deemed a history of things past, instead of a "prophecy of things to come." Now whether these commentators were actuated by such motives, and whether such motives produced this result, it is no matter, for it is plain that the Bishop conceived that they were, and that he thought such result necessary. Now it is true, one obvious and commonly received meaning of the word prophecy is the foretelling of a thing that is to come, and that one cannot be said to foretel a thing that is past; but prophecy is not always used strictly in this sense; and although by far the greater number of the prophecies are prospective, some may be, and certainly are in part, often retrospective, more particularly when the events are laid open to the Prophet's eye in the form of a vision or dream. In this instance, a vision is laid before the Prophet's eye, containing the history of the Christian Church; can it be said that this history is mutilated, because the things seen had begun to take place? And that at a time too when it was in its very first beginning, at its very outset? For this prophecy was seen by St. John, who was himself one of

its first promulgators, so that he scarcely goes back one step for its rise. It was at this very time in its first progress; it is therefore well represented by the white horse and his rider, going forth conquering and to conquer; he was now in the act of conquering; it is an event now passing before the Prophet's eyes in reality, as well as in vision. Similar to this is Daniel's vision of Nebuchadnezzar's image; he saw the head of gold, the emblem of Babylonian tyranny, which was at the time passing before him, for "thou, Ο

66

King," says he, "art this head of gold." No one ever conceived that the head of gold did not represent the Babylonian empire, because Daniel did not foretel it, neither then let it be understood, that the white horse does not represent Christianity, because it may seem to be retrospective; there is no more necessity, in order to make this good, that St. John must have prophesied before the birth of our Saviour, than there is to make Daniel's good, that his vision should have been seen prior to the Babylonian captivity.

I must notice one argument more of the Bishop's, drawn from the four living creatures or beasts described in the 7th verse of the 4th chapter. This argument is ingenious, but not sound; captivating, though not convincing; and on this ground I think it necessary to bring it under