wholly silent, as to any antecedent slaughter and resurrection of the witnesses; so the prophetic account of the war is equally silent, as to any immediately succeeding overthrow of the persecuting wild beast from the abyss. The enemies of the witnesses are indeed represented as grievously terrified by their resurrection and ascension, and a tenth part of the great Roman city is said to fall shortly afterwards by the shock of an earthquake: but not the least intimation is given, that those enemies, though alarmed, are exterminated as in the battle of Armageddon. Thus, on the whole, I deem it but lost labour to seek for any hint of the war of the witnesses in the series of the seven vials. If it do occur under some one of them, we have, at all events, no light thrown upon the subject by the prophecy itself.

2. The next argument is indeed an hypothetical one: yet the hypothesis, on which it rests, seems to be so wonderfully corroborated by the evolution of correspondent history and by the imperious claims of never-to-be-neglected homogeneity, that I confess it to be with myself, what the Roman application of Daniel's fourth wild beast was to Mr. Mede, almost an article of faith.

Of this hypothesis I shall give the ground in my own words: and I am the more disposed to do so, because my learned friend Dr. Hales, however he may differ from me on some other points, has both quoted those words and honoured them with his entire approbation.

"The time for the beginning of the last woe,"

says the author of the Analysis of ancient Chronology, "has long been a subject of the most eager "and anxious inquiry amongst the ablest interpre"ters of the Apocalypse. Of all the interpretations "hitherto proposed, that of Mr. Faber appears to "be the most probable and the least exceptionable. "It cannot be better expressed than in his own "words.

“The rise of Mohammedism and the conquests of "the Saracens form a singular epoch in history. "The rise and conquests of the Ottoman Empire form another singular epoch. After these two, "where shall we pitch upon a third epoch equally "singular? Can any other answer be given, except "the French Revolution and its amazingly extensive << consequences? ? Now the Saracens and Turks are "universally allowed to be the subject of the two 'first woes: and are they more worthy of a place in "prophecy, than the daring impieties, the unheard of "miseries, and the vast change in the whole Euro

pean commonwealth, which have flowed from the "French Revolution? Since we are compelled to "date a new order of things from this tremendous "convulsion, is it improbable to suppose, that the "third woe-trumpet began to sound, when the reign of Antichrist, of Anarchy, and of Atheism, com"menced* ?"

(1.) But more may be advanced in favour of such an opinion than I have here advanced.

* Hales's Synopsis of the signs of the times. p. 29, 30. Dissert. on the 1260 days. chap. x. sect. 1. § V. 2.

The

The grossly absurd fancy of the Romanists, that the third woe-trumpet is the allegorical trumpet which calls all mankind before the final judgment-seat of Christ, because it is the last in order of the seven apocalyptic trumpets, and because the judgment of the dead (by which is meant their vindication or reprobation in this world) is placed under it; is abundantly exposed, both by the absolute demonstration that the seventh apocalyptic trumpet introduces and comprehends all the seven vials which have obviously no relation to the solemnities of the literal day of judgment, and by the invaluable principle of homogeneity which requires us to esteem the third wee similar in kind to the two other woes *. Our principle then of homogeneity demands, that all the three woes, because classed together as three successive woes, should be similar to each other in kind. Hence no interpretation of any one of them can be admitted, which violates this palmary canon. Would we expound them aright, we must not simply discover three very calamitous events; but three such calamitous events, as will at once accord with the prophetic description of them, and resemble each other in their moral or political or religious object whatever that special common object may be.

Now, by jointly attending to the lapse of time and the narrative of history, our best interpreters have agreed in pronouncing, that the two first woes are the Saracens and the Turks: and this their exposi

Walmesley's Gen. Hist. p. 402-405.

1

tion

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 AS SUCH. 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 extermination 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,

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: hin, 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 woes. "The second woe is past," exclaims the warning prophet; "behold, the third woe cometh "QUICKLY *"

Rev. xi. 14.

Now