... dreadful perfecution of paganifm, as having affumed a livid cadaverous hue, as beftridden by death, and pursued by hell, as experiencing the excifion of a fourth part of her members throughout the whole Apocalyptic earth or the Roman empire, and we may add as falling into danger of the fecond death through conftrained apoftacy. The fifth exhibits to us the fouls of the martyrs; and represents their blood, like that of Abel, as crying to God for vengeance upon their perfecutors. And the fixth fymbolically describes the overthrow of paganism and the establishment of Chriftianity. The feventh feal introduces the feptenary of the trumpets. We are now arrived at the days of Conftantine: but St. Paul had predicted, that a great apoftacy fhould take place, and that a power which he ftyles the man of fin fhould be revealed, after he that letted, or the Western Roman empire, had been taken out of the way. In exact accordance with this prophecy of St. Paul, St. John proceeds to defcribe under the four first trumpets the removal of him that letted; and then, at the founding of the fifth, the great apoftacy in both its branches commences in the felf-fame year, and the man of fin is revealed. Such is the interpretation, which I give of this part of the Apocalypfe, and which appears to me to accord better with its probable chronological arrangement than that brought forward by the Archdeacon. 2. After my general objections to the Archdeacon's arrangement, it may be almoft fuperfluous to ftate, that, if there be any cogency in those objections, his application of the fifth trumpet or the first woe to the Gnostics must be deemed inadmiffible. Yet, fince he has objected to the common expofition of this trumpet as relating to the rife of Mohammedifm and the ravages of the Saracens, it may be expedient to fay a few words on the fubject. The Archdeacon fuppofes, that the fixth trumpet or the fecond woe does not relate exclufively to the Turks, as most modern commentators have imagined, but to all the profeffors of Mohammedifm, Saracens as well as Turks; and confequently that it begins to found in the year 606, whence the rife of Mohammedifm is moft properly dated. Such an expofition of the two first woes does not feem to me to accord with the Archdeacon's own very excellent principle of homogeneity. In addition to the fifth and fixth trumpets being alike ftyled woes, the prophecies contained under each of them bear a moft ftriking resemblance to each other, infomuch that there is nothing elfe in the whole Apocalypfe that is at all fimilar either to the one or to the other of them. Yet, befides their being reprefented as fucceffive and as conftituting two diftinct woes, there is a fufficient degree of difference between them to fhew plainly that they can. not relate precifely to the fame people and the fame event. Now, independent of the Gnoftics not harmonizing with the chronology of the Apocalypfe (if there be any force in my general objection,) I cannot but think homogeneity violated by referring the one prophecy to the Gnostics and the other to the Mohammedans. There is a greater difference between the actions of the Gnoflics and the actions of the Mohammedans, than the obvious fimilarity of the two predictions will warrant; and at the fame time there is a lefs ftriking refemblance between their principles, than the predictions feem to require, The actions of the Gnoflics and the actions of the Mohammedans were totally unlike; and I can fee no reafon why the principle of the Gnoftics fhould be thought to refemble thofe of the Mohammedans more than the principles of many other Chriflian beretics. But, in the cafe of the Saracens and the Turk, we exactly find at once the required fimilarity and the required diffimilarity: and, while homogeneity is thus preferved inviolate, the chronology of the Apocalypfe (fuppofing it to be, as I have attempted to prove it to be, one continued vifion) remains perfectly unbroken. With fo much in favour of Mede's interpretation, I cannot feel my faith in it fhaken by the Archdeacon's objections. I fully agree with him, that the fallen ftar of the fifth trumpet cannot mean Mohammed: but this objection is removed by the interpretation which I have given of it. His three next objections do not seem to me infurmountable. The jymbolical darkness of the fifth trumpet I do not conceive to mean the darkness of preceding herefies: it began to iffue out of the bottomlefs pit or hell, when the false prophet retired to the cave of Hera to vent his imposture. I cannot fee, why we are bound to conclude that the darkness must extend to the whole chriftian world, merely because it is faid that the fun and the air were darkened; any more than we ought to fuppofe the whole natural world darkened, becaufe a great smoke darkened the fun and the air to the inhabitants of a particular country. The regions, in which the Waldenfes most flourished, certainly did escape in a remarkable manner the incurfions of the Saracens ; and I think, with Bp. Newton, that this escape is a fufficient fulfilment of the prophecy. The fifth objection is invalid, fuppofing the prediction to relate to the Saracens in particular, and not to the Moham medans in general. The Saracens indeed fubfifted as a nation more than 150 years, juft as the Gnoftics continued as a fect more than 150 years; but they fubfifted as an unfettled nation, answering to the character of a woe inflicted by locufts, exactly 150 years. In the fixth objection there is fome weight, but I cannot allow it to counterbalance the arguments in favour of Mede's interpretation. In prophecies avowedly defcriptive we not unfrequently meet with a mixture of the literal with the fymbolical. Thus, in the final battle of Armageddon, if we compare the description of it with other parallel prophecies, Christ is proba bly a literal character, the kings of the earth and their armies are certainly literal characters, and the beaft is juft as certainly a fymbolical character. Apply this remark to the Archdeacon's objection, that commentators, in order to refer the fifth trumpet to the Saracens, fometimes expound it literally and fometimes fymbolically; and perhaps it may not be thought wholly unanfwerable. So again: whatever might have been the state of the Turkish nation before it is mentioned by St. John, it was certainly, immediately before the period of its fuppofed introduction into the Apocalypfe, divided into four fultanies; and thofe four fultanies were feated upon the Euphrates: whereas the rife of Mohammedifm from the cave of Hera in Arabia can by no ingenuity be transferred to the Euphrates. It is not fufficient to fay, that the Saracens were at a fubfequent period feated upon the Euphrates: a prophecy relating to the rife of Mohamedifm, must commence from Arabia. With regard to the propriety of confidering the Saracens and the Turks as wees, the Archdeacon cannot object to it even according to his own definition of a woe :‡ for Pref. p. xvii. P. 249, 250, 231. P. 271. But 1 furely the rapid propagation of Mohammedifm by the Saracens, and its eflablifhment by the Turks, may well be confidered as two heavy wees to the Christian Church; especially 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 we, as ufhering in the open developement of French atheism and anarchy. 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 feven vials to constitute jointly the third woe, are represented as punishments inflicted both upon the eastern and weflern Romans.† The fenfe, which the Archdeacon affixes to the Apocalyptic earth, or (as he fometimes tranflates the original word) land, is irreconcileable with many paffages wherein that fymbol 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.g 3. The Archdeacon fuppofes the woman described in the 12th chapter to denote the Church, not merely while christian, 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 earnest expectation through a long series 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 fuppofes a battle to have been actually fought; but he refers this part of the Apocalypse 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 fuch 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 parenthefis, 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 said 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 midst 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. xiii. 8, 12, 14. § P. 211. 1 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 jame heaven as the dragon. But by that heaven 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 present 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 firft apocalyptic beaft is the Roman empire, and the fame as Daniel's fourth beaft; not, as fome have fuppofed, the Papacy, and the fame as the little horn of Daniel's beaf. The Archdeacon indeed may perhaps be thought by fome needlefely to refine on the fubject :† yet his opinion of this beaft is fubflantially the fame as my own. To his remarks however on the feventh and eighth forms of Roman government I can by no means fubscribe. 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 so speak) of all the ten horns. As I have in the body of my work given my reafons very abundantly why I cannot allow the Exarchate of Ravenna to be the feventh head, I fhall confine myself to fome obfervations on the Archdeacon's opinion of the eighth. The first objection to it is obviously, that it confounds the members of the beaf, making his ten borns the fame as his laft head. The next is, that this apparently diftinct 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 defcribed, we find him heading a confederacy of thofe very kings whom the Archdeacon conceives jointly to conftitute his laft 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 false prophet; yet, if we defcend to particulars, I am unable to affent to his expofition of thefe kindred fymbols. He thinks, that the fecond apocalyptic beaft reprefents 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 study of the Revelation fallen upon the very fame opinion; but it is liable to what appears to myfelf infuperable objections. Of the fecond apocalyptic beafl ftrict unity of action is predicated; but it is natural to fuppofe, that, if his two horns had been defigned to reprefent we fuch diftinct powers as Popery and Mohammedifm, a feparate set of actions would have been afcribed to each; as there are, for inftance, to the two P. 315. † See p. 329-335, 421,-425, 436. Rev. xvi. 13, 14. xix. 19. P. 451, 432. P. 356-974. 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 :" surely 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 fo fair an opportunity was prefented of producing a perfect counter-element by exhibiting two falfe prophets, namely Popery and Mohammedifm: one false prophet however is alone mentioned; whence it feems most natural to conclude that one power is alone intended. The power, which the second beaft exercifes 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 fet 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 beaf is reprefented as very clofely connected with the firft, and as exercifing his authority under his immediate fanction: this perfectly accords with Popery, but by no means. fo with Mohammedifm, which has ever been in direct oppofition to the papal Roman empire, and againft 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 horn, 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: homogeneity therefore forbids us to fuppofe that it alone reprefents two. actions equally forbid fuch a fuppofition. Like thofe of the fecond aporalyptic 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 felf-fame three horns and, if they had each fubverted three, then their common fymbol the little born 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 obfervations 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 beaft or the falfe : * P. 277, 278, 279. † Avriøroya Sueirina. P. 350, 351. § P. 350-957. Its |