Page images
PDF
EPUB

region between the two seas, the region whose limits extend 1600 furlongs.

On the whole, it is reasonable to conclude, that the time is not very far distant, when the symbolical heaven and earth shall pass away, and when the personal Word shall begin to tread the wine-press of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. Never were there more awful times than these of the third woe-trumpet. All civilized government has been in a state of commotion; and the powers of Europe have been shaken to their very centre. The end however is not yet. The calamities of the harvest are but the harbingers of those which shall take place under the last vial during the period of the vintage.

For ourselves, we have only to labour, through the grace of God and the assistance of his Holy Spirit, that we may be prepared to meet the Lord at his coming. Death,whensoever it shall arrest our progress, will assuredly be the end of the world to each of us. We pervert the study of prophecy, if we make it only a mere curious speculation. We ought rather so to read the oracles of God, as to profit by them in all holiness of life and conversation. Neither a hearty reprobation of the cruelties and corruptions of Popery; nor an abhorrence of the impious imposture of Mohammedism; nor a detestation of the diabolical principles of Antichrist; are alone sufficient to prepare us for the kingdom of heaven. We must beware, lest we have a name that we live, and are dead. We must be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain that are ready to die; lest our works be not found perfect before God.* It will be but small comfort to each of us as individuals, that our country is preserved amidst the wreck of nations to fulfil the future high purposes of the Almighty, if we through our own negligence fall short of the promised reward. In fine, our eternal interests will be but little benefited by the study of prophecy, unless we pursue it in the manner which the apostle himself hath proposed to us. "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein ; for the time is at hand."+

* Rev. iii. 1, 2,

† Rev. i. 3.

APPENDIX.

WHEN the first edition of this Differtation was published, I had not had an opportunity of perufing the recently printed work of Archdeacon Woodhoufe on the Apocalypfe; but it would be unpardonable, confidering the plan which I have adopted, to fuffer a fecond edition to make its appearance without noticing it. The thanks of every biblical ftudent are due to the learned author for his very clear and convincing Differtation on the divine Origin of the Apocalypfe, and likewise for many valuable remarks and much found criticifm contained in his notes on the book. I feel myself peculiarly gratified and interested at finding feveral of my own pofitions maintained and established by a writer, with whom I have not the honour of being acquainted, and whose work I had not read at the time when my own was published. Thus, we are both agreed, that Mohammedifm conflitutes one half of a grand apoftacy from the purity of Chriftianily; that the apocalyptic great city

* The position, that Mobammedism is a Chriftian apofia.y, is fo ably treated by the Archdeacon, that I cannot refrain from strengthening what I have already faid on the fubject with his quotations and arguments.

He

"Mohammed did not pretend to deliver any new religion, but to revive the old one.--. allowed both the Old and New Teflonents, and that both Mofes and Jefus were prophets fent from God (Prideaux's Life of Mohammed, p. 18, 19.); that Jefus, fon of Mary, is the word and a fpirit fent from God, a redeemer of all that believe in him. (Sale's Koran, p. 19, 30, 65. Ockley's Hift. of Saracens II.) Mohammed represents himself as the Paraclete or Comforter fent by Jesus Christ, John xvi. 7. (Koran, p. 165.) So, in Mohammed's afcent to heaven, as invented in the Koran, while the patriarchs and prophets confess their inferiority to him by intreating his prayers, in the seventh heaven he fees Jefus, whofe fuperiority the falfe prophet acknowledges by commending himself to his prayers. (Sale's Koran, p. 17. Prideaux's Life of Mohammed, p. 55.) Faith in the divine books is a neceffary article of the Mohammedan creed; and among these is the Gofpel given to Iffa or Jefus, which they affert to be corrupted by the Chriftians.-If any Few is willing to become a Mohammedan, be muft firft believe in Chrift: and this question is afked bim, Doft thou believe that Chrift was born of a virgin by the blaft (i, e. infpiration) of God, and that he was the last of the Jewish prophets? If he answers in the affirmative, he is made a Mohammedan. (Reland on Moham. pref. 25, 11.) Mohammed arofe to eftablish a new religion, which came pretty near the Jervish, and was not entirely different from that of feveral fects of Chriftians, which got him a great many followers. (Leibnitz's Letter, 1706.) The impoftor Mobammed confeffed that Jefus was born of the Virgin Mary, that he was the Word of God fent from beaven, the Spirit of God declared by the miracles of the Gospel, the prophet of God, wh fe office it was to deliver the Gospel and teach the way of truth, who is to come to judgment and to defroy Antichrif and convert the Jews. Thus alf be taught, that the Gospel of Chrift, and the law of Mifes, and all the prophets, are to be believed. And thus be was better inclined to the Chriflian: thar to the Jews. (Spanhem. Introd. ad hift. sæc. vii. p. 609.) Mohammedism began as a chriftian heresy, acknowledging Chrift for a prophet, a greater than Mofes, born of a Virgin, the Word of God. (Ricaut's Ottoman empire, p. 138.) Sale afferts the Mohammedan religion to be not only Chriflian berefy, but an improvement upon the very corrupt idolatrous f«fer of the Jews and Cbriftians of thofe times. (Prelim. p. 15.) Jofeph Mede affirms, that the Mohammedans are nearer to Christianity than many of the ancient herefies, the Cerinthians, Gnoftics, Manichees. (Works, p. 645.) Whatever good is to be found in the Mobammedan religion (and some good doctrines and precepts there undeniably are in it,) is in no small · measure owing to Chriflianity: for Mohammedism is a borrowed fyftem, made up for the most part of Judaism and Chriftianity; and, if it be confidered in the most favourable view, might

.........

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 firfl teaft of the apocalypfe is not the Papacy, but the Roman empire ; that the deadly wound of this beaft denotes his converfion to Chriflianity under Conftantine, and that his revival means his relapfing into idolatry ;§ that the little born of Daniel's fourth beaft cannot be the fame as the firft apocalyptic beaf, in other words that it cannot be the fame as the beast himfelf of which it is only a member (as fome commentators have fingularly fuppofed,) but that it is the fame as the fecond apocalyptic beaft or the falfe prophet; that the deadly wound and revival of the first apocalyptic beaft is enigmatically defcribed by the phrafe was, and is not, and yet is that the time of the end denotes the expiration of the 1260 years;

poffibly be accounted a fort of Christian herefy. If the Gofpel had never been preached, it may be quefiioned whether Mohammedifm would have exifted. (Dr. Jortin's first Charge.) The Mfalmans are already a fort of beterodox Chriftians. They are Chriftians, if Locke reasons jafly, because they firmly believe the immaculate conception, divine character, and miraeles of the Meffiab: but they are beterodax in denying vehemently bis character of Son, and bis equality, as God, with the Father, of whofe unity and attributes they entertain and express 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 teftimonies as have occurred to me in no very extensive courfe 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 riting 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 thefe articles, all evidently derived from the Chriftian, and conftituting in it a great fuperiority above any thing that paganism or mere philofophy 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 Jefs; of the acceptance of prayer, of self-humiliation, of almsgiving; of the obligation to morality in almost all its branches. Take from Mobammedif one article, in which it differs from all religions generally admitted to be Christian, the belief of Mobammed's divine mission; and little will then be found in it, which may not be difcovered in the profeffion of many acknowledged Chriftians. Nay, perhaps it may appear, that the creeds of two bodies of Chriftians will supply 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 Mohammedifin, and its near affinity to corrupted Chriftianity; when we reflect alfo on the amazing extent of this fuperftitious domination, which occupies nearly as large a portion of the globe, as that possessed by Christians; comprizing vast 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 Chriftian berefy, it is at least a Chriftian apoflacy." Apocalypfe tranflated, p. 365–370.

* P. 293, 801, 412, 418. † P. 286.

$ P. S36, 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 myfterious phrafe to the age in which the vilion was delivered. "Thefe words of the angel, defcribing the beaft, He was, and is net, and yet is, appear to me in no wife applicable to the tyranny feated at Rome at the time of the vifion, ruhen the angel spake them. This was the time of the Emperor Domitian, when a cruel perfecution raged againft the Church, when St. John himself was actually fuffering banifhment in Patmos for the sword of God and the #flimony of Jehr. 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 leaft a period of 1260 years, ought moft 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 beaft 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 arifeth again after his wound, to exercife 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 prefent 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 fpoken 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 truft, a few obfervations will fhew the fallacy of this notion.

"Where an interpretation is exprefsly given in the vifion, as in ch. i. 20; v. 6, 9; xvii. 7; that interpretation must be ufed as the key to the mystery, in preference to all interpretations suggested by the imagination of man. Now in the 9th verse of this chapter (Rev. xii.) fuch an interpretation is prefented; the dragon is there exprefsly declared to that ancient ferpent called the devil; known by the name of Aaloros 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 expreís 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 described in the very fame words. But this re-appearance of the fame dragon is in a very late period of the apocalyptic history; long after the expiration of the 1260 days or years; and even after the wild beast and false 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 these 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 ch. xx. 10, when the warfare of the Church is finished. Can this dragon then be an emperor of Rome? or any race, or dynafly, of emperors? Can he be any other than that ancient and eternal enemy of the Christian Church, who in this, as in all other fcriptural accounts, is reprefented as the original contriver of all the mifchief which shall 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 false prophet, who derive their power from him: and at length he himfelf is defcribed, as leading the nations against the camp of the faints. Nothing appears more plain than the meaning of this fymbol. The only appearances, which may seem to favour the application of it to Imperial Rome are, the feven crowned heads, and the ten horns of the dragon. But-the seven 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 inftruments of his successful attack on the Chriftian 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, feem to agree in the belief that we cannot be far removed from the end of the 1260 years. The very phrafcology ufed by the Archdeacon most forcibly brought

ing myself supported by the authority of the Archdeacon; but in various 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 firft trumpets, as relating folely to ecclefiaftical matters; and rejects at once both the ufual chronological arrangement of them, and the almost univerfal fuppofition that the four first 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 cause 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 case with the Old Testament, 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 beaf 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 subject with the late Bp. Horley. His Lordship avowed it to be his opinion, that, before the prefent century elapfed, the prophecies refpecting the deftruction of the Roman beaft and the overthrow of the Antichriftian faction would be no longer a fealed book. "The days will come," fays the Archdeacon, "and feem at no very great distance (the prefent century may perhaps difclofe them), when, the beaft and falfe prophet being removed, and Babylon funk for ever, the devil, that ancient foe, fhall be deprived of his wonted influence." P. 470.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »