The expulsion of Satan from heaven is expressed thus in the Apoc. xii. 9: ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν; in the Gosp. it is said, νῦν ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἐκβληθήσεται ἔξω, chap. xii. 31. (See Scholz, _Die Apokalypse des heilig. Johannes übersetzt, erklärt_, u. s. w. Frankfurt am Main, 1828, 8vo; Schulz, _Ueber den Schriftsteller, Character und Werth des Johannes_, Leipzig, 1803, 8vo; Donker Curtius, _Specimen hermeneuticotheologicum de Apocalypsi ab indole, doctrina, et scribendi genere Johannis Apostoli non abhorrente_, Trajecti Batav. 1799, 8vo; Kolthoff, _Apocalypsis Joanni Apostolo vindicata_, Hafniæ, 1834, 8vo; Stein, in Winer and Engelhardt’s _Kritisch. Journal_, v. i.; and the _Jena Literatur-Zeitung_ for April, 1833, No. 61.) It is true that some of these expressions are said, by Lücke, De Wette, and Credner, to be used in a different sense in the Apocalypse; others not to be _characteristic_, but rather accidental and casual; others not _original_, but borrowed. Such assertions, however, proceed more from _à priori_ assumption than from any inherent truth they possess. In regard to the charge of _cabbalism_, especially in the use of numbers, it is easily disposed of. The cabbala of the Jews was widely different from the instances in the Apocalypse that have been quoted. Perhaps John’s use of the number 666 comes the nearest to one kind of the cabbala; but still it is so unlike as to warrant the conclusion that the apostle did not employ the cabbalistic art. His mysterious indications of certain facts, and the reasons of their being in some measure involved in darkness, are explicable on other than Jewish grounds. There is no real cause for believing that the apostle had recourse to the artificial and trifling conceits of the Rabbins. In short, this argument is by no means conclusive. As far as the language is concerned, nothing militates against the opinion that the Apocalypse proceeded from John, who wrote the Gospel. The contrary evidence is not of such a nature as to demand assent. When rigidly scrutinized, it does not sustain the conclusion so confidently built upon it.