Professor J. H. Moulton's description of angels: "Spiritual counterparts of human individuals or

communities, dwelling in heaven, but subject to changes depending on the good or evil behaviour of their

complementary beings on earth."

How far did St. John, in employing the symbolism current at the time, accept and approve it as a correct

statement of truth? That q uestion naturally arises; but the answer seems inevitable. He regards this

symbolism merely as a way of making spiritual ideas intelligible to the ordinary human mind, after the

fashion of the parables in the life of Christ. He was under the influence of the common and accepted ways of

expressing spiritual, or philosophical, or theological truth, just as he was under the influence of fashionable

forms in literature. He took these and made the best he could of them. The apocalyptic form of literature was

far from being a high one; and the Apocalypse of John suffers from the unfortunate choice of this form: only

occasionally is the author able to free himself from the chilling influence of that fanciful and extravagant

mode of expression. The marked difference in character and power between the Apocalypse and the Gospel

of St. John is in great measure due to the poor models which he followed in the former.

It is interesting that one of the most fashionable methods of expressing highly generalised truths or

principles --the genealogical method--is never employed by John (except in the universally accepted phrases,

"son of man," "Son of God"). The contempt expressed by Paul for the "fables and endless genealogies" of

current philosophy and science seems to have been shared by most of the Christian writers; and it is true

that no form of veiling ignorance by a show of words was ever invented more dangerous and more tempting

than the genealogical. An example of the genealogical method may be found in Addison's 35th Spectator, an

imitation of the old form, but humorous instead of pedantic.