VII. The last argument for the new system, and one supposed to be of vast importance, is founded on those words of the Apostle, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's-day." In the Horæ, as in every critic and commentator for more than seventeen centuries, these words are taken in their simple and natural meaning, that, on a certain Lord's-day, St. John was in a spiritual trance or ecstasy, and saw these celestial visions. In a supplement, however, the novel hypothesis, first thrown out by Dr. Maitland, that the Lord's-day denotes here the day of the Advent, is more directly alluded to, and is justly termed "a sleight of hand, that sets language, grammar, and context alike at defiance." This language is complained of, as impatient and magisterial in its tone. The other view, it is thought, is an arresting interpretation, and one the merits of which ought to be examined for the truth's sake; a clue to be patiently pursued, and not disdainfully cast away. The allegation of inconsistencies, arising from pre-conceived notions of the Revelation, has nothing to do with the simple, preliminary question, of the meaning of the phrase. To entertain this question would be very inconvenient to the whole system of the more usual interpretations, and utterly explode them from the mind of God's children. The complaints thus expressed are not a little unreasonable. Mr. Elliott simply adheres to a view of the passage, which has been held by every father, commentator, critic, and general reader, perhaps without an exception, from the earliest that are extant, until within the last thirty years. Since, however, another view has been started by a few writers of late; though he accounts it as baseless as it is novel, he devotes more than two closely-printed pages to its refutation. Of course, all those who account this novelty a discovery of vast importance, cannot agree with the arguments that explode it, however decisive; but it is too much to expect that others should treat this thoroughly novel, and as they believe, thoroughly false interpretation, held only by one or two writers, with the same respect as a plausible exposition, that has long shared the preference of exact critics, and thoughtful and profound divines. But since there are still some who venture seriously to maintain this new version, and even regard it as an important discovery, it may be well to examine it anew. The censure, passed upon it in the Horæ, will perhaps be found not in the least more severe than truth and equity demand. 1. The first question is one of direct usage, and lies in a narrow compass. "No instance has ever been adduced where η κυριακη ημερα denotes the day of judgment. In every known example of its use, it denotes the Lord's-day, or Christian Sabbath." Instances are given, in the Horæ, from Irenæus, from Clemens (Str. vii. 12), from Theophilus, about A.D. 150 (B. P. M. II. P. II. p. 171); from Melito, who wrote a treatise περι KUριaкns, and was Bishop of Sardis, in the second century, just eighty years after the date of the prophecy; from Origen, and Dionysius of Corinth; and in its Latin equivalent, from Tertullian and Commodian. All of these were before the time of Constantine, and the earliest only about fifty years after the death of St. John. It is also adopted as the regular and usual term, in the Paschal Canon of Hippolytus, in the first year of Alexander Severus, A.D. 222. Since then its use has plainly been universal, both in the Greek and Latin Churches. No one has been able to adduce a solitary example, where it is employed in a different meaning. Unless, therefore, we may vary the sense of words, to suit the passing fancies of every expositor, we must explain the phrase, as Christians have always hitherto done, to denote the first day of the week, or the Christian Sabbath. But it is urged that "the phrase occurs in no other part of Scripture to denote the Christian Sabbath, and that the first day of the week is the term uniformly employed; nor is it even contended that it was used by the fathers in this sense before the close of the second century." This onesided statement, however, will never satisfy any candid inquirer. The simple fact is, that it never occurs in Scripture in any sense, except in this passage; and that it never occurs in the Christian writers, except in the one sense of the Christian Sabbath; that this usage is actually proved as high as the middle, not the close of the second century, or within the lifetime of St. John's contemporaries; and we have clear proofs that soon afterwards it was in constant use, and a standard ecclesiastical term. Hence it is contended, with the highest reason, that it was used by the fathers and other Christians from the very time of St. John; and even earlier, since it would naturally result from the facts of the resurrection, and their deep, habitual reverence for their risen Lord. The argument, from usage alone, is therefore clear and decisive. 2. Again, no instance is found in all Scripture where a prophet speaks of himself, or is spoken of by others, as transported into a distant time. Abraham is said to have seen the day of Christ afar off, but not to have been transported into it. Neither in Isaiah, Daniel, nor any other prophet, can one example be found of such a strange idiom. The new exposi tion not only contradicts the meaning of the word, in every known instance of its occurrence, but introduces a solecism of phrase, for which there is no warrant nor parallel in the whole range of the inspired word of God. 3. Thirdly, the context is equally decisive against the novel version. As justly observed in the Horæ, it makes the judgment day the subject of all that follows," including first and foremost the epistles to the seven then existing Churches themselves." What indeed can be more absurd than the resulting paraphrase? "I was transported in Spirit, two thousand years onward, into the time of the Lord's Second Advent, and heard a voice saying, What thou seest write in a book, and send it to the seven churches, in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea." No contradiction could be more intolerable. The only way in which this incongruity can be avoided, and the hypothesis still sustained, is by transporting the Seven Churches themselves into the last times. When such a view can be embraced, it is almost time to suspend all reasoning, and rather to pray that God may restore the spirit of a sound mind to those who can wander so far from the plain meaning of the text. In behalf of this strange and wild notion, a criticism no less strange has been offered. "St. John," it is said, "writes to the Seven Churches in Asia, not which are in Asia, and thus leaves the time to be future, if the case requires it. This may be a special provision of God for that end, since a peculiar preciseness obtains in the inscription of the ordinary epistles-to all that be in Rometo the Church of God which is in Corinth, and so with the other epistles. The phrase leaves thus the future application possible, and the allusions in the context render it indispensable.' This is a startling example, how far the bias of a favourite hypothesis may lead men astray from the clearest truths. And first, the contrast asserted is quite imaginary. The form used by St. Paul in Galatians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, and by the other apostles in every case, is just the same as in the inscription to the Seven Churches. Next, the presence or absence of the participle, which must be implied even where not expressed, can never affect the plain truth, that the Seven Churches, to which the apostle was personally to send the book, were in actual existence at the time. It is probable that no instance can be found, in a similar case, where the Greek idiom allows an ellipsis of the future participle, while that of the present participle occurs thousands of times. Lastly, the mark of time present, in this chapter, is far more decisive than even in St. Paul's own inscriptions; since the things which are are expressly identified with the epistles to the Churches, and are contrasted with the things which shall be hereafter. Hence the whole statement, though claiming to be the result of greater accuracy of observation, is nothing else than a congeries of strange and manifest errors. 4. The new construction violates the Greek idiom. As observed in the Horæ, it requires us to translate the verb substantive, with a dative, as if it were a verb of motion, with an accusative. It is replied that a verb of motion is used with an ablative, 1 Tim. iii. 16, and that it need not be taken as a verb of motion, but quite simply-" I was, in the Spirit, in the Lord's-day." But the whole reply depends on a misconception of the argument. A verb of motion, it is true, may be joined with a dative, but the accusative is required always for the terminus or limit of the motion, and the passage in Timothy is no exception to the rule. Again, if no motion be expressed, the words will not convey the desired meaning, but revert of course to their usual sense. "I was in the Spirit in the Lord's-day," will seem, to any plain reader, a slight deviation from the correct English idiom; but will still suggest the notion of the actual day of the vision, and not of a transfer to some remote period of time, after two thousand years. 5. The previous verse confirms the usual exposition. One verse plainly defines the place, and the other the time, where and when the visions were revealed, "I was in the isle called Patmos,-I was in the Spirit on the Lord's-day." The resemblance is manifest, and the symmetry of the statement as much requires us to believe that the Lord's-day was the actual time of the visions, as that Patmos was really the place where the apostle was privileged to behold them. 6. The contrast with vi. 2, proves still further the falsehood of the novel interpretation. The expression there stands simply, "I was in the Spirit," and here with an added circumstance, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's-day." But, on the proposed view of its meaning, the additional words should have been absent in the former passage, and have appeared only in the second. For the epistles are clearly, and by our Lord's own statement, of time present; even if all the purely prophetic visions, from chap. iv., were referred to the future Advent. On this hypothesis the phrase, "on the Lord'sday," is absent, where it might appear with entire consistency; and is inserted, where it could only serve to perplex and confound all our ideas of time. The very order in which the words occur is a further evidence of the same truth, when we compare them with xvii. 4, "he carried me away into the wilderness in spirit." 7. Lastly, the analogy of Scripture usage confirms the reference of the words to the Christian Sabbath. The adjective, Kuρiakos, occurs only in one other place, 1 Cor. xi. 20, in the words, "this is not to eat the Lord's supper" (OUK EσTI κυριακον δειπνον φαγειν). It is there used with reference to a sacred and continually recurring ordinance of the Church, instituted in memory of a remarkable event in our Lord's personal history. Its use in the Apocalypse, on the common interpretation, is precisely the same. The cœna dominica is a sacred meal, which continually commemorates the Saviour's death; and the dies dominica, by parity of meaning, is a sacred day, which continually commemorates His glorious resurrection. The occurrence of the phrase, here only, is easily explained on this view. For the Jewish Sabbath, as is plain from our Lord's prophecy, continued partly in force among the disciples till the fall of Jerusalem. And hence, although the first day began to be set apart for a sacred use, ever since the Lord arose, it was not unnatural that its formal consecration to replace the old Sabbath, by a new title of honour, should be delayed until the Jewish desolation was begun. We find it, therefore, at the opening of the Apocalypse, and here only; while, if the phrase denoted the Second Advent, no good reason can be given for this solitary deviation from the customary forms of expression. 8. Only one reason, of any seeming weight, is offered for the other view. In 1 Cor. iii. 13, the day of Christ is said to be revealed by fire; and the apostle then adds presently, as if in contrast, "With me it is a very small thing to be judged of you, or of man's day" (vπо aveрwins nμepas). It is argued that man's day, and the Lord's-day are in direct antithesis, and the form of expression the very same; and hence that the Lord's-day, which St. John beheld in spirit, is a contrast to the day of man, for which St. Paul cared so little. But even this solitary argument, though plausible at the first glance, disappears on closer inquiry. First, the apostle in the same passage, speaks repeatedly of the day of judgment; and yet never once employs the adjective form, n κυριακη ημέρα, which he adopts in reference to the day of |