verse. Who this dragon is, we are not left to conjecture. In verse 9 he is called "the devil and Satan, who deceiveth the whole world." The fallen angels are spoken of as legions, because they are many. It is immaterial whether the whole race of them are comprised in this red dragon, or only their leader, the prince of devils. Probably all the race of fallen angels are included. They are all united as one, against the church. This symbol derives its form from the old pagan Roman empire, because it was the prime instrument of the devil's operations at the time of this vision, and for a number of subsequent ages. The dragon has seven heads and ten horns, because Rome had been built on seven hills; and also its dynasty was to be known under seven distinct forms of government, as will be shown in the exposition of the secular Roman beast, chap. xiii. and xvii. And, as the beast has ten horns; the dragon is noted as having the same. The dragon is red, as that pagan empire (the prime instrument of his annoyance) was stained with the blood of the saints. The dragon has his seven crowns upon his heads, as no doubt the devil managed at his pleasure the distribution of the crowns of that empire. The devil here received his symbolic form from a description of pagan Rome, which was then the signal instrument of his persecutions of the church; but he did not cease to be the persecuting dragon, when pagan Rome was no more. The devil is still known under the same name in the last days. See Rev. xvi. 13, and xx. 2. Here, at the battle of that great day of God, the dragon is found aiding the event. And this figure suggests how fully Satan manages the wicked powers of the earth. The pagan empire was here noted as the body, and the devil the soul of this dragon. So fully does Satan work in the children of disobedience, and lead them captive at his will. By the dragon's tail drawing a third part of the stars of heaven, and casting them to the earth, we may understand that, by his infernal influence, he could, to a great extent, depose dignitaries of the Roman empire, and hurl them from their stations, when not likely to answer his infernal designs. And the position of the dragon,-standing before the woman, to devour her offspring as soon as it is born,—gives a striking view of the vigilance and the power of the wicked one, to destroy the seed of the church. It was the malicious eye of this same infernal agent, that watched the birth of the babe of Bethlehem, to devour him by Herod. Here was the influence which instigated that Roman gov

ernor to direct the wise men of the east to bring him word after they had found their infant Saviour; pretending his wish to worship him; but intending to destroy him. The same Satanic influence was operating, when the same Herod, upon finding the eastern sages had not in this thing obeyed him, sent forth his soldiers, and cut in pieces the infant children of Bethlehem. Here was a deed fully in character with the great red dragon standing before the woman, to devour her offspring as soon as born. A similar thing we find in Exod. i. 16-22; the decreeing of the death of the male children of the people of God in Egypt. The prophet Ezekiel (chap. xxix. 3) says, "Thus saith the Lord God, Behold I am against thee, Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the great dragon, that lieth in the midst of the river." Pharaoh is here called the great dragon, meaning the crocodile of the river of Egypt, which must be supposed to have devoured the infants of Israel cast into it; because that tyrant had ordered those infants to be cast into the river. This, we may conceive, is the parent text of the passage under consideration: in the latter, the dragon is red, and takes his head and horns from the ancient form of the Roman empire. The noted means of the devil's opposition to the church were to be,-persecution, errors, heresies, paganism, the man of sin, and the infidelities of the last days. When Satan became alarmed at the propagation of Christianity, he instigated first the Jewish rulers, and then the pagan emperors, to persecute the church with deadly hatred. To this the position of the dragon in our

text alludes.

Ver. 5. And she brought forth a man-child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

This man-child born to the church, alludes, we may believe, both to her Saviour, and to her spiritual succession. It was Christ who was to rule all nations with his rod of iron; Ps. ii. 9. And he was to be born of a woman, born of the church; she is instructed to say, "For unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder." To this our text seems to allude. The church, under both the Old and New Testaments, is but one and the same church. 'My beloved is one.” And the Old Testament church was long ardently desiring the birth of her Saviour, and praying for the event.

66

that the salvation of Israel was come out of Zion!" Simeon and Anna were waiting at the temple for this event. Pious kings and prophets had long done the same, in their ardent desires for the birth of Christ. He was accordingly known as "the desire of all nations!" His birth was then

preeminently the desire of the church. And well might she be denoted by the figure in our text, a woman bringing forth her son, who was to rule all nations with his rod of iron! This was a most happy figure of the church at that period, just introductory to the new and last dispensation.* This accords with the first promise of Christ, as the seed of the woman. The birth of Christ was above all other events, glorious; and was the foundation of the new birth of all his spiritual seed. Most happy and appropriate is

*Some have made the following objections to the man-child here being Christ: Christ was born before the text was written; and "the writer here spoke as a prophet, and not as an historian;" hence events then future must have been exclusively intended. Reply. This seems plausible; but it has no weight. The writer, John, it is true, was speaking as a prophet. But if, to exhibit events then future to the best advantage, something on which they rested was already past; prophets repeatedly took the liberty to commence with that past event. This is a fact. In Rev. xiii. 15, the writer stands in vision on the bank of the sea, and beholds the secular Roman beast rising from its billows. This was the same beast and event with what we find given in the same figure in Dan vii. 7, as distinct from the papal power. But this secular Roman beast had risen ages before this view of it given to John in Rev. xiii. 1; though he was then " speaking as a prophet, and not as an historian," no less than in our text. The object of the Holy Spirit then was to predict things future relative to this beast. But he takes the liberty to commence the description with a view of the origin of this beast, notwithstanding this event was then long past. It was necessary he should do thus, in order to form a whole of the event to be described. The same thing is done in Rev. xvii., when predicting the beast of the last day, to arise from the bottomless pit just before he goes into perdition, in the battle of the great day of God. This power of infidelity of these last days is there prefigured as a new beast from the world of wo; and at the same time, as a healed head of the old secular Roman beast. And, in order to identify him with that beast, he is here described as having seven heads and ten horns; while yet the first of those seven heads existed before the birth of Christ, and most of them were now for a long time past events. It is thus a plain case, that when a whole is to be presented to view, an essential part of which is already past, the prediction commences with that past event; just as in our text. See another instance of it.-Daniel beheld in vision, the rise and progress of the four great eastern empires; and he was led to predict them as events then future, because various of them were then future. But the Babylonian empire was then past: yet he commenced with this, as though it had been future, because he would give a whole. Another objection has been, "Christ was born of the Jewish, and not of the Christian church!" Had this objector forgotten, that the Jewish church and the Christian church were both essentially one? God never had but one church,-one vineyard,—one olive-tree. These, and all similar objections, then, are wholly without weight,