« PreviousContinue »
fifth trumpet I do not conceive to mean the darkness of preceding heresies: it began to issue out of the bottomless pit or hell, when the false prophet retired to the cave of Hera to vent his imposture. I cannot see, why we are bound to conclude that the darkness must extend to the whole christian world, merely because it is said that the sun and the air were darkened ; any more than we ought to suppose the whole natural world darkened, because a great smoke darkened the sun and the air to the inhabitants of a particular country. The regions, in which the Waldenses most flourished, certainly did escape in a remarkable manner the incursions of the Saracens; and I think, with Bp. Newton, that this escape is a sufficient fulfilment of the prophecy. The fifth objection is invalid, supposing the prediction to relate to the Saracens in particular, and not to the Mohammedans in general. The Saracens indeed subsisted as a nation more than 150 years, just as the Gnostics continued as a sect more than 150 years; but they subsisted as an unsettled nation, answering to the character of a woe inflicted by locusts, exactly 150 years. In the sixth objection there is some weight, but I cannot allow it to counterbalance the arguments in favour of Mede’s interpretation. In prophecies avowedly descriptive we not unfrequently meet with a mixture of the literal with the symbolical. Thus, in the final battle of Armageddon, if we compare the description of it with other parallel prophecies, Christ is probably a literal character, the kings of the earth and their armies are certuinly literal characters, and the beast is just as certainly a symbolical character. Apply this remark to the Archdeacon's objection, that commentators, in order to refer the fifth trumpet to the Saracens, sometimes expound it literally and sometimes symbolically; and perhaps it may not be thought wbolly unanswerable*. So again : whatever might have been the state of the Turkish nation before it it is mentioned by St. John, it was certainly, immediately before the period of its supposed introduction into the Apocalypse, divided into four sultanies; and those four sultanies were seated upon the Eu
phrates: whereas the rise of Mohammedism from the cave of Hera in Arabia can by no ingenuity be transferred to the Euphrates. It is not sufficient to say, that the Saracens were at a subsequent period seated upon the Euphrates: a prophecy relating lo the rise of Mohammedism, must commence from Arąbia*. With regard to the propriety of considering the Saracens and the Turks as woes, the Archdeacon cannot object to it even according to his own definition of a woet: for surely the rapid propagation of Mohammedism by the Saracens, and its establishment by the Turks, may well be considered as two heavy woes to the christian church; especially if we take into the aecount the contemporary rise and establishment of the western apostasy. On the same ground, neither can he object to the interpretation which I have given of the third woe, as ushering in the open dere opment of French atheism and anarchy. But I much doubt whether his idea of the three apocalyptic woes be perfectly accurate. They are woes to “the inhabiters of the earth." But the inhabiters of the earth are not the pure church, but the idolatrous inhabitants of the Roman empire. Accordingly, all the woes, supposing the seven vials to constitute jointly the third woe, are represented as punishments inflicted both upon the eastern and western Romans ş. The sense, which the Archdeacon affixes to the apocalyptic earth, or (as he sometimes translates the original word) land, is irreconcileable with many passages wherein that symbol is introduced || : therefore I consider it as untenable. And I think his definition of the apocą. lyptic sea to be equally untenable, and for the same reason .
3. The Archdeacon supposes the woman described in the 12th chapter to denote the Church, not merely while christian, but from the very earliest ages; and he conceives the manchild to be the literal Messiah, with whom the Church had been travailing in earnest expectation through a long series of years. The war in heaven he likewise understands literally, and believes it to relate to the expulsion of Satan and his apostate
+ Pref. paxvii.
#Rev. viii. 13. 4, 20, 21. xi. 15, 18. xvi. 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19. pare the Archdeacon, p. 210, 211, with Rev. xii. 8, 12, 14.
$ Rev. ix.
ll Com I p. 211. angels,
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 yeurs. 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 erpulsion of the devil and his angels from heaven. After carefully reading however all that the Bishop and the Archdeacon have said in farour 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 sume hearen as the dragon. But by that heaven the Archdeacon understands the literal hearen 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, wbether patriarchal, Levitical, or Christian, in the literal hearen 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 bed The Archdeacon indeed
) may perhaps be thought by some needlessly to refine on the subject*: yet his opinion of this beast is substantially the same as my own.
To his remarks however on the seventh and cighth forms of Roman government I can by no means subscribe. He conceives the seventh to be the Exarchate of Ratema, 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 abundiantly 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 headI.
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 beust represents the whole of the greut 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.
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 Mohummedism, 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 analogi. cal) 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 him. self*) 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 Mohummedism: 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 allowst) 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. * Ανθιστοιχα βασιλικα. I p. 350, 351.