« PreviousContinue »
is well: we have, however, very serious fault to find with Mr. Cooper's work.
As the passage already extracted intimates, Mr. C. supposes that the Christian church is at present in a most critical and awful situation : that the season is almost come for the predicted desolations of the papal kingdoms, the restoration of the Jews, and the final extension of the church over the whole world. This opinion is principally founded on a review of the prophecy contained in the 10th, 11th, and 12th chapters of Daniel, which, he maintains, is given with reference to the ultimate establishment of the Jewish people after their long dispersion. The angel, in the opening of the vision, (Dan. x. 14.) expressly saying: “I am come to make thee understand what shall befal thy people in the latter days."
" Its chief and leading design was to vouchsafe to Daniel an assurance of the certain though distant accomplishment of the prophecies relating to the deliverance of his people, while, at the same time, in subserviency to this principal design, a full exposition was interposed of intermediate events to be fulfilled in successive ages, as leading to the final events, and as adding, by their own accomplishment, new assurance of its future certainty." P. 11.
It is, then, for the purpose of furnishing a testimony to the near approach of this great event, that the character and exploits of “ the king," at the end of the 11th chapter are so minutely described, (Dan. xii. 1.) while the circumstantial particulars respecting the kings of the north and south, in the early part of the same chapter, are intended principally to direct us in our interpretation of the account of that predicted king. Mr. Cooper argues that since the kings introduced in the former part of the prophecy are known, from the event, to have been individual kings, it is to be presumed that the last king is an individual also. Again, that this king is to appear immediately at the close of a certain period, which'synchronizes with the termination of the 1260 years of corruption and persecution which both Daniel and St. John allot to the Christian church, (compare Dan. xi. 35. with xii. 6, 7., and vii. 25.) and therefore in the first year of a second period of 75 years, (Dan. xii. 7. and 12.) called the time of the end, immediately succeeding the former period; in the course of which the persecuting power is to be gradually destroyed, the church advanced to wards her promised millennial glory, and the Jewish people perfectly delivered and restored. The last mentioned event, however, is not to take place till after the death of the king, who (as already said) was intended as its harbinger; and as the
prophet divides the 75 years into two parts, one of 30, and the other of 45, (Dan, xii. 7. 11, 12.) we are led from the context to conclude that the standing up of Michael in behalf of the Jews is to take place at the opening of the latter of these periods, and consequently the fall of the king at the termination of the former. He further maintains, (from Dan. xii. 1.) that the standing up of Michael is closely connected
with the season of unprecedented trouble, during which the Jews will be gathered from their dispersion, and be restored to their own land. This time of trouble he makes contemporize with the symbolical earthquake of the Apocalypse, "such as was not since men were upon earth,” (Rev. xvi. 17, 18;) and “the distress of nations with perplexity," which our Lord seems to connect with the “ redemption" of Israel, (Luke xxi. 25, 26.)
These prophecies, thus arranged, he applies as follows: the period of 1260 years is to be dated from the year A.D. 533, is when the emperor Justinian, by his memorable edict, formally delivered the saints into the hands of the little (papal) horn,” and consequently, according to the usual mode of computation, terminated in the year 1792, when the 30 years commenced which were to develope the wilful and impious king. This king is the late emperor Napoleon, who, as had been predicted, appeared after 1792, and came to his end precisely at the close of the 30 years, (1821.) In the year 1822, then, was the commencement of the second period, of 45 years, when Michael began to stand up for the Jewish people, and will complete their deliverance during the troubles of the papal states, by A.D. 1867.
These conclusions Mr. Cooper confirms by comparing the character and actions of Napoleon with those of the predicted king; but on this, though a prominent part of his work, we do not enter here; both because we shall presently endeavour to shew that, at best, the parallel is very vague and imperfect ; and because, after all, the accordance of a particular description with an individual, necessary as it is to the fulfilment of a prophecy, is confessedly of inferior importance to the argument drawn from agreement in the chronological position.
Mr. Cooper, it may be added, anticipates the objection to his deductions, which is founded on the idea that prophecy is never to be understood till after the event; and argues, that on the contrary, it is often intended to direct and comfort the church in difficult times. As examples in point he adducės Jeremiah's prophecy concerning the 10 years of the Babylonish captivity, and our Lord's against Jerusalem ; while, both from the analogy of the cases, and the express words of Scripture,
he maintains that the predictions relating to the present crisis are of a similar nature. The practical object, then, of his work is to prepare the Christian church for the coming events; and this is done through the medium of our Lord's warning, (Rev. xvi. 15.); which, according to the scheme of relative chronology that he has adopted, is intended as an admonition for the present period.
In proceeding to make some remarks upon the interpretation here advocated, we must premise that we do not undertake to dispute the truth of Mr. Cooper's conclusions, (however extraordinary they may appear to us,) but the validity of his reasoning. Whether he be right or wrong in maintaining that Daniel prophesied of Napoleon, all we assert is, that he has not proved, or rather has misproved his point. We seriously object both to the chronological arrangement he has adopted, and to his mode of applying it to the present times.
Admitting that the prophecy is given with reference to the fortunes of the Jews in the latter days, (compare Dan. x. 14. with xii. 6–9.) and that at “ the time of the end” they are to be restored to the favour of God; admitting too (what is altogether assumed,) that the 1260 years terminated in 1792 ;-still we see no reason why the phrase, " the time of the end". should be interpreted to mean a period rather than a date ; much less why it should mean a definite and bounded period. Now on this assumption, viz., that "the time of the end” is a period of 75 years immediately succeeding the 1260 years, Mr. Cooper's whole hypothesis is founded. Yet granting all this, the mode in which he proves this period to be one of 75 years is most singu- , lar: from inspection of the 12th chapter of Daniel he concludes, that “the time of the end” is the interval between the 1260 years in ver. 7, and the 1335 in ver. 12.' As well, we think, might he conclude, from the 13th verse, that Daniel would himself stand in his lot at the termination of the 1260 or 1335 years.
From verse 7, it seems natural to conclude, that the recovery of the Jews will be effected by the close of the 1260 years : whereas Mr. C. interprets it to mean, that their delivery will be accomplished by the end of the 1335 years, (pp. 3, 75.) But still more unsupported, or rather still more arbitrary, is his assignment of the era for the commencement of the Jewish restoration; which he places in the thirty-first year of his “ time of the end,” simply because the prophecy makes mention of a date (v. 11.) which he knows not how else to apply. It is but a continuation of this mode of argument (if argument it may be called) to place the impious king in the first thirty years of “ the time of the end.” That he precedes the standing up of Michael may indeed be inferred from the expression “at that time,” (Dan. xii. 1.) which immediately follows the account of his death. But that he is to appear after the completion of the 1260 years, rests merely upon the circumstance, that he is first introduced by name (xi. 35, 36,) after the mention of the “time of the end.”. (p. 23.) But what is there here to favour the idea that he is to rise after the end rather than in the end of the long period of persecution so often referred to? does not the abruptness with which he is introduced lead us to suppose that the prophet is not so much foretelling events subsequent to the 1260 years, as events included in them? not describing a character then first to be manifested, but one that had appeared before, and then was only developed more fully? And is not this implied in the 40th v. when, sometime after the introduction of the king, it is said, “ And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him * ?" Again: does not the same king seem alluded to in a verse preceding the mention of the " time of the end ;" by the words " such as do wickedly against the covenant, shall he corrupt by flatteries ?" and if so, will not the character afterwards called the king, and here designated by the singular he, be the same as is intended by the plural pronoun in the preceding verse, "and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate ?" If this be the case, the king is not an individual, but a state; and Mr. Cooper's hypothesis is overthrown from its very foundation. Again, we remind the author, we are not advocating a counter-interpretation : the question is to be decided by a balance of probabilities, and the above inquiries are only intended to point out to him the appearance of unfairness cast over his work by the omission of those circumstances in the prophecy, which militate against his own interpretation.
Admitting the force of Mr. Cooper's argument, for the individuality of the wilful king, drawn from that of the kings mentioned in an early part of the chapter; still we hardly think a fair comparison between the parts of the prophecy, would on the whole be favourable to his hypothesis. For example, the distinct and marked introduction of the first kings, (xi. 2, 3.) is strongly contrasted with the words used in speaking of the latter king : “And The king shall do according to his will,”—words which, according to the custom of all languages, imply that the character mentioned has been before spoken of; and therefore, if an individual, must at least be a successor in a dynasty, not an isolated monarch.
* Mr. Cooper translates " in the time of the end,” (p. 46.) but admitting this alteration, how tame and out of place is the pbrase, on such an interpretation ! whereas it is quite natural if the king appeared before, and is then to be destroyed.
It may further be observed that the history of kings and kingdoms is generally predicted in Scripture as far as connected with the fortunes of the church; and this we might suppose especially the case in a prophecy which avowedly relates to the Jewish people. Hence the kings of Persia, Greece, and Syria, are introduced, because their exploits affected the chosen race; whereas this last king (according to Mr. Cooper,) is described not so much because instrumental to the accomplishment of the divine counsels respecting the Jews, as because he is a sigral of their approaching deliverance, (pp. 11, 12.) Our author indeed will tell us, that he has been made subservient to that event, (p. 26.) by chastising the apostate church; and that this chastening is implied in the words “ he shall prosper till the indignation (i. e. on the apostate church) be accomplished. But surely it is much more natural to explain the phrase, by the parallel one in ch. xii. 7, of the divine indignation against the Jews: and thus the opinion above maintained against Mr. Cooper would seem to be confirmed: viz. that the king is not to appear after the 1260 years, but towards their termination. But admitting that the punishment of the Papal states is here intended, Napoleon certainly did not accomplish and complete it. He has come to his end, and they still survive. Mr. Cooper is therefore obliged to suppose some further instruments may be employed to execute the divine vengeance; and tells us that when it is said of the king, that he shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished, we may understand this expression as applying not to the whole of the divine indignation, but “ merely to that part or portion of it, of which he was to be the appointed minister," (p. 45;) which, if it be not a truism, is an explanation perfectly gratuitous-not to say, inconsistent with the words themselves.
But waiving all these incongruities in Mr. Cooper's interpretation, let us inquire how these divine judgments are fulfilled in the events to which he applies them. He expatiates, indeed, upon the chastisements which Napoleon inflicted on the Papal kingdoms; and terrible doubtless they were: but surely not confined to them, as he seems to consider (pp. 49, 191.) Did not Protestant Prussia suffer? did not the German Lutherans ? Did not Sweden almost receive a monarch from his hands?
The correspondence, indeed, of the history of the wilful king to that of Napoleon, Mr. Cooper seems to consider as his strongest point: yet although doubtless a few very general and disjointed events in the life of that wonderful man, are also found in the prophetic description, yet even these become inconsistent with it when united; while most of those minuter