« PreviousContinue »
France, the Stadholderate of Holland, and the Swiss confederacy-The first objection, that an historical student would make to such a mode of interpretation, is obviously this: Daniel declares, that three of the first ten horns should be plucked up before the little horn: now, upon adverting to the list of the ten primary Gothic sovereignties into which the Roman empire was originally divided, we shall find it a vain labour to discover among them those two completely modern states, Holland and Switzerland. One only of the first ten horns was in existence when the French revolution broke out, the ancient kingdom of the Franks :* hence it is plainly impossible, that the prophecy should receive its accomplishment in the present day. If it has not been long since fulfilled, it now never can be fulfilled — The next objection is, that France cannot, with any shew of probability, be reckoned at once both the little horn which subdues, and the horn which is subdued. I am aware, that Mr. Galloway supposes the little horn to be revolutionary France, and the other horn to be regal France; but the language of prophecy knows no such distinctions. It considers states, rather than revolutions of states ; though it will frequently mark, with wonderful accuracy, even those very revolutions.
The Roman empire, or the fourth becst, under all its seven different heads or forms of government, is still considered as only one power. The destruction of its regal head by the consulate, and of its consular head by the emperorship, is not represented under the image of its being attacked by another bcast : Rome is never said by the prophet to subdue Rome. In a similar manner, France whether under the government of the Merovingians, the Carlovingians, or the Capets : whether oppressed by the diabolical tyranny of the republican faction, or tamely submitting to the degrading usurpation of the upstart fåmily of Buonapartè : France, however, circumstanced in point of legislature, is still France, still one of the original ten horns of the Roman beast. Hence surely it cannot be at once both the horn that subdues, and the horn that is subdued : France is never said by the prophet to subdue France.
* In strict propriety of speech, the original kingdom of the Angels cannot be considered as being at present in existence, the line of succession having been broken both by the Danish and Norman conquests : one only therefore of the ten primary kingdoms, that of the Franks, remained at the era of the revolution. The kingdom of the Huns indeed still exists nominally, but its independence is no more. It is swallowed up in the superior power of Austria, in the same manner as the primitive kingdom of Burgundy is lost in that of the Franks. There is moreover another reason, why the modern kingdom of Hungary can scarcely be considered the same as the primitive kingdom of the Huns. “ Hungary,” says Mr. Gibbon, “ has been successively occupied by three Scythian colonies : the Huns of Attila (who constituted the primitive kingdom ;) the Abares, in the sixth century; and the Turks of Magiars, a. D. 889. the immediate and genuine ancestors of the modern Hungarians, whose connection with the two former is extremely faint and remote." Hist, of Decline and Fall, Vol. vi. p. 38.
The little horn is further to wear out the saints of the Most High—These saints Mr. Galloway supposes to be the popish clergy of France, and such of the laity as were unwilling to give up the Christianity of the Church of Rome for the blasphemous atheism of the mock republic
. That there have been many sincere Christians in the midst of all the voluntary humility and superstitious willworship of the mystic Babylon,* 1 am by no means disposed to deny. To adopt the words of the excellent Hooker, “ Forasmuch as it may be said of the Church of Rome, she hath yet a little strength, she doth not directly deny the foundation of Christianity; I may, I trust, without offence, persuade myself that thousands of our fathers, in former times living and dying within her walls, have found mercy at the hands of God.t Nevertheless, though I readily make this concession to the pious papist, I cannot quite so easily bring myself to think, that the members of an idolatrous and persecuting A postacy, when spoken of collectively, would be called by the Holy Spirit of God the saints of the Most High. They, who as a body, are represented as worshippers of mediating demons, and idols of gold and silver and brass and stone and wood; as murderous persecutors, sorcerers or jugglers, spiritual fornicators, and thieves :: they, who bear such a character in one part of Scripture, can never sureJy be honoured with the title of saints of the Most High in another part. Even Mr. Galloway himself, though he supposes the popish clergy of Frunce to be the saints worn out by the tyranny of the little horn; yet, in another part of his work thinks, that the second vial of the wrath of God is to be poured out upon papal Rome, “as a just judgment for her abominable idolatry, for her artful seduction and unrelenting and bloody persecutions of the Church of his blessed Son, and for her daring impiety in the assumption of his divine attributes."* Now, although the French clergy did not quite so implicitly submit to the unqualified claims of the pretended successors of St. Peter as those of Spain, Portugal, and Italy : yet I never heard, that they had in any degree renounced their heretical opinions, their blasphemous idolatries, and their ridiculous mummeries ; or that any of them felt a single scruple of conscience respecting the execrable oath, exacted by the Pope from all whom he consecrates bishops, that they will, as far as in them lics, persecute and oppose all impugners of the authority of the see of Rome. This being the case, let the little horn be what power it may, the bigoted adherents of that sanguinary hierarchy cannot surely be styled, by a divinely inspired prophet, saints of the Most High.†
* Coloss. ii. 18-23. + Discourse of Justification, Sect. 17. Hooker however guards, with his usual wisdom, against any misapprehension or perversion of these words. " Many in former times, as their books and writings do yet shew, held the foundation, to wit
, salvation by Christ alone, and therefore might be saved. God hath always had a Church amongst the which firmly kept his saving truth. As for such as hold with the Church of Rome, that we cannot be saved by Christ alone without works ; they do, not only by a circle of consequence, but directly deny the foundation of faith : they hold it not, no not so much as by a thread.” Ibid. Sect. 19.
$ Rev. ix. 20, 21.
* Comment. p. 235. + The reader will find a very full and satisfactory statement of the pernicious maxims of Popery in the able strictures on Plowden's Historical Review of Ireland, commencing in the Anti-Jacobin Review for Nov. 1804. He will likewise do well to peruse a tract published at Cambridge in the year 1746, intitled The true spirit of Popery displayed. And, if he require a yet more circumstantial detail of the principles and practice of the Church of Rome, he will find it in Mr. Whitaker's well-timed Commentary on the Revelation. To these writers I beg to refer him, if he wish for any further confutation of Mr. Galloway's opinion, that the popish clergy and royalist laity of France are the saints of the Most High worn out by the tyranny of the little born.
Mr. Kett's conjecture, that the little born ultimately typifies the Infidel power of France, and that the beast of the bottomless pit which slays the apocalyptic witnesses is French Infidelity, must necessarily lead him to adopt Mr. Galloway's sentiments respecting the saints of God mentioned by Daniel, and the witnesses mentioned by St. John : (Compare Hist. the Interp. Vol. I. p. 391. with p. 413, 419.) nay, his scheme is perplexed with more irreconcileable contradictions than even that of Mr. Galloway. When the little born, in its primary sense, means Popery ; then the saints worn out by it must of course mean all those holy men who protested against its corruptions, But, when the little born, in its ultimate sense, means the Infidel power of France ;. then the saints worn out by it must mean the Popish clergy and royalist laity. Thus it is evident, that, upon Mr. Keti's plan, the saints sometimes mean the persecuted protestants, and at other times the persecuting papists; while the little born, with equal flexibility, sometimes VOL. I
Lastly, the little horn is to continue in
power and a half—These years Mr. Galloway decides to be natural years, and pronounces them to be the three years and a half, during which atheism was established by law in France. Upon this point, I cannot see, that the argument, which he brings from the term of Nebuchadnezzar's madness, is at all conclusive. Because the word time, when it occurs in a prophecy relative to a single individual, manifestly signifies a natural year ; it does not therefore follow, that the same word, when it occurs in a prophecy relative to a state or kingdom, must necessarily signify a natural year
in that case also. means the persecuting church of Rome, and at other times the French Republic which in its turn persecuted the members of that persecuting Church. Or, to state the matter somewhat differently, the little born in its ultimate sense, persecutes the little born, in its primary sense ; while the saints, in their ultimate sense, are the very set of men who persecuted the saints, in their primary sense; in other words, the saints, in their ultimate sense, and the little born, in its primary sense, equally symbolize the Church of Rome and her members. Such is the strange confusion that results from Mr. Kett’s scheme of primary and secondary interpretations of the same prophecy.
Dr. Zouch's sentiments on this point so perfectly accord with my own, that I cannot resist the pleasure of transcribing them. Speaking of those interpretations which apply the character of the little born to the French Republic and the character of the saints worn out by it to the Popish clergy, he observes : “ An indiscriminate massacre of more than two millions of the human race sufficiently indicates a most savage and relentless power, but by no means attaches to it the peculiar attribute of wearing out the saints of the Most High : a character this strongly expressive of spiritual tyranny, of persecution exercised upon others merely for their religious opinions, and truly appropriate to the Church of Rome which punishes good men as being heretics ; professing enmity against them as such; regardless of the atrocity of guilt, however notorious, in her own followers, while those, who dissent from her, become the victims of her inexorable rage. A serious protestant, conversant in those inspired writings in wh ch the portrait of Antichrist" (bad as the Papacy is, I can see no just warrant by the way for applying this title to it) " is delineated as with a pencil of light, will hesitate to pronounce the members of the church of Rome the saints of the Most High. Without violating the law of Christian charity, he must consider them as professors of a religion perfectly abhorrent from the purity of the Gospel, as involved in idolatrous and superstitious practices, as men who have not repented of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils and idols of gold and silver and brass and stone and wood, which neither can see nor bear nor walk : neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts. The blood of such men has been prodigally shed : and it is very remarkable, that the French anarchists have introduced the horrors of war principally into popish countries, as if those nations, which profess the purity of the protestant religion, were providentially preserved from danger.” (Zouch on Prophecy, p. 61.) The unerring voice of prophecy many ages ago predicted this last circumstance, which Dr. Zouch justly styles a remarkable one. The vials of God's wrath were to be poured out, not upon the mystic witnesses, but upon those “which had the mark of the beast and worshipped his image," upon those who had shed the blood of saints and prophets," and along with them upon those daring infidels, whether apostate protestants or renegado papists, “ who blasphemed the name of God and repented not to give him glory.” As for those who harkened to the gracious invitation, “ Come out of Babylon, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues ; " they have not received of her plagues, they have been “providentially preserved from danger.”
The probability rather lies on the contrary side ; more especially when we consider the context both of Daniel and St. John. Daniel speaks of a power, that was to persecute the saints during the space of three years and a half: St. John represents the Church, under the symbol of a woman, as being persecuted 1260 days* by the devil acting through the instrumentality of the Roman beast; and he afterwards adds, in the very same chapter, that she was nourished from the face of the persecuting serpent for a time, times, and half a time, or three
years and a halfit Now, when we find, that three years
and a half precisely contain 1260 days at the rate of 360 days to the year; that Daniel limits a persecution of the saints to three years and a half, that St. John, apparently at least, uses the two expressions of twelve hundred and sixty days and three years and a half as synonymous, for in one place he says that the woman is fed in the wilderness 1260 days, and in another place that she is nournished in the wilderness three years and a half : it is surely only reasonable to conclude, that the two expressions mean one and the same period of time, whatever that period may be, But that the 1260 days tnean years, no one doubts : consequently the three years and a half must mean years of years ; or, in other words, prophetic years, not natural ones, as Mr. Galloway supposes-Again : Daniel, in his last chapter, speaks of three different periods : the time times and a half, which he had already mentioned when treating of the little horn ; twelve hundred and ninety days ; and thirteen hundred and thirty five days. Now, if these days be years, the three years and a half must be years of years : otherwise Daniel uses two different modes of computation in the same passage, and thus involves his meaning in needless uncertainty-Further : we may fairly conclude, that, as a prophet expresses a given period of time in one place; so he would express the same period in another place, if he should have occasion to notice it again. But St. John, when really speaking of three natural years and a half, terms them three days and a half :: consequently, if he had wished to inform us that the woman was to be nourished in the wilderness three natural years and a half, he would surely have
# Ver. 14.
Rev. xi. 9.
* Rev. xii. 6.