« السابقةمتابعة »
its existence. Now this fourth beast of Daniel is said to have a little horn, springing up among his ten larger horns ; which little horn has been shewn to be the Papacy. If then the little horn be the Papacy, and if Daniel's fourth beast be not the Papacy, but the Roman empire out of which the Papacy sprung; St. John's first beast, being the same as Daniel's fourth beast, must assuredly be the Roman empire likewise, and therefore cannot be the Papacy. To me, I must be free to confess, it is a matter of no small wonder, that the first beast of St. John should ever have been thought to symbolize the Papacy : for, if this beast be the same as Daniel's fourth beast, a point maintained even by Bp. Newton himself, he certainly cannot be likewise the same as only the little horn of that very identical beast. The reason is manifest : such a supposition as this does in fact make Daniel's fourth beast precisely the same as his own little horn; a supposition to the full as unwarrantable, as to conclude that he is the same as any one of his other ten horns*. Yet does Bp. Newton, not
* This opinion cannot be better confuted than in the following passage. “Si Malvenda et Lessio fides habeatur, *** bestia hac Johannis decacornis et septiceps nihil aliud erit
quam cornu illud parvulum bestiæ quartæ Danielis: et
proinde decem cornua apud Danielem non erunt cornua “ bestiæ, sed parvi istius corniculi, quod tamen post illa de“ cem exortum est, septemque capita apud Johannem ejusdem “ corniculi capita erunt. Quo quid absurdius? Certè si “ bestia illa quarta Romanum est imperium, súnt hæc cornua 19
regarding this manifest violation of symbolical analogy and figurative propriety, adopt the in. consistent scheme of typifying the Papacy both by the eleventh horn of a beast, and by the identical beast himself to whom that eleventh horn belongs*.
“ ipsius bestiæ, h. e. Romani statūs, vel reges provinciarum, “ in quas imperium illum dividendum est.” Downbam. apud Pol. Synop. in loc.
* It was observed to me with his usual acuteness by Bp. Horsley, in a conversation upon this very subject, that it is impossible for one of the horns of a symbolical beast to mean the same thing as the symbolical beast himself. A heud, im. porting as it does a form of government, must necessarily be in some sort identified with the beast or empire over which it presides, because they jointly form only a single body politic: but a horn, importing one of the kingdoms which have sprung out of an empire, can never be identified with the whole empire of which it constitutes only a single part. Hence St. John does not say, that the sir first heads of the beast are respectively the same as the benst himself; because such an observation would have been plainly superfluous, the empire under all its sir heuds being in an undivided state, and therefore of course universally subject to its sir successive forms of govern'ment : but he specially observes, that the last head should be the beast himself; because, although the empire previous to the rise of this last head had brànched out into ten horns, yet this last mighty head should at its first rise so completely swallow up most of the ten separate horns, as to become, like each of its sir predecessors, the whole beast, however unexpected such an event might be after the division of the empire. may indeed be symbolized both by the little hörn of one beast, and by the whole body of another distinct beast, as is the case with the spiritual kingdom of the Papaey expanding into a spirituul'empire: but it certainly cannot be symbolized both
The seren-headed and ten-horned apocalyptic beast then is the same as the fourth and teil-horned beast of Daniel : in other words, he is the Roman empire ; which, according to the sure declaration of prophecy, is the last unirersal empire with which the Church shall be concerned. Daniel does not mention the seven heads of this beast, nor does he specially define his form; he only observes, that he was dreadful, terrible, and strong, and that he was diverse from all ihe beasts that were before him: but St. John amply supplies this deficiency, by informing us, that he had not only the ten horns
by the horn of a beast and by the very identical beast to whom that horn is attached.
Mr. Bicheno adopts and states the commonly received interpretation in such a manner as to make it plainly confute itself. “ What is here (Dan. vii. 8.) represented under the s emblem of a horn of the fourth beast is the same tyranny " which is shewn to John (Rev. xii, 1–10.) as a beast. • In this all our best commentators are agreed. Nor let it “ seem strange, that what is here prefigured by a horn of the
fourth beast, the Roman dominion, should be represented “ in another vision as a beast with seven heuds and ten horns" (Signs of the Times. Part. i. p. 13.). To me, I must confess, such a mode of exposition appears very strange.
The tenhorned beast of Daniel is manifestly the ten-horned beast of St. John: how then can the little horn, which sprung up long after the rise of the beast, be the beast himself; and how can the apocalyptic beast, six of whose heads, according to Mr. Bicheno's own plan are secular heads, symbolize nothing except the ecclesiastical Roman power ?
Mr. Bicheno, in his reply to me, gives up the idea that the little horn of Daniel's fourth beast is altogether the same as
noticed by Daniel, but likewise seven heads; and that his shape was compounded of all the three beasts which preceded him, the Babylonian lion, the Medo-Persian bear, and the Macedonian leopard.
1. This general position being established with the full original consent even of Bp. Newton himself, the first point to be considered is, in what sense St. John could be said prophetically to behold the rise of the Roman empire, when it had already been in existence many ages before he was born, and even when he himself unequivocally declares such to be the case *.
The Apostle affords us two distinct solutions of this important question : first by teaching us that the beast, after his rise from the sea, should have power given him to practise prosperously forty two months or 1260 days, the very period
during the first apocalyptic beast. He now maintains, that " the first " apocalyptic beast is, in a certain sense, the same as the little “ horn, yet not precisely so. It, is a new symbol, in which “ the characters of both the beast of Daniel and its little horn
are blended. It is the same tyranny as the horn, communi
cating its spirit and character, so to speak, to all the “ anti-christian kingdoms, and so uniting itself with all their
governments, as to identity itself with them; and by which “ union they become politico-ecclesiastical, and participate “ in all its blasphemies, corruptions, and persecuting enor“ mities.” This definition seems to me so extremely perplexed, and so replete with a kind of contradictory confusion, that it works no conviction in my mind. It is however con=1 sidered at large in my answer to Mr. Bicheno, * See Rey, xvii. 10.
during which his little horn was to carry on its persecutions against the saints*; and afterwards by telling us, that this same beast “was, and is not, and yet is.” Hence it appears, that, in some sense or another, the Roman beast was to possess a wonderful peculiarity which should most essentially distinguish him from his three predecessors in universal empire : he was first to exist; afterwards he was to cease to exist; and lastly he was again to come into existence.
“ The mystery of the woman, and of the beast " that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads " and ten horns. The beast, that thou sawest, " was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the
bottomless pit, and go into perdition : and
they, that dwell on the earth, shall wonder, " whose names were not written in the book of “ life from the foundation of the world, when they “ behold the beast, that was, and is not, and yet
From comparing this passage with St. John's assertion, that he saw the beast arise out of the sea, and that having thus arisen he was to possess power forty two months; it will be manifest, that the second period of the beast's existence begins with, terminates with, and is therefore exactly
The Ronan beast revived, and began to practise, when he delivered the saints into the hand of his little horn : consequently the period of his practising, and the reign of his little korn, are necessarily commensurate.' See Bp. Newton's Dissert. on Rev, xiii.