صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

the proper mode of dividing it? When I am told, that the first division comprehends the six first seals; the second division, the six first trumpets ushered in by the seventh seal; and the third division, the seven vials ushered in by the seventh trumpet: I feel myself walking on very unstable ground; for if the Apocalypse be divided at all, it seems unnatural to separate one seal and one trumpet from their respective fellows. But, even granting that the Apocalypse ought to be divided, and further granting that the Archdeacon's division is the right one; it still does not follow, that his interpretation ought to be admitted. If the six first seals constitute the first series, what right have we to say that the second series, introduced by the seventh seal, chronologically commences from the selfsame era as the first? If St. John himself had specified the Archdeacon's division, and told us that his second vision commenced with the seventh seal as the second historical vision recorded by Danièl commences with the winged lion; should we on that account have any right to conclude, that St. John's : second vision ought to be computed from the same era as his first? Would it not, on the contrary, be more natural to suppose, that, since his first vision was that of the six seals, and since his second vision was introduced by the seventh seal, the first chronologically succeeded the second, instead of commencing and running parallel with it? In fact, if we once allow the propriety of dividing the Apocalypse, and of supposing that the first division is a sketch of what is more largely predicted under the second divisiou, as the prophecy of the image in Daniel is a sketch of the prophecy of the four beasts, we seem to preclude the possibility of its ever being satisfactorily, explained by an uninspired commentator: for, in this case, who is to divide it; and where shall we find any two expositors, that write upon this plan, who will agree in their mode of division? There is, for obvious reasons, no discrepancy between commentators in determining where each of Daniel's four prophecies both begins and ends: but can we expect the same freedom from discrepancy, if they attempt to divide the Apocalypse into distinct visions agreeably to the analogy of Daniel's predictions?

On

1

On these grounds I feel myself compelled to adhere to the common opinion, that the Apocalypse, with the already mentioned and almost universally allowed exception of the little book, is one continued vision: and, if such an opinion be well founded, since the septenary of the seals precedes the septenary of the trumpets, and the septenary of the trumpets the. septenary of the vials, each of these septenaries must, as Bp. Newton argues, chronologically precede the other. Whether we suppose the last seal absolutely to comprehend as well as to introduce the seven trumpets, and the last trumpet in a similar manner the seven vials, is of no great consequence so far as the chronological arrangement of the Apocalypse is concerned ; though I think there is reason for admitting, with Bp. Newton, the propriety of such a supposition. For what does the seventh seal contain, unless we conceive it to contain the sevent trumpets; and where shall we find the third woe announced under the seventh trumpet, if we do not find it under the sevent vials, those seven last plagues in which is filled up the wrath of God *? But, if once we adopt the belief of the continuity and indivisibility of the Apocalypse (alway's excepting the little book), it is plain, that by far the greater part of the Arch. deacon's interpretations cannot be admitted, because they are founded upon its non-continuity and divisibility.

II. I shall now proceed to offer a few observations on some particular expositions of the Archdeacon, premising that it is not my intention to notice every little matter in which I happen to dissent from him.

1. His exposition of the first six seals I of course cannot adhit; because, extending as it does from the ascension of our Lord to the day of judgment, it seems to me to militate against the whole chronology of the Apocalypse. Yet his principle of expounding the four first seals is so very satisfactory, that I cannot but think it highly deserving of serious attention; and, if I mistake not, the Archdeacon himself points out what is probably the right interpretation of them. Till now I never met with any thing satisfactory on the subject: and I forbore

* Rev, xv, I. See Bp. Newton's very able Dissert. on Rev, xv.

to

to treat of it in my own Dissertation, both on that account, and because it has no connection with the 1260 days to the consideration of which I was peculiarly directing my attention. Hence I merely stated in a note, that I could not believe with Bp. Newton that the rider on the white horse under the first seal could symbolize the age of Vespasian, because the homogeneity of the Apocalypse required us to suppose him the same as the rider on the white horse described in the 19th chapter. But that rider is plainly the Messiah: whence I inferred with Mede, that the other rider must be the Messiah likewise; and that his going forth conquering and to conquer denoted the rapid propagation of the Gospel in the pure apostolical age. Yet, though I approved of Mede's interpretation of the first seal, I could not but see his inconsistency in referring the three riders" in the three succeeding seals to classes of Roman emperors: for homogeneity, as the Archdeacon very justly and forcibly argues, requires us to suppose that there must be some degree of analogy, some common bond of connection, between all the four riders and all the four horses under the four first seals. Bp. Newton avoids the inconsistency of Mede, by interpreting the four riders to denote four successive classes of Roman emperors; but then he equally, though in a different manner, violates homogeneity by teaching us, that the rider on the white horse in the 19th chapter is Christ, but that the rider on the white horse of the first seal represents the age of Vespasian, I entirely agree with the Archdeacon, that the 19th chapter must be our clue for interpreting the four seals; and consequently, since the first seal must relate to the spiritual victories of Christ in the apostolical age, the three other seals must depict three successive states of the Church. These four periods the Archdeacon does not attempt precisely to divide from each other, observing both truly and beautifully that the progress of corruption was gradual, and that its tints melted into each other like the colours of the rainbow. The first period is that of primitive Christianity: the second is that of internal dissentions leading to bloodshed: the third is that of spiritual bondage and a dearth of religious knowledge and the fourth is that of persecution. The Archdeacon thinks, that the vengeful character VOL. II.

LL

of

of the second seal is to be seen distinctly in the fourth century, though its commencement may be fixed from the end of the second century: that the abuses of the third seal did not arrive at their height till the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth centuries, though their origin may be traced so early as in the second century: and that the persecution of the fourth, though it did not attain its utmost horror till the twelfth century, began in some measure, under the influence of the second seal, with the reign of Constantine; increased under that of Theodosius; and seems to have been in positive existence, at least so far as edicts in favour of persecution are concerned, under that of Honorius. The cry of the martyrs, described in the fifth seal, he supposes to be the cry of all those who have suffered in the cause of Christ, whether by the instrumentality of pagans or papists. And their cry is at length heard, and produces the opening of the sixth seal, which ushers in the awful day of general retribution. The Archdeacon argues, and I think with 'much appearance of reason, that the rider of the third seal does not carry a pair of balances (as we read in our common translation), but a yoke, expressive of that spiritual bondage, which commenced indeed in the second century, but was fully matured by the agents of Popery: and, agreeably to this exposition, he conceives the dearth to be, “not a famine of bread nor a thirst of water, but "of hearing the word of the Lord."

Let us now see, whether an interpretation of the seals cannot be given, founded upon the Archdeacon's own principle of homogeneity, and yet according with what I believe to be the right chronological arrangement of the Apocalypse.

I am not aware, that we are necessarily bound to suppose that each apocalyptic period terminates precisely when another commences. St. John indeed expressly tells us, that the first woe ceases before the second begins, and that the second ceases before the third begins: whence we must conclude, that the three periods of the three last trumpets are not only sucessive, but that each entirely expires before the commencement of another. Respecting the duration of all the other periods he is totally silent: whence, although we are obliged to suppose them successive in point of commencement, it is by

no means equally clear that we are obliged to look upon one as terminated when another begins. As far as induction goes, we may rather infer the contrary: for it seems needless for the Apostle so carefully to inform us, that each woe terminates before its successor commences, if such were likewise the case with every other apocalyptic period. We may conclude then, that the influence both of each seal and of each vial probably extends into the peculiar period of its successor.

[ocr errors]

On these grounds, suppose we say, with the Archdeacon, that the first seal represents the age of primitive christianity : that the second represents that of fiery zeal without knowledge, commencing towards "the end of the second century when "the western rulers of the Church, and the wise and mode"rate Ireneus, were seen to interpose and exhort the furious bishop of Rome to cultivate Christian peace," and extending so far as to include the schism of the Donatists and the bitter fruits of the Arian controversy: and that the third represents that of spiritual bondage and religious dearth, which began like its predecessor in the second century, but extends through all the worst periods of popery. Suppose we further say, slightly varying from the Archdeacon, that the fourth exhibits to us what may emphatically be termed the age of persecution, not indeed of persecution inflicted by the Church, but of persecution suffered by the Church. This may be conceived to commence about the year 302 or 304 with the dreadful and general persecution of Diocletian. Other persecutions indeed there had been before this; but none either of equal violence or of equal extent, none under which the Church could appear so emphatically subject to the powers of death and hell, none under which the slaughter was so great as to cause the symbolical horse to assume a hue pale and livid-green like that of a half putrid corpse *. The consequences both of all the other

* « There were other persecutions before, but this was by far the most considerable, the tenth and last general persecution, which was begun by "Diocletian, and continued by others, and lasted longer and extended far"ther and was sharper and more bloody than any or all preceding; and "therefore this was particularly predicted. Eusebius and Lactantius, who

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]
« السابقةمتابعة »