Page images
PDF
EPUB

denotes, not merely the town of Rome, but a corrupt communion ;* that the holy city is not the literal Jerufalem, but the Chriftian charch ;† that the first beaft of the apocalypfe is not the Papacy, but the Roman empire ;‡ that the deadly wound of this beaft denotes his converfion to Chriftianity under Constantine, and that his revival means his relapsing into id latry ;§ that the little born of Daniel's fourth beaft cannot be the fame as the firft apocalyptic beaft, in other words that it cannot be the fame as the beaft himself of which it is only a member (as fome commentators have fingularly supposed,) but that it is the fame as the fecond apocalyptic beaft or the false prophet; that the deadly wound and revival of the firft apocalyptic beaft is enigmatically described by the phrafe was, and is not, and yet is; that the time of the end denotes the expiration of the 1260 years ;

pofibly be accounted a sort of Christian heresy. If the Gofpel had never been preached, it may be queftioned whether Mobammedism would have exifted. (Dr. Jortin's first Charge.) The Muffulmans are already a fort of heterodox Chriftians. They are Chriftians, if Lecke reafons jufly, because they firmly believe the immaculate conception, divine character, and miraeles of the Meffiab: but they are beterodox in denying vehemently bis character of Son, and bir equality, as God, with the Father, of whose unity and attributes they entertain and exprefs the moft awful ideas, while they confider our doctrine as perfect blafphemy, and infift that our copies of the Scriptures have been corrupted both by Jews and Chriftians, Sir William Jones in Afiatic Researches, Vol. I. p. 63.

"These are fuch testimonies as have occurred to me in no very extenfive course of reading. They are derived from authors, who for the most part enjoyed favourable opportunities of examining the Mohammedan tenets; and they exhibit that religion as rifing upon the basis of true religion, corrupted, even like the papal, to ferve the purposes of a worldly and diabolical tyranny. In the Mohammedan religion are these articles, all evidently derived from the Chriftian, and constituting in it a great fuperiority above any thing that paganism or mere philosophy have been able to produce: the belief of the existence of one all-wife, all-good, all-powerful, God; of the immortality of the foul; of future rewards and punishments to be diftributed by Jefus; of the acceptance of prayer, of self-humiliation, of almsgiving; of the obligation to morality in almost all its branches. Take from Mohammedifm one article, in which it differs from all religions generally admitted to be Chriftian, the belief of Mohammed's divine miffion; and little will then be found in it, which may not be discovered in the profeffion of many acknowledged Chriftians. Nay, perhaps it may appear, that the creeds of two bodies of Chriftians will fupply every thing which is to be found in Mohammedism, excepting belief in the pretended prophet of Mecca.

"On the whole, when we confider the origin of Mohammedism, and its near affinity to corrupted Christianity; when we reflect alfo on the amazing extent of this fuperftitious domination, which occupies nearly as large a portion of the globe, as that poffeffed by Chriftians; comprizing vaft regions in ancient Greece and Afia Minor, in Syria, in Perfia, in the Indies, in Tartary, in Egypt, and Africa, which were once Chriftian: we shall readily admit, that, if not a Christian berefy, it. is at least a Chriftian apoftacy." Apocalypfe tranflated, p. 365–370.

* P. 293, 301, 412, 418. † P. 286.

§ P. 336, 345, 426, 428, 436.

P. 329-338, 422–432.
|| P. 352-356.

P. 426-428. The Archdeacon argues very forcibly against those who with Mede would afcribe the fulfilment of this mysterious phrafe to the age in which the vifion was delivered. "These words of the angel, defcribing the beaft, He was, and is not, and yet is, appear to me in no wife applicable to the tyranny feated at Rome at the time of the vifion, when the angel spake them. This was the time of the Emperor Domitian, when a cruel perfecution raged against the Church, when St. John himself was actually fuffering banishment in Patmos for the word of God and the teflimony of Jefus. Such a time can in no wife agree with the reprefentation, that

that the apocalyptic dragon cannot mean pagan Rome, but muft typify the devil; that the period of 1260 years, or at least a period of 1260 years, ought most probably to be dated from the year 606 ;† and confequentently that we are rapidly approaching to the catastrophe of the great apoftatic drama. In these points I have the fatisfaction of find

the beast was, and is not. It is therefore probable, that the time, in which the beaft is faid to have been, and not to be, and yet to be, is the time when he ariseth again after his wound, to exercise dominion under the direction of the harlot. This time was not arrived when St. John faw the vifion in Patmos : but, though future in this fenfe, it was present in another, as belonging to the vifion then under exhibition for the beaft was then present in exhibition before St. John, and in the act of re-afcending to power. This will appear more probable to thofe, who read forward from this paffage to the end of the 8th verfe, where the admiration of the inhabitants of the earth is spoken of as yet future; and yet this admiration is fixed upon this fame object-the beast which was, and is not, and yet is."

This point is excellently difcuffed by the Archdeacon, "On confulting the writings of the commentators most approved in this country, I find, that by the dragon is generally understood the pagan and perfecuting power of Imperial Rome. But, I trust, a few observations will shew the fallacy of this notion.

"Where an interpretation is exprefsly given in the vision, as in ch. i. 20; v. 6, 9; xvii. 7; that interpretation must be used as the key to the mystery, in preference to all interpretations fuggefted by the imagination of man. Now in the 9th verfe of this chapter (Rev. xii.) fuch an interpretation is prefented; the dragon is there exprefsly declared to that ancient serpent called the devil; known by the name of Aißonos in the Greek, and of Satan in the Hebrew; who deceiveth the whole world. Here are his names, and his acknowledged character. No words can more completely exprefs them. No Roman emperor, nor fucceffion of emperors, can answer to this defcription. The fame dragon appears again in ch. xx. 2. and (as it were to prevent miftake) he is there defcribed in the very fame words. But this re-appearance of the fame dragon is in a very late period of the apocalyptic hiftory; long after the expiration of the 1260 days or years; and even after the wild beaft and falfe prophet, who derive their power from the dragon during this period, are come to their end. And the dragon is upon the scene long after thefe times, and continues in action even at the end of another long period, a period of a thousand years. He there pursues his ancient artifices, deceiving the nations, even till his final catastrophe, in cl. xx. 10, when the warfare of the Church is finished. Can this dragon then be an em♦ peror of Rome? or any race, or dynasty, of emperors? Can he be any other than that ancient and eternal enemy of the Christian Church, who in this, as in all other scriptural accounts, is reprefented as the original contriver of all the mifchief which fhall befall it. In this drama, he acts the fame confiftent part from beginning to end. He is introduced to early notice as warring against the Church (ch. ii. 10, 13.)—In the fucceeding conflicts, the Church is attacked by his agents; by the wild beast and falfe prophet, who derive their power from him: and at length he himself is described, as leading the nations against the camp of the faints. Nothing appears more plain than the meaning of this symbol. The only appearances, which may feem to favour the application of it to Imperial Rome are, the feven crowned heads, and the ten horns of the dragon. But-the feven mountains and ten horns, of the latter Roman empire are fitly attributed to Satan, because during the period of 1260 years, and perhaps beyond it, he makes ufe of the Roman empire, its capital city, and ten kings or kingdoms, as the instruments of his successful attack on the Christian Church. -The dragon therefore appears to me, as he did to Venerable Bede eleven centuries ago, to be Diabolus, potentia terreni mundi armatus." P. 324-326.

† P. 360. The Archdeacon thinks, that there are more than one period of 1260 years. (p. 339-344.) He by no means appears to me to prove his point.

Nearly all the more recent commentators on prophecy, with whofe writings I am acquainted, seem to agree in the belief that we cannot be far removed from the end of the 1260 years. The very phrafcology used by the Archdeacon most forcibly brought

ing myself fupported by the authority of the Archdeacon; but in va rious other matters I am unable to agree with him.

The first objections, which I have to urge, are of a general nature ; afterwards I may defcend to particulars.

I. My general objections are to the Archdeacon's principle of applying the apocalyptic prophecies, when carried to the length to which he carries it; and to his fyftem of arranging the Apocalypfe itself, on which a great part of his fubfequent interpretations is founded.

1. He conceives the prophecies of the Apocalypfe" to be applicable principally, if not folely, to the fates and fortunes of the Chriftian Church."* Agreeably to this fyftem, he interprets the fix firft feals, and the four first trumpets, as relating folely to ecclefiaftical matters; and rejects at once both the ufual chronological arrangement of them, and the almoft univerfal fuppofition that the four firft trumpets predict the calamities brought upon the Roman empire by the incurfions of the various Gothic tribes and the final complete fubverfion of its western divifion. The principle is undoubtedly a juft one if adopted with moderation; but the Archdeacon does not advance any arguments in favour of carrying it to the length which he does, that are at all fatisfactory to my own mind. The affairs of the Church, both Levitical and Christian, have been more or lefs connected, from very early ages, with empires and kingdoms hoftile to the caufe of true religion: hence, although the Church is the main end of prophecy, yet, circumftanced as it has always been, it feems nearly impoffible to foretell the fates of the Church without likewife fortelling the fates of the great powers connected with it. Nevertheless, the Church being the ultimate scope of prophecy, we have no occafion to go into "the wide field of univerfal hiftory" to fearch for doubtful interpretations: we must confine ourselves to that portion of it, which alone is connected with the Church. Accordingly we find, that no nations are particularized in prophecy excepting those with which the Church either has been or will be concerned. Moab, Edom, Amalek, Nineveh, Tyre, Egypt, the four great empires, and a yet future confederacy denominated Gog and Magog, are all very fully noticed; while the mighty monarchies of China and Hindoftan are totally overlooked. Now, when we must acknowledge fuch to be the cafe with the Old Teftament, why are we to conclude that the apocalyptic predictions are framed upon a different principle? and, fince throughout the whole of the Revelation the Church is connected with Daniel's fourth beaft or the Roman empire, why are we to fuppofe that that empire is never fpoken of except when the ten-horned beaft is fpecially introduced, that is to fay, except during the period of the 1260 years?

The Archdeacon's interpretation of the feals I fhall confider hereaf

to my recollection a converfation which I once had on this fubject with the late Bp. Horley. His Lorddhip avowed it to be his opinion, that, before the prefent century elapfed, the prophecies refpecting the deftruction of the Roman beast and the overthrow of be Anticbrifian faction would be no longer a fealed book. "The days will come," rays the Archdeacon, "and feem at no very great diftance (the prefent century_may perhaps difclose them), when, the beast and false prophet being removed, and Babylon funk for ever, the devil, that ancient foe, shall be deprived of his wonted influence." P. 470.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

ter; at prefent I fhall confine myself to that of the trumpets. The four firft of thefe he will not allow to relate to the overthrow of the Weftern empire, on the ground that the fubject of the Apocalypfe is the fates and fortunes of the Chriflian Church.* But are not those fates and fortunes moft clofely connected with the overthrow of the Western empire? According to the ufual interpretation of the four first trumpets and the ty ranny of the two beafts during the period of the 1260 years, every thing appears in ftrict chronological order, and the one fucceffion of events arifes naturally out of the other. St. Paul teaches us, that, when he that letted or the Western empire fhould be taken away, then should the man of fin be revealed. Now what is the particular portion of the Apocalypfe which we are now confidering except an enlarged repetition of St. Paul's prediction? He that letted is taken away; and the man of fin forthwith rears his head the Western empire is taken away by the operation of the four first trumpets; and the great apoftacy of 1260 days, the reign of the falfe prophet and his temporal fupporter, fhortly commences. The one is preparatory to the other: the four trumpets are merely the prelude to what may be termed the grand fubject of the Apocalypfe, a wonderful tyranny exercifed within the Church itfelf by the upholders of the Apoftacy, and a contemporary Apoftacy in the eastern world fcarcely lefs wonderful than that in the western. St. Paul and St. John are perfectly in unifon : they alike connect the downfall of the empire with the fates of the Church. Thus, even independent of the Archdeacon's chronological arrangement which fhall prefently be difcuffed, I fee not why the old interpretation of the four trumpets, or at least the great outlines of that interpretation, ought to be rejected.

The Archdeacon however brings an argument against fuch an interpretation of the four trumpets from the homogeneity of all the feven trumpets. He infifts moft juftly, that what the nature of one is the nature of them all must be : and obferves that Mede, in order to make them homogeneal, interprets the fifth and the fixth trumpets as relating to the attacks made upon the empire by the Saracens and Turks, as he had already referred the four firft to the attacks previously made upon the empire by the Gothic tribes. But he adds, that the feventh trumpet announces "most clearly the victory obtained by Chrift and his Church, not over the Roman empire, but over the powers of hell, and of Antichrist, and a corrupt world; over the dragon, the beaft, the false prophet, and in procefs of time (for the feventh trumpet continues to the end) over death and hell. If then, under the seventh trumpet, the warfare of the Christian Church be fo clearly reprefented (and in this all writers are agreed), what are we to think of the fix? How muft they be interpreted, fo as to appear homogeneal? Are they to be accounted, with Mede and his followers, tv fucceffive fhocks, by which the Roman empire fell under the Goths and Vandals? Homogeneity forbids. They muft therefore be fuppofed to contain the warfare of the Chriflian Church. And this warfare may be fuccefsful under the feventh and last trumpet, when it had been unfuccefsful before, yet the homogeneity be confiftently preferved. For the question is not concerning the fuccefs, but concern

[blocks in formation]

ing the warfare. And the trumpets may be deemed homogeneal, if they all reprefent the fame warfare (viz. of the powers of hell, and of the Antichriftian world, against the Church of Chrift), whatever may be the event."* That the object of the seventh trumpet is to introduce the victory obtained by Chrift and his Church, and to usher in the happy period of the Millennium, few will be difpofed to deny : but the queftion is, how is this defirable object accomplished? The Archdeacon himfelf allows, by the triumph of the Church over those inftruments of hell, Antichrift, the beast, and the false prophet. Now, whether I be right or wrong in my own notions of Antichrift, what is this but a triumph over the Roman empire and the apoflate communion infeparably connected with it? Accordingly we find, that the feventh trumpet, after conducting us through six of its vials all of which are poured out upon God's enemies, magnificently introduces under the feventh vial the judgment of the great harlot, the downfall of Babylon, and the complete deftruction of the beaft along with the fulfe prophet and his confederated kings; in other words, the overthrow of the papal Roman empire both fecular and temporal. How then is the homogeneity of the trumpets violated by Mede's expofition? Under the four firft, the western empire falls; under the two next, the eastern empire follows the fate of its more ancient half; under the laft, the revived beaft or papal empire is utterly broken, and prepares a way by its overthrow for the millennian reign of the Meffiah. In fhort, as matters appear to me, if we argue backwards from the feventh trumpet, homogeneity, instead of forbidding, requires us to refer all the fix first trumpets to different attacks upon the Roman empire, the final ruin of which is ufhered in by the seventh.

2. But my objection to the Archdeacon's arrangement of the Apoca lypfe, on which a great part of his fubfequent interpretations neceffarily depends, is infinitely ftronger than to his very limited fyflem of applying the prophecies. It appears to me to be fo extremely arbitrary, and to introduce fo much confufion into the three feptenaries of the feals, the trumpets, and the vials, that, if it be adopted, I fee not what certainty we can ever have, that a clue to the right interpretation of the Apocalypfe is attainable.

The Archdeacon fuppofes, that the fix first seals give a general sketch of the contents of the whole book, and that they extend from the time of our Saviour's afcenfion even to the great day of the Lord's vengeance, a defcription of which day is exhibited under the fixth feal.t Having thus arrived at the confummation of all things, how are we to difpofe of the feventh feal? The Archdeacon conceives, that the fame history of the Church begins anew under it; that the connection, which had hitherto united the feals, is broken; that the feventh feal ftands apart, containing all the feven trumpets; and that e renewed hiftory, comprehended under this feventh feal, begins "from the earliest times of Chrif tianity, or to speak more properly, from the period when our Lord left the world in perfon, and committed the Church to the guidance of his apostles. From this time the first feal takes its commencement; from this also, the first trumpet.' Hence it is manifeft, fince the seventh feal P. 197, 200.

• P. 222.

+ P. 135, 174, 196.

« PreviousContinue »