The Apocalypse is, as our author describes it, an ecstatic and dogmatic allegory. What it is besides, which the believer in Divine inspiration would include in the definition, is out of the range of such a critic's comprehension, and he would not be likely to attach much importance to the words, "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the _things which shall be hereafter_." But he seems to have overlooked how much essential evangelical doctrine it expresses, and how much it is imbued with its spirit; that it testifies to the resurrection of Christ and the atonement. Although it _is_ an allegory, its author could no more have written it, if he had known nothing of those doctrines, than Bunyan could have written "The Pilgrim's Progress," or Milton "Paradise Lost" and "Regained." By proving John to be the author of this "highly dogmatic treatise," as he calls the Apocalypse, he takes us to the essence of the dogmas. They must have either been in existence before John wrote it, or he invented them, for they are certainly there. He seems unconsciously to have furnished the very contemporary evidence which such critics as himself pretend _not_ to have found, and profess they require, before they can accept the miracles and evangelical doctrines of the gospel. He allows that Matthew was an _eye-witness_, but denies that he wrote of _miracles_. He allows that Paul wrote of _miracles_, but he was _not_ an _eye-witness_. Now John both saw them and wrote of them, for he was the son of Zebedee, and he wrote the Apocalypse. This being proved, we have in it, from him, as an eye-witness of the miracles of Jesus, evidence which confirms the Gospels. The vision is from Him "_who liveth and was dead; the first begotten of the dead, who cometh with clouds_," and to one who was "_in the spirit on the Lord's day_." It as evidently presupposes the miraculous facts of the Gospels, and is supplementary to them, as certainly as it presupposes the prophecies of the Old Testament, and supplements the predictions of Daniel. The allegory of "a Lamb as it had been slain," which is prominent in the vision, is unmistakable. No critic could be so perverse as to deny that this plainly indicates that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and that His death is referred to as a sacrifice for sin in fulfilment of the ancient types and sacrificial rites; nor can it be doubted that the same is in harmony with the gospel which Paul preached and wrote about in his absolutely unquestionable epistles, to which alone we refer, avoiding, for obvious reasons, allusion to the Acts of the Apostles, as our author seems to ignore that book altogether.