Page images
PDF
EPUB

in its ac will be dribotanies being

river denotes a kingdom; but, in the application of this language, if nothing more than simply a river were said, the prophecy would leave us just as wise as it found us; for how should we know what river or (in other words) what kingdom was intended ? In the Apocalypse therefore the river Eupbrates undoubtedly means the true and proper river Euphrates as contradistinguished from all other rivers; but then this Eupbrates is used to symbolize the empire wbicb sprung from its vicinity, and through the territories of which it still continues to flow. In the infant empire symbolized by the Euphrates the four allegorical angels were bound till their allotted hour of conquest arrived; and, in God's own appointed season, the mystic waters of the same empire in its adult state, symbolized by the same river Euphrates, will be dried up. But, says Mr. Whitaker, “ As to the four sultanies being the mystic waters of the Euphrates which deluged the eastern empire, this is all introduced by the “ exuberant fancy of the ingenious expositor: in “ the unvarnished declaration of the prophecy they " are not the waters, but the four angels bound at

the river, that are loosed; and it is not by a • deluge, but by the fire, the smoke, and the brim

stone which issued out of their mouths, that the “ eastern empire was overthrown". I am fully sensible of the value of this highly flattering compliment, far too flattering for my deserts; but, in truth, neither my modesty nor my honesty will permit me to appropriate it to myself. However I may have differed from Mr. Mede in many points, in this particular at least I claim no higher merit than that of being his humble copyist: and I cannot

but

ge, but by thd out of their men

I am ful

but wonder that Mr. Whitaker, who represents himself as being so conversant with the works of our truly venerable predecessor*, should bestow a compliment upon me, which is due only to bimt. After all, highly as I value the works of Mr. Mede, I can discover neither much exuberance of fancy, nor any peculiar ingenuity of exposition, in his considering the Turkish armies to be those waters of . the mystic Euphrates which inundated the eastern empire. If the Euphrates denote the Ottoman power, I know not what its waters can be except the Ottoman people In Isaiah xix, the subversion of the Egyptian government is exhibited to us under the imagery of the drying up of the waters of the Nile. The prophet no where tells us, that by its waters he means the Egyptians, whom he represents the Lord as giving over into the hand of a fierce king; yet Mr. Whitaker will scarcely deny that

* Letter, p. 2. + « Quidni jam pari ratione Euphrates iste phialarum de “ Turcis acciperetur? non minus utique quam Assyrii, “ Euphratis, ante exundationem suam, accolis, imo ejusdem " tractûs incolis, Huc non parum facit, quod solutionem “ ingentis illius et diu vincti ad magnum Aumen Euphratem " exercitûs equestris, ad sextæ tubæ clangorem, de Turcis inde « in orbem Romanum exundaturis, tubarum seriem reique con. "w.cinnam veritatem secuti, interpretati sumus. Per sextam " igitur phialam exsiccabitur diluvium ist hoc Euphrateum". (Com. ment. Apoc. in Phial, vi.). Unless I greatly mistake the meaning of this passage, Mr. Mede considers The Turks of the sixth trumpet as the waters of the mystic Euphrates which deluged the Roman world; and thence very forcibly, I think indeed incontrovertibly, argues, that the exhaustion of those same waters under the sixth vial must, upon every principle of symbolical analogy, denote the overthrow of the Turkish monarchy.

river

brough the which stupbrates ised from ali

river denotes a kingdom; but; in the application of this language, if nothing more than simply a river were said, the prophecy would leave us just as wise as it found us; for how should we know what river or (in other words) what kingdom was intended ? In the Apocalypse therefore the river Euphrates undoubtedly means the true and proper river Euphrates as contradistinguished from all other rivers; but then this Eupbrates is used to symbolize the empire which sprung from its vicinity, and through the territories of which it still continues to flow. In the infant empire symbolized by the Euphrates the four allegorical angels were bound till their allotted hour of conquest arrived; and, in God's own appointed season, the mystic waters of the same empire in its adult state, symbolized by the same river Euphrates, will be dried up. But, says Mr. Whitaker, “ As to the four sultanies being " the mystic waters of the Euphrates which deluged " the eastern empire, this is all introduced by the

exuberant fancy of the ingenious expositor: in “ the unvarnished declaration of the prophecy they si are not the waters, but the four angels bound at " the river, that are loosed; and it is not by a " deluge, but by the fire, the smoke, and the brim“ stone which issued out of their mouths, that the “ eastern empire was overthrown". I am fully sensible of the value of this highly flattering compliment, far too flattering for my deserts; but, in truth, neither my modesty nor my honesty will permit me to appropriate it to myself. However I may have differed from Mr. Mede in many points, in this particular at least I claim no higher merit than that of being his humble copyist: and I cannot

but

but wonder that Mr. Whitaker, who represents himself as being so conversant with the works of our truly venerable predecessor*, should bestow a compliment upon me, which is due only to bimt. After all, highly as I value the works of Mr. Mede, I can discover neither much exuberance of fancy, nor any peculiar ingenuity of exposition, in his considering the Turkish armies to be those waters of . the mystic Euphrates which inundated the eastern empire. If the Euphrates denote the Ottoman power, I know not what its waters can be except the Ottoman people In Isaiah xix, the subversion of the Egyptian government is exhibited to us under the imagery of the drying up of the waters of the Nile. The prophet no where tells us, that by its waters he means the Egyptians, whom he represents the Lord as giving over into the hand of a fierce king; yet Mr. Whitaker will scarcely deny that

* Letter, p. 2. + “ Quidni jam pari ratione Euphrates iste phialarum de “ Turcis acciperetur? non minus utique quam Assyrii, " Euphratis, ante exundationem suam, accolis, imo ejusdem "S tractùs incolis, Huc non parum facit, quod solutionem “ ingentis illius et diu vincti ad magnum Aumen Euphratem exercitûs equestris, ad sextæ tubæ clangorem, de Turcis inde " in orbem Romanum exundaturis, tubarum seriem reique con«. cinnam veritatem secuti, interpretati sumus. Per sextam " igitur phialam exsiccabitur diluvium ist hoc Euphrateum''. (Com. ment. Apoc. in Phial, vi.) Unless I greatly mistake the meaning of this passage, Mr. Mede considers The Turks of the sixth trumpet as the waters of the mystic Euphrates which deluged the Roman world; and thence very forcibly, I think indeed incontrovertibly, argues, that the exhaustion of those same waters under the sixth vial must, upon every principle of symbolical analogy, denote the overthrow of the Turkish monarchy.

he does mean them. So St. John no where tells us, that by the waters of the Euphrates he means the armies of the four sultanies: yet Mr. Mede did not conceive himself to depart very remotely from the unvarnished declaration of the prophecy in speaking of them as a vast flood exundated from the Euphrates into the eastern empire.

3. Since Mr. Whitaker very handsomely acknowledges, that, in bringing forward some specific numbers connected with the 8th chapter of Daniel, I have been happier than himself, and offers me his sincere thanks for the information and satisfaction I have therein given him; it will be sufficient for me to return him mine for his politeness, which I here with much pleasure do*.

4. But, when he maintains that the holy city and the great city, mentioned in the 11th chapter of the Revelation, both mean alike the literal Jerusalem, I am compelled to adhere to my former positive dissent from this position. The treading of the apocalyptic holy city under foot is limited to 1260 years; and therefore plainly synchronizes (as Mr. Whitaker himself very justly, observes) with the times of the ten-horned beast, the prophesying of the witnesses, and the abode of the woman in the wildernesst. But the treading of the literal Jerusalem under foot is not limited to 1260 years, nor did it begin to be trodden down by the Persians; on the contrary our Lord himself plainly teaches us, that we are to consider it as beginning to be trodden down when sacked by the Romans under Titus, which took place upwards of seventeen centuries ago;

* Letter, p. 12.

+ Letter, p. 13.

and

« PreviousContinue »