must be a book containing several perfectly distinct and detached prophecies, like the whole book of Daniel, each of which, for any thing that appears to the contrary, may either exactly synchronize or not exactly synchronize with its fellows. If the former opinion be just, the Archdeacon's scheme immediately falls to the ground; for then all the seven trumpets must necessarily be posterior in point of time to the opening of all the seven seals, and in a similar manner all the seven vials to the sounding of all the seven trumpets. If the latter opinion be just, then the question is, how are we to divide the Apocalypse into distinct prophecies? The only system, that to my own mind at least seems at all plausible, would be to suppose that each of the three septenaries of the seals, the trumpets, and the vials, forms a distinct prophecy. If we divide the Apocalypse at all, we must attend to the Apostle's own arrangement; and homogeneity plainly forbids us to separate the seals from the scals, the trumpets from the trumpets, or the vials from the vials. So again: as homogeneity requires us to attend to the Apostle's own arrangement in case of a division, it equally requires us to suppose that these three distinct prophecies exactly coincide with each other in point of chronology: otherwise, what commentator shall pretend, without any clue to guide him,· to determine the commencement of each? But the seals, as all agree, commence either from the ascension of our Lord, or at least from some era in the Apostle's own lifetime: therefore, if we divide the Apocalypse, homogeneity requires us to conclude that the trumpets and the vials commence likewise from the same era. Accordingly I have somewhere met with a commentator, whose work I have not at present by me, and whose name I cannot recollect, that proceeds upon this very principle. He divides the Apocalypse into the three prophecies of the seals, the trumpets, and the vials; and supposes, that all these prophecies run exactly parallel with each other, extending alike from the age of St. John to the end of the world. To this scheme, when examined in detail, the Archdeacon, as well as myself, will probably see insurmountable objections. Sir Isaac Newton adopts a somewhat dif ferent plan. He arranges all the seven trumpets under the

14

seventh

seventh seat, and supposes them chronologically to succeed the six first seuls; thus making the seals and the trumpets one continued prophecy: but, when he arrives at the vials, he conceives them to be only the trumpets repeated; thus making the vials a detached prophecy synchronizing with the trumpets*. Nothing can be more manifest in this plan than its arbitrary violation of homogeneity. What warrant can we have for asserting, that the seals and the trumpets form jointly a continued prophecy, but that the vials form a distinct separate prophecy synchronizing with that part of the former prophecy which is comprehended under the trumpets? But, if Sir Isaac violate homogeneity in his arrangement of the Apocalypse, much more surely does the Archdeacon: for he not only separates the seventh seal and the seventh trumpet from their respective predecessors, but divides the Apocalypse into three distinct prophecies, not one of which exactly synchronizes

with another.

A violation of homogeneity however is not the only objection to the Archdeacon's arrangement. It seems to me to involve in itself more than one obvious contradiction. For what reason is the seventh seal styled the seventh? The most natural answer is, because it succeeds the six first seals. Now, according to the Archdeacon's arrangement, it does not succeed them: for the opening of it exactly synchronizes with the opening of the first, and therefore of course precedes the opening of the remaining five, although the contents of the seventh seal itself are chronologically commensurate with the contents of all the other six. But, if the opening of the seventh seal synchronize with the opening of the first and therefore precede the opening of the remaining five, with what propriety can it be styled the seventh seal? The same remark applies to his arrangement of the trumpets. The first sounding of the seventh trumpet, which introduces the seven vials, exactly synchronizes with the first sounding of the sixth; although, in point of duration, the seventh trumpet extends beyond the sixth. Such, according to the Archdeacon, being the case, why should one be termed the seventh rather than the other. The three last trumpets are

* Observ. on the Apoc. p. 254, 293, 295.

moreover

moreover styled the three woes.

How then can the seventh trumpet be the third woe, if it in a great measure synchronize with the second woe? I am aware, that the Archdeacon does not consider the seventh trumpet as being itself the third woe, but only as introducing, at some period or other of its sounding, that third woe*. Such a supposition however is forbidden by homogeneity; for, since the fifth and the sixth trumpets manifestly introduce at their very earliest blast the first and second woes, we seem bound to conclude that the seventh trumpet should similarly introduce at its earliest blast the third woe. In this case then the second and the third woes exactly commence together: whence we are compelled to inquire, both why they should be styled second and third, and what event or series of events is intended by the one and what by the other? Nor is even this the only difficulty. The seventh trumpet is represented as beginning to sound after the expiration of the second woe, and as introducing quickly the third woe. It is likewise represented as beginning to sound after the death and revival of the witnesses; which must take place either (as Mede thinks) at the end of the 1260 years, or (as I am rather inclined to believe) toward the end of them. The Archdeacon himself thinks it most probable, that these events are yet to come ↑. Now, in either of these cases, how can the seventh trumpet succeed the death and revival of the witnesses, if it begin to sound at the very commencement of the 1260 years; that is to say at the very commencement of their prophesying?

Hitherto I have argued on the supposition, that it is allowable to divide the Apocalypse into distinct predictions; and have only attempted to. shew, that it is next to impossible to fix upon any unobjectionable method of dividing it. I fhall now proceed to maintain, that the system of dividing it rests upon no solid foundation. If we carefully read the Apocalypse itself, we shall find no indications of any such division as that which forms the very basis of the Archdeacon's scheme of interpretation. St. John only specifies a single division of his subject, the greater book and the little book. This division † p. 302, 303.

p. 409, note.

therefore

therefore must be allowed; and accordingly has been allowed by nearly every commentator. But the very circumstance of such a division being specified leads us almost necessarily to conclude, that no other division was intended by the Apostle : for, if it had been intended, why was it not similarly specified? The Archdeacon draws an analogical argument from the distinct prophecies of Daniel, in favour of the system of dividing the Apocalypse. After treating of his first series, that of the first six seals, which he supposes to extend from the ascension of Christ to the day of judgment, he adds, "Such appears to be "this general outline of the Christian history. Many im"portant intervals yet remain to be filled up under the seventh "seal, which will be found to contain all the prophecies remaining; and, by tracing the history over again, to supply many events which were only touched upon before. This "method of divine prediction, presenting at first a general "sketch or outline, and afterwards a more complete and finished ❝ colouring of events, is not peculiar to this prophetical book. "It is the just observation of Sir Isaac Newton, that the prophecies "of Daniel are all of them related to cach other; and that every following prophecy adds something new to the former. We may, "add to this observation, that the same empires in Daniel are

66

66

66

represented by various types and symbols. The four parts "of the image, and the four beasts, are varied symbols of the same empires. The bear and the he-goat, in different. visions, represent the same original: and so do the ram and the leopard. We are not therefore to be surprised, "when we find the same history of the Church beginning "anew, and appearing under other, yet corresponding,

types; thus filling up the outlines which had been traced. "before." This analogical argument appears to me to be inconclusive, on account of the defectiveness of parallelism between the manifestly distinct prophecies of Daniel and the only supposed distinct prophecies of St. John. Who for in-stance can doubt even momentarily of the complete distinctness of the two visions of the image and the four beasts, although,

they plainly treat of the same four empires? The one is seen by Nebuchadnezzar; the other, by Daniel himself: hence the line of distinction is so indelibly drawn between them, that we cannot for a moment suppose either that the feet of the image belongs to the prophecy of the four beasts, or that the first beast belongs to the prophecy of the image. Much the same remark applies to the three chronological visions seen all by Daniel. He beheld that of the four beasts in the first year of Belshazzar; that of the ram and the he-goat, in the third year of Belshazzar," after that which appeared unto "him at the first;" and that of the things noted in the Scripture of truth, in the third year of Cyrus *. Thus it is plain, that we can neither doubt the distinctness of these visions, nor hesitate where to draw the line of distinction between them. But will any one say, that the same positive directions are given us for dividing the Apocalypse into distinct prophecies? The whole is evidently revealed to St. John in one single vision, on one single Lord's day, and in one and the same isle of Patmos †. He does not exhibit himself, like Daniel, as awaking from one vision, and afterwards at a considerable interval of time as beholding another: but he describes himself as seeing the whole at once, although the different objects, which passed in review before him, appeared sometimes to be stationed in heaven, sometimes to emerge out of the sea, sometimes to occupy the land, and sometimes to be placed in the wilderness. Such being the case, how can we fairly argue from the dis tinct visions of Daniel, each of which nearly repeats the same portion of history, that the Apocalypse ought likewise to be divided into distinct visions? And what commentator, whe proceeds upon this system, can justly require us to accept his particular division of the book; a division, which must be altogether arbitrary because unsanctioned by St. John? If the Apocalypse is to be divided (a point which can never be proved, and which indeed the whole structure of the book seems to me to disprove), how can the Archdeacon pronounce, with even an appearance of certainty, that he has discovered

Dan. vii. 1.-viii. 1.x. 1.

t-Rer. i. 9, 10.

the