without excluding the other persecutions of the faithful throughout the dark period of the 1260 years. During all this time the scene lies, not in Judea, but in the Roman empire; and, during the ministration of the second men of understanding or the apocalyptic witnesses, in the western or European part of the Roman empire-After then this long detail of what the Church has suffered from the persecuting arms, for so Daniel symbolically styles the Roman empire, and after we have arrived (as Bp. Newton himself allows*) at the time of the Reformation; that is to say, when the prophet has entirely done speaking of the Roman empire properly so called; a wonderful power is introduced and very fully described, which (as it appears from the account given of it†) should spring up before the time of the end, and undertake an expedition to Palestine at the time of the end. Where this power is to be sought for, it is not positively said; and, since the whole prophecy relates more or less to Daniel's people, it may arise, for any thing that appears to the contrary, in any region where those *Though Bp. Newton supposes the Consubstantialists to be partly meant by the men of understanding, he by no means excludes the Reformers from being likewise intended: because, as he observes, the men of understanding were to be in a persecuted state, not only at that time, but even to the time of the end”. As for confining the prophecy to Judea, on the ground of its being "evident that it is a local one", his Lordship seems never once to have thought of such a project. + The time of the end commences in the midst of the king's career. He is brought upon the stage before the time of the end, and at the time of the end is attacked by the kings of the north and the south. people people are scattered. But, since the prediction last treated of the sufferings of the men of understanding, and consequently since the scene of it lay last in the western parts of the Roman empire, it is most natural (to avoid one of those rapid topographical transitions, which Mr. Whitaker thinks proper to ascribe to me), to seek for the rise of this power in the West. There accordingly we found a power, which (he has not even attempted to disprove) in point of character* answers exactly to it: ་ *I love the truth wherever it can be found, whether in the writings of a Papist or of a Protestant. While I think Cornelius à Lapide quite mistaken in referring the character of the wilful king primarily to Antiochus, I believe him to be very right in referring it ultimately and properly to the great Antichrist. It is a curious circumstance, that long before the French revolution took place (for his Commentary was printed in the year 1634) he pronounced, merely from a view of the prophetic character of the wilful king, that, whenever he should be revealed, he would be an atheist, and would abolish, not only the worship of Christ and the superstitious idolatry of paganism, but even the very name and adoration of the true God. "Ex hoc ergo ver. et ex ver. præcedente (ver. 37, 38.) colligitur, Antichristum fore atheum, eumque, cum pleno potietur imperio, non tantum Christum et idola, " sed et Dei veri nomen et cultum ablaturum". (Comment. in loc.) Such was the language of anticipatory exposition previous to the French revolution: let us now attend to the remarkably similar language of applicatory exposition after the commencement of that awful political and religious convulsion. "I fear, I too clearly see the rise, instead of the fall, "of the Antichrist of the West,-who shall be neither a "Protestant, nor a Papist; neither Christian, Jew, nor "Heathen who shall worship neither God, Angel, nor Saint "who will neither supplicate the invisible majesty of "heaven, nor fall down before an idol". (Bp. Horsley's Letter on Isaiah xviii. p. 105, 106.) If Mr. Whitaker think, that it: and I will maintain, that in point of chronology and geography it answers no less exactly to it. Following the stream of events, we are to seek for it after the Reformation, but (as it appears from the subsequent account given of it) before the time of the end: there we found it. Following the footsteps of the prophecy into the West, we are most probably (the prediction does not authorize us to say certainly) to seek for it in the West: there likewise we found it. In short, we found a power, that exactly answers to it both circumstantially, chronologically, and geographically: hence I thought, and still think, myself warranted in concluding, that that power is here foretold-And now what sentiments will the reader entertain of the following accusation, preferred against me by Mr. Whitaker? "In a prediction thus accurate, we have little reason to expect those great leaps in chronology "and topography which, according to Mr. Faber's hypothesis there must be in it; for according to "him, verse 34 relating to the state of the Chris"tians under Constantine and his immediate successors, we are at verse 35 brought to the "Reformation in Germany, and in 36 to the * French Revolution and Buonaparte. Unless I "knew you to be an active walker, I should fear "such a rapid transition as this would put you out "of breath"*. What the bodily activity of Dr. that the protestant prelate, like myself, is "lamentably wire"drawing Scripture to support a new hypothesis according * with his estimat of the singular importance of what hap pens in his own days"; he will scarcely bring a similar charge against the popish ecclesiastic, who flourished in the beginning of the seventeenth century. Ogilvie can have to do with a Dissertation on the prophecies, I leave to my ingenious opponent to determine: I am content with the remarking, that, instead of those great leaps in chronology and topo graphy which Mr. Whitaker speaks of, the prophecy, according to my exposition of it, advances equably and uniformly through three remarkable periods, not to the wretched individual Buonaparte, but to the atheistical borrors of the French revolution. His next objection is, that the definite article, prefixed in the original to the word king*, shews that the character ought to be referred to some preceding king. If there be any weight in this objection (and there is none), it would prove that the wilful hing is Antiochus Epiphanes, and not the Roman empire; for Antiochus is styled the king of the North; whereas the Roman empire is exhibited to us simply under the plural emblem of two human arms, probably in allusion to its possessing the sovereignty both of the East and of the West. Hence I scruple not to say, that, if the character must be referred to some preceding character, it is much more natural to refer it to a power which is expressly styled a king, than to a power which is no where styled a king but only called plurally arms. The He however is merely emphatic, and is equivalent to iste, or that. The prophet seems to have used it to denote the appearance of a more extraordinary power than any of which he had before spoken. Mr. Mede accordingly builds so little on the He, although he supposes the wilful * Ver. 36. king to be the Roman empire pagan and papal, that in two different places he translates the original a king and not the king*. In short, although I no more believe the wilful king to be Antiochus than Mr. Whitaker does, if the He compel us to refer his character to some preceding king, I again assert it to be much more natural to refer it to Antiochus who is called in the singular number a king, than to the Roman empire which is never called a king but is uniformly spoken of in the plural number as arms. As for the exception to this plural phraseology which occurs in the 32d verse, "be shall corrupt", I have little doubt that the genuine reading is, "they shall corrupt", agreeably to the analogy of the preceding plural verbs. It is plain that the verb was plural in the copy. which the LXX used, not singular as it appears in our present Hebrew Bibles. When the authority of the LXX therefore is added to the evident requisition of grammatical construction, and when the mere omission of the small final letter Vau determines the verb to be singular or plural, I think myself warranted in saying that the arms or the Roman empire are uniformly spoken of plurally. This being the case, if the He he of the importance which Mr. Whitaker supposes, but which I do not * Apost. of latter times, Part I. chap. xvi, xvii. + The LXX indeed refer the verb to such as do wickedly against the covenant instead of to the arms, but still they give it in the plural number. The Arabic version however, not only gives the verb in the plural number, but likewise rightly refers it to the arms. believe |
