moned a vast concourse of all ranks outside the walls of Wittemberg; himself kindled a fire in a vast pile of wood previously prepared for the purpose; and, by the hands of the common hangman, committed the Bull, together with the Papal Decretals, Canons, &c. accompanying, to the flames. Moreover in his published Answer to the Bull he rejected and poured contempt on its thunders, as the infernal voices of ANTICHrist.'

Such was the memorable act that marked the completion of the first epoch of the Reformation. Once convinced by the heavenly teaching of this awful and so long unsuspected truth, no earthly terrors or power could induce from Luther its recantation. When summoned before the Emperor, Legate, and Germanic Princes and Nobles at the Diet of Worms, the momentous cause intrusted to him was only strengthened by his intrepid confession. Moreover he was now no longer alone, as once, in the undertaking. A goodly company,-Melancthon, Carolstadt, Bugenhagen, Justus Jonas, and many others, since known as Fathers of the Reformation,—had already joined themselves to him. In many too, perhaps in most, of the German universities and towns, by students and by people, and by not a few even of priests and monks also, the new doctrine had been embraced with enthusiasm: besides that in Switzerland the work was progressing. It is the remark of his biographer, when arrived at this epoch of the Reformation, that at various times the world has seen the power of an idea, even of common and earthly origin, to penetrate society and rouse nations; how much more, he adds,

1 Luther's Reply (which is given complete in Foxe, Vol. v. 660-668) bore date June 15, 1520; and was entitled, An Answer to the execrable Bull of Antichrist. "I hold," he says in it, "the author of this Bull to be Antichrist, and Rome the kingdom of Antichrist." "Is not thy whorish face ashamed," he adds, to set the vanities of thy naked words against the thunderbolts of God's eternal word?" Again; "Dost thou not show thyself to be the adversary, extolled above all that is called God? Art thou not that man of sin that denieth God the Redeemer ?" And then to Christian princes; "Ye have given your names to Christ in baptism: and can ye now abide these infernal voices of such an Antichrist ?"

2 Held from Jan. 6 to May 8, A.D. 1521.-Luther's arrival at Worms was on the 16th of April, his departure April 27: the former about four months therefore after his burning the Pope's Bull.

when, as now, it was an idea originating from heaven.1 In this observation he is speaking of the new view spread abroad of Christ and Antichrist. And have we not a comment in it on the Apocalyptic statement, "I heard a voice from heaven saying to me, Write not!" The effect was seen and confessed by the astonished Legate, when, in travelling through Germany to Worms, instead of the wonted honors and reverence to his high office, he found himself disregarded and shunned as an agent of ANTICHRIST.2 A mighty revolution, it was evident, had begun ;-and who could foresee its issue?

CHAPTER V.

REVELATION OF THE ADVANCED CHRONOLOGICAL POSITION OF THE REFORMATION IN DANIEL'S AND IN THE APOCALYPTIC PROPHECIES.

"And the Angel, which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the land, lifted up his hand to heaven, and sware by Him that liveth for ever and ever, who created the heaven and the things that therein are, and the earth and the things that therein are, and the sea and the things which are therein, that the time shall not yet be: 3 but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, whensoever he may be about to sound, then the mystery of God shall be finished; 5 according to the glad tidings that He hath declared to his servants the prophets." Apoc. x. 5-7.

In the two preceding and primary acts of this vision

1 Merle D'Aubigné, ii. 172; "Si une idée humaine a une telle force, quel pouvoir n'aura pas une idée descendue du ciel, quand Dieu lui ouvre la porte des cœurs!" He observes that the world has not often seen this instancing in but two examples; the first that of the opening æra of Christianity, the second this of the Reformation. He adds, with reference to a yet more glorious coming exemplification," Et il le verra en des jours futurs." 2 Ibid ii. 178. 4 See p. 124.

3 See the Notes on page 123 infrà.

5 See p. 124 Note 2 infrà.

6 ὡς ευηγγέλισε τις εαυτου δόλες τις προφητας,

of the self-revealing rainbow-circled Covenant-Angel, and its recorded accompaniments and consequents on the Apocalyptic scene, we traced in our former Chapter a most accurate prefiguration of the two grand religious discoveries, made first to Luther, and then to others in Christendom, which introduced the great Protestant Reformation. Is it the case that the present very different but almost equally striking figuration may be historically explained on the same principle; as signifying a further revelation made, in due chronological order of sequence, to Luther and other reforming doctors, and therein a further epoch of advance and progress in the Reformation? Let us, as before, first well consider the figuration; then turn to history to enquire after the fulfilment.

I. THE PROPHECY.

Now with regard to this prophetic passage under consideration, it is to be premised that two important changes of translation have been made by me in it. The first is

of the clause ότι χρονος εκ εσαι ετι' which I have rendered in common with many other expositors," that the time shall not yet be;" in place of the authorized version, "that time shall be no longer :"-the other of the clause irav μexy σage which I render, "whensoever he may be μελλη σαλπίζειν about to sound;" instead of the authorized," when he shall begin to sound."-In the first of these changes we cannot, I think, be materially mistaken. The authorized version of it, "there shall be time no longer," is one clearly inadmissible. For xpovos in the abstract sense of time, as opposed to eternity, is never used in Scripture :1 and moreover how could it be said that time should at the sounding of the seventh Trumpet-Angel, be no longer, when the mutations introduced by that Trumpet were to issue, as appears clearly from the Apocalyptic sequel, in the millennial reign of Christ ;-a reign in

1 The word most nearly used in this sense is alwv. So Matt. xiii. 39, 40, 49, EV IN OVVTEλEIG Tov aiwvos, and elsewhere; where however it only denotes the duration of the present dispensation; the terminating point of the awr being in Christ's millennial reign, and the then regeneration of all things.

cluding, as its commencing term, the definite period of 1000 years of time? Another proposed translation, "There shall be delay no more," appears to be possible indeed, and suitable to the context, but on grammatical grounds scarcely so probable as that given by me :1 and a third too has been proposed, A time shall not yet be, in the mystical prophetic sense of a time, which is also possible, though I think objectionable.2 As to that which I have adopted, while there seems to be no valid grammatical objection to it, it will be found both to

1 Though Xpovizw, the verb, means to delay, and xpovos with verbs like wotew be used sometimes in the same sense, yet where is there example of Xpovos with the substantive verb meaning delay?

2 This third version is that of Messrs. Birks and Bickersteth: who, construing Xpovos as a year, would explain it in a mystical sense, on the year-day system, as 360 years. But although the word xpovos is sometimes used for a year it is nerer used to express the prophetic mystical period time, times, and half a time, either in the Septuagint translation of Daniel, (a prophet and prophecy here evidently referred to,) or in the Apocalypse: in these cases the word used is always and distinctively kaipos. Mr. Birks does not appear to me to have advanced a step towards removing the gravity of this objection. (See his Prophetic Elements, pp. 385-388).

3 The only debateable objection is grounded on the absence of the definite article before xpovos. But, if I mistake not, the circumstance of the verb of the sentence being the substantive verb will account for it. For this is one of the rules laid down by Bishop Middleton; (On the Greek Article, Part I. ch. iii. § 3, p. 60 ;)—that where the copula, or verb connecting the subject and the predicate, is the verb substantive, there the article is omitted. His rule is derived from the implication of existence in the definite article, considered in its original character as a demonstrative pronoun. What need then of it, he argues, where the verb is one merely affirming or denying existence? "To affirm the existence of that of which the existence is already assumed would be superfluous; to deny it would be contradictory and absurd." He illustrates, among other examples, from Acts xxiii. 5; "I knew not oтi esi apxiepevs," rightly rendered, he says, "Ananias is the high priest."-To which let me add two or three other examples, more exactly parallel with the clause under discussion, from their involving nouns of time: e. g. John v. 9, ny de σaßßaтov "it was the sabbath;" whereas with the other verbs aaßßatov in the same sense has the definite article attached : again John xix. 14; ην δε παρασκευη του πασχα "it was the preparation of the passover:" and Mark xi. 13; ov yap ny kaipos σUKwv "it was not the time of fig-gathering." Yet once more we read in John v. 1, Meta Tauта Y CON TW Isda on which passage a question of importance, from its bearing on the chronology of Christ's life, has arisen; viz. whether the feast spoken of be the Feast kar' eğʊxny, i. e. the Feast of the Passover, or it be simply a Feast. Bishop Mid

* So Demosthenes, χρονες εμποιειν τοις πραγμασι, moram negotiis exhibere. Compare Daniel ii. 16; Ηξίωσε τον βασιλεα ότι χρονον δῳ αὐτῷ; and Apoc. ii. 21 ; Εδωκα αυτή χρονον.

+ So, for example, Thucydides, i. 30 : Τε τε χρονο το πλεις8 μετα την ναυμαχιαν επεκρατών της θακασσης rendered by Duker, “ marima ejus anni parte!” Also Diodorus Sic. Η ολυμπιας πληρεται κατα τέτταρας χρόνους. And so Phavorinus in his Lexicon ; Χρόνος καλείται ή τε ήλιο κίνησις απο του αυτό εις το αυτό, και ενιαυτός, και ετος. See too Suicer on the word.

suit the context, and to be in the present case substantially the same in sense with the former of the rival versions, and historically considered hardly inconsistent with the other.

With regard to the latter clause amended, I scarcely need suggest to the classical reader that όταν μελλη σαλπίζειν cannot mean, "when he shall begin to sound." My version," whensoever he may be about to sound," is but its literal rendering. And forasmuch as the event spoken of as to take place, viz., the ending or completion of God's mystery, is referred not to the time just before the seventh angel's sounding, but to the days subsequently following on the sounding,'-I therefore propose to construe the clause in question parenthetically, thus; "But in the days of the seventh angel, (whensoever he may be about to sound,) then the mystery of God shall be finished." Thus all will harmonize :-by the parenthetic words a certain dubiousness only being made to attach to the time of the seventh Angel's sounding, and its results, though an event apparently not very distant.

This seems all that is necessary in the way of critical remark on the passage; Bishop Middleton having long since sufficiently explained and justified the authorized rendering of και ετελέσθη.2 I therefore now pass to the figuration itself.

dleton argues that the absence of the article offers no objection to the Kar' eƐoxnv meaning; because, as in the other examples, of the verb being the verb substantive. He observes also that the addition of the words μeта тavта to the verb of existence does not preclude the application of the principle; because it was not the principal purpose of the writer to affirm that the festival was after, rather than before, the events previously recorded.-The same may be said, I conceive, of the ET added in the present instance. The time's not being yet was not that on which the main point and force of the Angel's oath insisted; but rather the certainty of its being in the days of the seventh Angel, whensoever his time of sounding.

1 Εν ταις ήμεραις της φωνης τε ἑβδομς αγγελε, όταν μελλῃ σαλπίζειν. Compare the Septuagint Version of Jer. xxix. 10; (numbered xxxvi. 10 in the Septuagint;) Όταν μελλῃ πληρεσθαι Βαβυλων ἑβδομήκοντα ετη επισκεψομαι ὑμας where it is evident, alike from the Hebrew original, and from the necessary sense of the passage, that the time designated of God's visitation of captive Judah is that following on, not that just preceding, the fulfilment of the seventy years.

2 It is to be observed that there is another reading of this clause, xa teλeσon, in the aorist subjunctive. If this be adopted, as it has been by Mill, there will be nothing remarkable in the construction: the drav governing the Teλeσon, as well as the μeλλn; and the point of affirmation,-as inferred from the preceding