« PreviousContinue »
This hypothesis of Mr. Galloway is, I fear, no better founded than that of Mr. Kett.
Whatever the epithet little may signify in other parts of Scripture,* the context sufficiently shews, that, when applied to the eleventh horn of the Roman beast, it simply means small in point of size. There is a very sensible rule, that words used in the same passage antithetically or relatively must bear the same kind of signification. Thus, when Ezekiel, in one continued clause, speaks of a righteous man turning from his righteousness to iniquity, and of a wicked man turning from his wickedness to righteousness :f no one can reasonably doubt, that the righteousness, which the one has forsaken, is the very righteousness, which the other has attained; or that the iniquity, which the one has plunged into, is no less an aberration from the will of God, (though it may not be precisely the same mode of aberration) than the iniquity, which the other has happily forsaken. Unless this be allowed, the antithesis and relation of the words righteous man and wicked man, and righteousness and wickedness, are entirely destroyed ; and the whole passage is consequently deprived of all definiteness of meaning. If then we advert to the context of the passage, wherein the little horn is mentioned, we shall find, that the prophet beheld four great beasts coming up from the sea;
* I am not perfectly clear, that the word little ever occurs in Scripture in the sense of morally wartbless. The passages, cited by Ms. Galloway in support of this interpretation of the word, afford it no support whatsoever. In all of them, without exception, the epithet little is used in the sense of wortbless or trifing in point of value or consequence, not in that of wortbless in point of religion and morality. It is superfluous to observe, that there is a most essential difference between these two kinds of wortblessness. Cruden, than whom few men were better acquainted with the bible, does not mention the sense of morally worthless among the different scriptural significations which he supposes the word little to bear : and Parkhurst' only gives three meanings of the radical 71, here used by Daniel, namely small in point of size, time, and quantity. The matter, after all, is reducible to this. We are not concerned with what the English word little may mean, when it occurs in Scripture ; but with what the Hebrew word 791, which occurs in this particular passage, means. Let the reader then turn to Calasio's Heb. Concordance, and he will soon be satisfied, that the word 7 never signifies morally wortbless. Mr. Galloway does not seem to have been aware, that this word hy is not used in any one of the passages to which he refers in proof of his interpretation. Consequently, even if our English translation little had signified morally wortbless in all of them, he would have been no nearer to the establishing of his opinion. In one of them indeed the cognate word apy is used ; but this no more bears the sense of morally avartbless than 797. In the three others, three entirely different words are employed; all of which are alike translated little.
+ Ezek. xviii. 26, 27.
and that one of these great beasts had a little horn, which sprung up among his other ten larger horns. In a similar manner, if we advert to the context of the passage, wherein the little horn of the he-goat or third great beust is mentioned,* we shall find, that this he-goat is said to have had one great horn ; from the broken stump of which came up four notable horns, and also a little horn which came forth out of one of the four notable horns.t With such a double context then before us, is it reasonable to suppose, that the four great beasts, and the great horn, mean literally four beasts, and a horn, large in point of size ; but that the little horn does not mean literally a horn small in point of size, but figuratively a morally worthless horn! To make the two passages at all consistent, the same kind of signification must be borne by the word grcat, as by the word little : consequently, if a little horn mean a morally worthless state, a great horn, and a great beast will mean a morally worthy state or empire. But, since this conclusion is a manifest absurdity, and since a great horn and a great beast certainly mean a large state or empire, a little horn must necessarily mean a small state. France however is both a large state, and one of the ten horns ; and the little horn, whatever it may be, is both a small state, and not one of the ten horns : France therefore most undeniably cannot be symbolized by the little horn.
Having thus shewn, that the little horn cannot be France, it may seem almost unnecessary to prosecute the matter any further; for, if the horn itself be not France, none of the particulars which are predicated of the horn can be applied to that country. Nevertheless, in order that the non-identity of France and the little horn may be the more satisfactorily established, I shall likewise consider the other points wherein Mr. Galloway thinks that he has discovered an agreement between them.
The little horn is to depress three of the first ten horns. These, according to Mr. Galloway, are the monarchy of
* The be-goat symbolizes the same power as the leopard in the preceding vision of the four beasis.
+ Dan. vüi. 8, 9.
France, the Stadholderate of Holland, and the Swiss con. federacy—The first objection, that an historical student would make to such a mode of interpretation, is obviously this: Daniel declares, that three of the first ten horns should be plucked up before the little horn: now, upon adverting to the list of the ten primary Gothic sovereignties into which the Roman empire was originally divided, we shall find it a vain labour to discover among them those two completely modern states, Holland and Switzerland. One only of the first ten horns was in existence when the French revolution broke out, the uncient kingdom of the Franks :* hence it is plainly impossible, that the prophecy should receive its accomplishment in the present day. If it has not been long since fulfilled, it now never can be fulfilled — The next objection is, that France cannot, with any shew of probability, be reckoned at once both the little horn which subdues, and the horn which is subdued. I am aware, that Mr. Galloway supposes the little horn to be revolutionary France, and the other horn to be regal France; but the language of prophecy knows no such distinctions. It considers states, rather than revolutions of states; though it will frequently mark, with wonderful accuracy, even those very revolutions.
The Roman empire, or the fourth beast, under all its seven different heads or forms of government, is still considered as only one power. The destruction of its regal head by the consulate, and of its consular head by the emperorship, is not represented upder the image of its being attacked by another bcast : Rome is never said by the prophet to subdue Rome. a similar manner, France whether under the government
In strict propriety of speech, the original kingdom of the Angels cannot be considered as being at present in existence, the line of succession having been broken both by the Danish and Norman conquests : one only therefore of the ten primary kingdoms, ibat of tbe Franks, remained at the era of the revolution. The kingdom of the Huns indeed still exists rominelly, but its independence is no more. It is swallowed up in the superior power of Austria, in the same manner as the primitive kingdom of Burgundy is lost in ibat of the Franks. There is moreover another reason, why the modern kingdom of Hungary can scarcely be considered the same as the primitive kingdom of 15. Huns. “ Hungary ” says Mr. Gibbon,“ has been successively occupied by three Scythian colonies: the Huns of Attila (who constituted the primitive kingdom ;) the Abares, in the sixth century; and the Turks of Magiars, a. D. 889. the immediate and genuine ancestors of the modern Hungarians, whose connection with the two former is extremely faint and remote," Hist, of Decline and Fall, Vol, vi. p. 38.
of the Merovingians, the Carlovingians, or the Capets : whether oppressed by the diabolical tyranny of the republican faction, or tamely submitting to the degrading usurpation of the upstart family of Buonaparlé : France, however, circumstanced in point of legislature, is still France, still one of the original ten horns of the Roman beast. Hence surely it cannot be at once both the horn that subdues, and the horn that is subdued : France is never said by the prophet to subdue France.
The little horn is further to weur out the saints of the Most High- These saints Mr. Galloway supposes to be the popish clergy of France, and such of the laity as were unwilling to give up the Christianity of the Church of Rome for the blasphemous atheism of the mock republic. That there have been many sincere Christians in the midst of all the voluntary humility and superstitious willworship of the mystic Babylon,* I am by no means disposed to deny. To adopt the words of the excellent Hooker, “ Forasmuch as it may be said of the Church of Rome, she hath yet a little strength, she doth not directly deny the foundation of Christianity; I may, I trust, without offence, persuade myself that thousands of our fathers, in former times living and dying within her walls, have found mercy at the hands of God.t Nevertheless, though I readily make this concession to the pious papist, I cannot quite so easily bring myself to think, that the members of an idolatrous and persecuting A postacy, when spoken of collectively, would be called by the Holy Spirit of God the saints of the Most High. They, who as a body, are represented as worshippers of mediating demons, and idols of gold and silver and brass and stone and wood; as murderous persecutors, sorcerers or jugglers, spiritual fornicators, and thieves : # they, who bear
Coloss. ii. 18-23. + Discourse of Justification, Sect. 17. Hooker however guards, with his usual wisdom, against any misapprehension or perversion of these words. “Many in former times, as their books and writings do yet shew, held the foundation, to wit, salvation by Christ alone, and therefore might be saved. God hath always had a Church amongst them, which firmly kept his saving truth. As for such as hold with the Cburch of Rome, that we cannot be saved by <brist alone without works ; they do, not only by a circle of consequence, but directly deny the foundation of - Faith : they hold it not, no not so much as by a thread.”' ibid. Sect. 19.
| Rev. ix. 20, 21.
such a character in one part of Scripture, can never surely be honoured with the title of saints of the Most High in another part. Even Mr. Galloway himself, though he supposes the popish clergy of France to be the saints worn out by the tyranny of the little horn; yet, in another part of his work thinks, that the second vial of the wrath of God is to be poured out upon papal Rome, “ as a just judgment for her abominable idolatry, for her artful seduction and unrelenting and bloody persecutions of the Church of his blessed Son, and for her daring impiety in the assumption of his divine attributes."* Now, although the French clergy did not quite so implicitly submit to the unqualified claims of the pretended successors of St. Peter as those of Spain, Portugal, and Italy : yet I never heard, that they had in any degree renounced their heretical opinions, their blasphemous idolatries, and their ridiculous mummeries ; or that any of them felt a single scruple of conscience respecting the execrable oath, exacted by the Pope from all whom he consecrates bishops, that they will, as far as in them lics, persecute and oppose all impugners of the authority of the see of Rome. This being the case, let the little horn be what power it may, the bigoted adherents of that sanguinary hierarchy cannot surely be styled, by a divinely inspired prophet, saints of the Most High.t
Comment. p. 235. + The reader will find a very full and satisfactory statement of the pernicious maxims of Popery in the able strictures on Plowden's Historical Review of Ireland, commencing in tbe Anti-Jacobin Review for Nov. 1804. He will likewise do well to peruse a tract published at Cambridge in the year 1746, intitled The true spirit of Popery displayed. And, if he require a yet more circumstantial detail of the principles and practice of tbe Church of Rome, he will find it in Mr. Whitaker's well-timed Commentary on the Revelation. To these writers I beg to refer him, if he wish for any further confutation of Mr. Galloway's opinion, that the popisb clergy and royalist l'aily of France are the saints of the Most High worn out by the tyranny of the little born.
Mr. Kett's conjecture, that the little born ultimately typifies the Infidel power of France, and that tbe beast of tbe bottomless pit which slays the apocalyptic witnesses is French Infidelity, must necessarily lead him to adopt Mr. Galloway's sentiments respecting sbe saints of God mentioned by Daniel, and the witnesses mentioned by St. John: (Compare Hist. the Interp. Vol. I. p. 391. with p. 413, 419.) nay, his scheme is perplexed with more irreconcileable contradictions than even that of Mr. Galloway. When tbe little born, in its primary sense, means Popery ; then the saints worn out by it must of course mean all those boly men who protested against its corruptions. But, when the little born, in its ultimate sense, means ibe Infidel power of France; then the saints worn out by it must mean the Popish clergy and royalist laity. Thus it is evident, that, upon Mr. Kett's plan, the saints sometimes mean the persecuted protestants, and at other times the persecuting papists; while the little born, with equal flexibility, sometimes VOL. I.