صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

angels. Not indeed that he supposes a battle to have been actually fought; but he refers this part of the Apocalypse to the same conflict as that alluded to in Jude 6. and 2 Pet. ii. 4.

It is obvious, that this scheme is liable to much the same objections as those which I have already adduced against the schemes of Mede and Bp. Newton. The whole of the little book, as itself repeatedly testifies, treats of the 1260 years. This is so manifest, that all commentators, who depart from such an opinion, are obliged to have recourse to the most arbitrary glosses upon the text. Bp. Newton accordingly asserts, that the flight of the woman into the wilderness mentioned in the 6th verse is introduced proleptically, because it was posterior in point of time to the events which he supposes to be intended by the war in heaven. The Archdeacon, in a somewhat similar manner, would throw the whole of that war into a parenthesis, in order that he may be at liberty to apply it to the expulsion of the devil and his angels from heaven. After carefully reading however all that the Bishop and the Archdeacon have said in favour of their respective schemes, and after attentively considering the structure of the little book, I cannot think that either the prolepsis or the parenthesis are at all warranted by the general tenor of the prophecy; and I must still believe with Lowman, that the war between Michael and the dragon takes place during the continuance of the 1260 years. Nor is this the only objection to the Archdeacon's exposition: it contains likewise a violation. of homogeneity. The woman is said to be in the same heaven as the dragon. But by that heaven the Archdeacon understands the literal heaven out of which the apostate angels were cast. The woman therefore must have been in the literal heaven. But when was "the Church from the time of Adam*" down to the present time, whether patriarchal, Levitical, or Christian, in the literal heaven from which the devil was expelled?

4. I have already mentioned the agreement between the Archdeacon and myself, that the first apocalyptic beast is the Roman empire, and the same as Daniel's fourth beast; not, as some have supposed, the Papacy, and the same as the little horn of Daniel's beast. The Archdeacon indeed

[blocks in formation]

may perhaps be thought by some needlessly to refine on the subject; yet his opinion of this beast is substantially the To his remarks however on the seventh same as my own. and eighth forms of Roman government I can by no means subscribe. He conceives the seventh to be the Exarchate of Ravenna, and the eighth (unless I altogether mistake his meaning) to be a compound of all the Popish sovereigns, a college (if I may so speak) of all the ten hornst. As I have in the body of my work given my reasons very abundantly why I cannot allow the Exarchate of Ravenna to be the seventh head, I shall confine myself to some observations - on the Archdeacon's opinion of the eighth. The first objection to it is obviously, that it confounds the members of the heast, making his ten horns the same as his last head. The next is, that this apparently distinct eighth head is to be one of the preceding seven; so that the beast has really only seven, though he may seem upon a superficial view of his history to have eight. With which of his seven predecessors can this supposed collegiate regal head be identified? The last is, that the eighth head of the beast is represented as something perfectly distinct from the kings seated within his empire, although it manifestly influences their actions. We read, that the beast is to go into perdition while subsisting under his eighth form of government. Now, if we turn to the passage where his perdition is described, we find him heading a confederacy of those very kings whom the Archdeacon conceives jointly to constitute his last head‡.

5. Though I quite agree with the Archdeacon, that the little horn of Daniel's fourth beast, when generally considered, is the same as the second apocalyptic beast or the false prophet; yet, if we descend to particulars, I am unable to assent to his exposition of these kindred symbols. He thinks, that the second apocalyptic beast represents the whole of the great apostasy; and that his two horns denote, one the Papacy, and the other Mohammedism§. It is somewhat remarkable, that I had once in the course of my study of the Revelation

* See p. 329-335, 421-425, 436.
Rev. xvi. 13, 14, xix. 19.

✦ p. 431, 432.
§ p. 556-374.

fallen

fallen upon the very same opinion; but it is liable to what appears to myself insuperable objections.-Of the second apocalyptic beast strict unity of action is predicated: but it is natural to suppose, that, if his two horns had been designed to represent two such distinct powers as Popery and Mohammedism, a separate set of actions would have been ascribed to each; as there are, for instance, to the two little horns described by Daniel, and (what is perhaps more strictly analogical) to the several horns and the little horn of Daniel's fourth beast.-The second apocalyptic beast makes his appearance in the little book, which (according to the Archdeacon himself*) peculiarly relates to "another Antichristian usurpation" as contradistinguished from the already predicted Mohammedan usurpation, and of which "the western nations of the Gentiles are to be the object:" surely then, if we would be consistent in our expositions, we cannot expect to find in the little book any mention of Mohammedism.—The second apocalyptic beast is represented as being one false prophet, or (what amounts to the same thing) one body of personal false prophets : now, when we consider the nature of what Mede properly terms the counter-elements † of the Apocalypse, and when we find that the true prophets of God are said to be two in number, we can scarcely conceive that the counter-element to the two true prophets would have been one false prophet, when so fair an opportunity was presented of producing a perfect counter-element by exhibiting two false prophets, namely Popery and Mohammedism: one false prophet however is alone mentioned; whence it seems most natural to conclude that one power is alone intended. The power, which the second beast exercises under the protection of the first, is among other particulars (as the Archdeacon himself allows) idolatrous; and, if the exposition which Dr. Zouch and myself give of the image set up by him be just, it is idolatrously persecuting the disciples of Mohammed have ever warmly protested against idolatry, and have repeatedly charged the Papists with being guilty of it.-The second beast is represented as very closely connected with the first, and as exercising his p. 277, 278, 279. * Αντίστοιχα βασιλικα, $ p. 350, 351.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

authority

authority under his immediate sanction: this perfectly accords with Popery, but by no means so with Mohammedism, which has ever been in direct opposition to the papal Roman empire, and against which repeated crusades have been undertaken. -The second beast is allowed by the Archdeacon to be the same as the little horn of Daniel's fourth beast; therefore the little horn must, according to his scheme, typify at once both Popery and Mohammedism*: but what is there in the character of this little horn, which can reasonably induce us to suppose that it denotes two entirely distinct religious powers? All the other horns of all the other beasts represent each a single power homogeneity therefore forbids us to suppose that it alone represents two. Its actions equally forbid such a supposition. Like those of the second apocalyptic beast, they are strictly the actions of one. The little horn, for instance, subverts three of the other horns. Popery and Mohammedism cannot both subvert the self-same three horns: and, if they had each subverted three, then their common symbol the little horn would have subverted six. But Mohammedism never subverted any three, and the little horn does subvert three: therefore Mohammedism can have no connection with the little horn. The truth of these observations will yet further appear, if we consider the character of the mystic apocalyptic harlot. This character is so strongly drawn, that the Archdeacon cannot but confine it to the papal apostasy. Hence, in order to preserve consistency, he is obliged to say, that the harlot is not absolutely the same as the second beast or the false prophet, but only as one of his two hornst. Yet, to any unprejudiced reader the harlot must appear to perform exactly the same part to the ten-horned beast described in the 17th chapter, that the second beast does to the ten-horned beast in the 13th chapter, and the little horn to the ten-horned beast in the 7th chapter of Daniel. The Archdeacon indeed himself both draws out in three columns the parallelism of the little horn, the second apocalyptic beast, and the man of sin; and eisewhere parallelizes in two columns the false prophet or the second apocalyptic beast, and the harlott. What then can we conclude,

p. 350-357.

♦ p. 436, 437.

+ p. 354, 423.

clude, but that all three denote one and the same power, whatever that power may be; and consequently, since the harlot and the man of sin are exclusively the papal power, that both the others must be exclusively the papal power likewise *? Before this subject is altogether dismissed, I must remark, that the Archdeacon has adduced some very forcible arguments to prove that the second apocalyptic beast cannot denote, as it hath recently been conjectured, the infidel democratic power of France. He seems to me likewise to describe most justly the motives of the kings in stripping the harlot. "This hostility between the kings and the harlot," says he, "does not seem to proceed from any virtue in them, but fryin worldly "avarice and ambition. They covet her power and her "riches; and this change in their conduct seems to take place from the time when they awake from their intoxicaThey, who had been the means of exalting the "harlot, become the instruments of her fallt.”

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"tion.

The Archdeacon, I am persuaded, will not be offended at the freedom of these remarks. If we be rapidly approaching to the time of the end, as there is abundant reason to believe that we are, we certainly ought to redouble our caution in admitting any exposition of prophecy which will not stand the test of the strictest examination. It is by the running to and fro of many that knowledge is increased: and every person, that attempts to unfold the sacred oracles of God, ought not only to expect, but to desire, that his writings should be even severely scrutinized. He may indeed fairly demand, that he should be treated with civility: but, while he deprecates the offensive illiberality of sarcasın and the disgusting coarseness of vulgar scurrility, by some esteemed the very acmè of wit and perfection of criticism, he ought never to shrink from the manly sincerity of calm and dispassionate investigation. I cannot conclude with greater propriety than in the words of the Archdeacon himself. "Truth, in this important research, is, I hope, as it ought to be, my principal concern: and I shall "rejoice to see these sacred prophecies truly interpreted, though the correction of my mistakes should lay the four"dation of so desireable a superstructure§.”

66

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