truth, John i. 14; He declared the truth, and he styles himself the truth, John xiv. 6; at the same time, he himself gives the name of the Spirit of truth, to the promised Comforter, John, xvi. 13. As an adverb, the word expresses so let it be an assent to the divine will, or an expression of that will, equivalent to a declaration of the purpose of God, somewhat corresponding to the introductory language of human edicts, "Be it enacted."

The faithful and true Witness.'-The faithful witness, identifying the speaker with the Antipas of Rev. ii. 13, as well as with Jesus Christ expressly, Rev. i. 5; and the true, identifying him also with the possessor of the key of David, Rev. iii. 7; and, as we have already suggested, with the promised Comforter, the witness, or testifier of Jesus, spoken of, John xv. 26.

"The beginning of the creation of God.'-The originator, the first cause, (Jones Lex. Art. i don, p. 287; Causa, origo, Suiceri Lex.) Not the first thing created, but the Creator himself, corresponding with the account given of the word, John i. 1-3. So ý áo̟xỳ xai rò rέhos, Rev. xxi. 6, cannot be the first thing and the last thing created, but the cause and design, or end in view, of that which is the subject of consideration : Christ being both the first and the final cause of the economy of redemption; the sinner being brought into existence for the Redeemer, and not the Redeemer for the sinner: as "The man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man," (1 Cor. xi. 9.) ·

Vs. 15, 16. I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then, because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot

I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα, ὅτι οὔτε ψυχρός εἰ οὔτε ζεστός. ὄφελον ψυχρὶς ἦς ἢ ζεστός. Οὕτως, ὅτι χλιαρὸς εἰ καὶ οὔτε ψυχρὸς οὔτε ζεστός, μελλω σε ἐμέσαι ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου.

§ 102. 'I know,' &c.-This strong language is evidently to be applied to the spirit of a doctrinal system, personified as a disciple of that heartless character, which leaves it doubtful whether he is to be treated as a friend or as a foe. There is a profession of faith in Christ, and, therefore, no actual hostility; at the same time there must be in the system an entire want of the elements of gratitude, essential to that love, or charity, without which we are nothing.

'I would that thou wert either cold or hot.'-Not that the coldness, or the enmity, is absolutely desirable, but that it is better to contend with an open and decided foe, than with an insidious adversary, wearing, perhaps, the mask of moderation, professed neutrality, or even friendship; as we might say of one whose negative character, or mode of speaking, is such that, according to the common saying, we never know where to find him I would that he would show himself to be either one thing or the other.

'Because thou art lukewarm.' The Greek term, rendered lukewarm, does not occur in any other passage, either of the New Testament, or of the Old, according to the Septuagint; but that which renders this doctrine so extremely loathsome, in divine estimation, appears to be indicated in the subsequent verse. No illustration is necessary to give force to the language used. We may presume the subject of reprehension to possess to an extreme the hatefulness of character ascribed to the Nicolaitan doctrine, ($ 63,) although, perhaps, more specious in appearance.

The verb translated I will, pého, is one of those expressing, not so much the disposition to do a thing, as the unavoidable necessity of doing it; a necessity arising from the nature of the case; something that is to be, or will be, as an effect follows its cause. The spirit under contemplation from its lukewarmness is so nauseating that it cannot be retained; it must of necessity be repudiated, and that with disgust.

Vs. 17, 18. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goode, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that

thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fre, that thou mayest be rich ; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

"Οτι λέγεις· ὅτι πλούσιός εἰμι καὶ πεπλούτηκα καὶ οὐδενὸς χρείαν ἔχω, καὶ οὐκ οἶδας, ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ ταλαίπωρος καὶ ὁ ἐλεει νὸς καὶ πτωχὸς καὶ τυφλὸς καὶ γυμνός, συμβουλεύω σοι ἀγοράσαι παρ ̓ ἐμοῦ χρυσίον πεπυρωμένον ἐκ πυρός, ἵνα πλουτήσῃς, καὶ ἱμάτια λευκά, ἵνα περιβάλῃ καὶ μὴ φαi νερωθῇ ἡ αἰσχύνη τῆς γυμνότητός σου, καὶ κολλούριον, ἐγχρῖσαι τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς σου, ἵνα βλέπῃς.

103. Because tho sayest,' &c.-Here is a strong contrast between the erroneous supposition, and the real fact. In a literal sense, it would not be possible for any other than a maniac to fall into a mistake of this kind, to the degree here described. What, however, is impossible in a literal sense, is very possible in a spiritual sense; or rather, the individual labouring under this error in religious matters is, quoad hoc, the real maniac, the victim of monomania.

'I am rich, and have become rich.'-The language of one boasting, not only of actual possessions, but of his own acquisition of them. The possession of what he accounts the reward of his own labours: "I am rich, I have enriched myself."

Wealth, in a spiritual sense, must be that which furnishes the means of obtaining eternal happiness. "The redemption of the soul is precious," (Ps. xlix. 8.)—“The ransom of a man's life is his riches,” (§ 50.)—“ Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life," (Job ii. 4.) For what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and lose his own life, especially his eternal life? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his life or soul? Mark viii. 36.

Those who believe themselves to have in their own merits, or righteous

nesses, or acts of propitiation, the means of securing eternal life; and who look back to their own works, as the process by which these means have been accumulated, are such as in effect say within themselves, "I am rich, I have made myself rich."

And have need of nothing.'-" I need no other merit, no other rightcousness than my own-no other propitiation or atonement, than that which I have made, or can make for myself.—God is just; I have fulfilled the law, I have done all that he requires of me, I claim eternal life from his justice. If I cannot obtain it by a righteousness of my own, I will not have it. If in some things I have come short of my duty, in others I have more than compensated for these short-comings. I have never injured any one. If I have done wrong, my repentance, or penitence, my sufferings in this life, my reformation, my acts of charity and kindness, my industry, my liberality to certain objects—even my faith, or profession of faith, my zeal for the cause of religion and morality-all these, or some of them at least, have paid the penalty of my transgressions, and purchased the favour of my God." Such is the language of the self-righteous contemner of the blood of the Covenant. Such the presumptuous delusion peculiar to the doctrinal system in contemplation. Labouring under this mistake, cherishing this error, rolling the sweet morsel under their tongues, the victims of infatuation derive a certain degree of support, in this life, from the spirit of this system, even in view of their last great change; when they might rather apply to themselves the warning admonition, "Wo unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation," Luke vi. 24.

6

$104. And knowest not that thou art wretched and miserable,' or rather, the wretched and the miserable.—The one above all others wretched, &c.-Those thus supposing themselves rich and at ease, being those on this account the poorest and most miserable; while others most sensible of their own unworthiness and destitution, are the really rich.

The error is one of ignorance, however. The deluded subject does not know, or, according to the Greek, does not see, perceive, or understand, his real position. His case, corresponding with that of the apostle, who, even while madly persecuting the followers of Jesus, obtained mercy, because he did it ignorantly, in unbelief, 1 Tim. i. 13; and because in him an example was to be given of the long-suffering of the Saviour towards others equally misled.

The wretched,' raλainwoos.-The condition of one suffering under extreme hardship, as the term is employed in the Septuagint, Ps. xxxviii. 6, "I am troubled, ('Eraλainwoŋsa,) I am bowed down greatly: I go mourning all the day long." The reason for which was previously given in the 4th verse: "For mine iniquities are gone over my head: as a heavy burden they are too heavy for me." So James v. 1, "Go to now, rich men, weep

and howl for your miseries, ἐπὶ ταῖς ταλαιπωρίαις ὑμῶν, that shall come upon you." Your riches-your supposed merits are corrupted, or prove to be corrupted, and your garments-your supposed garments of salvation—are moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver-your supposed means of redemption—are cankered, and the rust of them shall be witness against you, and shall eat your flesh-your supposed moral perfection-as it were fire. The evident corruptibility of the pretended means of redemption, showing the vanity of these pretensions to moral perfection. The coming misery, or wretchedness, consisting in the manifestation of the real state of destitution, as it is said: There is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not, (Eccl. vii. 20.)

'And the miserable,' ó λɛɛvós.-The one to be pitied-the real subject of compassion. These terms, wretched and miserable, appear to be used one for the other; but there is this difference, that one expresses the consequence of the other. The truly wretched being objects of pity, because they are wretched.

'And poor.'-As poverty is the converse of riches, and as being poor is the opposite of being rich, our remarks on the latter condition are perhaps sufficient to illustrate the former. "Blessed are the poor in spirit," it is said, Matt. v. 3, 4; but this, it is plain, was not the poverty of the Laodicean angel. He was wretched, but he did not mourn; and therefore he is rebuked instead of being comforted; so he was poor, but not in spirit, and therefore the kingdom of heaven is not to him. He is admonished, however, not for being poor, but for not knowing his poverty. The change to be wrought is a matter of knowledge and understanding. He is to learn. that in himself he is poor, and that in Christ only he can be rich. So in a system, the element of doctrine to be inculcated is that of the real destitution of the disciple, so far as it depends upon any merit or righteousness of his own.

And blind.'-Dull of apprehension, not perceiving one's own state. The angel is not reproved for his blindness, but for professing to see while he is blind. As it was said of the Pharisees, John ix. 41, "If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see, therefore your sin remaineth." The Laodicean angel, or system, appears to resemble the blind guides spoken of, Matt. xxiii. 16-26, who by a species of casuistry, not uncommon in later times, aimed at bringing the law down to a certain standard of their own, enabling them and their followers, as they supposed to fulfil all its requisitions. The angel here is avowedly a disciple of Christ, professing to know him, but in matters of faith denying him, (Titus i. 16.) "For judgment," said Jesus, (John ix. 39,) "I am come into the world, that they which see not may see," they that see not their need of salvation,

might see it, and "they which see might be made blind," that they who profess to see might be manifested to be blind.

§ 105. “And naked."—It is said of our first parents, Gen. iii. 7, that immediately after eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked. The eating of the fruit of the tree did not cause their nakedness, but it gave them the knowledge of it. The person who does not know the difference between good and evil, is capable of performing both good and bad actions. An idiot for example may chance to do something right, or something wrong; but he is not considered entitled to reward for the one, or held accountable for the other. Suppose him, however, to be suddenly gifted with a sound mind. From that moment he is responsible for all his actions. He is then in an accountable position. Although the maniac may maliciously take the life of a human being, he is not chargeable with crime, because he does not know the difference between good and evil. Still the murder, as it would otherwise be called, is in itself an evil action, and the bad disposition which caused the murder exists in him, as much as if he had known the legal consequences of his conduct. He is naked, although he knows it not.

So we may suppose it to have been with our first parents; the evil disposition, which we call the depravity of nature, existed in them before their tasting of the tree of knowledge. They were "naked," but they knew it not; no sooner, however, did they taste the forbidden fruit than they became convinced of the evil of their own hearts, and of their guilt in the sight of God; while by this knowledge itself they were placed in the position of accountability for every thought, word, and deed; so, it is said, sin was in the world previous to the promulgation of the law, but sin is not imputed where there is no law, (Rom. v. 13;) the law is not the cause of the sinful act, but it gives the character of sinfulness to the act; without the law man is naked, unworthy, and without righteousness, or merit, in the sight of God; but he does not know that he is so, till the knowledge of the law convinces him of sin; of this, however, we have had occasion to treat elsewhere, (§ 48.)

The angel of the Laodicean church, as the representative of a church, or system, cannot be supposed to be in that state of ignorance of good and evil, which exonerated Adam and Eve, while in Paradise. As a disciple of Christ, the angel must represent one converted, one having experienced a conviction of sin under the law :-once convinced of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment, and professing to be a follower of Jesus as a Saviour. But we must suppose him (the angel) to have fallen into some error, or delusion, the tendency of which is to represent the Christian as having a righteousness of his own. Whatever may have been his former belief,