Now the second woe is the woe of the Euphratèan or Turcomannic horsemen and, though it may be impossible 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

QUICKLY.

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 accomplishment 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,

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 abundantly plain, and will most probably have been already anticipated.

If the third woe commenced with the French Revolution 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

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 *.

*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. § III. 1. (3.)

III. What

III. What shall we say then to the intimation of the prophet, that the witnesses are to be slain by the wild beast that ascendeth out of THE ABYSS: a term, which he uses when he foretells the revival of the wild beast; while, in describing his original rise as seen also by Daniel, he similarly speaks of him as proceeding out of THE SEA? It is not, as I have already observed, that I suppose there to be any difference in the meaning of the two terms SEA and ABYSS; on the contrary, I believe them to be perfectly synonymous: but there certainly is a difference in the terms themselves; and the argument, founded upon such phraseological difference, was this.

St. John styles the wild beast, at his original rise, THE BEAST FROM THE SEA; but at his second rise, when he is restored to the functions of vitality, he denominates him THE BEAST FROM THE ABYSS. Now he asserts, that THE BEAST FROM THE ABYSS is the power, that slays the witnesses. Whence, if he use the phrase in studied contradistinction to the other phrase, it would follow, that the witnesses are slain by the beast in his revived state, not by the beast in his original state. But the revived state of the beast is still future. Therefore the death of the witnesses is still future likewise.

1. This argument plainly cannot be confuted, except by denying the premises on which it is founded; that is to say, by denying that St. John, in the prophecy relative to the witnesses, employs the word ABYSS in studied contradistinction to the word SEA: and to such a denial we seem to be led by those

counter

counter arguments, which to all appearance demonstrate so conclusively, that the war of the witnesses must be past.

If those counter arguments then have any force, and if we adhere to the obvious grammatical arrangement of the whole passage, we must suppose, that the apostle, in the prophecy relative to the witnesses, does NOT employ the word ABYSS in any studied contradistinction to the word SEA; as if he meant by such phraseology to intimate, that the witnesses would be slain by the beast in his revived state and not by the same beast in his original state of existence but that, the two words being synonymous and equally denoting the mighty oceanic assemblage of waters, he uses them in every case promiscuously and indifferently.

2. Yet it is possible, that the passage may be so interpreted, as to make the death of the witnesses still future, by ascribing its infliction to the revived Roman beast when he shall have ascended out of the great abyss; and this, without rendering it necessary to withdraw the interpretation which has been given of the second and third woes.

(1.) I have intimated, that the obvious grammatical arrangement of the whole passage requires us to place the death of the witnesses BEFORE the departure of the second woe, and therefore much more BEFORE the commencement of the third woe: whence, if the second woe be past and if the third woe be come, which I suppose to be the case; it will follow, that the death of the witnesses has already occurred.

But,