« PreviousContinue »
the prognostics of which are even now sufficiently visible, will greatly weaken the spiritual horn of Mohammedism, but certainly not altogether break its strength. The false religion of the Arabian impostor will still be professed in Persia, Hindostan, and Barbary ; nor will it be finally “ broken without hand” till the 2200 years
shall have expired. What precise idea we are to annex to this phrase, can only be positively determined by the event :* this however we assuredly know, that the eastern little horn, like its western fellow, will be for ever broken at the termination of that period. Concerning what is future we cannot venture to go beyond the express declarations of Scripture; but of that which is past we may speak with confidence and precision.
We have seen then, that the little horn of the he-goat or Macedonian empire answers, in every particular that has hitherto been accomplished, chronological as well as circumstantial, to the successful imposture of Mohammed: we have seen, that only one particular yet remains unaccomplished ; and that even that has already begun to be fulfilled : and we have further seen, that, although the character of the little horn agrees in some particulars with those of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Romans, and the power of Infidelity ; yet it entirely disagrees with them in others :—the result therefore of the whole inquiry must be this, that the prophet designed to symbolize by the little horn Mohammedism, and nothing but Mohammedism:
* The expression is ambiguous. If conjecture be allowable in such a matter, it may either mean, that Mohammedism shall be as it were practically confuted and silenced by the second advent of Christ, against whom the impostor had presumed to stand up (Compare Daniel ii
. 34, 35, 44, 45.): or it may mean, that it shall gradually fall away to nothing by the desertion of its votaries, and thus die a sort of natural death. The exhaustion of the Euphrates will no doubt greatly weaken it : and it is a remarkable circumstance, even in these eventful times, that a sect has lately made its appearence in the very country of the false Arabian prophet, which threatens no less than the destruction of his religion itself. The Wababees are infidels ; and their numbers are daily increasing. Their opinions have been maintained in secret near sixty years ; and they at length find themselves strong enough to take up arms in defence of them. It is said, that they occupy the greatest part of the country which extends from Medina to the Euphrates. Their last exploit, of which we have recently received an account, shews their decided hostility to Mohammedisme in a very striking point of view. Having reinforced their army' from the desert, and having overwhelmed the whole adjacent country, they suddenly assaulted and took the city of Medina with infinite bloodshed and devastation. They set fire to it in various places ; destroyed the mosques, after having ransacked them of their shrines and treasures ; and completely demolished the tomb of the prophet. Some thousands of females of the first rank were carried off by the besiegers into the desert, with a number of the principal male inhabitants. A troop of camels was also sent away with jewels and other treasure to an immense amount. (See Morning Post, Feb. 22, 1806.) Should this sect continue to increase, Mohammedism must fall eventually by mere force of opinion. If its votaries continue gradually to abandon it, we may easily conceive, how, at the time of the end, it will be broken with out band. The reader will of course view the whole that has been said on this point in the light of mere conjecture.
Concerning Daniel's last vision, and the king who mag
nified himself above cvery God.
DANIEL, having in his two former visions predicted the tyranny of the two-fold Apostacy of Popery and Mohammedism, proceeds in his concluding prophecy, to give a most accurate account of the subversion of the Medo-Persian empire, the rise of the Macedonian empire, its subsequent division into four kingdoms, the wars of the Greek kings of Syria and Egypt, and the conquest of Jerusalem by the Romans. The whole of this, which is only an enlarged and literal repetition of his former brief and symbolical predictions, serves as a kind of chronological introduction to the history of the king who was to magnify himself above every god; in the same manner as the vision of the four beasts conducted us to the tyrannical reign of the papal horn, and the vision of the ram and the he-goat to the exploits of the Mohammedan horn.
The first part of this wonderfully minute prophecy has been so amply and satisfactorily explained by Bp. Newton, that it would be superfluous in me to offer any observations upon it. Suffice it to say, in the words of that excellent commentator, “there is not so complete and regular a series of the kings of Egypt and Syria, there is not so concise and comprehensive an account of their affairs, to be found in any author of those times, The prophecy is really more perfect than any history.”
* Dan. x, xi, xii,
The explanation of the second part of this prediction is attended with considerably more difficulties, than that of the first. The main question here, which offers itself to our attention, is this : What power did Daniel mean to describe under the character of the king who was to magnify himself above every god? Are we to suppose, that this part of the prophecy is only a repetition of the history of one of the little horns ; or that it is a prediction of some third power distinct from them both ?
Bp. Newton adopts, in part at least, the former of these suppositions. He explains this king to signify, primarily, the Roman emperors, after the conversion of the empire to Christianity ; and, secondarily, to mean at once the Greek emperors in the East, and the Bishops of Rome in the West, the king consequently, in his latter character, is the papal little horn combined, as it were, with the temporal authority of the Constantinopolitan sovereigns. Hence he applies some parts of the prophecy to the Roman Emperors, before the division of the empire, some to the Papacy in the West, and some to the Constantinopolitan emperors in the East—He conjectures, for instance, that the king's doing according to his will, his magnifying himself above every god, and his speaking murvellous things against the God of gods, intimate ; " that, after the empire was become Christian, there should spring up in the Church an antichristian power, that should act in the most absolute and arbitrary manner, exalt itself above all laws divine and human, dispense with the most solemn and sacred obligations, and in many respects enjoin what God had forbidden, and forbid what God had commanded. This
power began in the Roman emperors, who summoned councils, and directed and influenced their determinations almost as they pleased. After the division of the empire, this power still increased, and was exerted principally by the Greek emperors in the East, and by the Bishops of Rome in the West.' The king's disregarding the desire of women he applies to monasticism, whether oriental or occidental, and to the constrained celibacy of the clergy ; his veneration of Mahuzzim, or tutelary demi
* Bp. Newton's Dissert. Ivii.
gods, to the idolatrous worship of saints and angels, first openly established and required by the church of Rome, though prevalent likewise in the Greek church; and his wars with the king of the south and the king of the north, to the invasion of the eastern empire by the Saracens, and its final subversion by the Turks.
Mr. Kett, adhering to his plan of primary and secondary completions of the same prophecy, adopts the latter supposition, yet without excluding the former—“ The application,” says he, “ of this prophecy to the papal Antichrist; to the conquests of the Saracen king of the south, and the Turkish king of the north, over the boly land and many other countries; the escape of Arabia, and the subjection of Egypt and Barbary; have been clearly, I had almost said indisputably, established by many learned commentators. But, how far this prophecy may be considered as a double type of Antichrist, and how much may be supposed to be yet future, are questions which can only be decided by a careful comparison with other prophecies respecting the same period, and by the course of events which time shall bring to light.”+ -He afterwards adds: “ The accomplishment, which the former part of this prophecy” (concerning the king who was to magnify himself above every god) “ has received in the papal power, and in the conquests of the Mohammedan
power, is confessedly accurate : but much remains to be fulfilled; and many reasons might be produced to authorize the conjecture, that even that part of the prophecy, which has been so decidedly fulfilled, will hereafter receive a more full and perfect accomplishment.”* -He further observes, that « the end of this king” (meaning, I apprehend from the context, the king of the North) “ whether Mohammedan or Infidel, is to be exactly similar to the end of the Grecian little horn, and the horn of the fourth beast in the former vision : yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him."*--And he lastly conjectures : “ If infidel France be this king of the North, we may presume that it will take possession of the present dominions of the Turkish Mohammedan power.”+-The whole that Mr. Kett has said upon the subject of the prophecy now under consideration, is so extremely obscure, and so widely scattered in different parts of his work, that I greatly fear, lest I should undesignedly be guilty of misrepresenting his meaning. As far however as I am able to collect his sentiments from these several passages when viewed in connection with each other, it appears, that Mr. Kett supposes the king who magnified himself above every god to be primarily the Papacy: but that he wishes nevertheless this supposition to be adopted without excluding the possibility of his character being designed for a double type of Antichrist; that is, I suppose, Antichrist both Papal and Infidel, unless indeed Mr. Kett means Antichrist both Papal and Mohammedan, for he does not expressly say, in what manner the king is a double type of Antichrist. It further appears, that he doubts whether the king of the North, the mighty rival of the king who magnified himself above every god, be Mohammedan Turkey, or infidel France. I The sum therefore of the whole is, unless I have completely misunderstood Mr. Kett, that the two potentates, whom Daniel represents as such bitter enemies to each other, may after all be one and the same. As for instance : if the king who magnified himself above every god be secondarily infidel France, and if the king of the North be infidel France likewise, these two hostile kings are evidently made to be one power: and, on the other hand, if the king who magnified himself above every god be secondarily Mohammedan Turkey, and if the king of the North be Mohammedan Turkey likewise, in this case also the two rivals are equally identified
* Ibid. Dissert. xvii. Dr. Zouch, for any thiag that appears to the contrary, applies the prophecy relative to this king exclusively to the Papacy. He forbears however noticing that part of it, which treats of the wars of the king with the kings of the North and the South. Yet these wars constitute so very prominent a feature in the history of the king, whatever power he may be designed to represent, that they surely ought not to have been omitted : especially since Dr. Zouch asserts, that, in his character,“ we discover a designation of the same power," as that symbolized by the papal little born,“ somewhat indeed diversified, but not so as to prevent us from acknowledging its identity.” (Zouch on Prophecy, p. 163– 171.) Mr. Mede's exposition of the prophecy is nearly the same as that of Bp. Newton's. I shall hereafter discuss it conjointly with that of the Bishop. † Hist, the Interp. Vol. 1. p. 368.
Ibid. p. 373.