brings us back, for the purpose of introducing the feven trumpets, to the very fame period at which the firft feal was opened, that the opening of the feventh feal fynchronizes, in the judgment of the Archdeacon, with the opening of the first feal, and that the feventh feal fingly comprehends exactly the fame fpace of time as all the fix firft feals conjointly.

The feventh feal then introduces and contains within itself all the feven trumpets, the first fix of which conftitute the Archdeacon's fecond feries of prophetic hiftory, as the firft fix feals had conftituted his firft feries and these two feriefes are in a great measure, though not altogether, commenfurate; for, though they both alike begin from the afcenfion of our Lord, the fix feals carry us to the day of judgment, whereas the fix trumpets only carry us to the end of the 1260 years."

The third feries is of courfe that of the vials, which the Archdeacon arranges under the Seventh trumpet, as he had previously arranged the feven trumpets under the feventh feal. But where is the place of the feventh trumpet, and confequently of the first vial? The Archdeacon does not bring back the feventh trumpet and the first vial to the afcenfion of our Lord, as he had previously brought back the feventh feal and the first trumpet, but only to the beginning of the times of the beaft or the 1260 years; through the whole of which he fuppofes the feventh trumpet and its component vials to extend. He conceives however, that the fixth trumpet introduces Mahommedifm in the year 606, and reaches to the downfall of Mahommedifm at the close of the 1260 years. Confequently the beginning of the feventh trumpet exactly fynchronizes with the beginning of the fixth trumpet; but the feventh extends beyond the fixth, and reaches, like the fixth feal and the feventh Seal, to the final confummation of all things.+

In brief, the chronological arrangement of the Archdeacon's three feriefes is as follows. The firft is that of the fix feals; and it reaches from the afcenfion of our Lord to the day of judgment. The fecond is that of the fix trumpets, introduced by and comprehended under the feventh feal; and it reaches from the afcenfion of our Lord to the termination of the 1260 years. The third is that of the feven vials, introduced by and comprehended under the feventh trumpet; and it reaches from the commencement of the times of the beaft or the 1260 years to the day of judgment.

Now it is impoffible not to fee, that the whole of this arrangement is purely arbitrary, and confequently that the various interpretations built upon it muft in a great measure be arbitrary likewife. The Apocalypfe muft either be one continued prophecy, like each of those delivered by Daniel; in which cafe (with the fingle exception, as all commentators are agreed, of the epifode contained in the little book) we must admit it, unlefs we be willing to give up all certainty of interpretation, to be ftrictly chronological or it must be a book containing feveral perfectly diflinct and detached prophecies, like the whole book of Daniel, each of which, for any thing that appears to the contrary, may either exactly fynchronize or not exactly fynchronize with its fellows. If the former opinion be juft, the Archdeacon's fcheme immediately falls to the ground; for then all the feven trumpets muft neceffarily be pofterior in

P. 273, 274.

:

† P. 308, 399, 400, 401, 252-973, 271, 359, 360.

era.

point of time to the opening of all the feven feals, and in a fimilar manner all the feven vials to the founding of all the feven trumpets. If the latter opinion be juft, then the queftion is, how are we to divide the apocalypfe into diftinct prophecies? The only fyftem, that to my own mind at least seems at all plausible, would be to fuppofe that each of the three feptenaries of the feals, the trumpets, and the vials, forms a distinct prophecy. If we divide the Apocalypfe at all, we must attend to the Apoftle's own arrangement; and homogeneity plainly forbids us to feparate the feals from the feals, 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 cafe of a divifion, it equally requires us to fuppofe that thefe three diftinct 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 feals, as all agree, commence either from the afcenfion of our Lord, or at leaft from fome era in the Apostle's own lifetime therefore, if we divide the Apocalypfe, bhomogeneity requires us to conclude that the trumpets and the vials commence likewife from the fame Accordingly I have fomewhere met with a commentator, whose work I have not at prefent by me, and whofe name I cannot recollect, that proceeds upon this very principle. He divides the Apocalypfe into the three prophecies of the feals, the trumpets, and the vials; and fup. poses, 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 fcheme, when examined in detail, the Archdeacon, as well as myself, will probably fee infurmountable objections. Sir Ifaac Newton adopts a fomewhat different plan. He arranges all the feven trumpets under the feventh feal, and fuppofes them chronologically to fucceed the fix firft feals; thus making the feals 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 fynchronizing with the trumpets* Nothing can be more manifest in this plan than its arbitrary violation of homogeneity. What warrant can we have for afferting, that the feals and the trumpets form jointly a continued prophecy, but that the vials form a diftinct feparate prophecy fynchronizing with that part of the former prophecy which is comprehended under the trumpets? But, if Sir Ifaac violate homogeneity in his arrangement of the Apocalypfe, much more furely does the Archdeacon: for he not only feparates the feventh feal and the feventh trumpet from their respective predeceffors, but divides the Apocalypfe into three diftinct prophecies, not one of which exactly fynchronizes 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 feventh feal ftyl ed the feventh? The moft natural answer is, because it fucceeds the fix firft feals. Now, according to the Archdeacon's arrangement, it does not fucceed them: for the opening of it exactly fynchronizes with the opening of the firft, and therefore of course precedes the opening of the re

* Obferv. on the Apoc. p. 254, 293, 295,†

maining five, although the contents of the feventh feal itself are chronolog ically commenfurate with the contents of all the other fix. But, if the opening of the feventh feal fynchronize with the opening of the first and therefore precede the opening of the remaining five, with what propriety can it be ftyled the feventh feal? The fame remark applies to his ar rangement of the trumpets. The firft founding of the feventh trumpet, which introduces the feven vials, exactly fynchronizes the first founding of the fixth; although, in point of duration, the feventh trumpet extends beyond the fixth. Such, according to the Archdeacon, being the cafe, why should one be termed the feventh rather than the other. The three iaft trumpets are moreover ftyled the three woes. How then can the feventh trumpet be the third woe, if it in a great measure synchronize with the second we? I am aware, that the Archdeacon does not confider the seventh trumpet as being itself the third woe, but only as introducing, at fome period or other of its founding, that third woe.* Such a fuppofition however is forbidden by homogeneity; for, fince the fifth and the fixth trumpets manifeftly introduce at their very earliest blaft the first and fecond woes, we feem bound to conclude that the feventh trumpet fhould fimilarly introduce at its earlieft blaft the third woe. In this cafe 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 feries of events is intended by the one and what by the other? Nor is even this the only difficulty. The feventh trumpet is reprefented as beginning to found after the expiration of the fecond wce, and as introducing quickly the third woe. It is likewife reprefented as beginning to found 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 thefe cafes, how can the feventh trumpet fucceed the death and revival of the witnesses, if it begin to found at the very commencement of the 1260 years; that is to fay at the very commencement of their prophefying?

Hitherto I have argued on the fuppofition, that it is allowable to divide the Apocalypfe into diftinct predictions; and have only attempted to fhew, that it is next to impoffible to fix upon any unobjectionable method of dividing it. I fhall now proceed to maintain, that the fyftem of dividing it refts upon no folid foundation. If we carefully read the Apocalypfe itself, we fhall find no indications of any fuch divifion as that which forms the very bafis of the Archdeacon's scheme of interpretation. Sir John only specifies a single division of his fubject, the greater book and the little book. This divifion therefore must be allowed; and accordingly has been allowed by perhaps every commentator. But the very circumftance of fuch a divifion being Specified leads us almost neceffarily to conclude, that no other divifion was intended by the Apostle: for, if it had been intended, why was it not fimilarly specified? The Archdeacon draws an analogical argument from the diftinct prophecies of Daniel, in favour of the fyftem of dividing the Apocalypfe. After treating of his first series, that of the first fix feals which he fuppofes to extend from the afcenfion of +P. 302, 303.

P. 409, note.

Chrift to the day of judgment, he adds, "Such appears to be this general outline of the Chriftian hiftory. Many important intervals yet remain to be filled up under the feventh feal, which will be found to contain all the prophecies remaining; and, by tracing the hiftory over again, to fupply many events which were only touched upon before. This method of divine prediction, prefenting at firft 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 juft obfervation of Sir Ifaac Newton, that the prophecies of Daniel are all of them related to each other ; and that every following prophecy adds fomething new to the former. We may add to this obfervation, that the fame empires in Daniel are reprefented by various types and fymbols. The four parts of the image, and the four beafts, are varied fymbols of the fame empires. The bear and the he-goat, in different vifions, reprefent the fame original: and fo do the ram and the leopard. We are not therefore to be surprised, when we find the fame hiftory of the Church beginning anew, and appearing under other, yet correfponding, types; thus filling up the outlines which had been traced before."* This analogical argument appears to me to be inconclufive, on account of the defectivenefs of parallelism between the manifeflly diflinct prophecies of Daniel and the only fuppofed diflinct prophecies of St. John. Who for inftance can doubt even momentarily of the complete diftinctnefs of the two vifions of the image and the four beafts, although they plainly treat of the fame four empires? The one is feen by Nebuchadnezzar; the other, by Daniel himself: hence the line of distinction is fo indelibly drawn between them, that we cannot for a moment fuppofe either that the feet of the image belongs to the prophecy of the four beafts, or that the firft beat belongs to the prophecy of the im age. Much the fame remark applies to the three chronological vifions feen all by Daniel. He beheld that of the four beafts in the first year of Belfhazzar; that of the ram and the he-goat, in the third year of Belfhazzar," 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 diflinctness of thefe vifions, nor hefitate where to draw the line of diftinction between them. But will any one fay, that the fame pofitive directions are given us for dividing the Apocalypfe into diftinct prophecies? The whole is evidently revealed to St. John in one fingle vifion, on one fingle Lord's day, and in one and the fame ifle of Patmos.‡ He does not exhibit himself, like Daniel, as awaking from one vifion, and afterwards at a confiderable interval of time as beholding another : but he describes himself as feeing the whole at once, although the different objects, which paffed in review before him, appeared fometimes to be ftationed in heaven, fometimes to emerge out of the fea, fometimes to occupy the land, and fometimes to be placed in the wilderness. Such being the cafe, how can we fairly argue from the distinct vifions of Daniel, each of which nearly repeats the fame portion of hiftory, that the Apocalypse ought likewife to be divided in to diftinct vifions? And what commentator, who proceeds upon this fyf. tem, can juftly require us to accept his particular divifion of the book; ↑ Dan. vii. 1.-viii, 1.—x. 1.

* P. 197.

Rev. i. 9, 10.

a divifion, which must be altogether arbitrary becaufe unfanctioned by St. John? If the Apocalypfe is to be divided (a point which can never be proved, and which indeed the whole ftructure of the book feems to me to difprove,) how can the Archdeacon pronounce, with even an appearance of certainty, that he has difcovered the proper mode of dividing it? When I am told, that the firft divifion comprehends the fix firft feals; the fecond divifion, the fixth first trumpets ufhered in by the seventh feal; and the third divifion, the feven vials ushered in by the Seventh trumpet: I feel myfelf walking on very unstable ground; for, if the Apocalypfe be divided at all, it feems unnatural to feparate one feal and one trumpet from their respective fellows. But, even granting that the Apocalypfe ought to be divided, and further granting that the Archdeacon's divifion is the right one; it ftill does not follow, that his interpretation ought to be admitted. If the fix firft seals constitute the first series, what right have we to fay that the fecond feries, introduced by the seventh seal, chronologically commences from the felf fame era as the first? If St. John bimjelf had fpecified the Archdeacon's divifion, and told us that his fecond vision commenced with the feventh Jeal as the second historical vision recorded by Daniel commences with the winged lion; fhould we on that account have any right to conclude, that St. John's second vifion ought to be computed from the fame era as his firft? Would it not, on the contrary, be more natural to fuppofe, that, fince his firft vifion was that of the fix feals, and fince his fecond vision was introduced by the feventh feal, the first chronologically fucceeded the fecond, instead of commencing and running parallel with it? In fact, if we once allow the propriety of dividing the Apocalypfe and of fuppofing that the first divifion is a fketch of what is more largely predicted under the second divifion as the prophecy of the image in Daniel is a sketch of the prophecy of the four beafts, we feem to preclude the poffibility of its ever being fatisfactorily explained by an uninfpired commentator: for, in this cafe, who is to divide it; and where fhall we find any two expofitors, that write upon this plan, who will agree in their mode of divifion? There is, for obvious reafons, no difcrepancy between commentators in determining where each of Daniel's four prophecies both begins and ends : but can we expect the fame freedom from difcrepancy, if they attempt to divide the Apocalypse into diftinct vifions agreeably to the analogy of Daniel's predictions?

On thefe grounds I feel myself compelled to adhere to the common opinion, that the Apocalypfe, with the already mentioned and univerfally allowed exception of the little book, is one continued vifion: and, if fuch an opinion be well founded, fince the feptenary of the feals precedes the feptenary of the trumpets, and the feptenary of the trumpets the feptenary of the vials, each of thefe feptenaries muft, as Bp. Newton argues chronologi. cally precede the other. Whether we fuppofe the laft feal abfolutely to comprehend as well as to introduce the feven trumpets, and the last trumpet in a fimilar manner the feven vials, is of no great confequence fo far as the chronological arrangement of the Apocalypfe is concerned; though I think there is reafon for admitting, with Bp. Newton, the propriety of fuch a fuppofition. For what does the feventh feal contain, unlefs we conceive it to contain the feven trumpets; and where fhall we find the third woe announced under the feventh trumpet, if we do not find it under the feven