furely the rapid propagation of Mohammedifm by the Saracens, and its eftablifhment by the Turks, may well be confidered as two heavy wes to the Christian Church; efpecially if we take into the account the contemporary rife and establishment of the western apoftacy. On the fame ground, neither can he object to the interpretation which I have given of the third woe, as ufhering in the open developement of French atheism and anarchy. But I much doubt whether his idea of the three Apocalyptic woes be perfectly accurate. They are woes to "the inhabiters of the earth."* But the inhabiters of the earth are not the pure church, but the idolatrous inhabitants of the Roman empire. Accordingly, all the woes, fuppofing the fewen vials to conftitute jointly the third woe, are reprefented as punishments inflicted both upon the eastern and western Romans. The fenfe, which the Archdeacon affixes to the Apocalyptic earth, or (as he fometimes tranflates the original word) land, is irreconcileable with many passages wherein that symbol is introduced: ‡ therefore I confider it as untenable. And I think his definition of the Apocalyptic fea to be equally untenable, and for the fame reafon.§ 3. The Archdeacon fuppofes the woman described in the 12th chapter to denote the Church, not merely while chriftian, but from the very earlieft ages; and he conceives the man-child to be the literal Meffiah, with whom the Church had been travailing in earneft expectation through a long feries of years. The war in heaven he likewife understands literally, and believes it to relate to the expulfion of Satan and his apoftate angels. Not indeed that he supposes a battle to have been actually fought; but he refers this part of the Apocalypfe to the fame conflict as that alluded to in Jude 6. and 2 Pet. ii. 4. It is obvious, that this scheme is liable to much the fame objections as those which I have already adduced against the schemes of Mede and Bp. Newton. The whole of the little book, as itself repeatedly testifies, treats of the 1260 years. This is fo manifeft, that all commentators, who depart from such an opinion, are obliged to have recourse to the most arbitrary gloffes upon the text. Bp. Newton accordingly afferts, that the flight of the woman into the wilderness mentioned in the 6th verfe is introduced proleptically, because it was pofterior in point of time to the events which he fuppofes to be intended by the war in heaven. The Archdeacon, in a fomewhat fimilar manner, would throw the whole of that war into a parenthesis, in order that he may be at liberty to apply it to the expulfion of the devil and his angels from heaven. After carefully reading however all that the Bishop and the Archdeacon have faid in favour of their respective schemes, and after attentively confidering the ftructure of the little book, I cannot think that either the prolepfis or the parenthefis are at all warranted by the general tenor of the prophecy; and to myfelf it certainly appears a complete breach of chronological precifion to fuppofe, that in the very midft of an infulated prediction (fevered by the Apoftle himself from his larger prediction), which profeffes to treat of the 1260 years, we should be fuddenly carried back either to the age of primitive chriftianity, the age of Conftantine, or a period preceding *Rev. viii. 13. Rev. ix. 4, 20, 21. xi. 15, 18. xvi. 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19. Compare the Archdeacon, p. 210, 211. with. Rev, xiij. 8, 12, 14, $ P. 211. the very creation of the world. Nor is this the only objection to the Archdeacon's expofition: it contains likewise a violation of homogeneity. The woman is faid to be in the fame heaven as the dragon. But by that beaven the Archdeacon understands the literal heaven, out of which the apoftate angels were caft. The woman therefore must have been in the literal heaven. But when was "the Church from the time of Adam”* down to the prefent time, whether patriarchal, Levitical, or Chriftian, in the literal heaven from which the devil was expelled? 4. I have already mentioned the agreement between the Archdeacon and myself, that the first apocalyptic beaft is the Roman empire, and the same as Daniel's fourth beaft; not, as fome have fuppofed, the Papacy, and the fame as the little born of Daniel's beafl. The Archdeacon indeed may perhaps be thought by some needlesɛly to refine on the subject :† yet his opinion of this beaft is fubftantially the fame as my own. To his remarks however on the feventh and eighth forms of Roman government I can by no means fubfcribe. He conceives the feventh to be the Exarchate of Ravenna, and the eighth (unless I altogether mistake his meaning) to be a compound of all the Popish fovereigns, a college (if I may fo fpeak) of all the ten horns. As I have in the body of my work given my reasons very abundantly why I cannot allow the Exarchate of Ravenna to be the feventh head, I fhall confine myself to some observations on the Archdeacon's opinion of the eighth. The first objection to it is obviously, that it confounds the members of the beast, making his ten horns the fame as his laft head. The next is, that this apparently distinct eighth head is to be one of the preceding feven; fo that the beaft has really only feven, though he may feem upon a fuperficial view of his hiftory to have eight. With which of his feven predeceffors can this fuppofed collegiate regal head be identified? The laft is, that the eighth head of the beaft is reprefented as fomething perfectly diftinct from the kings feated within his empire, although it manifeftly influences their actions. We read, that the beaft is to go into perdition while fubfifting under his eighth form of government. Now, if we turn to the paffage where his perdition is described, we find him heading a confederacy of thofe very kings whom the Archdeacon conceives jointly to conftitute his last head. § 5. Though I quite agree with the Archdeacon, that the little born of Daniel's fourth beaf, when generally confidered, is the fame as the fecond apocalyptic beaft or the falfe prophet; yet, if we defcend to particulars, I am unable to affent to his expofition of these kindred fymbols. He thinks, that the fecond apocalyptic beaft represents the whole of the great apoftacy; and that his two horns denote, one the Papacy, and the other Mohammedifm. It is fomewhat remarkable, that I had once in the courfe of my ftudy of the Revelation fallen upon the very fame opinion; but it is liable to what appears to myself infuperable objections.Of the fecond apocalyptic beaft ftrict unity of action is predicated: but it is nat ural to fuppofe, that, if his two borns had been defigned to reprefent two fuch diftin powers as Popery and Mohammedifm, a separate set of actions would have been afcribed to each; as there are, for inftance, to the twe P. $15. See p. 329-335, 421,-425, 436. Rov. xvi, 13, 14. xix. 19. P. 431, 438. - P. 856-374. little horns defcribed by Daniel, and (what is perhaps more ftrictly analogical) to the feveral horns and the little horn of Daniel's fourth beaft.The fecond apocalyptic beaft makes his appearance in the little book, which (according to the Archdeacon himself*) peculiarly relates to "another Antichriftian ufurpation" as contradiftinguished from the already predicted Mohammedan ufurpation, and of which "the western nations of the Gentiles are to be the object:" furely then, if we would be confiftent in our expofitions, we cannot expect to find in the little book any mention of Mohammedifm.-The fecond apocalyptic beaft is reprefented as being one falfe prophet, or (what amounts to the fame thing) one body of perfonal falfe prophets : now, when we confider the nature of what Mede properly terms the counter elements of the Apocalypfe, and when we find that the true prophets of God are faid to be two in number, we can fcarcely conceive that the counter-element to the two true prophets would have been one false prophet, when so fair an opportunity was prefented of producing a perfect counter-element by exhibiting two falfe prophets, namely Popery and Mohammedism: one falfe prophet however is alone mentioned; whence it seems most natural to conclude that one power is alone intended. The power, which the second beaft exercises under the protection of the firft, is among other particulars (as the Archdeacon himself allows‡) idolatrous; and, if the expofition which Dr. Zouch and myself give of the image set up by him be juft, it is idolatrously perfecuting the difciples of Mohammed have ever warmly protefted against idolatry, and have repeatedly charged the Papifts with being guilty of it.-The fecond beaft is reprefented as very clofely connected with the firft, and as exercifing his authority under his immediate fanc tion: this perfectly accords with Popery, but by no means fo with Mo hammedifm, which has ever been in direct oppofition to the papal Roman empire, and against which repeated crufades have been undertaken.-The fecond beaft is allowed by the Archdeacon to be the fame as the little horn of Daniel's fourth beaft; therefore the little horn muft, according to his fcheme, typify at once both Popery and Mohammedifm : but what is there in the character of this little born, which can reasonably induce us to fuppofe that it denotes two entirely diftin&t religious powers? All the other horns of all the other beafts reprefent each a fingle power: homog neity therefore forbids us to fuppofe that it alone reprefents two. Its actions equally forbid such a suppofition. Like thofe of the fecond apocalyptic beaft, they are ftrictly the actions of one. The little horn, for inftance, fubverts three of the other horns. Popery and Mohammedifm cannot both fubvert the self-fame three horns: and, if they had each fubverted three, then their common fymbol the little horn would have fubverted fix. But Mohammedifm never fubverted any three, and the little horn does fubvert three therefore Mohammedifm can have no connection with the little born. The truth of these observations will yet further appear, if we confider the character of the mystic apocalyptic harlot. This character is fo ftrongly drawn, that the Archdeacon cannot but confine it to the papal apoftacy. Hence, in order to preferve confiftency, he is obliged to fay, that the harlot is not abfolutely the fame as the fecond beat or the falje * P. 277,278, 279. † AVTIC Toixa Batinina, P. 850, $51. § P. 350-357. Yet, to any unprejudiced prophet, but only as one of his two horns.* reader the harlot muft appear to perform exactly the fame part to the ten-horned beaft defcribed in the 17th chapter, that the fecond beaft does to the ten-horned beaft in the 13th chapter, and the little born to the ten-horned beast in the 7th chapter of Daniel. The Archdeacon indeed himself both draws out in three columns the parallelifm of the little horn, the fecond apocalyptic beaft, and the man of fin; and elsewhere parallelizes in two columns the false prophet or the fecond apocalyptic beaft and the barlot. What then can we conclude, but that all three denote one and the fame power, whatever that power may be ; and confequently, fince the barlot and the man of fin are exclufively the papal power, that both the others must be exclufively the papal power likewife? Before this subject is altogether difmiffed, I muft remark, that the Archdeacon has adduced fome very forcible arguments to prove that the fecond apocalyptic beaft cannot denote, as it hath recently been conjectured, the infidel democratic power of France. He feems to me likewife to defcribe moft justly the "This hoftility between the motives of the kings in stripping the harlot. kings and the harlot," fays he, " does not feem to proceed from any virtue in them, but from worldly avarice and ambition. They covet her power and her riches; and this change in their conduct feems to take place from the time when they awake from their intoxication. They, who had been the means of exalting the harlot, become the instruments of her fall."|| The Archdeacon, I am perfuaded, will not be offended at the freedom of thefe remarks. If we be rapidly approaching to the time of the end, as there is abundant reafon to believe that we are, we certainly ought to redouble our caution in admitting any expofition of prophecy It is by the which will not ftand the teft of the ftricteft examination. running to and fro of many that knowledge is increafed: and every perfon, that attempts to unfold the facred oracles of God, ought not only to expect but to defire, that his writings should be even feverely fcrutinized. He may indeed fairly demand, that he should be treated with civility: but, while he deprecates the offenfive illiberality of farcafm and the dif gufting coarfenefs of vulgar fcurrility, by fome efteemed the very acmé of wit and perfection of criticifm, he ought never to fhrink from the manly fincerity of calm and difpaffionate investigation. I cannot conclude with greater propriety than in the words of the Archdeacon himfelf. "Truth, in this important refearch, is, I hope, as it ought to be, my principal concern: and I fhall rejoice to fee thefe facred prophecies. truly interpreted, though the correction of my mistakes fhould lay the foundation of fo defirable a fuperftructure."¶ See indeed the Archdeacon himP. 4SS. ¶ Pref. p. xx. FINIS. |