Page images
PDF
EPUB

idea is the Ottoman empire. Therefore the Ottoman empire will perish at the time, when Michael stands up, and when the people of Daniel or the Jews begin to be delivered. The Jews however, as Daniel afterwards informs us, will cease to be scattered when all the wonders shall be finished: but all those wonders, he says, will be finished at the end of the three times and a half: therefore the Jews will cease to be scattered, or begin to be restored, at the same time. But we had already arrived at the conclusion, that the fall of the Ottoman empire and the restoration of the Jews were to be contemporary: therefore the fall of the Ottoman empire, if Mr. Whitaker's principles be just which I deny, must take place at the end of the three times and a half or the 1260 years. And how does this accord with St. John? He teaches us, that the confederacy of the beast, the false prophet, and the kings of the earth, shall be broken at Armageddon, in the land which extends 1600 furlongs or Palestine, under the seventh vial, which plainly begins to be poured out at the end of the 1260 years.*.

And

* Such is the opinion of Mr. Mede. He supposes the first blast of the seventh trumpet and the first effusion of the seventh vial, which he justly calls the vial of consummation, exactly to synchronize; and he maintains, that at this era the three times and a half terminate. Though, as I have already observed, I prefer Bp.Newton's arrangement of the seventh trumpet, I think Mr. Mede's opinion nearly indisputable, that the 1260 days expire when the vial of consummation begins to be poured out, because the contents of that vial plainly shew that it relates to the time of God's great controversy with the nations. But this great controversy, this period of unexampled trouble, synchronizes, according to the unanimous testimony of all the prophets who treat of the subject, with the restoration of the Jews; which

restoration

And he likewise teaches us, Mr. Whitaker himselt being the interpreter, that the waters of the Euphrates shall be dried up, or that the Ottoman empire shall be overthrown, under the sixth vial, at some indefinite period before the confederacy begins to be even gathered together to Armageddon, and consequently much more at some indefinite period before that confederacy is destroyed at Armageddon. According to the scheme then which I am opposing, and which Mr. Whitaker has undertaken to defend, St. John tells us that the Ottoman empire, under the name of the Euphrates, will be subverted at some indefinite period before the expiration of the 1260 years, but a period long enough to allow of the gathering together of the bestial confederacy and their subsequent expedition into Palestine: while Daniel tells us, that the Ottoman empire, under the name of a king of the north, will be destroyed in Palestine after the expiration of the 1260 years, because contemporaneously with the incipient return of the Jews. Thus do those, who make the king of the North to be the Turk, set Daniel and St. John at direct variance: and hence, even supposing that

restoration commences, according to Daniel, at the close of the three times and a half: therefore the contemporary period of unexampled trouble must commence at the close of the three times and a half; and consequently the effusion of the seventh vial, which relates to that period, must likewise commence at the close of the three times and a half: in other words, the seventh vial must begin to be poured out, as soon as the three times and a half or the 1260. days expire; which was the point asserted. Compare Mede's Clav. Apoc. Par. Alter. Synch. iii. v. Comment. Apoc. in Tub. vii. et in Phial. vii. and the plate at the end of his Clavis.

the

the king of the North, and not the wilful king, is to perish in Palestine at the end of the 1260 years, it is plain that the power which perishes at that era cannot be the Ottoman empire which (according to St. John) will be subverted before that era-Yet even this is not all. Two expeditions into Palestine, attended with exactly the same circumstances, cannot be contemporary. But we have abundant reason to believe, as Mr. Whitaker himself allows, that the bestial confederacy will undertake such an expedition at the close of the 1260 years.

How

then can the Turks undertake exactly such another, and exactly at the same time? Perhaps Mr. Whitaker may say, The two expeditions will form only one allied expedition. How then can this allied expedition have two commanders in chief? In the Apocalypse the beast, which Mr. Whitaker supposes to be the Pope, is the commander in chief*; and not

a

*The reader will perhaps be inclined to think, that the probability of the Pope being commander in chief of a vast expedition against Palestine is much on a par with the probability of the Turk being commander in chief of a contemporaneous expedition against the same country. Yet does this expectation necessarily result from Mr. Whitaker's belief that the ten-horned apocalyptic beast is the Pope: for that beast is plainly represented, as not merely taking an inferior part in the confederacy of the Latin kings, but as animating and heading it. According to the light in which I view this yet unaccomplished prophecy, the Pope and his hier-, archy, or the false prophet who is the same as the second apocalyptic beast, will be more or less indeed concerned and interested in this expedition; nay, with Mr. Whitaker, I even think it not improbable, that Jerusalem may finally be the seat of the apostate man of sin: but the power, that will form the confederacy of vassal kings and head the expedition into Palestine, namely the Roman beast under his last head, I certainly believe to be a very different power from the Pope. Whether my opinion or Mr. Whitker's

best

a hint is given of any co-operation on the part of the Turk: as indeed how should there, when St. John had told us, that the Ottoman empire, or the mystic Euphrates, had been previously destroyed? In Daniel, the king of the North (still arguing according to Mr. Whitaker's reference of the disputed clause to that king and not to the wilful king), whom my opponent supposes to be the Turk, is the commander in chief; and not a hint is given of any co-operation on the part of the beast: when yet, according to St. John, that very Turk was no longer in existence. Can Mr. Whitaker help me out of these contradictions, which necessarily flow from his system?-Since then the king of the North plainly cannot be the Turk, and since consequently the actions which Mr. Whitaker ascribes to the king of the North cannot have been perforined by the Turk; since moreover, as I will venture to affirm, if the actions ascribed to the king of the North were not performed by the Turk, they were never performed by any king of the North, and if not by any king of the North certainly not by any power which may be deemed the antitype of the wilful king: it will follow, that all these actions are still future; which will bring me back to the point whence I set out, namely that the period to which they are ascribed is future likewise; in other words, that the time of the end cannot mean the whole 1260 years, but must denote some future period, which (as we

best accords with those wonderful political changes now taking place in Europe, and which I firmly believe to be preparatory to the tremendous vintage of God's wrath, let the cautious reader determine for himself.

[ocr errors]

have already seen) there is reason to think commences when the 1260 years terminate-In fact, the only expedition undertaken against Palestine at the close of the 1260 years and contemporaneously with the restoration of the Jews, an expedition noticed by almost every prophet that treats of the restoration of the Jews*, is plainly the expedition undertaken by the Roman confederacy of the beast, the false prophet, and the kings of the Latin earth: hence, since Daniel predicts an expedition undertaken against the same country and at the same time either by the wilful king or the king of the North, this expedition must be the same as that mentioned in the Apocalypse: consequently it must be undertaken by that king who may be considered as the dominant Roman power. But the king of the North, unless I greatly mistake, is not a Roman power; whereas the wilful king, according to my interpretation of his character, is the greatest of the Roman powers. On these grounds I conclude that the expedition will be undertaken, not by the king of the North, but by the wilful king. And on the same grounds I concluded, long before Buonapartè had usurped the iron crown of Lombardy, that sooner or later the governor of France would

*This point is fully considered in my unpublised Work on the restoration of Israel and the destruction of Antichrist. The Jewish Rabbies themselves have collected from their own prophets, that the restoration of their countrymen will synchronize with the destruction of the Roman power in its last form; and they scruple not to maintain, that the Edom, whose overthrow is represented as being contemporary with the return of the chosen people, denotes that power. (See Isaiah lxii. lxiii.) I believe them to be perfectly right in this opinion.

become

« PreviousContinue »