« PreviousContinue »
tion is, I think, absolutely riveted upon our rational conviction by its additional perfect adherence to the principle of homogeneity. The essence of the two first woes was eminently antichristian: for the very spirit of Mohammedism is a vehement and bitter and rancorous hatred of Christians and of Christianity
Hence the two first woes are homogeneous in their principle and object : and hence we shall ill discharge the duty of a consistent expositor, if we pitch upon any event for the third woe, which is not equally characterised by a determined and malignant attack upon Christianity; for, unless it possess such a leading characteristic, our principle of homogeneity will plainly be violated,
Exactly however of this description is the striking event, with which I suppose the third woe to have commenced. I conceive its introducing trumpet to have begun to sound at the breaking out of the French Revolution : and I esteem its characteristic spirit and principle to be a lawless Infidelity, which opposes itself with a high hand to the very idea of a divine revelation, which has declared open war against the Messiah, and which has unreservedly avowed its purpose to be the utter ertermination of Christianity. In this fanatical hatred of the Gospel it is homogeneous with the two preceding woes: but their efforts were mere child's play, compared with the gigantic and systematic attempts to blot out all revealed religion which in these latter days it has been our fate to witness. Nor, though the first open struggle has passed by like the day-dream of feverish distempe
rature, has the spirit by any means evaporated : it is still in operation, ready again to burst out should any favourable opportunity present itself. In short, I suppose the third woe to introduce the predicted and long-expected Antichrist: hiin, who by way of eminence is specially denominated THE Antichrist, and who is prophetically characterised as boldly denying both the Father and the Son. The monster has appeared at the very time when the old fathers rightly expected him: though, like the inodern Romanists, they strangely erred, in direct violation of the whole analogy of the sacred oracles, by adopting the crude conceit that the great Antichrist is an individual man. His introduction and successive development is the office of the third woe, extending as it does through its seven subordinate divisions chronologically marked out by the allegorical effusion of seven vials replete with the divine indignation.
Thus strictly homogeneous, according to the present exposition, are all the three woes; the third towering by an awful climax above its two predecessors, because it specially comprehends the history of the GREAT Antichrist.
(2.) Nor is this application of the third woe less agreeable to its well-defined chronological notation, than to its necessary homogeneity with the two former
“ The second woe is past," exclaims the warning prophet; “ behold, the third woe cometh " QUICKLY *.”
Rev. xi, 14.
Now Now the second woe is the woe of the Euphratean or Turcomannic horsemen : and, though it may
be iin possible to decide with absolute certainty upon the precise moment of its passing away; yet it seems probable from the declining state of the Ottoman Empire, that this event took place, either in the year 1698 at the ratification of the peace of Carlowitz, or perhaps somewhat later when after the campaign of the year 1717 peace was again concluded at Passarowitz. But, however this may be, nothing can be more certain, than that the second woe is past : for, instead of Turkey being any longer a formidable woe to Christendom, her two powerful neighbours Austria and Russia are evidently ready to spring upon her as their destined prey. .
If then the second woe be assuredly past, the third woe, according to the prediction, cometh
Such therefore being the chronological disposition of the third woe with reference to the passing away of the second, it is obvious, that the application of that third woe to the reign of Antichristian Infidelity, viewed as commencing with the French Revolution, is absolutely necessary to the just and accurate açcomplishment of the prophecy : for, if the third woe be thus applied, it came QUICKLY (agreeably to the prediction) after the passing away of the second woe; whereas, if it have not yet come, but if it be still remotely future, it must inevitably be divested of its announced chronological mark of QUICK succession to the passing away of its predecessor.
Thus, in every way, are we bound to suppose, that the third woe commenced with the French Revolution in the year 1789.
(3.) This position I have been anxious most fully to establish, because it forms the basis of an argument to prove that the death of the witnesses must be a past event. The argument in question is abun-. dantly plain, and will most probably have been already anticipated.
If the third woe commenced with the French Revo. lution in the year 1789, then the second woe must be past : for we read, “The second woe is Past; be“ hold, the third woe COMETH QUICKLY.” But, if the second woe be past, then the death of the witnesses must be past also : because the whole series, both of their death, of their resurrection, and of their ascension to the figurative heaven, is placed BEFORE the passing away of the second woe, and consequently much more BEFORE the coming of the third woe *. We have seen reason however to believe, that the third woe came in the year 1789. Therefore the death of the witnesses must have taken place PREVIOUS to that year.
Nay, even if the application of the third woe to Antichristian Infidelity should be disallowed, the very same result will still be equally brought out. For the death of the witnesses takes place BEFORE the passing away of the second woe or the woe of the Turkish horsemen. But the woe of the Turkish
See Rev. xi. 7--14.
horsemen * It may be proper to remark, that, in my discussion of the war of the witnesses, when, on the supposition that their death is past, I ascribe the effecting of it to the Emperor Charles V; I state, that they were slain by the wild beast under his LAST head. This statement sprang from the hypothesis which I then advocated, that the last head of the wild beast was the Carlovingian Emperorship. But such an hypothesis I have been compelled by events to relinquish as untenable ; those events having proved, that the Carlovingian Emperorship is not a distinct head from the Roman Emperorship, but that it is a mere continuation of it. Hence, if I be right in supposing that the death of the witnesses was effected by their constrained reception of the Interim during the reign of Charles V; it will have been effected through the agency of the wild beast, not under his last head, but under his sixth head. See above chap. X. sect. 1. VIII, 1. (3.)
horsemen has certainly passed away. Therefore the death of the witnesses must have ALREADY TAKEN PLACE.
In short, according to the most natural mode of understanding the grammatical arrangement of the whole passage, if we contend that the death of the witnesses is yet FUTURE, we thereby oblige ourselves to renounce, not only my own modern application of the third woe to the reign of Antichristian Infidelity, but likewise the old and universally received application of the second woe to the Turkish horsemen : for, if the second woe relate to the rise and progress of the Ottoman Empire, then the death of the witnesses (unless we depart from the obvious grammatical arrangement of the whole passage) must already have occurred *.