'h':\ •• K- BSl55fe ^^i a 12^ O^ ^i:^ O^ "^52- (IF THE IT PRINCETON, N. J. , x> «j :v _•%. -I- I o >r cj 1.- SAMUEL AGNEW, OF PHir/ADEI.PHIA, PA. 64- Cane, Diyision. ; Hh nv^D DV. Here we may observe, that the word day is thrice repeated, and that the numbers seven, ten, and/owr, are used four times, in order to express what we should call " two weeks," or a " fortnight." Again, in Gen. 1. 3, we find a period of ten weeks expressed by ''seventy days." Taking these circumstances into consi- deration, I submit that we should not naturally expect a Hebrew writer to express a period of 490 days by seventy weeks, and should consi- der it as somewhat singular, if we found that he had done so. (2) As the Jews were not in the habit of calculating by weeks, so it was not their custom to express the period of seven days by any one word. I believe it may be laid down as a gene- ral rule, that the inspired writers did not use ynt^, r^V'yD or y^yD, or any other word, to signify a iveeli', but that they expressed the period by D"'D"' rsv^i^, " seven days."^ The passage ah*eady cited from the first book of Kings will shew '' I say a general rule, because it may appear to some, that there are three exceptions to it ; and though I do not feel that they have much weight, T set them down — (1) Lev. xii. 5. It is said that a woman, after the birth of a male child, shall be unclean " seven days," c3*d' nj?liy, and after the birth of a female, O'riu^ " sevens," or as we translate, " two weeks." Whether this is any thing more than such an elliptical form of expression, as is common in all lan- guages, when (as in this case) the context renders any mis- take impossible, I do not determine. I have not found it elsewhere in the scriptures. (2) Wishing to bring forward every thing which others might produce against my state- ment, I add the " seven" rity, translated " week." Gen. xxix. 27, 28; though commentators are not agreed, whether it relates to the daijs of Leah's wedding feast, or the years of Jacob's servitude. I am not aware of any other parti- cular exceptions, but there is (3) a general exception, when the feast of weeks is spoken of. This feast, which continued during seven days, fixed by counting seven times seven days, might naturally be called the feast of sevens ; but I believe it is not mentioned by that name more than eight times in the scriptures. These are, I believe, all the passages which seem to form any exception to the rule, that whenever a period of seven days is meant in the scripture, the word " days^' is expressed. In support of it, I might refer to nearly sixty passages which I have examined, but they may be so readily found, that it is needless. Cruden, in his English Concordance, (in the division "seven days," under the word " day,") has collected more references than most readers will have the patience to turn out in a Hebrew Bible, and quite enough to establish the rule. 9 how the word " day" is repeated ; and, that from the book of Daniel, though it formed an exception to the last rule, falls under this, for, in speaking of his sickness, he expressly says, that it lasted during three "sevens of days.'" Such (except in the few places noticed below) I believe to be the invariable practice of the sacied writers. The word days, accompanying " seven" will be recollected, if it has not been remarked, by the reader ; and perhaps he will agree with me, that in a passage M^here the word " sevens" stands by itself, it is by no means to be assumed, that sevens of days are meant, when every writer of the Scriptures, who has occasion to mention that period, ex- presses it in a different manner. Might not a Jew, before the fulfilment of the prophecy, have fairly argued, that if Daniel had meant *' sevens of days," he would, in conformity with the custom of all the sacred writers, and in consistency with himself, have inserted the word ''days?" That as he had not done so, it was at least probable, that he meant some other sevens ? (3) I not only beUeve that a Jew might fairly argue thus, but it seems to me likely that he would, because I find the Misnic writers using the very word which we translate " week," in Daniel's prophecy, to signify the space between 10 one sabbatical year and another. As far as I have observed, this period is uniformly expressed \n the Mishna by )ro:^, placed simply— th^t is, as it stands in the book of Daniel, and without any addition to signify that years are meant. Thus, in one place,'^ we read of taking a field for a " few years," m:D;;iD D^Jt^'?, where the reader will observe, that years are specified ; but the next section speaks of taking it for " one seven," nni^ V)2u;. We find, too, the " remaining years of the seven" repeatedly expressed by li^'^ ^•\2'^ ^^t:^.*^ The tenth section of Baba Metzia, already cited, not only shews that the Jewish writers understood by pai:^, a period of seven years, but that they used it particularly to ex- press the period between one sabbatical year and another. The point there decided is the difference between taking a field for " one se- ven," nni^ V'^2'iDb, and for "seven years," V2t} D-Jli^. In the former case the tenant, and in the latter the landlord, was to bear the loss of the sabbatical year ; a rule as just and equitable, as it would be among us to decide, that he who hires a labourer for "a week" has a right to only six days' labour, while he who bargains for ''seven days" service, has a right to the full number. I do not say that y\2'V is never used by these writers to signify a week of days, because I = Baba Metzia, c. ix. § 9, 10. ^ Sheviith, c. iv. § 7, 8, 9. 11 know it is sometimes to be found in that sense ; but, as far as I know, they most commonly use n2'^, or D''^'' rtV2'^' Their use of the word, however, is the most striking when they have occasion to speak of sevetis of days, and sevens of years y in the same sentence. When this happens, they express the week of days by nyVy and the week of years by y\2V. Thus in Nedarim, c. viii. § 1, the duration of vows is discussed when made in terms of *' to-day," avn; ''this week," ^'\ n^D; " this month," inn nr ; ''this year," IT mt:^ ; "this^evew," nr y\2^. The same series is repeated in the same sec- tion ; and, in Baba Metzia, c. ix. §11, we read of a workman of a lueek, of a month, of a year, of a seven ; 7]!^ "lO:^, ^Ti -^'yv, r\y^ "i^Dti/ On these grounds, I think that a reader of Daniel, who had not heard the period, called " 70 weeks," or been in any way prepossessed on the subject, would not necessarily suppose that the prophet spoke of " sevens" of days, and might very probably understand him to speak of " sevens" of years. I have entered into this matter the more fully, because I have not seen either of these points stated, though they seem to be of some importance, not only to my own argument, but towards illustrating the prophecy of the 70 weeks. ^ « Since I put together these remarks, I have found the 12 For my own purpose, perhaps, it would have been sufficient to point out the '' sevens of days" (Dan. x. 2, 3), for our enquiry is sim- ply, whether Daniel does in his prophecy of following brief, but confirmatory, note, in Grotius, " Sep- tuaginta Hehdomades. Annorum. Ita enim mos erat lo- quendi, et manet apud Thalmudicos. Ideo ubi de dierum, hebdomade agitur solet adjici dierum nomen, Ezek. xlv. 21 ; infra x. 2 and 3, in Hebraeo." Tiie very excellent and learned author of the history of the Jews, in the Universal History, says, " The generality of the Jews do agree with us, that those prophetic weeks are weeks of years, or of a day for a year, according to the prophetic style" (vol. x. p. 477). He gives no authority, and I suspect he would have had some difficulty in finding one, among the Jews, for calling such a calculation as a day for a year, " accord- ing to the prophetic style ;" and I think the reader will have found better reasons for their agreeing with us that the sevens are sevens of years. " Nee diffitentur Judaei. . . .Sic ergo Aben Ezra, ex R. Saadia a»Jiy an ca'pniy nVw Ace hebdomadce sunt annorum id est Sabbalhici. Et probat 1. quia paulo post Daniel loquitur de Hebdomadibus Dierum quze limitatio hie abest." — Leydekker de Repub. Hebr. li, 389. I will not dissemble, however, that, at one period, the Jews appear to have had a mystical interpretation of the " times" of Daniel, which they considered as centuries. Thus Justin Martyr, speaking of the reign of Antichrist, says to Trypho, vjxeig ayyoBpree ttoctov j(^poi'ov ^tacart^Eiv jxeXkEi, aWo rjyeicjB'e. rov yap i^aipoy exarov errj f^rjyettrS'f XeyeirSrai. p. 250, Edit. Colon. 1686. How they came by this interpretation, or what they did with it, I know not, for I have never seen the matter explained, or even noticed; but it shews that they did not interpret a day by a year. 13 the seventy weeks, so clearly express iveeks of days, as that when we find the word " days" expressed in other places, we should feel our- selves warranted to translate it ''years.'" It seems to me, that in order to bear the weight thus laid upon them, the 70 weeks should have been expressly called ''weeks of days" Then, if the fulfilment had been delayed 490 years, we should have learned that a day was put for a year, and should have had some colour for in- terpreting it so in other places. I refer the question, however, to the reader, only remind- ing him that unless we admit, not only the most obvious, but the necessary, sense, of ** sevens," placed simply, to be " weeks of days," the whole argument falls to the ground ; for the mode of computation, used in the pas- sage cited, gives no colour for understanding 1260 days to mean \2G0 years. But I have said, that without the distinction respecting individuals and communities, those who maintain this doctrine would be obliged, in fairness, to bring forward another passage from the book of Daniel, which appears to me to oppose their argument; it is this — in chap. iv. 16, 23, 25, 29, we read of " seven times," during which Nebuchadnezzar was to be ex- cluded from his kingdom. Here it is admitted, that " time" means a year, and therefore, we might naturally expect that the three times and 14 a half, in chap. vii. should mean three years and a half. Surely " we may venture to assume, that the same mode of computation which is used by an author in one passage of his writings, will be used by him in all other passages." Yet, (with- out the slightest hint of any change of style in the author) we are to suppose Daniel using the same word, in chap. iv. to signify " one year," and in chap. vii. to signify 360 years, and this merely because, in one case, he speaks of an individual, and in the other, of a community. I have endeavoured to shew, that the whole force of the argument rests upon the limitation of a very reasonable proposition, which, without such a limitation, would be decidedly opposed to the mode of interpretation which is main- tained. It remains, therefore, for the reader to decide, whether there is any ground for such a limitation. None whatever is assigned, and to me, the assumption of it does not appear to be warranted. Thus much relates to the prophecy of Da- niel ; but, it is added, '* We likewise find from the event, that the apocalyptic ten days' perse- cution of the church of Smyrna, means the ten years' persecution carried on by Diocletian." Who would not imagine that the fulfilment of this prediction, in Diocletian's persecution, was an undisputed truth ? I have no doubt 15 that Mr. Faber fully believes it to refer to that period ; but as long as it is a matter disputed by commentators, whether this passage has any reference whatever to Diocletian, and while, so far as I can find a decided majority of them seem either expressly to refer it to other events, or else to be in acknowledged uncertainty re- specting its application, I do not see how it can give us much help in the question ; and surely it is too much to lay it at the foundation of an interpretation, so far from the literal meaning of plain words, as that which it is brought forward to support. I have looked into every expositor within my reach, and the following is the result : Bishop Newton and Dr. Hales agree with Mr. Faber in supposing that Diocletian's persecu- tion is intended.^ Dr. Adam Clarke* goes only ' See Bp. Newton on the place, and Dr. Hale's Ana- lysis, vol. II. p. 1296. As I have professed to give the full result of my enquiry on this point, I will add that there is another expositor who maintains the same opinion. The reader may give what weight he pleases to his authority, when he learns that he adapts this persecution to the church of Smyrna, by stating that Polycarp was one of the Dio- clesian martyrs. I feel that I do Mr. Faber no injustice by withholding the name of such a writer. * Inverting Mr. Faber's reasoning. Dr. A. Clarke says, " As the days in this book are what are commonly called prophetic days, each answering to a year, the ten years" [query, days] " of tribulation may denote ten years of perse- 16 so far as to state, that the ten days may mean ten years, and that such was the duration of Diocletian's persecution. No other commen- tator, that I have met with, appears at all to sanction any reference to Diocletian. Grotius* takes the v/ords literally, and understands a period of ten natural days. L. Cappellus' extends them to all the ten persecutions. Dod- dridge,* Fleming, Scott, ^ and Gauntlett,® refer cuiion ; and this was precisely the duration of the persecu- tion under Dioclesian, during which all the Asiatic churches were grievously afflicted. Others understand the expression as implying frequency and abundance, as it does in other parts of scripture Some think the shortness of the affliction is here intended," &c. — Comm. in I. * Decern dies, intellige proprie ; est enim consolatio ex brevitate temporis. — Comm. in I. ^ Quomodo JEgyptii Israelitas decies invito quasi Deo detinuerunt et afflixerunt, unde etiam decern plagis a Deo afFecti sunt, sic Christiani ab Impp. Rom. decern persecu- tiones gravissimas passi sunt, quorum ultima omnium gravis- sima annos totos decern saeviit." — Spicileg : in Apocal. ii. 10. * Doddridge says, *' Mr. Fleming (of the Resurrection, p. 129), with many others, thinks this refers to the persecu- tion under Domitian, which continued about ten years ; and was begun when John was banished into Patmos and saw those Revelations. But it may only signify a short and limited time." — Fam. Exp. in I. * " This may either mean ten years, which is recorded to have been the duration of Domitian's persecution, or a considerable, but limited, time," — Comm. in I. ^ " This may either mean ten years, which is recorded 17 it to the times of Domttian. Junius' and Bright- man** to the persecution by Trajan. Henry-' to have been the duration of Domitian's persecution, or a very considerable time, the term ten being frequently used indefinitely for many.''' — Exp. of Rev. p. 20. Mr, Gauntlett appears to have followed Mr. Scott — Mr. Scott in all probability followed Dr. Doddridge — perhaps, (but 1 have not the means of ascertaining) Dr. Doddridge followed Mr. Fleming, without enquiring on what authority the persecution of Domitian is said to have lasted ten years. It may be recorded somewhere, but certainly it is not in any history which I have met with ; and, indeed, it is so noto- rious, that Domitian's persecution did not begin until quite the latter part of his reign (probably not until the very last year of it), and that it was put a stop to on his death, that it would be a waste of time to cite authorities on the subject. It is of little consequence to the present enquiry, to what persecution the prophecy was intended to apply ; but it is important to shew, how the facts of history have been ac- commodated, and how error is perpetuated by those, who cannot for a moment be suspected of intending to deceive. Since the above note was written, I see that Mr. Irving speaks of " the ten years' persecution under Domitian, which is threatened upon the church of Smyrna, under the name of ' ten days' tribulation.' " — Vol. I. p. 178. ' I have his Commentary only in the form of marginal notes, in a folio English Bible, printed in 1708. I there read, " It is altogether necessary, that this should be re- ferred unto that persecution which was don by the authority of the Emperor Trajan," &c. ^ " As touching Smyrna, therefore, this persecution fell out in the time of Trajan." — The Revelation illustrated in I. ^ " It was not to be perpetual, but for a set time, and a short time." — Comm. in I. D 18 seems to understand an indefinite short time ; Brown,^" an indefinite long time ; and Guyse/^ upon the whole, inclines to think, that the period intended is indefinite, without venturing to decide, whether long or short. I cannot say how many commentators agree with Mr. Faber ; but as I before stated, I have honestly searched every one within my reach ; and I confidently refer it to the reader to de- cide, what weight is to be given to an interpre- tation so disputed. Let him, however, remem- ber, that the question is not, whether one per- secution, or another, is referred to ; neither is it whether these apocalyptic days, may or may not, be years; but, whether the apostle does so clearly and certainly use the word day, for a defoiite period of a year, in this passage, as to form a sufficient, though a single warrant, for our assuming that he has done so in other places. Mr. Faber's second argument is as follows : II. " In this mode of reckoning, we are '" " Ten days of tribulation may either denote ten years, or many days." — Self-interp. Bible in I. " After mentioning various opinions, Dr. Guyse says, " I incline, therefore, to think upon the whole, that ten is not here to be taken literally for that exact number either of days or years, but for an indefinite number of them." — Comm. in I. It may be added, as somewhat singular, that among all the various opinions collected in Poole's Synopsis, the per- secution of Diocletian is not mentioned. 19 ' supported by the express warrant of Scrip- ' ture — "your children," says Jehovah to the ' rebellious house of Israel, " shall wander in ' the wilderness forty years, and bear your * whoredoms, until your carcases be wasted in * the wilderness. After the number of the ' days in which ye searched the land, even ' forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear ' your iniquities, even forty years." (Num. xiv. ' 33, 34.) In a similar manner God addresses 'the prophet Ezekiel : "Lie thou also upon ' thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the ' house of Israel upon it, according to the num- ' ber of the days that thou shalt lie upon it, ' thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have ' laid upon thee the days^ of their iniquity, ' according to the number of the days 390 ' days : so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the ' house of Israel. And when thou hast accom- ' plished them, lie again on thy right side, and ' thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of ' Judah 40 days : I have appointed thee each ' day for a year." (Ez. iv. 4, 5, 6.)" I am quite at a loss to understand how these ^ For " days" read " years." Not doubting that this is an error of the press, or the pen, I should alter it without notice, but from the fear that some reader might turn to Mr. Fabcr's work, and suspect me of unfair dealing. 20 passages, where the expression in each case is " a day for a year" — where, in fact, it is de- clared and explained, that a certain number of jiatural days were appointed to represent, or prefigure, the like number of natural years, — should be called, an '' express warrant" for the mode of reckoning which translates the word DV day by the English word year. In Numbers, and in Ezekiel, the phrase is mt^"? DV nj^b D1^ '' a day for a year, a day for a year," a mode of expression which leaves no doubt of the writ- er's meaning, and which absolutely requires QV and r^W to be taken in their literal sense for natural days and years. It seems to me, that the phrase could only be considered, as affording an *' express warrant" for the transla- tions which it is brought forward to support, if r\wb U\\ a '' day for a year," had turned out to mean, when stripped of a mystical dis- guise, " one year for 360 years." That is to say, if the days during which the Israelites searched the land had been natural years, and the years which they were to wander, prophetic years as they are called, each consisting of 360 natural years ; — or, that we learned from the Scripture, that in obedience to this divine com- mand, the prophet lay forty yea7^s on his side, and did so to prefigure a period of forty ''times,'" each consisting of 360 years, the analogy would be good, and the warrant express ; but what 21 colour is here given to our interpreting DV or nw, otherwise than literally ? Mr. Faber adds the following note : ''I am perfectly aware that a yea?- is some- " times used by the prophets in its literal sense, "as in Isaiah, vii. 8, xxiii. 17; Jer. xxv. 11, "12, and even by Daniel himself, when pre- " dieting the punishment of the individual Ne- " buchadnezzar (Dan. iv. 25) : but this does "not affect the question, whether, we are not " warranted by Scripture sometimes to under- " stand yea)^s by dai/s. The question is not, " whether daj/s are ahvays used by the prophets " in the sense of years, but whether they are " not avowedly used so sometimes.'' I do not know whether I fully understand this note, for I am not aware that any one has ever suggested that " a year" is used otherwise than literally, by any prophet, or other writer, except in the single passage of Daniel relating to the three times and a half; and to suppose, that in the passages cited it is not to be taken in its literal sense, would (as I have already said) require us to translate it by 360 years. Natural days may typify or prefigure natural years : that which we express by DV day, may prefi- gure that which we express by rr^t^ year : but that is very different from putting DV for ni'^ and seems to me to be no warrant for such a substitution. 22 To the best of my knowledge, there is no passage in the Scripture where " day," or "raonth," or " year," put simply, and without explanation, is " avowedly" used to denote (i. e. to express as a name, not to prefigure as a type) any period of time, except that which the word literally signifies ; and I think the reader will agree with me, that until some such pas- sages are adduced, we cannot confidently assert that we have the " express warrant of Scrip- ture" for mystically interpreting the plain words of Daniel and St. John.** Mr. Faber's third argument is as follows : III. " That the 1260 days must mean years " is further evident from the nature of the cir- " cumstances ascribed to them. The little horn " of DanieFs fourth beast is to acquire and ex- " ercise an unlimited dominion of some kind " or other within the precincts of the Roman " Empire, to wear out the saints of the Most *' High, and to change times and laws ; the "■ apocalyptic ten-horned beast, in his revived " state, is to make war with the saints and over- •• I am surprised that Amos, iv. 4, has not been quoted by any writer that I have seen, in support of the mystical interpretation of the 1260 days. While this is the case, there is no need to say any thing respecting it, and I only mention it, that I may not appear to suppress a passage, which, as far as I can see, is as much to the purpose as any one that is brought forward. 23 come them, and to obtain power over all kindreds and tongues and nations : the apoca- lyptic two-horned beast, the contemporary and coadjutor of the ten-horned beast, is to cause the earth and them that dwell therein to wor- ship the first beast, to set up an image for all men to worship, and to obtain such a degree of power as to be able to lay every person under an interdict who should refuse to com- ply with his terms of communion ; and the apocalyptic harlot, who rides the ten-horned beast, is to extend her influence over peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues, to commit fornication with the kings of the earth, to intoxicate the inhabitants of the earth with the wine of her fornication, and herself to become drunken with the blood of the saints and martyrs. Is it possible that all these things could be done in the short space of three natural years and a half? This will appear perhaps yet more evidently, if we attend to the subdivisions of this period. Towards the close of the 1260 days, the beast is to slay the witnesses ; and their dead bodies are to lie unburied in the forum of the great city, three days and a half, after which they are to come to life again. In the course of these three days and a half they that dwell upon the earth are to rejoice over them, and make merry, and send gifts one to another — 24 " surely the inhabitants of the earth could nut " do all this in the very short space of only *' three natural days a)id a half. So again, a '* short time before the destruction of the beast, " and therefore when the 1260 days are drawing " near to their termination, three unclean spi- " rits go forth to gather together unto the battle " of the great day of God Almighty, the kings " of the earth, even of the whole Ecumen^, or '* Roman world. They are accordingly gathered *' together to Armageddon, where they are af- " terwards completely routed. Now, if all " this gathering together is to take place to- " wards the close of the 1260 days; it is plain " that we can allot to it no greater space than " that oiafew days. But, if 7nere natural days '' be intended, how can such a general gather- " ing together as this be effected in the course " oiafew days. Since then we have the autho- " rity of Scripture for sometimes understanding " a day to mean a year; and since the reason " of the thing requires us so to understand each " day of the 1260 days, we are not only war- " ranted, but compelled, to consider the 1260 '* days, as \2Q0 years.'' Before I say any thing of the circumstances here alluded to, and by which the prophecy has been, or is to be, fulfilled, I must state, that of all the predictions which it contains, 25 there is none more clear, perhaps I might even say, none, so clear, intelligible, and unequi- vocal, as the limitation of the time, during which the events predicted are to take place. The period is distinctly and repeatedly ex- pressed in terms well known, and with respect to the literal meaning of which, we cannot have a moment's hesitation. It stands in Hebrew, and in Greek, under the different denomina- tions of days, months, and years, and I beg the reader to consider, whether we have a right to depart from the literal sense of these words, unless we can produce some clear, unequivo- cal, precedent ; some passages, in which these terms, or at least some, or one of them, has been clearly used to express a period different from that which is designated by it, in its lite- ral sense. With this view I cannot but think, that we should be very confident of our inter- pretation of other parts of the prophecy, before we venture upon so bold a measure as to alter the plain words of Scripture. It is not, how- ever, my intention here to enquire into the cir- cumstances, by which the prophecy is to be fulfilled. I am content to take them as they stand in the foregoing abstract, which, for the sake of argument, I am willing to suppose perfectly correct ; and I request the reader to consider, whether it is impossible that they should take place in three years and a half. 26 Setting aside the plain declarations of Scrip- ture as to the time to be employed, and the extraordinary means to be used, in the fulfilment of these predictions, surely what we have seen in the political convulsions of Europe, during the last thirty years, may enable us to believe it not impossible that a power should arise, and " acquire, and exercise, an unlimited dominion, of some kind or other, within the precincts of the Roman Empire," and do all that we can certainly understand to be predicted of him, in the course of three years and a half. I confi- fidently refer the case to the deliberate consi- deration of the reader. I wish, however, to remark, more particu- larly, on the slaying of the witnesses, because that will probably appear to many, the strong- est part of the argument. " Surely," says Mr. Faber, *' the inhabitants of the earth could not do all this, in the very short space of only three natural days and a half." But, what is *' all this" which it is supposed that the inhabitants of the earth cannot possibly do in three natural days and a half? When the witnesses have been slain, " they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them ; and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another." This is all that I find written respecting those " that dwell on the earth :" and let us take it in its utmost latitude, and suppose it to include all the inha- 27 bitants of the whole world. Would any unbi- assed reader understand more by it, than that the inhabitants of the world should rejoice and make merry, as the spreading* news should reach them ? There is nothing, I think, in the common rules by which we understand what is written, to lead us even to surmise, that the writer of the Apocalypse meant us to understand that " they that dwell upon the earth" shall rejoice over the fall of the witnesses, precisdij and- onhi during the period in which they actually lie dead. Let us suppose a case, which may perhaps have sufficient analogy to explain my meaning. Let us imagine some English historian to have stated, that after a long war, ''all the subjects of Great Britain rejoiced and made merry on the restoration of peace." Would it be reason- able to argue, that the peace must have lasted until the British subjects in the East and West Indies were acquainted with the fact ? If the peace lasted only a few days, it might be cele- brated by the inhabitants of Calcutta long after the renewal of hostilities ; yet this would not be considered as falsifying the statement of the historian, because no one would have supposed that his language implied any thing respecting the duration of the peace. Should the reader turn to the 11th chapter of the Revelation, to look at the passage al- ready mentioned, he will probably observe the 28 9th verse also ; and therefore, although it is not mentioned in the argument, I will say a few words respecting it. It is there declared, that " they of the people, and kindreds, and tongues, and nations, shall see their dead bodies." The original (etc rwv Xawj/) leads us to understand only individuals belonging to these different kind- reds and nations ;* and, if we consider that the witnesses are slain by the beast, to whom power is given *' over all kindreds and tongues and nations," (xiii. 7) we might naturally ex- pect, that such spectators would be present. As it regards the three unclean spirits," it does not appear necessary to say much. I think the reader will scarcely require (and, to speak frankly, I should hardly know how to set about) a serious refutation of an argument built upon the length of time which it 7mcst take ** spirits of devils, working miracles," to exe- cute a commission which we cannot pretend fully to understand. Looking, then, at the argument in general, I can only say, that I see no impossibility in- volved in the supposition, that the prophecy * Dr. Hales, who supposes that a slaying of the wit- nesses will hereafter take place in London, says, " from her boundless commerce ' spectators' cannot be wanting ' of peoples, and tribes, and languages, and nations,' from the four quarters of the globe." — Analysis, 11, 1362. '' Rev. xvi. 14. ' 29 may receive its accomplishment in three years and a half; and, that even if it afpeared other- wise, I should be very unwilling to admit such a supposed impossibility, as a sufficient war- rant for changing the usual import of common and well understood words. I wish the reader seriously to consider, whether a departure from the plain meaning of words, on the ground that their literal fulfilment is impossible, is not highly dangerous. ' What is the character of the prophecies hitherto ful- filled ? Let us take Bishop Kurd's remarks on our Lord's prediction of the destruction of Je- rusalem. " Was it likelif that Judeea, at that time a Roman province, should be thus deso- lated by its own masters ? Was it to be pre- sumed, that so small a province should dare to engage in a formal contest with Rome, the mis- tress of the Avorld, as well as of Judaea ? With Rome, then in the zenith of her power, and irresistible to all nations ? Was it conceivable, if any future distraction of that mighty empire should tempt the Jews to oppose their feeble efforts to its high fortune, that a vengeance so signal, so complete, should be taken upon them 1 that nothing less than a total e.vtermina- tion should be proposed, and effected? The ruin of the temple at Jerusalem was to be so entire, that one stone should not be left upon ano- 30 ther. Allow for the exaggerated terms of a prophetic description ; still, was it imaginable that the Romans should, in any proper sense of the words, execute this denunciation ? Was it their way, as it Avas afterwards that of the Goths, to wage war with stonesl Was it a principle with them to beat down the pride of buildings, as well as of men ? Would even their policy or their pride, have suffered them to blot out an ancient, a renowned, an illustri- ous temple, the chief ornament of their pro- vince, the glory of the east, and the trophy of their own conquests ?"' Yet we know that it was fulfilled — and, to advert to only one other prophec}''. What is there in the whole writings of Daniel and St. John which equals in apparent impossibility the simple, brief, and unexplained prediction of Isaiah, " Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a child." Surely if these words, instead of standing (as thanks be to God they do) among those fulfilled prophecies, which form a support of christian faith and hope, were as yet unaccomplished, and only to be found in the Apocalypse, we should hear it asserted as con- fidently, (and I submit to every unbiassed reader of the prophecies, more plausibly,) that ' Introduction to the Study of the Prophecies, p. 167. 31 some mystical interpretation mii.H be adopted, and would be fully warranted, by the impossi- hiliti) of the event predicted. I cannot help feeling the truth of what Wa- terland says, though I wish he had expressed it in milder terms, " Most of the abuses with regard to the interpreting of Scripture, when traced up to their fountain head, will appear to have been owing to this, that some will fancy the plain and obvious sense unreasonable or absurd, when it really is not ; and will there- upon obtrude their own surmises, conjectures, and prejudices, upon the word of God.'" Mr. Faber's fourth argument is as follows : IV. ''The point seems to be finally decided ** by the specification of the period, about which '* the 1260 days must commence. Since Da- '' niel's ten-horned beast is allowedly the Roman "■ Empire, his putting forth ten horns must, both *' agreeably to the analogy of prophecy, and " to the explanation of the interpreting angel " (compare Dan. viii. 8, and see vii. 24), denote " the rising up of ten kingdoms within the limits " of that empire. These ten kingdoms arose, " as it is well known, in the fourth andjifth cen- " turies, when the Roman empire was falling " asunder in consequence of the attacks of the " northern nations. Now the gradual rise of a " Quoted in Bishop Van Mildert's Bampton Lectures, p. 404. 32 " little horn, into whose hand the saints are de- ** livered, during the space oithe three times and '' a half, or the 1260 days, is rep;resented as " synchronizing with the rise of the ten kingdoms. *' Daniel does not expressly teach us, how soon *' after the rise of the ten kingdoms the 1260 days *' commence : but it is most natural to suppose, '* that they commence not very long after ; be- *' cause, since this is the period of the horns *' tyranny, of his speaking great words, of his *' changing times and laws, and of his exercis- ** ing some peculiar kind of authority over the " whole empire of the beast, if we suppose a " very long intermediate time to elapse, we " shall be obliged to suppose either the quies- " cenceofthe horn during that intermediate time, " or the total silence of a professedly chronological ^^ prophet respecting his actions during that *' whole time. St. John, however, appears to " supply the omission of Daniel. He tells us, ** that the ten kings are to receive their power in " one hour or apocalyptic season with the beast, ^ " Mr. Faber appears to have changed his opinion after this was written. In his third volume, published several years after the first, he says, " I was once erroneously led, by the ambiguity of our common English translation, to suppose the passage (Rev. xvii. 12) to mean, that the ten kings should receive power synchronically with the Beast ; whereas its plain import is, that the ten kings should receive power synchronically indeed with each other, 33 '' their number ten being completed in the com-se " of that season during which the Roman empire ** was apostatizing into its former beastiality ; *' and that they should give their power and " strength unto the beast. Now the Roman em- '' phr, as we shall hereafter see, continued gra- '' dually to relapse into idolatry in the course of " ^^^ffth and slvth centuries, until at length it ''completely revived, in its beastial capacity, *' or a second time became a pe? feet 'living beast, " by giving the saints into the hand of the little " horn, and by formally re-establishing under a *' new name its ancient demonolatry. Hence '' the times of the revived beast, in his capacity " of « beast, and the times of the little horn, are *' said to be the same. (Dan. vii. 25 ; Rev. xiii. "5.) Since then the beast completely revived " at the commencement of the 1260 days, since but IN CONJUNCTION WITH the beast.'' Vol.iii. p. 255. The reader will bear this in mind while he reads the rest of the argument, which seems to me to be answered by it. He should also be informed, that by the word " hour" Mr. Faber understands either " the twenty-fourth part of a day, or a season of indeterminate length." See vol. ii. p. 108. Thus when it is said of the witnesses (Rev. xi. 12), " they ascended up to heaven in a cloud, and their enemies beheld them. And the same hour was there a great earthquake." The first of these events is supposed to have occurred in 1555, and the second is the French Revolution. If the word " hour" is so indefinite, I do not see how it is to prove synchronism. F 34 " the kings (their number ten being completed) " were to receive their power in the same apo- " calyptic season with his previous gradual re- " vival as a beast, and since they were to devote " that power to him for the purpose of uphold- " ing his bestial principles ; it is plain, that the ' ' beast must have been reviving in the same hour, " or apocalyptic season, with the ultimate divi- " sion of the Western empire into ten kingdoms. " But this apocalyptic season is that of the fourth " trumpet; in the course of which the number " of the ten kingdoms was completed, and dur- " ing which the beast was gradually reviving by " relapsing more and more into idolatry, until " at length he resumed all his functions of bes- " tial vitality at the first blast of the fifth trum- " pet." Thus it appears, since the 1260 days '' commenced when the beast was perfectly re- " vived, and since he was gradually reviving in *' the same apocalyptic season with the completion " of the number of the ten kingdoms, that they " cannot have commenced very long after the *' subversion of the Western Roman empire. This " being the case, though we may not be able *' quite positively to fix the precise era of their " commencement, we may be absolutely sure ° " It will afterwards be shewn, that the beast perfectly revived in the year 606, and 607 ; that is to say, at the era when the fourth trumpet ceased, and when the fifth trumpet commenced."— iVofe hy Mr. Faber. 35 *' that they must have commenced manii ages ago. " But, if they be no more than 1260 natural *' days, then they must likewise have e.vpired " many ages ago. And, if they have expired " many ages ago, then the events, which are " represented as synchronizing with their ter- " mination, must long since have taken place. " But those events have 7iot yet taken place : *' therefore the 1260 days cannot yet have ex- " pired. We know, however, tlmt the 1260 " days must long since have commenced. It *' follows therefore, that they cannot be natural " days : and if they be not natural days, then '* they must he prophetic days, or real years. Although I have thought it right to give the argument at full length, it will be, I think, un- necessary to notice all the statements which it contains. It is obviously founded (like the pre- ceding) on the assumption, that other prophecies are rightly explained. But the reader will consider, that I am not contesting Mr. Faber's particular system, and it will be evident to him that his argument rests simply on his interpretation of the prophecies, and that it assumes a number of points which have been denied by other equally respectable writers. It is not in my power to decide be- tween them, and it is not my purpose to attempt m it ; what I aim at in these pages is to call the attention of pious and learned christians to the subject, and to excite enquiry into the Scrip- tures themselves, and into the principles and modes of interpretation which have been adopt- ed by commentators, rather than to refute or maintain any system of my own. With a view to this I would make one or two observations. In the first place, it is said that the rise of the little horn *' is represented as synchronizing with the rise of the ten king- doms." This Mr. Faber repeatedly asserts in his third volume. Speaking of the early fathers, he says, " they would be quite sure, from the unequivocal language both of Daniel and St. John, that the Roman empire was destined to be split into ten kingdoms, and that synch ro- NiCALLY with this its division a small kingdom was to arise. "p *' The fathers (as we have just seen) rightly judged that the eleventh horn would SYNCHRONIZE witli the ten primary horns."'' ** Either Daniel was a false prophet because he foretold a circumstance which never came to pass ; or a small kingdom, minutely corresponding in character with the little horn, did actually spring up synchronic ally with the ten Gothic horns."' I give these extracts P p. 240. 1 p. 241. ' p. 242. 37 as they are printed in Mr. Faber's work, and the reader will observe that this synchronism is a point of great importance. Now to any plain reader of Daniel, I think it would seem, that the rise of the little horn is not represented as synchronizing with the rise of the ten kingdoms, for the beast had the ten horns when he was first seen, and, for any thing that appears, might have had them for any period of time ; but the prophet witnessed the actual rise of the little horn. I believe no one disputes that the Roman empire was shewn to the prophet, not as it existed in his own day, or in any way that em- braced the whole period of its duration, but as it would exist at some certain period in futurity. That period does not seem to me to be the pe- riod of division, but some period when the empire shall have been divided ; or, in other words, some period afte7^ (and I cannot conceive whence we are to gather how long after) the beast has become ten-horned. I do not see, therefore, how those who maintain that *' this monarchy still subsists in the toes or kingdoms into which it was broken,"' can deny that the eleventh horn may yet arise. It seems to me, that any period, shewing the Roman empire in a state of division into ten kingdoms, might be ' Scott's Comm. on Dan, ii, 10. 38 the period intended ; and, that even if it could be clearly and satisfactorily shewn, that the Roman empire has once been divided into ten kingdoms, yet we should not be thereby war- ranted in deciding, that the prophecy must have been then fulfilled, unless we could also prove that the empire is not noiv, and never can be hereafter, in that state of division/ I shall freely confess, however, that the ac- count generally given of the division of the Roman empire is, to my own mind, very unsa- tisfactory. In the first place, this argument assumes, that by the Roman Empire we are to under- * " Though the number of kingdoms has varied from time to time, yet it has been remarked by Daubuz : * As if the number ten had been fatal in the Roman dominions, it has been taken notice of on particular occasions ; as about 1240, by Eberhard, Bishop of Saltzburg, in the Diet at Ratisbon. At the time of the Reformation they were also ten.'* ' As the number of kingdoms,' says Mr. Whiston, * into which the Roman empire in Europe, agreeably to the ancient prophecies, was originally divided, A. D. 456, was exactly ten ; so is it also very nearly returned again to the same condition, and at present is divided into ten grand or principal kingdoms or states. f It is remarkable, that at the present period also % the number of regal governments within the limits of the Western Roman empire is exactly ten," — Ctmingkame on the Apocalypse, 2d edit. p. 161, * lUttstrations of Prophecy, p. 52. t Ibid. + Viz. tlie year 1817. 39 stand the Western Empire only. This would, perhaps, surprise an unprepared reader, who would probably (and, I think, not very unrea- sonably,) expect to find that the Roman empire, in the fourth and fifth centuries, included Con- stantinople. Bishop Newton, however, will tell him, that if he has a mind to have them, he " must look for the ten kings, or kingdoms, where only they can be found, amid the broken pieces of the Roman empire." And he after- wards"" recites, and adopts. Sir Isaac New^ton's mode of excluding the Eastern part of the Ro- man empire, by a scheme which Mr. Faber asserts, "must be erroneous."*" On the other hand, Mede includes the Eastern Empire.'' And the author of an elaborate article in the British Review (a man whose talents and piety might have born a comparison with those of any writer on the subject) stated it as an "obvious fact, that the attempts to find ten kingdoms, in the West- ern empire only, have produced nearly as many opposite opinions as there have been writers on the subject. All their difficulties have arisen from a principle which they in common assum- ed ; and their endless disagreement demon- strates its incompatibility with the luminous tenor of divine prophecy."^ Again, suppose we " Vol. I. p. 460. " lb. p. 473. " Vol. II. p. 235. " Works, p. 661. ^ British Review, vol. xviii. p. 405. 40 give up the Eastern empire, and look for the tea kingdoms " where only" (according to Bishop Newton) ** they can be found ;" what do we find ? Mr. Faber, indeed, says, "these kingdoms arose, as it is well known ;" but ivhat kingdoms are they ? Whom shall we take for our guide ? Shall we accept the list given us by Bishop Newton? According to Mr. Faber, " he most unwarrantably sets aside the real list of these kingdoms, and substitutes a list of his own, into which he introduces the petty states of Rome, and the Greek province of Ravenna, evidently for no other purpose than to give a co- lour of probability to his predetermined interpre- tation'' May we then assume that Mr. Faber's 7^eal list is undisputed ? " It appears to me," says Mr, Frere, '' that the only difference be- tween Bishop Newton and Mr. Faber is, that Bishop Newton felt a stronger confidence that the three horns, which were plucked up before the papacy, were Ravenna, Lombard y, and Rome, than he did in the correctness of any of the proposed lists of the ten kingdoms ; he therefore made his list of the ten horns bend to his interpretation of the three horns : Mr. Faber, on the other hand, it appears, felt the most con- fidence in the interpretation of the ten original horns, as being those that have been named in his list ; he therefore forcibly accommodates the interpretation of the three horns ; so as to agree 41 with his list of the ten kingdoms, and consider- ing- that the parts of the prophecy relating to the three horns are more particular and pointed than those relating to the ten horns, when spoken of altogether, (on which account we see, that though, Mr. Mede, Sir Isaac and Bishop Newton differ in tlieir lists of the ten kingdoms, they agree as to the three that were plucked up) the course pursued by Bishop Newton ap- pears to me more justijiable ; and more likely to be attended with a successful result than that pursued by Mr. Faber. I wish, however, in no instance to digress from the subject immedi- ately before me, much less to pass any censures upon an author whose labours I so much respect as I do those of Mr. Faber ; and my only object in bringing forward high contending authorities, is to point out what may be considered as de- batable ground, within the range of which any commentator is at liberty to attempt the esta- blishment of a new hypothesis.'"^ The identity of these kingdoms is then still a disputed point. To say nothing of Grotius and Brightman, who differ from each other in every point except the exclusion of all the Gothic kingdoms, let the reader only look at the various lists which have been made by learned men, and I think he will have no doubt ' Combined View, 172. G 42 that if the number mentioned by Daniel had been nine or eleven, the right number would have been found among those petty kingdoms, M^hose unsettled state renders it so easy to enu- merate them variously. At all events, let him say, whether those ten kingdoms are so well known, and the synchronical rise of the little horn, and the other particulars mentioned so certain, as finally to decide that we must inter- pret very plain and common words, in a manner certainly very unusual, and, I believe, unpre- cedented. It would obviously till a volume were I to go through every point alluded to in this argu- ment. I think it, however, unnecessary ; be- cause those who are sufficiently acquainted with Mr. Faber's works to understand the line of reasoning at all, will be aware how much its force depends upon his system. That system in particular it is not my object to disprove ; and if I use the author's name more frequently than that of any other writer, it is, as I have already said, because he has written most upon the subject. While I am obliged to speak of various writers, and to refer to their works, it would deeply grieve me should one word of this pamphlet give offence to any christian, and especially to those who are engaged in that study, which appears to me the best and the noblest in which the human mind can be em- 43 ployed — the study of the word of God. I trust, however, that I have not written, and shall not write offensively, and I know that they who sincerely love truth will pardon some freedom in the search of it. Having now taken some notice of the argu- ments, which I have seen produced, for depart- ing from the literal sense in the passages referred to of Daniel and St. John, I submit them to the reader's deliberate judgment, and earnestly en- treat his attention to another point which has greatly influenced my own mind. WHATEVER difficulty there may be in understanding prophecy not yet fulfilled, I be- lieve I only express the opinion of the christian world, in general, when I say, that we are war- ranted to hope that we may arrive at some tole- rable understanding of those predictions which have long been accomplished. Some of the soberest writers upon the sub- ject go farther than this. Mr. Scott says, the prophecies of Scripture " constitute a grand system of previous information as to the designs of providence, extending from the earliest ages even to the consummation of all things ; and accompanied by such distinct notations of order as may well be called the geography and chro- nology of prophecy ; insomuch that con/ one, in 44 any age, who well understood the prophecies extant in his day, might have known what to expect at the specified times, and in the spe- cified countries/" Mr. Cooper argues, that as it is " obviously the duty and interest" of christians "to attend to such indications, so it must be presumed, that it is in their power to understand them."'' But I do not ask so much as is here conceded ; it is enough for my argu- ment, that we may expect to understand ful- Jilled prophecy, and this, I believe, will be ge- nerally admitted. Bishop Horsley has said, ' ' To attain the useful end of prophecy, which is to afford the highest proof of providence, it was necessary that prophecy should be deli- vered in such disguise as to be dark while the event is remote, to clear up as it approaches, and to be rendered perspicuous by the ac- complishment. "'^ "Commentators in general allow," (says Mr. Scott) " that this vial is not yet poured out : and this is a sufficient reason why a commentator should decline giving any conjecture in what manner so compendious, and so obscure a prediction will be fulfilled : but luhen fulfilled it will cease to be obscure." " Predictions which are yet future will in due course be so decidedly fulfilled, as to leave no * Preface to Comm. on the Bible, p. xi. *■ Crisis, p. 3. ■^ Sermon xv. vol. ii. p. 31. 45 ROOM FOR SCEPTICISM ITSELF TO FLUCTUATE IN SUSPENSE. ""^ " The predictions of this book" (says Mr. Gauntlett in his Exposition of the Revelation) " continue to receive their fulfil- ment during the lapse of ages ; and as they are accomplished in their order, they are decidedly EXPLAINED and ILLUSTRATED, but not be- fore. "'^ " It is the universal character of the prophecies, that they are involved more or less in mystery and obscurity previouslif to their accomplishment, after which they become so LUCID AND PLAIN, that their fulfilment is uni- ver sally admitted T '" The same statement is made in terms even stronger by Mr. Frere : " When a commentator has translated the symbolical and figurative language of a prophecy, into plain and simple language, he has done all that is peculiarly his province ; and there is no doubt (if the interpretations he correct) that when the events predicted have actually occurred, they will be so STRIKING, that no one can easily fail in correctly applying them."^ It is needless to add more testimonies on this point, and it is equally unnecessary to in- form those who have carefully read any one of the leading works on the subject, that so far ^ Zouch on Prophecy : cited Br. Crit. xvii. 76. * Preface, p, xxxiii. ^ p. 160. '^ Combined View, p. 110. 46 from being thus " lucid and plain" — so far from the supposed fulfilment leaving " no room for scepticism itself to fluctuate in suspense" — the prophecies supposed to be fulfilled during the period of 1260 years, are the subjects of incessant disputes and controversy. Is it not notorious, that even what is considered fulfilled prophecy, (take for instance, great part of the Apocalypse) is thought so obscure, and a mat- ter of so much controversy,'' as to deter christi- ans in general from attempting to understand it? In fact, the difficulty cannot be concealed, when men of piety, learning, and industry, are openly engaged in overthrowing each others systems, and when such men cannot agree, and christians in general do not pretend to give an opinion, how, or when, or even, in some cases, ^ We hear alternately of the clearness, and the obscu- rity, of fulfilled prophecy ; but it is not often that we find these contradictory ideas placed in close contact as they are by a writer in the British Critic, when reviewing Mr. Faber's work on the prophecies relative to Judah and Israel. When we find so muck embarrassment, and such contra- riety OF OPINION in the application of many prophecies confessedly fulfilled, what diflSculties may we not expect to contend with in predictions whose event is in the womb of time. It is in the nature of unfulfilled prophecy to appear fraught with contradiction, which human sagacity will la- bour in vain to reconcile, till the time when the event pre- dicted shall unravel all perplexities, and establish the inspiration of the prophet." — Vol. xxxvi. p. 471. 47 whether a prophecy has been accomplished, we seem naturally led to the conclusion that it still remains unfulfilled. Mr. Faber, indeed, says, " The real fact is, that with the exception of Grotius and Hammond, and one or two who have followed them, there is no discrepancy among protestant e.vpositors with regard to THE GREAT OUTLINES of prophet'ic hiteiyreta- tioii."' It will be for the reader, however, to judge whether the matters adduced are merely subordinate particulars. If they are, I freely admit, that they form no objection to the re- ception of systems in which they occur ; and in which they are only such imperfections as necessarily attend all the works of man. * I print this passage as it stands in Mr. Faber's third volume, page 295 ; but as he is there in controversy with a Roman Catholic, I am not certain how far he means the position to extend. He may, perhaps, mean it only to apply to the predictions respecting the papacy ; but how he could intend it to be understood, even on that point, I do not perceive, when he had said, only twenty pages before, " I do not suppose the Pope to be Antichrist ; a 7-eal pro- testant novelty, peculiar, I believe, to Bishop Horsiey and myself." Bishop Newton, who may be supposed to have seen enough of the expositors of prophecy, to know whether they agreed or not, makes a very different statement. In his Dissertation on Daniel's Vision of the four Empires, he says, " to recite all the various opinions of commentators, would be but heaping up a monument of the absurdities of former ages," — Diss, xiv. vol. i. p. 433. 48 Let us then enquire, what agreement exists among expositors as to the " general outline" of the Apocalypse. If it would be unfair to exact a precise conformity respecting the mi- nute details of the Seals and Trumpets— if it would be too much to expect perfect agreement as to all the lesser circumstances even of that which has been fulfilled— yet, might we not expect agreement if we should ask, when, and how (not on what day, but in what century, and by what sort of facts,) was the prediction connected with any given Seal, fulfilled? Sup- pose, for instance, we should ask what was the period of the fourth seal, from three writers, whose piety, learning, and industry, have just- ly, and even necessarily, placed them high in the public estimation. Mr. Faber would refer us to some period prior to the year A. D. 325 ; Mr. Frere would answer that it began A. D. 536, and ended 55Q ; and Mr. Cuninghame would tell us, that it began in the thirteenth, and ended in the latter part of the seventeenth century. Let the reader compare the different views which these expositors have given of the Seals and Trumpets, as they stand in the following table; and let him say, whether they agree even in the *' general outline." 49 FABER. 1 Seal "^ 2 .. 3 .... 4 .. 5 .. Refer to a > period prior to A. D. 323. i Begins 323, ( Ends 1941. CUNINGHAME. The greater part of the first 3 centuries. Chiefly 4th and 5th centuries. A very long peri- od, commenc- ing in the 5th century. 13th to the latter part of 17th century. Explanatory of the preceding seals. Begins 10th Aug. 1792, & con- tinues to the millenium. Includes the trumpets. FllERE, 330- 387- -363. -394. 408- -476. 536- —556. Begins and ends about 606. 1789 to 10th Aug. 1792. 26th Aug. 1792 to 1822-3. This table is formed from two which are given in Mr. Frere's Combined View ; one of which contains his own system, and the other, those of Mr. Faber and Mr. Cuninghame. H 50 Looking at the discordant opinions which this table exhibits, I must say, that they do not appear to be trifling differences about subordi- nate matters of detail ; of this, however, let the reader judge. Should we refer to the prophecy respecting the Witnesses, and enquire *' Have they been slain, or is that event still future?" We are answered, that it is future, by " many writers of great judgment and eminence, among whom may be enumerated Archbishop Usher, Bishops Newton and Horsley, Archdeacon Woodhouse, Dr. Gill, Mr. Scott, and many others." I copy this from Mr. Gauntlett's exposition of Rev. xi, 7— 12 ;'' from which also I may add that, '' some writers suppose that the slaying, ?ismg, and as- cending of the witnesses, refer to the constant and alternate persecutions, and triumphs of the confessors of Christ, during the whole period of twelve hundred and sixty years." " Another class of interpreters are of opinion, that this prophecy received its completion in the case of John Huss and Jerome of Prague." " Others refer its accomplishment to the popish persecution in England in bloody Mary's reign about the year 1553. Some to the mas- '' If the reader wishes for more specific reference to the authors who have severally maintained these opinions, let him consult Bishop Newton on the passage. 51 sacre of the protestants in France in 1572, and others to the cruelty exercised on the Waldenses in Piedmont, under the Duke of Savoy, A. D. 1685." " The next hypothesis is sup- ported by many eminent writers, among which are Messrs. Faber, Cuninghame, Holmes, and Fuller, with Dr. Bryce Johnston, and others.— These commentators confidently suppose that the prophecy of the death and resurrection of the witnesses received its accomplishment in the suppression of protestantism in Germany A. D. 1548. And its restoration about three years and a half afterward A. D. 1551." To these various and conflicting opinions, more might be added. Indeed Mr. Irving, the latest writer whose work I have seen, following Bright- man,' and several other commentators,™ sets ' It is not worth while to enter into all the subdivisions, which exist even among those writers who are classed toge- ther ; but it is curious to see how little agreement there is even among those of whom it maybe said, that they do not differ as to the general outline. Of course Brightman did not apply this prophecy as Mr. Irving does, to the impieties of the French Revolution ; on the contrary, opposing the opinion of the fathers, he says, " we that have seen the matter long since accomplished, may determine for a CER- TAINTY that the Holy Ghost had another manner of mean- ing then this," and then proceeds to state his own opinion, that the two witnesses were the " Holy Scriptvres" and " the assemblies of the Saiyits." If I understand him, (and I api ■" See Poole's Synopsis in 1. 52 them all aside, and says, " in the very first face and shewing of the thing, if God hath two wit- nesses upon the earth, the Old and New Testa- ment are they." Surely it will not be contended, that the slaying of the witnesses is a small and subordi- nate matter. Every expositor has treated the prediction as one of great importance, and has brought forward the facts in which he supposed it to be fulfilled, as matters of much conse- quence to the church ; neither can it be said, that the discrepancy of opinion is small. But, if we can persuade ourselves, that the prophecy of the Witnesses is one of those su- bordinate matters, in which we are not to ex- pect agreement among expositors; how can by no means confident that I do) these two witnesses were not slain at the same time, but " sentence of death was passed against the Scriptures in the year 1546 April 8th," and they remained dead until 9th November 1549. and the Church " lay for dead from the 22. of April the yeare 1547, unto the calends of Octob. of the yeare 1550." It is some- what singular that the periods here fixed for the revival of the witnesses, both fall within the time during which the pre- ceding class of commentators consider the witnesses as lying actually dead. Surely the coincidence between the History and the Prophecy cannot be very striking, if both these opinions are in any degree plausible, which I cannot but suppose they are, when I find Mr. Faber stating, (vol. ii. p. 78) that he once agreed with the second part of Bright- man's opinion. >53 we possibly bring" ourselves to the same view of a fact, which must be allov/ed to be of awful and intense interest to the church of God ? I mean, the delivery of that church into P the hands of a blasphemous and persecuting power. If such an event as this has taken place, is it possible that the church of God can be at a loss to decide when and how it happened ? Can there be a difference of opinion among pious, and learned, and laborious er.qtlirers into the word of God, and the history of the church ? Nay farther, if we ask, " is the church at this moment in the hands of the blasphemous little horn, or is it not ?" Mr. Faber and many more assert that it is. Mr. Cuninghame, Mr. Frere, and others, are as fully convinced that it is not ; and nine-tenths of the christian world stand silent, avowedly unable to give any opinion on the subject. They may, or may not, be in the hands of the little horn, and he may, or may not, be wearing them out, for any thing they know-— they hope and believe that they are " the saints," but whether the Beast is making war with, and has overcome, them, they cannot tell— it is a deep, curious, and litigated ques- tion, and one on which, among so many con- flicting opinions, they never pretended to form a judgment for themselves. Let us revert to the statement with which we set out. Is it true, as Mr. Scott affirms, 54 that by means of ** a grand system of previous information as to the designs of providence," '* ANY ONE in ANY AGE, who Well imderstood the prophecies extant in his day, might have known what to expect in the specified times, and in the specified comitries ? " And did the church expect its delivery into the hands of the little horn ? No. When did the saints find out that they had been delivered over ? Not for ages. Is this credible ? But in fact when did it happen ? When, how, and by whom was this great prediction fulfilled ? On this point, too, there is a great difference of opinion. Surely it is not sufficient to say, that we know about what time the 1260 years must have begun. In the first place, allowing it all rea- sonable latitude, that phrase is not sufficient to comprehend the centuries by which expositors have differed ; and in the second, let it ever be remembered, that we are not speaking of a merely chronological difference. We are not enquiring in what year certain historical facts took place, but in what year (that is by what facts) a prediction was fulfilled. If, then, the difference between expositors were only one year, yet if the places, persons, and historical circumstances generally, were changed by that difference of time, the variation would be total. Thus at least it appears to me. If, for instance, one writer should say, " the saints were given 00 into the hands of the little horn by the edict of Justinian in the year 533 ;" and another should reply, " I agree with you that they were deli- vered by that edict ; but it was not issued until the year 606 :" the difference between them would be purely chronological, and it would be unfair to represent them as differing respecting the fulfilment of the prophecy. But if (as Mr. Faber might reply to Messrs. Frere and Cun- inghame) he should answer, " The saints were not delivered into the hands of the little horn by the edict of Justinian in the year 533— they were as free after it as before it— Justinian and his edict had nothing whatever to do with the fulfilment of the prophecy— it was not fulfilled until he and his generation had passed away." And in this case it might be rejoined, that the Emperor Phocas and the Pope of the year 606 could have nothing to do with the fulfilment of a prophecy which had been accomplished more than seventy years. It seems to me, that the point in dispute between these writers is not merely a chronological difference of a few years, but that they disagree entirely as to the appli- cation of the prophecy to history. Nor are these two the only periods which have been fixed upon. This momentous event, according to Mede,° took place in A. D. 456 ; " It may be objected, that the 1260 years of Mede have 56 according to Mr. Frere in A. D. 533, when the edict of Justinian was published ; the anony- mous author of a system, characterized by Dr. Hales as, " perhaps, the most ingenious of its class,"" places it A. D. 583; Mr. Faber, as I have already stated, begins from the year 606 ; Dr. HalesP reckons from A. D. 620 ; Bishop Newton from A. D. 727 ; and Lowman from A. D. 756. long since elapsed ; but in order to our forming a right judg- ment, it is absolutely necessary to take into consideration those hypotheses which have been refuted by time. The weight of any writer's opinion as to the events which seemed most clearly to accomplish the prediction, and fix the time when the saints were delivered into the hands of the little horn, cannot be diminished by the failure of his hypothesis. It will not be doubted, that the history of all the periods fixed on by others was well known to Mede, and there was nothing to prevent him from chusing any one of them, ex- cept that he did not discern among them all, such a fulfil- ment as he thought that he discovered in the events of the year 456. His authority, then, whatever it may be, as to the ac- cordance of historical facts in 456 icith the language of pro- phecy, remains undiminished by the lapse of the 1260 years, because though time may have shewn his opinion to be er- roneous, yet it cannot be denied, that all the facts of history lay before him, and that he decided on those which occur- red at that period, as best agreeing with the terras of the prophecy. It is obvious that these remarks apply equally to Whiston and other writers, whose systems have been re- futed by time. » Analysis, vol. ii. p. 1358. p lb. p. 566. 57 I cannot help again expressing my astonish- ment at the supposed state of the Church of God. Is it credible, that she has to wander up and down through a period of nearly three centuries, enquiring when she was delivered into the hand of a cruel and blasphemous ty- rant ? Are the saints of the Most High so ig- norant, not only of their destiny, but of their history, as that they know not when, how, or by whom, this tremendous predictio'n was exe- cuted ? The delivery of the saints into the hand of their persecutor was surely a solemn act. *' We may," says Mr. Faber, " naturally con- clude, that they were given into his hand, both by some formal deed, and some specific person.' And might we not expect that this solemn act of her delivery, would be known in her as- semblies- --registered in her calendar— comme- morated in her services-— never, never lost sight of by her members ? But instead of this, the saints who were thus delivered up knew nothing of the matter. One generation after another passed away, and the secret was not disco- vered. Centuries rolled on, and the saints knew not, that he to whom they looked as their father, and their head, was making war upon them, and wearing them out. For ages did the church of God quietly follow a hireling, with ■' Vol. I. p. 189. I 58 the brand of perdition on their foreheads. Was there no servant of Christ who, ** understood the prophecies extant in his days," sufficiently to warn his brethren ?-~did no eye fall upon the tremendous curse, '* If any man worship the Beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out, without mixture, into the cup of his indignation ; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb : and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever : and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the Beast and his image, and WHOSOEVER receiveth the mark of HIS NAME ?" Mr. Faber says, *' the testimony of those who lived before the reformation is peculiarly valuable and curious. Much of this has been collected by Bishop Newton in his excellent deduction of the line of the witnesses through the entire period of the dark ages."* He ap- pears to have followed the Bishop implicitly, and therefore, I wish, before I make any re- marks on the testimony which has been col- lected, to express my full conviction, that Mr. Faber's only fault in this matter has been, that • Vol. Ill, p. 295. 59 he inconsiderately followed one whom he be- lieved capable of such conduct as he has charged upon that writer/ But taking this testimony as it stands in Mr. Faber's abstract, what does it amount to ? " Gerbert, Archbishop of Rheims in the year 991," (that is, 385 years after the time when, on Mr. Faber's hypothesis, the saints were de- livered into the hand of the little horn,) "spoke of the reigning Pope John XV. in the following remarkable terms : ' What do you conceive this man, sitting on a lofty throne, glittering in pur- ple clothing and in gold ; what, I say, do you conceive him to be ? If he is destitute of cha- rity, and puffed up by knowledge alone, he is Antichrist, sitting in the temple of God, and shew- ing himself that he is God .•' in other words, he is St. Paul's Alan of Sin.'' Supposing these words to belong to Gerbert, it may be sufficient to observe, that if by Antichrist he meant John XV. individualli/, his speech is nothing to our purpose ; if he meant to apply the title to him as Pope, or to the Papacy, the value of his tes- timony may be estimated from the fact, that he afterwards became Pope himself. If, however, they are his words, (and they may be, for he is said to have collected the acts" of that Council ' See before, page 40. " That is the " longe prolixiora acta" as Cave calls them, which alone contain this speech. 60 which were not known to the Vv'orld until the Centiiriators of Magdeburgh published them from an accurate copy which they fortunately had by them,)''— if I say, the words are Ger- bert's, he has put them in the mouth of Arnold, Bishop of Orleans ; and even if they were spoken of the Pope,'' I think they will by no '' They say " cum autem hujus Synodi acta, in vetusto codice accurate conscripta, ad manum habeiemus : visum est ea integra inserere ; quia alias non extabant. Apparet autem, Gerbertum fuisse collectorem." — Cent. x. p. 246. " I cannot help feeling some doubt on this point, because it seems as if the Bishop was speaking of some one present in the Council. The Pope was not there ; Arnold, the Bp. of Rheims, was. The Council was convened to investigate charges of high treason against him ; and after giving more time to the question than it is worth, I feel a suspicion that he was the person intended. But I am quite satisfied, that the testimony should remain pointed at John XV. and prove all that it fairly can. That it proves the Bishop of Orleans to have seriously believed the Head of his Church, and his acknowledged Ecclesiastical Superior to be Antichrist, or the Man of Sin, I think the reader will scarcely admit, yet this is the very question, and the only one. I am willing, and thankful to acknowledge, that there were those, even in that dark age, who saw, and exposed, and resisted, the usurpations of the Bishop of Rome ; and if I have robbed Gerbert of this testimony, I will do him the justice to bring forward a better specimen of his Protestantism, from a let- ter of his to Seguin, Archbishop of Sens. " Deus dicit : Si peccaverit in te frater tuus, vade et corripe euro, &c. Qnomodo igitur vestri eemuli dicunt, quia in Arnulphi de- jectione, Romani Episcopi judicium expectandum fuit ? 61 means convince the reader, that he who uttered them seriously believed the Pope, as such, to be Antichrist, though he might, in the heat of declamation, apply that title to any ecclesiastic "if destitute of charity, and puffed up by knowledge ALONE." Such as it was, however, it is not pretended that this testimony was listened to, or that any one else repeated it, during more than a cen- tury ; and then, says Mr. Faber, " In iike man- ner, Fiuentius Bishop of Florence taught pub- licly that Antichrist was born and come into the world, for which he was severely repri- Poteruntne docere, Romani Episcopi judicium, Dei judicio, majus esse ? Sed primus Romanorum Episcoporum, immo ipsorum Apostolorum princeps clamat, *' Oportet obedire Deo magis quam hominibus," Clamat et ipse orbis terra- rum- magister Paulus, " Si quis vobis annuntiaverit praeter quod accepistis, etiamsi Angelus de coelo, anathema sit. Num quia Marcellinus Papa Jovi thura incendit, ideo cunctis Episcopis thurificandum fuit ? Constanter dico, quod si ipse Romanus Episcopus in fratrem peccaverit, szepiusque admonitus, Ecclesiam non audierit, hie, inquam, Romanus, Episcopus praecepto Dei est habendus sicut ethnicus et pub- licanus : quanto enim gradus altior, tanto ruina gravior." Horror-struck at this explosion of protestantism, Baro- nius, who quotes it, subjoins — " O ! sententiam homine tan- tum sive magno aliquo heeretico, sive impudenti valde Schis- matico dignam, qua sacra simul concilia abrogantur, cano- nes jugulantur, traditiones sufFocantur, et cuncta denique jura ecclesiastica pessumdantur ! ut impossibile videatur a catholico homine somniari ista nedum adeo procaciter efFu- tiri."— ilnn. Eccks : A. D. 992. 62 manded by the Pope, in the year 1105, and strictly forbidden to preach any such doctrine." But in fact, though Fluentius preached the birth of Antichrist, did he mean to apply this title to the Pope, or the Papacy ? What is the evidence on which we are expected to believe, that this Bishop " publicly taught" that his ec- clesiastical superior was Antichrist? I have not been able to find any. The Magdeburgh Centuriators, indeed, set it down, that as he talked of Antichrist, he must " no doubt" have meant the Pope." They were not so happy as to possess any " acta proliviora' of the council which examined him, and those which exist throw no light on his sentiments.'' They cite no writer to confirm their application of his words ; nor do they pretend that there was any writer who so understood them ; but they admit that there were writers who stated that he was led to say what he did by natural phenomena, such as the faithful of that age expected to precede the revelation of Antichrist."^ These " " Audebat palam asseverare, Antichristum jam natum esse, idque, haud-ddbie animadvertit, ex ilia horribili metamorphosi regni Christi, spiritualis in mundanum." — Cent. XII. cap. ix. Col. 566. y Silentium autem de argumentis ipsius altum est. — lb. ^ Scribunt aliqui, prodigia, quae pluriraa turn fiebant, majorem ipsi materiam cogitandi de Antichristo przebuisse : ut quod mare retrocesseiit et similia. Verum sine dubio 63 writers, however they conclude, were mistaken, and that " no doubt" he must have been led to form his opinion from the marks of Antichrist which were then visible in the Papacy. The reader will judge for himself; but I cannot be- lieve without good evidence, (and I find none at all) that Paschal II. or any Pontiff of the twelfth century, would have been satisfied with " severely reprimanding" a Bishop who had ** publicly taught" ihdii himself , ox his' office, was Antichrist ; though I can well understand that he might rebuke him for disturbing the peace of society, and forbid him to preach what he, most probably, considered not only false but mischievous.* gravioribus causis, certioribus notis et characteribus An- tichristi, quae publice in conspectu versabantur, motus est. ~lb. ^ " Lord Cobham and the two Bohemian Martyrs," says Bishop Hurd, (Tntrod. p. 241^ " were committed to the flames, for nothing so much, as for asserting the impious doctrine ' that the Pope was Antichrist." This may be be- lieved, and is, indeed, what might have been expected ; but what a sweet-tempered Pontiff must he have been, who contented himself with reprimanding a Bishop for having " publicly taught" this " impious doctrine," and then sent him back to his see, with a simple prohibition. Nor was Paschal II., according to Bishop Hurd, the only Pope whose christian meekness was thus tried and manifested. Leo X. he tells us, " in the last Lateran Council, gave it in charge to all preachers, that none of them should presume to call the Pope, Antichrist, or to treat this obnoxious 64 The only other witnesses, before the time of the Waldenses, are St. Bernard and Joachim of Calabria. The latter of these Mr. Faber states to have " asserted, that Antichrist was subject in their discourses to the people." (Ibid, p. 242.^ This is a good round assertion ; but it is not supported by the garbled citation at the foot of the page, which is as fol- lows : " Mandantes omnibus, &c. — tempus quoque -prcefixum futurorum malorum, vel antichristi adventum — prce- dicare, vel asserere, nequaquam prcesumant. BiN. CoNC. Lateran. v. sub Leme X. Sess xi. p. 632." The absurdity of a statement which represents a Pope in council, as charg- ing his clergy not to call him Antichrist, is apparent ; and its falsehood would have been equally manifest if the Bishop had cited the whole passage. I subjoin it, printing in ita- lics those words which are omitted by the Bishop. " Man- dantes omnibus qui hoc onus sustinent, quique in futurum sustinebunt ut Evangelicam veritatem, et sanctam scripturam juxta declarationem, interpretationem , et ampliationem doc- torum, quos Ecclesia vel tisus diuturnus approbavit, legendos- que hactenus recepit, et in posterum recipiet, prcedicent 4' explanent : nee quidquam ejus proprio sensui contrarium, aut dissonum adjiciant, sed illis semper insistant, quce ab ipsius sacrce scriptures verbis, et prcefatorum doctorum interpretati- onibus, rite et sane intellectis, non discordant. Tempus quo- que praefixum futurorum malorum, vel antichristi adventum aut certum diem judicii prgedicare, vel asserere nequaquam praesumant, cum Veritas dicat, Non esse vestrum nosse tempora vel momenta, quce Pater posuit in sua potestate : ipsosqiie qui hactenus similia asserere ausi sunt, mentitos ac eorum causa, reliquorum etiam recte prtedicantium auctoritati non modicum detractum fuisse constet." 1 do not know what edition the Bishop used ; but in that of Paris, 1636, this passage stands vol. IX. p. 142. 65 " already born in the city of Rome ; tliat he " would be advanced to the apostolic chair, " and would be " e.valted above all that is called " God or worshipped r the well known predict- " ed characteristic of the Man of Sin." Joachim is not, perhaps, a person whose testimony would be called for, if evidence were not very scarce. But how does it appear that he meant to stig- matize the Pope, or the papaci/, with the name of Antichrist ? I conceive that he,' like Flu- entius, (and, as far as I know, every writer of his, or any preceding, age,) expected an indi- vidual Antichrist ; and knowing that when he should be revealed, he would be impiously ex- alted above all that was called God, or wor- shipped, he not unnaturally supposed that he would fulfil these predictions, by usurping the Pontifical Chair. What, however, were his real sentiments I know not, for I have not the means of consulting authorities. St. Bernard's works, however, I do possess, and to them I shall refer the reader ; but, let me first ask, whether it has not struck him as a thing altogether incredible, that any man should have remained in full communion with one whom he really believed to be Antichrist ? If such a man could be found, would his testi- mony weigh one feather, and should we not rather be ashamed to cite such a miscreant or madman ? Surely we have talked about Anti- K 66 Christ, and the Man of Sin, until familiarity with the title has beguiled us of all right notion respecting the character, or we could never seriously argue at this rate. " These witnesses," says Mr. Faber, (that is, Gerbert or Arnold, Fluentius, Joachim and Bernard — all that can be cited until the twelfth century,) " were in the very bosom of the Romish church." Yes--- if their testimony is relevant to the point which it is brought forward to establish, they lived and died in full communion with one whom THEY BELIEVED tO be THE MAN OF SIN — -in profest allegiance to one whom they consi- dered and openly denounced as anti- christ— -manfully fighting under the banner of the son of perdition, and obeying him with humble duty as their spiritual head. It is incredible ! Of Gerbert and Fluentius, indeed, we know comparatively little— of Joachim, perhaps nothing that should lead us to doubt that he might be guilty of any folly or mad- ness;— -but it is too much to ask us to believe this of St. Bernard. Ignorant on some points he might be-— superstitious on many, he cer- tainly was-— but it is shameful to drag forth a man of his glowing piety, as one who knowingly worshipped the Beast, and grasped the right hand of Antichrist. It is shameful to pervert his words, in order to make it appear as if he had wittingly leagued with the powers of Hell, 67 and sold himself to the Son of Perdition. And, after all, on what evidence are we required to believe this ? Mr. Faber says, " St. Bernard " himself, however devoted to the Romish " church in other respects,^ inveighed loudly " against the corruption of the clergy, and the ** pride and tyranny of the Popes ; saying that *' they were ministers of Christ, and yet served ** Antichrist, that nothing remained but that *' the Man of Sin should be revealed, and that " the Beast in the Apocalypse occupied St. " Peter's chair." I repeat, that I fully acquit Mr. Faber of intentional misrepresentation, and that I do not mean the expressions which I have used to apply to him : I cannot, however, bring myself to qualify them, as it regards Bishop Hurd, because he professes to have examined into the matter. At the end of a note which 1 shall quote presently, he says, " I mention these things so particularly to shew, what his senti- ments on this head really were ; which have been misrepresented by hasty writers, who transcribe from each other, without examining, them- selves, the authorities, they quote." What, '' This expression is used also by Bishops Hurd and Newton. He only " employed all the thunder of his rheto- ric, in which faculty he excelled," in proclaiming that the Pope was Antichrist. 68 then, does tlie Bishop give us as the real senti- ments of St. Bernard? He tells us that, de- voted as he was to the church of Rome, *' he " employed all the thunder of his rhetoric (in " which faculty he excelled) against its corrup- " tions ; exclaiming that the ministers of Christ " were become the servants of Antichrist ; and " the Beast of the Apocalypse had seated him- '* self in St. Peter's chair." And on this pas- sage he adds the following note: "Mtnistri Christi sunt et serviunt antichristo. l^Serm. sup. Cantic. a\i\viii.] It is true, by Antichrist he seems not to mean the Pope, but in general an evil principle, which then domi- neered in the church. Yet he refers us to the famous passage in the first epistle to the Thes- salonians, ch. ii. And he tells us in his 56th epistle, that he had heard one Norbert, a man of exemplary piety say, that Antichrist would be revealed in that age. Hence it seems pro- bable that some one person or power was in his eye. After all, he says, that Norbert's reasons did not satisfy him. Yet, in another epistle, he asserts expressly— -Bestia ilia deApocalypsi, cui datum est os loquens blasphemias, et bellum gerere cum Sanctis, Petri Cathedram oc- cupAT, tanquam leo paratus ad praedam. Ep. cxxv.; which was, in other words, to call the Pope Antichrist. It is evident that St. Bernard 69 applied the prophecies in the Revelations to the successor of St. Peter.''^ There is no doubt that the words first cited in this note, stand in one of St. Bernard's Ho- milies, but as the Bishop admits that they do not seem to mean that the Pope was Antichrist, it is unnecessary to say any thing on the sub- ject. Here, as elsewhere, St. Bernard's voice is raised with holy and fervent indignation against the corruption of the age, but it is false to insinuate that he called those of whom he spoke, ** ministers of Antichrist," because they were ministers of the Papacy, and it would never have been thought of by any unprejudiced writer." As fairly might we charge a priest of the Church of England with high treason, if, in a torrent of invective, he should tell his pa- •^ Introduction. Serm. ^ii. p. 234. ^ Let the reader judge. " Vae generation! huic a fer- mento Pharisaeorum, quod est hypocrisis ! si tamen hypo- crisis dici debet, quee jam latere prae abundantia non valet, et prae impudentia non quaerit. Serpit hodie putida tabes per omne corpus Ecclesiae et quo latius, eo desperatius ; eoque periculosius, quo interius. Nam si insurgeret apertus ini- micus haereticus absconderet se forsitan ab eo. Nunc vero quem ejiciet aut a quo abscondet se ? Omnes amici, et omnes inimici : omnes necessarii, et omnes adversarii : omnes do- mestici, et nulli pacifici : omnes proximi et omnes quae sua sunt quaerunt. Ministri Christi sunt, et serviunt Anti- christo" 70 rishioners, that they were subjects of the prince of darkness. " Yet," says the Bishop, ** he refers us to II. Thes. ii." No doubt he does ; but not as the Bishop would insinuate, in any way that should connect the Pope or the Pa- pacy with that prediction. He says, indeed, after inveighing against the vices and luxuries, and the corruptions of his "age, that nothing remained but that Antichrist should be revealed to seduce those who were yet abiding in Christ, and standing fast in the simplicity of the gos- pel, if any such were still left : a sufficient proof, if any were wanting, that he did not believe that Antichrist had been already reveal- ed in the Papacy. This, indeed, appears from the next point stated by the Bishop. St. Ber- nard, he says, ** tells us in his ^Q epistle, that he had heard one Norbert, a man of exemplary piety, say, ' that Antichrist would be revealed in that age ! ' Hence it seems probable that some one person or power was in his eye." Undoubtedly one person was in his eye---in conformity with the general opinion of his own and preceding ages, he expected an individual Antichrist, who should raise " a general perse- cution of the church," and this is manifest from this very epistle ; but the Bishop did not quote what relates to this point, feeling, I presume, that it would be rather too much to ask his 71 readers to believe, that St. Bernard actually expected the Pope, or the Papacy, to raise ■ " a general iKrsecut'ion of the church J'^ But the most disgraceful citation is that which follows : " Yet," says the Bishop, (again insidiously connecting things which have no connection whatever) in another epistle he as- serts expressly---" Bestia ilia de Apocalypsi, cui datum est os loquens blasphemias, et hel- ium gerere cum Sanctis Petri ca'thedram occuPAT, tanquam leo paratus ad preedam, Ep. cxxv : which was in other words to call the Pope, Antichrist." These are indeed the words of Bernard ; but it seems impossible to suppose, that Bishop Hurd was ignorant that by the " apocalyptic beast," St. Bernard meant, not the Pope, but, the Antipope ; and by the "saints" with whom he made war, the Pope and his adherents. In fact, that the "leo paratus ad preedam" was Peter Leo who, having usurped the pontifical chair, under the title of Anacletus II, had driven Innocent II. from ^ " Verum de Antichristo cum inquirerera quid sentiret, durante adhuc ea, quae nunc est, generatione revelandum ilium esse se certissime scire protestatus est. At cum eam- dem certitudinem unde haberet, sciscitanti mihi exponere vellet ; audito quod respondit, non me illud pro certo cre- dere debere putavi. Ad summani tamen hoc asseruit, non visurum se mortem, nisi prius videat generalem in Ecclesia persecutionem." Ep. hi. 72 Rome. Against this usurper, Bernard's lan- guage is as unmeasured, as his devotion to the Pope. He calls him the Man of Sin, the Apo- calyptic Beast, and the abomination of desola- tion ; but how does he speak of the Pope, in the very letter quoted by Bishop Hurd ? It is addressed to Geoffrey of Loroux ; its object is simply to stir him up to assist the exiled Pontiff, and he recites with exultation a list of the sovereigns who, with their clergy, and sub- jects, adhered to Pope Innocent '*as child- ren TO THEIR FATHER, AS MEMBERS TO THE HEAD." In short, in the language of Bernard, (and I wish I could suppose the Bishop not to have known it) the Pope is the Lord's Anoint- ed— the Pope is the Christ, and the Anti pope is Antichrist.^ Bishop Hurd might, ^ Tempus faciendi nunc, quia dissipaverunt legem. Bes- tia ilia de Apocalypsi cui datum est os loquens blasphemias, et bellum gerere cum Sanctis, Petri cathedram occupat, tanquam leo paratus ad praedam. Altera quoque bestia" (Gerardus Engolismensis) " juxta vos subsibilat, sicut ca- tulus habitans in abditis. Ilia ferocior, ista callidior, pari- ter convenerunt in unum adversus Dominum, et ad- VERSUS CHRISTUM EJUS. Demus operam cito dirumpere vincula eorum, et projicere a nobis jugum ipsorum. Nos in nostris partibus, una cum aliis Dei servis divino igne accen- sis, Deo cooperante laboravimus in conveniendo populos in unum, et reges ad dirumpendum pravorum consensum, ad destruendam omnem altitudinem extollentem se adversus scientiam Dei. Nee infructuose. Alemanniae, Francise, 73 perhaps think that he was doing God service ; but surely every honest man will look with scorn, and indignation, on such falsehood. Anglia;, Scotije, Hispaniarum, et Jerosolymonlm Reges, cum nniverso Clero et Populis, favent et adhaireut Domino Innocentio tanquam filii patri, tanquam capiti MEMBRA, solliciti servare unitatem spiritus in vinculo pa- cis." Could Bishop Hard have read this letter ? or that which precedes it, and begins " TJt verbis vos propheticis alloquar, ' Consolatio abscondita est in oculLs quia mors di- vidit inter fratres.' Quidam enim juxta Isaiam videntur fcedus percussisse cum morte, et cum inferno fecisse pactum. Ecce namque Christus Domini iste Innocentius positus est in ruinam et in resurrectionem multorum. Nam QUI Dei sunt libenter junguntur ei : qui autem EX ADVERSO STAT AUT AnTICHRISTI EST, AUT AnTI- CHRISTUS. Cernitur abominatio stare in loco sancto, quern ut obtineret incendit ignis sanctuarium Dei. Persequitur Innocentium, et cum eo omnem innocentiam. Fugit ille ni- mirum a facie Leonis &c." — Ep, cxxiv. Again, when Innocent had fled to Pisa, Bernard thus wrote to the inha- bitants ; '* Assumitur Pisa in locum Romje et de cunctis urbibus terrsc ad Apostolicae Sedis culmen eligitur. Nee fortuitu sive huraano contigit istud consilio : sed coelesti pro- videntia, et Dei benigno favore fit, qui diligentes se diliget, qui dixit Christo suo Innocentio, " Pisam inhabita, et ego benedicens benedicam ei." — Ep. cxxx. In his letter to the Bishops of Aquitaine against Gerard of Angouleme, (the person alluded to in the former letter as a second and more crafty beast,) he says of Anacletus, " Quis vero ille, nisi homo peccati, qui super electum a catholicis catho- licum, et canonice, locum sanctum invasit, quem tamen, non quia sanctus, sed quia summus est, afFectavit?" — Ep. cxxvi. Bernard's idea of what the Bishop of Rome was, L 74 I think it must strike those who read Bishop Newton's " deduction of the Line of Witnesses through the entire period of the Dark Ages," as to his office, and ought to be, as to his character, may be gathered from the following address to his own son in the faith Pope Eugenius III. : " Consideres ante omnia Sanc- tam Romanam Ecclesiam, cui Deo auctore preees, ecclesiarum matrem esse, non Dominam : te vero non Dominum Episco- porum, sed unum ex ipsis ; porro fratrem diligentum Deum, et participem timentium eura. De cetero oportere te esse considera formam justitize, sanctimoniae speculum, pietatis exemplar, assertorem veritatis, fidei defensorem, doctorem gentium, Christianorum ducem, amicum sponsi, sponsee pa- ranymphum, cleri ordinatorem, pastorem plebium, magistrum insipientium, refugium oppressorum, pauperum advocatum, miserorum spera, tutorem pupillorum, judicem viduarum, oculum caecorum, linguam mutorum, baculum senum, ulto- rem scelerum, malorum metum, bonorum gloriam, virgam potentium, malleum tyrannorum, regum patrem, legum mo- deratorem, canonum dispensatorem, sal terrce, orbis lumen sacerdotem Altissimi, Vicarium Christi, Christum Domini : postremo Deum Pharaonis." De Consid. I. IV. c. vii. The reader will hardly be persuaded that Ber- nard addressed this to one whom he even suspected of being the Man of Sin ; but (long as this note is) let me do justice to his protestant spirit, by extracting the following address to the same Pontiff: " Hie, hie, non parco tibi, ut parcat Deus. Pastorem te populo huic certe aut nega, aut exhibe. Non negabis : ne cujus sedem tenes, te neget haeredem. Petrus hie est qui nescitur processisse aliquando vel gemmis ornatus, vel sericis ; non tectus auro, non vectus equo albo, nee stipatus milite, nee circumstrepentibus seeptus ministris. Absque his tamen credidit satis posse impleri salutare man- datum, ' Si amas me, pasce oves meas.' In his successisti, 75 as a very remarkable, if not incredible, thing, that the apocalyptic witnesses should have prophesied for ages with the mark of the BEAST on their foreheads. Yet I know not what else to understand. Did the witness Ger- bert pass through his Pontificate without ' the mark of the Beast ? Did the Bishop of Orleans, the Archbishop of Florence, and the Abbots of Flora and Clairvaux, escape the stigma ? If Bernard had not the mark of the' Beast, that mark is not, I think, to be found in prostrate devotion to the Papacy ; yet if protestation against the corruption of the church, and com- parative purity of doctrine, did not constitute him a witness, I know not what man before his time could claim that character. It is indeed serving two masters in a way of which I can form no idea, and seems to me to be joining- together, what God has put asunder, as far as the East from the West. I think the devotion non Petro seel Constantino. Consalo toleranda pro tem- pore, non affectanda pro debito. Ad ea te potuis incite quorum te scio debitorem. Etsi purpuratus, etsi deauratus incedens non est tamen quod horreas operam curamve pasto- ralem, pastoris haeres : non est quod erubescas Evangeliiini. Quanquam si volens evangelizes, inter Apostolos qiiidem etiara gloria est tibi, Evangelizare, paseere est. Fac opus Evangelistze, et pastoris opus iraplesti. Dracones, inquis, me mones paseere, et scorpiones, non oves. Propter hoc, inquam, magis aggredere eos ; sed verbo, non ferko."- - De Consid. lib. iv. c. iii. 76 which our Lord and Master requires, will not permit us to talk of a man's being an accredited witness for Christ, on some points, " though in other respects devoted" to Antichrist. I leave it to others to explain how a man can at once bear on his forehead the mark of the Beast and the Seal of the living God.^ Such, however, are the witnesses adduced ; and I think the reader will agree with Mede, who states, that until the twelfth century, no one suspected that the Pope was Antichrist, and fixes the year 1120 as the beginning of the se- paration of the pious from the church of Rome. •" ^ See Scott's Commentary on Rev. xiv. 1 — 5, where he identifies the hundred and forty and four thousand who were sealed, with the witnesses : and adds from Mr. Faber, " by these hundred and forty-four thousand I understand peculiarly the depressed church in the wilderness, previous to the time of the Reformation : for history sufficiently demon- strates, that there have been in every age some faithful wor- shippers, who consented not to the general apostacy, but who prophesied, although in sackcloth, against its abomi- nations." ^ " Nondum enim Homanum Pontificem esse magnum ilium et KvpnoQ dictum Antichristum vel Florentinus Antis- tes, vel alii suspicati sunt : sed alium triennalem et semes- trem expectabant." And he adds, after speaking of a work said to be written in the year 1120, " Atque hoc fuit seces- sionis piorum a Romana Ecclesia initiura ; neque ante hoc tempus quicquam ex omni christianorum memoria auditum fuisse crediderim de Papatu magno illo et tcvpiwe dicto An- tichristo, neque alium expectandum esse."- — Rev, Ant. 77 He is therefore obliged to suppose, that " the saints" had followed Antichrist nearly seven hundred years without finding it out. During that period I think it must be admitted, that they did not know, that they had been delivered into the hand of the little horn, and that the Pope did not assume that character by making war upon them. Let me not be misunderstood to be the ad- vocate of the Papacy. God forbid that I should deny, or extenuate, its heresies or its crimes ; least of all would I do it, while the mushroom wisdom of " a liberal and enlightened age" is endeavouring to confound all distinctions in reli- t~*>^- gion— when the brayings of operative declaimers echo back the bleatings of higher assemblies, to assure us that Protestants are Papists in all but the name, and that the fathers of our church Works, p. 721, 722. " Mr. Mede supposes, and seems in- deed to have proved, that the true doctrine of Antichrist vras, and was intended to be, a mystery, or secret, till the twelfth century. Whence it follows, that the testimonies hitherto alledged are only passionate or declamatory exag- gerations, or to be esteemed, as he says, pro parabolice et Kar av^rjffiv dictis, declamatorum more. — Works, p. 722, I admit the truth of the observation." Will the reader believe that these are the words of Bishop Hurd ? If he doubts, let him refer to a note, on the very page opposite to that which I have quoted, and understand, if he can, the attempt which is there made to reconcile statements so con- tradictory. 78 died at the stake to maintain a distinction with- out a difference. These are days when all pro- testants, and especially a protestant clergy, are called upon to watch against, and resist, the attacks of their enemies, and the more mis- chievous ignorance of their friends. I know that they cannot do this without the hazard of misconstruction — so liberal indeed has this age become, to all but old-fashioned principles, that if they express their opinion, the clergy may be charged with interested views ; and, even in quarters where it might be expected that high association would at least restrain individual grossness, if it could not give candour, courtesy, or wisdom, they may be told that it is done '* in a way of trade." It is nevertheless to be done by all fair, honest and christian means ; and, at such a time, as a priest of the Church of England, I should be sorry to be thought, for one moment, the advocate of a corrupt church, from which, through God's mercy, we are separated, not merely by name, or political constitution, but by a pure and scriptural faith, Yet, sure I am, that the protestant cause re- quires not error or even false colouring for its support ; and I would not willingly suppose any reader so dishonest, as to wish for the suppres- sion of truth. Surely, even if we should not consider the Papacy either as Antichrist or the little horn, we leave it more curses than its 79 bitterest enemy could desire to see fulfilled. Surely it has blood enough to answer for, if we look only to its transactions since the twelfth century. And in fact, what did the Bishops of Rome do for ages after the period when the saints were delivered into their hands, that could be called makixg war upon them, over- coming, and WEARING THEM OUT ? *' The quiescence of the little horn," after the delivery of the saints into his hand, is treated as a thing not naturally to be supposed, yet so far as I can learn from history, there had been Bishops of Rome for more than a thousand years, before any one of them took upon him to make war upon the saints.' During all this time (if they opposed the progress of his pretensions to su- premacy) the saints never doubted that he was a christian bishop — never withdrew from christ- ian communion with him — never once suspect- ed, that they were sealing their own damnation, by receiving his mark on their foreheads. It appears to me, that the line of argument pursued by Bishop Hurd, in order to prove that Pagan Rome was not Antichrist, is of equal, or even greater force to shew, that the Bishop of Rome is not Antichrist, or the little horn : " now this circumstance," says the Bishop, '' ye will * " The Man of Sin," says Bishop Hurd, " had a co7i- venient time to display himself, and to grow up," &c. p. 230, 80 surely think, not a little remarkable, that they, who lived under the Emperors, and felt the whole weight of their tyrannous persecution, should not apply the prophetic notes and cha- racters of Antichrist, to them, if indeed the pro- phecies had been fairly capable of such appli- cation. This, I say, is exceedingly remark- able : for men are but too apt even to wrest the Scriptures to a sense, which favours their own cause, or gratifies their passions ; and to find a completion of prophecy in events, which fall out in their own days, and concern themselves (as we see from so many absurd applications of the Apocalypse, justly objected to protestant writers ;) though, when such events are passed, and impartially considered, no such accomplish- ment of prophecy can be discerned in them. "When the church of Rome, therefore, now pretends that Antichrist is to be sought in Im- perial and Pagan Rome, ye will naturally ask how it came to pass, that the ancient fathers, who had the best opportunity of seeing the con- formity of the prophecies, and were so much interested in those transactions, should yet over- look such conformity, if it had been real, and fairly marked out by the 'prophecies, when in- terpreters of these days are so quick sighted ? And to this question, no just and satisfactory answer can be given, but that in the opinion of those fathers, the characters of Antichrist were 81 not sufficiently applicable to the Roman Empe- rors ; or if they were, that certain express clauses in the prophecies themselves forbade that application of them. Either way, their conduct forms a strong presumption, that the Antichrist of the prophets, was not, and could not be, the Roman Emperor."'' Bishop Newton, opposing Wetstein, uses a similar argument ; " If this prophecy was ful- fulfilled as these critics conceive, before the destruction of Jerusalem, it is surprising that none of the fathers should agree with any of them in the same application, and that the dis- covery should first be made sixteen or seventeen hundred years after the completion. The fa- thers might differ, and be mistaken in the cir- cumstances of a prophecy which was yet to be fulfilled ; but that a prophecy should be remark- ably accomplished before their time, and they be totally ignorant of it, and speak of the ac- complishment as still future, is not very credi- ble, and will always be a strong presumptive argument against any such interpretation."' If the Pope did not for so many ages per- form the part assigned to the little horn, it may well lead us to suspect, that he was not the person prefigured by that symbol ; if he did, it '' Introduction, p. 222. ' Diss. XXII. vol. II. p. 389. M 82 is strange indeed, that those " who had the best opportunity of seeing the conformity of the pro- phecies, and were so much interested in those transactions, should yet overlook such confor- mity, if it had been real and fairly marked out by the prophecies." But, explaining as we may, the ignorance of former ages, what is the state of things now ? Here is the church of Christ, after writhing a millenium under the tyranny of the blasphemer, asking when came I into his hands? Am I there now ? It is strange indeed, that she should need to ask these questions ; but it is stranger still, that her most enlightened guides should not agree in an answer. Surely this is not a subordinate matter ; and surely it is not a trifling discrepancy, when Mede and Bishop Newton (to say nothing of the living) differ almost three centuries. Widely as I disagree, on some points, with the writer of an article in the Theological Review, which has fallen into my hands since most of these pages were writ- ten, I entirely concur with him when, speaking of the Apocalyse, he says, " The mine has not yet been laid open, and no man must feel him- self entitled to say, that it shall have been opened by himself, but on the evidence of some- thing more authentic than his own belief of his success. The prophecy was given, as all pro- phecies, for the honour of God, and the enlight- 83 ening of man. To say that it is incapable of clear and convincing interpretation ; is to say, what we cannot under any shape admit, that the design of God has been frustrated. But as its purpose was to produce conviction, it must be laid down as a first principle with the inter- preter, that GENERAL CONVICTION IS THE ONLY TEST. The individual or his party may be satisfied, but this is nothing, without the satisfaction of that various multitude, whose verdict is beyond partiality or passion, and for whose wisdom, encouragement, and advance in the faith, all revelation was given."'" This " general conviction" (thanks be to God,) we have in some cases. We can, and we do, look to fulfilled prophecy as a bulwark of our faith. After the prophet had said, " Be- hold a virgin shall conceive and bear a child," ages rolled on ; and while it was still future, we know not how much, or by how many, it was understood : but we know, that when " the fulness of the time was come," and the predic tion was accomplished, the church of God was not suffered to remain in darkness— -she was not left to wander up and down, asking *' Is this He that should come, or look v/e for ano- ther?" No— from the day of Simeon to this hour, her joyful acclamation hath been, '' Unto "" No. VII. p. 120. 84 us a child is born, unto us a son is given"---her steady eye has never turned from the bright star of hope and promise that first led her to Beth- lehem—her unwavering faith has been, that he was despised and rejected of men, and that they hid as it were their faces from him ; her well authenticated records attest, as matters of history, how all they that saw him laughed him to scorn-— that they pierced his hands and his feet— that they parted his garments among them, and on his vesture they cast lots— that they gave him vinegar to drink. His disciples know well, when, and how, he was numbered with transgressors, and how his grave was made with the wicked and with the rich in his death. But there is no need to argue this matter--- we point the infidel to the captive Jew, and the wandering Arab ; but who challenges him with the slain witnesses ? We set before him the predicted triumphs of Cyrus ; but do we expect his conversion from the French Revolution and the conquests of Napoleon ? We send him to muse on the ruined city of David, and to search for the desolate scite of Babylon ; but who builds his argument on the opened seals of the Apocalypse ? And why is this ? I do not speak hastily, and I would not speak uncharitably— but I cannot suppress my conviction, that it is because the necessity of filling up a period of 12G0 years, has led to such forced interpretation 85 of language, and to such a constrained acqui- escence in what is unsatisfactory to sound judg- ment, that we should be afraid not only of incurring his ridicule, but of his claiming the same licence, which we have ourselves been obliged to assume. I firmly believe that the error lies, in adopting an interpretation, which requires us to spread the events predicted re- specting three years and a half, over more than twelve centuries ; and which thus sends us to search the page of history for the accomplish- ment of prophecies still unfulfilled. The im- portance of rectifying such an error, if it exists, will be admitted by all ; and the question of its existence, is that which I wish to see in- vestigated. I therefore beg the reader, whom I would willingly suppose to prefer truth to system, to examine the prophecies in question ; endeavouring, for the time, to forget whatever he may know of the various interpretations which have been offered : and may He, who is the Author and Giver of every good and perfect gift, grant to him, and to myself, by his grace and his Spirit, a right judgment to understand, and a true faith to believe, whatever he has seen fit to reveal in his most holy word ! HOUGH & PACE, GLOUCESTER. SECOND ENQUIRY THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE PROPHETIC PERIOD JBaniel unta St Joftn, SUPPOSED TO CONSIST OF 1260 YEARS, CONTAINING AN EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS OF MEDE REMARKS ON A PASSAGE IN THE DIALOGUES ON PROPHECy, — ON VARIOUS REVIEWS OF THE FIRST ENQUIRY, AND ON THE COMMON INTERPRETATION OF THE SEVEN HEADS OF THE BEAST. S. R. MAITLAND. LONDON : C. AND J. RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH-YARD, AND - WATERLOO-PLACE; STRONG, BRISTOL AND EXETER; JEW, GLOUCESTER. 1829. PREFACE, This second Enquiry is intended to meet some observations which have been made on the first; and I have adopted the arrangement in which its several parts will be found, for rea- sons which I will briefly state. The Examina- tion of Mede's Arguments has been placed first, because it will make the reader who is not fa- miliar with the subject, acquainted with the " reasons" which that writer considered as " clearly demonstrating" that the 1260 days are not to be understood as literal days — the passage in the Dialogues on Prophecy con- tains, I believe, no new argument ; but consists chiefly of a collection of authorities in support of the mystical interpretation — in the Remarks on the Review in the Christian Observer, I have endeavoured to meet some arguments IV PREFACE. which the Reviewer considers as having been hitherto inadequately noticed — in those on a Review in the Christian Examiner, I have merely attempted to clear myself from what has appeared to the Reviewer to be a culpable omission in my former Enquiry — these are fol- lowed by some Remarks on a Review in the Christian Guardian, in which, on the suggestion of the Reviewer, I have stated, as briefly as I could, some considerations which appear to me to furnish direct* evidence against the mystical interpretation — to these are added some ob- servations on the common interpretation of the seven heads of the Beast, which are intended as a specimen of the more detailed examination to which it is proposed to submit the various parts of the system. In this, as well as in my former. Enquiry, I have endeavoured to keep to the single question which I proposed — namely, whether the 1260 days are literal days, or years — and when, in pur- suance of this object, I have noticed the inter- '^ I observe that in the section referred to I have called it "positive evidence — I beg the reader to understand that I only used the word as opposed to negative. PREFACE. V pretation of any particular part of the prophecy, I have (except where the avowed object was to exhibit their discrepancy) selected those parts in which there is the most agreement among expositors ; my design being not so much to impugn the system of any particular writer on the 1260 years, as to investigate that one point, which is the common foundation of all. On this account, I have been prevented from taking specific notice of the " Reply, by a Member of " the Church of England ;" I say this, merely that I may not appear to pass it over in disre- spectful silence ; and I think it will be obvious to every reader that the principles of interpre- tation for which the author contends, may be either adopted, or rejected, without deciding, or very materially affecting, that one single point, which it is my present object to discuss. For the same reason, I have had no opportu- nity of offering any acknowledgment to one or two Reviews, to which I have made no refer- ence ; but whose favourable notice of my for- mer pamphlet has encouraged me in this un- dertaking. At the time when my Enquiry was published, VI PREFACE. I was not aware that the literal interpretation of the 1260 days had been maintained in a work recently published.'' I mention this, not only that I may offer my thanks to the author, for that and for other works on the subject, for which I am indebted to his kindness; but be- cause, in some parts, the line of argument is so similar to that which I have myself followed, that the readers of that work might reasonably think me guilty of having borrowed from it without acknowledgment. '' " Hints humbly submitted to Commentators ; and more *' especially to those who have written elaborate Disserta- " tions on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation of " St. John: by William Witherby," London, 1821. The same view had been previously maintained in " A Review " of Scripture, in testimony of the truth of the second Ad- " vent, the first Resurrection, and the Millennium, &c. by " a Layman" — London, 1818 — a work containing many suggestions which I believe to be original, and which cer- tainly well deserve the consideration of the writers on prophecy. CONTENTS. Page Examination of the Arguments of Mede 1 Remarks on a Passage in the Dialogues on Prophecy, 33 on a Review in the Christian Observer 47 on a Review in the Christian Examiner .... 69 ' on a Review in the Christian Guardian 73 Note on Bishop Newton 137 Remarks on the common interpretation of the seven heads of the Beast 147 ERRATA. P. 12, 1. 6, for "his" read « is." — 37,-11, — "Venema" — « Venema." — 113, — 5 from bottom, — " xviii." — " xvii." A SECOND ENQUIRY, &c. Since the publication of my '«- Enquiry" I have been asked, by more than one of my cle- rical brethren, whether I had duly considered the arguments of Mede in support of the mys- tical interpretation of the 1260 days? As his name has, and ought to have, great weight with all who are acquainted with his character, and writings ; and as the question seems to imply that his argument is either fuller, or more forcibly stated, than Mr. Faber's, I have thought it right to give it a fresh, and more particular examination. Mr. Irving, indeed, in his preliminary dis- course to the work of Lacunza, has said (p. xxix.) " Now I am not ignorant that there are amongst *' ourselves men who doubt and disbelieve the " interpretation which almost all Protestants *' give to this period, as containing a term of *' 1260 years ; and that of late a pamphlet has " been written by a very worthy clergyman of •' the Church of England to this effect: but really ^ EXAMINATION OF " I have thought this matter so completely set at " rest by Mede, and Henry More, and the " common consent of those who have written " since, as not to need any demonstration. And " it is manifest that, if in emblematical visions,* " such as those of Daniel and the Apocalypse, " you will interpret the periods literally, you *' may as well interpret the other parts literally, " and insist upon literal beasts of the character *' there set forth, and a literal throne, and so of " the rest, which no one will be so foolish as to ** require." I may be ''foolish" (for such is the misfor- tune of many "very worthy" persons) but I must avow that I do '' interpret the other parts " literally, and insist upon literal beasts of the " character there set forth, and a literal throne, " and so of the rest ;" and, as far as I can find, most commentators (with Mr. Irving himself I suspect) do the same. Thus when Daniel says * Strictly speaking the period does not occur in an " em- blematical vision," but in the explanation or interpretation of one; and I do not see why times may not be years in this vision, as much as in the vision of the Tree which Nebuchadnezzar saw. Was not that an emblematical vision ? and were not those of Pharoah's Butler and Baker, and of Pharoah himself, "emblematical visions?" yet the periods were literal ; that is, the days were literal days, though emblematically represented by vine branches and baskets, and the years were literal years, though symbolized by kino. MEDE S ARGUMENTS. 3 he saw ** a goat," I understand the word to mean that '' literal beast," and nothing else; for who pretends that the prophet meant to express, by that word, more or less than what it implies in its literal and obvious sense? I know that the goat which Daniel saw was a type or emblem of the King of Grecia ; but no- body (I believe) understands that he saw, or appeared to see, more or less than a " literal beast." Mr. Irving seems to me to argue as he might have done if it were ascertained from some other source of information, that in his vision Daniel had actually seen the King of Grecia, and then had described that vision by saying that he saw " a goat." This would cer- tainly be using the word goat mystically, and we should be obliged to confess, that he did not mean a " literal beast." Undoubtedly the beasts which Daniel saw were emblematical, but nothing can be more literal than the language in which he has described them ; let it only be admitted (and I cannot conceive why it should not) that by the word day he means day, as much as by the word goat, he means goat, and all farther argument on my part would be need- less. I am not aware that his description of the beasts contains any one Jigurative expression, except we so consider that which relates to the hojm plucked up by the roots; and, his having described emblematical things, in plain tvords. 4 EXAMINATION OF gives no colour for maintaining that in another place he made such an unwonted and mystical use of a word, as that we ought to translate it by another word. Every body I believe agrees that he saw literal beasts which were emblema- tical of other things, and stated to be so. No- body, as far as I know, has suggested that he spoke of a certain 1260 days which were to symbolize a certain 1260 years. In short we are here called upon to substitute the word year in the text for day; is there any other part of the book of Daniel in which we could take the liberty to substitute the name of the thing sym- bolized, for the word which the prophet uses, without falsifying his meaning ?• — when Daniel says "four great beasts came up from the sea'' it would be absurd, and would not convey his meaning, if we were to read " four great em- pi7xs arose on the earth,'' although those beasts were symbolical of four Empires; and this is just because his language is literal, while he speaks of things that were emblematical. Mr. Irving however goes on to say, " And " why require it in one part and not in another? " The word time, rather than year; and times " rather than two years ; and the dividing of " time rather than half a year ; were evidence ** to me that there was a mystery under it : " but '' The reader may find some remarks on this point in the reply to the Review in the Christian Observer. MEDE S ARGUMENTS. " when I find it in the midst of an emblematical " vision " [allow me to add — in the midst of plain language, the words of which are by the common consent of interpreters taken in their obvious and literal sense] " I can have no doubt " thereof, according to all rules and canons of " interpretation." With regard to the question, " Why require " it in one part and not in another?" I think I have answered it for myself, by shewing that I do require words to be taken according to their obvious meaning as it regards the beasts, as much as I do with regard to the periods; but the in- consistency seems to me to lie on the other side; for as far as I know, except on the one point of the periods, Mr. Irving himself would ao-ree with me in taking the words of Daniel according to their obvious meaning. — If he con- sidered the word " time" instead of " year" in Chap. V. as '' evidence that there was a mys- " tery under it," why did he not view it in the same light in Chap. IV. ; and maintain that the years of Nebuchadnezzar's banishment were mystical ? To be sure there would have been some difficulty in persuading his readers that the King of Babylon was exiled for 2520 years ; and yet I think Mr. Irving would hardly have liked to explain the matter as some have done. I cannot help wishing however that, instead of confining his reference to two writers whose b EXAMITsTATION OF arguments I had not quoted, and whose works the greater part of his readers have probably never seen, he had taken some notice of the writer whose arguments I did give at full length, and whose works are much more popu- lar, and accessible to general readers. It is needless to say that on this occasion I think Mr. Faber the advocate of a bad cause ; but that he is an able, and intrepid advocate, the world needs not be told. It is pretty cer- tain that he was not ignorant of what Mede, and Henry More, and his other predecessors had said upon the subject; and I really thought that in taking the argument as stated by him, I was meeting it in it's strongest form ; and that by printing it at full length in his own words, I was doing it all the justice in my power. It was natural to suppose that a person of Mr. Faber's ability and practice, as a controversial writer, would state the argument to the best advantage, and indeed I think he has done so ; but as the name of Mede stands so high, and he has been mentioned by others beside Mr. Irving, I shall be obliged to any reader who will go with me through his arguments, and a few remarks upon them. As to the argu- ments of Henry More, I must say that I do not think them worth a particular examination. It appears to me that whatever they contain, which is not found in the argument as stated MEDE S AlUiUMENTS. by Mede, or Faber, is so plainly irrelevant, or false, or absurd, as to require no confutation. I will therefore lay before the reader the ar- gument of Mede, with some observations in reply to it, and will adopt the method which I before pursued with regard to the argument of Mr. Faber — that is, I will set down the whole, replying to each part separately. " Five Reasons, ^' Clearly demonstrating; that the anti-christian or apos- " tatical times are more than three single years and a " half." " I. Because impossible so many things, and of such " quality, as are to be performed in this time, should " be done in three single years and an half — as " 1. Ten kingdoms, founded at the sarfie hour with " the beast. (Ch. xvii.) " 2. Peoples and multitudes of nations and tongues " to serve and obey him. (Ch. xiii.) •' 3. To make war with the saints, and overcome " them. (Ibid.) " 4. To cause all that dwell upon the earth to wor- " ship him. *' 5. Babylon to ride the beast so long, that all " nations shall drink the wine of her fornication, " all kings of the earth commit fornication with " her. (Ch. xvii. and xviii.) '• G. The merchants and all those that had ships in " the sea to grow rich by trading with her. (Ch. " xviii.) These things should ask more than three " years work, or four either." 8 EXAMINATION OF In this first reason there are six things men- tioned; and the whole objection rests upon the IMPOSSIBILITY of their being performed in three years and a half. To speak of each separately. " 1. Ten kingdoms founded at the same hour with the beast." Why is it impossible that ten kingdoms should be founded in three years and a half? Surely it is not unreasonable to ask for something more than dogmatical asser- tion. If it be said that it is very improbable, I reply, that this has nothing to do with the ques- tion ; and that those who use great words should be prepared to stand by them. It does indeed make all the diiference in the world, whether the thing can be shewn to be impossible, or whe- ther it is only, in the judgment of mankind, improbable. But I am perfectly ready to meet the objection with this qualification; which, I suppose, it absolutely requires. Is it more irn- probable than events which have already occur- red in fulfilment of prophecy ? And are we to make our judgment of probability the test by which prophecy is to be tried, and the rule by which it is to be interpreted? It will be re- membered, that this argument rests entirely on the impossibility (I am willing to qualify it into improbability) of performance ; and I ask, is it more improbable that ten kingdoms should be founded in three years and a half, than that a MEDE S ARGUMENTS. 9 virgin should conceive and bear a child? Is it more improbable than that the world should be drowned by a flood, that Babylon and Nineveh should be blotted out, or that no stone should remain on another in Jerusalem ? I apprehend that it would be quite absurd to compare the probability of any one of these things, by which the prophecies of scripture have been literally fulfilled, with the probability that ten kingdoms may be founded in the course of three years and a half? What did Napoleon do in one year and a half? I will state it in Mr. Frere's words. "The first *' day of the new year 1806 was distinguished " in Germany by an event not a little singular; " viz. the coronation of the Electors of Wirtem- " berg and Bavaria, as Kings; which dignity " was further amplified by a considerable in- " crease of territory, at the expence of the un- " fortunate house of Austria. Again, on the 15th " of March, of the same year, Murat was invested " with the Duchies oiBev^, and Cleves. * * * * * " In the same year Holland was made a Kingdom, " and Louis Buonaparte, a younger brother of " Napoleon, was placed upon the throne. In *' this year Saxony also was erected into a Kino-- "d om. ¥/e again read that, on the 31st of *' March, 1806, Buonaparte submitted to the *' Senate a variety of decrees for it's approba- " tion : by one of them he conferred the King- c 10 EXAMINATION OF " dom of Naples on his brother Joseph: by ** another he gave to Berthier the Principaliti/ " of Neufchatel, and by another he created a " number of Duchies, with suitable revenues, ** in Italy, to be distributed among the civil " and military officers. * * * * The erection "of the Duchy of Benevento into a fief of the " French Empire, in favour of Talleyrand, with " the title of Prince and Duke of Benevento, " and the grant of the Duchy of Ponte Corvo to " Marshal Bernadotte, by a similar tenure, fol- ** lowed some months after the preceding esta- *' blishments. From his Imperial Camp at " Finkenstein, on the other side of the Vistula^ ** Buonaparte wrote, on the 28th May, 1807, to '' the Conservative Senate, that he had instituted *' Duchies as rewards for eminent services done " him, whether military, or civil; and that in " pursuance of this system of encouragement *' he had created, by letters patent, the Mar- " shal Le Febvre Hereditary Duke of Dant- " zig, ^cr' Surely no person who believes that these facts actually occurred in less than one year and a half, can doubt that a prophecy, predicting the formation of ten kingdoms, may be literally fulfilled in three years and a half. I have argued thus, because I think Mr. '^ Combined View, p. 460. mede's arguments. 11 Mede's objection altogether without weight, even on his own principles : but I will not dis- semble my conviction, that the passage in ques- tion does not speak of the establislwient of King- doms at all. It stands thus : " The ten horns " which thou sawest are ten Kings, which ** have received no Kingdom as yet; but re- ** ceive power as Kings one hour with the ** Beast." ^ It is certainly convenient for those who maintain the doctrine of 1260 years, to turn the Kings into Kmgdoms, though I do not know by what rule of interpretation that is to be effected. I may perhaps have occasion to speak again of this passage in the course of this Enquiry, and in the mean time I will only say, that I believe it to refer to individual Kings; and the assumption of regal power by an indi- vidual, or his investment by a superior, is not necessarily, or even probably, a work of much time. ** 2. Peoples and multitudes of nations and tongues to *' serve and obey him. (Ch. xiii.)" From the character given of the Beast and the predicted state of the world, it does not seem to me improbable (much less would I dare to say impossible) that, in three years and a half, such a power as is described might attain so great a sovereignty. He is a being so ex- "* Rev. xvii. 12. 12 KXAMIXATIOX OF traordinary that it is quite absurd to judge of him by common rules. We read ^Rev. xiii. 2) that " the Dragon gave him his power, and his " seat, and great authority" — that " power was '* given him over all kindreds and tongues and ** nations" — that he his accompanied by another being who " causeth the earth, and them that " dwell therein to worship" him, and *' doetli *' great wonders, so that he maketh fire come *' down from heaven on earth in the sight of ** men, and deceiveth them that dwell on the *' earth by the means of those miracles which ** he hath power to do in the sight of the first ** beast" (v. 12, 13.) Surely it would be a waste of words to argue on the possibility that two beings so singularly constituted, and en- dowed, may rapidly deceive those who are estranged from the faith of Christ, and upon Avhom God hath sent " strong delusion that " they should believe a lie."* " 3. To make war with the saints, and overcome them. " (Ch. xiii.)" " 4. To cause all that dwell upon the earth to worship " him. (Ch. xiii.)" What has been already said seems equally applicable to these points. " 5. Babylon to ride the Beast so long that all nations " shall drink the wine of her fornication, all Kings of " the Earth commit fornication with her. (Ch. xxvii. " 28.)" " II. Thess. ii. 1. MEDE S ARGUMENTS. 13 In oi-der to make this objection of any weight whatever, it will be necessary to shew, 1st, that the woman arrayed in purple sits upon the Beast only under his last head, or during the 1260 days; and, 2dly, that her adulterous in- tercourse with the Kings of the Earth is carried on only during the same period. I apprehend it will be no easy matter to prove these points, and unless they are proved, the objection falls to the ground. " 6. The merchants, and all those that had ships in the " sea, to grow rich by trading with her Teh. xviii.) ; " these things should ask more than three years work, " or four either." Much the same may be said on this point. I do not know where it is even hinted, that the traffic of the Merchants with Babylon, takes place only during the 1260 days, or during any particular period. I find no mention of the Merchants except in ch. xviii. 11—19; and, for anything that appears in that account of them, their traffic may have been carried on during the whole period of Babylon's existence. " II. Because that King, state of gorernment, sovereign- " ty, seignory (or what you will) of the Beast, under " which the whore should ride him, followeth immedi- " ately upon a former, which, in comparison, is said to " continue but a short space. Rev. xvii. 10. But if ** the antichristian state shall continue but three years 14 EXAMINATION OF " and a half literally taken, how short must the time " of that foregoing- King or sovereignty be, which ** should occasion the Holy Ghost to insert so singular " a note of the difference thereof from that which fol- " loweth that it should continue but a short space ? " Doth not this imply, that the next state wherein the " whore should ride the beast, was to continue a long *' space?" I should really think it sufficient to answer, that I do not at all see how this is implied; and I do not think an unbiasssed reader would ever have dreamed of such a thing. I am at a loss to conceive what right Mr. Mede has to say, that the statement of the brief duration of the seventh head, is a " note of the difference there- " of from that which followethS' The words are, *' There are seven Kings ; five are fallen; and ** one is, and the other is not yet come; and *' when he cometh he must continue a short " space, and the beast that was and is not, even " he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth " into perdition." How does this imply that the eighth head is to endure for a long space? Surely, if we consider the word " short" as re- lative at all, it is much more natural to refer it to the sixth head, whose duration will have be- come a past and ascertained period before the seventh head arises. To me however it appears that it is a simple statement of the brief dura- tion of the seventh head, without reference to any other. MEDE S ARGUMENTS. 15 " III. Because if the 1260 days of the witnesses (which " begin and end with the time of Antichrist) be lite- " rally taken, then must their three days and an half, " wherein they lie slain by the beast, (ch. xi. i)) be so " taken also. But how is it possible the nations, and " people of the Earth, should make feasts, send gifts " and presents one unto another, in three days and an " half. How should the half day be a competent time " to distinguish or limit any of the actions there men- " tioned ? If the Holy Ghost had meant nothing but " days, would he have been so precise for half a day ?" It is not my intention to repeat in this place what I have said in reply to this argument (which is stated by Mr. Faber with quite as much force and more fairness) in my former Enquiry.^ On this statement of the argument, however, I would remark, that it is not said that " the nations and people of the Earth shall *' make feasts, send gifts and presents one unto "another." It is merely said, "they that " dwell upon the Earth;" an expression which Mr. Faber limits to the papists of the Roman Empire;^ and I know of no reason for the alter- ^ P. 26. '^ " To adopt the laDguage of prophecy, they that dwell " upon the Roman earth, the papists of the various tongues, " and nations, into which the Great City had been divided " by the incursions of the Goths, rejoiced over the two " prophets that tormented them by their troublesome admo- " nitions, and made merry and sent gifts one to another." — Vol. II. p. 84. I should like to see a fuller account of these popish rejoicings than I have ever yet met with. 16 ' EXAMINATION OF ation, which I could attribute to Mede, because according to his system, "the people and kin- " dreds and tongues and nations," mentioned in the preceding verse, are the friends of the wit- nesses, while these dwellers upon the Earth are their enemies. But in my former Enquiry I made no allusion to this limitation, or to the still greater one which is made by translating OL KaToiKHVTtq ETTL Tr}Q yjj? " thoso who dwell on the " land,'' because I wish to meet the argument in its strongest form, and am convinced that it has no force even if we construe the phrase, " they "that dwell on the earth," in the utmost latitude that any reasonable man can require. Will the reader do me the favour, or perhaps I may say the justice, to imagine that, in some way or other, the whole human race^ had been tormented by two prophets during three years and a half — that these prophets had power to shut heaven that it should not rain — to turn water into blood— and to smite the earth with ALL plagues so often as they would — that, dreadful as their inflictions were, there seemed '" This iniraense latitude is never insisted upon except to iDaintatn the mystical interpretation of the days ; and is utterly inconsistent with all those systems which suppose the witnesses to have been already slain. Which of the events that have been supposed to fulfil that prediction was kiwini, and rejoiced in, by one twentieth part of the dwell- ers on the earth ? MEDE S AUGl^MENTS. 17 to be no hope of their destruction, because fire proceeded out of their mouths, and devoured their enemies ; killing infallibly all who attempt- ed to hurt them — that, after appearing thus ter- rible and invincible to a world groaning beneath the torment for three years and a half, they should actually be slain in the street, or broad place, of a great city, by some person, or pow- er, after v/hom alt the world is wondering, (ch. xvii. 8,) and in the presence of some out of the various people and kindreds and tongues and nations of the world. Let the reader, I say, imagine this case, (and I believe nothing is sup- posed but what he will find distinctly stated in Rev. xi. 5 — 10,) and I will ask him, how long he thinks it would be before the news of such an astonishing event would issue from the great city, and spread through a world groaning in hopeless misery under plagues like those of Egypt? — how far would it have spread in three days and a half? and how could the equally surprising, and perhaps more incredible, intel- ligence of their unexpected revival, be circu- lated with such rapidity, as to prevent a general rejoicing, fully sufficient to answer the state- ment, that those that dwelt upon the earth re- joiced over them, and made merry and sent gifts one to another. Mr. Mede however adds, *'How should the " half day be a competent time to distinguish 18 EXAMINATION OF *' or limit any of the actions there mentioned?" Now, to speak freely, this question seems to me to be not only unmeaning, but unfair; and, in a writer of less respectability, I should look upon it as a trap for unsuspecting readers. Strictly speaking, there is no half day men- tioned, but only a continuous period of three days and a half. If I may be allowed so fami- liar an illustration, it is as unfair to say, "what can be done in half a day?" as it would be to say of any man, "what can he buy for six- pence?" when in fact he has received three shillings and sixpence; a sum for which we have no name, and of which we cannot speak without mentioning the odd half shilling. But even if the half day is mentioned, is it pretend- ed that it does "distinguish or limit any of the actions there mentioned ? " I do not see that any action is assigned to the half day; or that any action is assigned to the whole three days and a half, except that the bodies of the wit- nesses should lie publicly exposed to attest the reality of their death, while the news of that event should be circulated. As to the question, "If the Holy Ghost had " meant nothing but days, would he have been " so precise for half a day?" I wish to say no- thing; and I believe my argument will not suffer materially if I pass it over without ex- pressing the feelings which it excites. mede's arguments. 19 IV. " Because six of the trumpets, and the things which " they bring, by necessity of conteniporatioii, are in- " eluded in the compass of the Antichristian time. " Two whereof, by the express times mentioned in " them, (in the fifth of five months, ch. ix. 5, and in •' the sixth of thirteen, ch. ix. 15,) take up a year and " an half, that is near half the time ; which, though " far too little (if literally taken) for the great things " prophecied in them, yet what time will they leave •' for the four other trumpets, and for the seven vials " which also are poured out upon the beast, and afore " his times are finished? What time alone will the " sixth vial require for preparing the way of the Kings " of the East, for the frogs to go forth unto the Kings " of the Earth, and of the whole world, to gather them " to the battle of that great day of God Almighty, &c." It is obvious that the strength of this objec- tion lies in the assumption, that Mede is right in his interpretation of other parts of the pro- phecy ; and it happens unfortunately, that the very point on which he insists is opposed by many (I believe I may say most) other commen- tators. This "necessity of contemporation" is denied by the systems of Bishop Newton, Mr. Faber, Dr. Hales, Messrs. Lowman, Cunning- hame, and I believe many others. Perhaps, therefore, I need say little about it. The case is the same with the sixth trumpet, which Mede states must occupy thirteen months, by the " express times mentioned" in it. This is de- nied by Mr. Faber, who states that the time referred to was t\iejirst hour of the 29th day of 20 EXAMINATION OF May, A.D. 1453, and adds in a note, "There ' is a question respecting the day, the hour, ' the month and the year, whether they denote ' a certain season of continuance, or an appointed ' epoch of action. Mr. Mede, Mr. Brightman, ' Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Mr. Fle- ' ming, and other expositors, adopt the former ' opinion ; Archdeacon Woodhouse, on the con- * trary, asserts that ' the original language will ' not admit of this construction,'' and therefore ' rejects it altogether. (Apoc. Tran. p. 260, ' 262, 273.) Whether his assertion be perfectly ' well founded, or not, I think him right in re- ' jecting the idea that a season of continuance is ' intended."' But even supposing that Archdeacon Wood- house is wrong, and Mede is right, (for my present business is to answer what he has said respecting the 1260 days, and therefore, for the sake of argument, I would admit as much as possible of his interpretation,) I do not see why * Vol. II. p. 41. This was written before the publicatiou of Mr. Faber's Sacred Calendar of Prophecy. In that work, Mr. Faber reverts to what I believe was his original opinion, that a season of continuance is intended. He now makes it begin 9th of June, 1301, and end the 9th Sept. 1697. This is done by virtue of a sort of prophetic year, different from those of which the period of 1260 years is supposed to consist. They are supposed to contain 360 days each, but these 365|.— Sac. Cal. of Proph. II. 430. mede's arguments. 21 it is more absurd to suppose that any given trumpet should occupy thirteen months, or 391 days, out of 1260 clays; than to suppose, as he does, that it occupies 396 years out of 1260 years. The proportion is much the same. The whole argument, however, amounts but to this : — If Mede has rightly interpreted the trumpets, they will take up more than three years and a half — but what if his interpretation should be wrong ? That he is mistaken in some material points, the commentators whom I have mentioned, agree; and I must freely say, that his explanation of the trumpets, and every other which I have seen, is so entirely unsatisfactory to my own mind, that I know not how to argue upon the length of time required for their dura- tion. When it is asked, "What time alone will the " sixth vial require for preparing the way of the " Kings of the East, &c." I must needs say, that if the enquirer expects a rational answer to this question, he ought to be able to give, or should have some reason to expect from those whom he asks, some better information respect- ing the Kings of the East, the length of the way, the nature of the preparation, the means and instruments to be used in that preparation, than any man living pretends to possess. How, too, can any man pretend to specify the length of time which it must take the frogs to execute 22 EXAMINATION OF their commission, when he is expressly told that " they are spirits of devils, working mira- cles?" Surely such speculations as these ought not to weigh one atom, against the plain letter of Scripture. V. " Lastly, from the event. If Antichrist's times last " no longer than is supposed, then, either they are " passed long ago, or that sixth Roman Head, which " in St. John's time was, is still in being. But that " cannot be, when neither Greek nor Latin Ciesar are " now remaining. If any say the Latin Caesar still " remains in the German Empire, as that which " succeeded unto it, I demand what succession can " that be, where was near 350 years interruption, a " longer time than some famous monarchies have had " for their whole continuance. If the Ctesarean state '* may revive and continue the same after so many " years interregnum, how shall we ever know when it " is dead for adoe, and the time come that Antichrist " should be looked for? Besides, if the times of Anti- " christ be so short, and therefore yet to come (as they " must be unless they be longer), then are we yet " under the times of the Red Dragon, and all the " Trumpets yet to come. Let it be shewn how this " can be, if it appear we are not under these times of " the Dragon, then none of the Revelation is yet " fulfilled." This is another instance in which the whole force of the argument lies in the assumption, that the author is right in other parts of his system. Whether the sixth head had or had not fallen in his time, I am sure I cannot tell — M K I) E ' S A R C; LI M E N T S . 23 but Mr. Faber absolutely contradicts the sup- position ; and matter in dispute between such writers forms but a bad foundation for an argu- ment. Mr. Faber says, " From the commence- " ment of the reign of Augustus, down to the '* memorable year 1806, a period which com- '' prises a longer term than even eighteen cen- *' turies, the world has never been without an " Emperor of the Romans ; but in that year, '* for the first time, this ancient title disappear- " ed from off the face of the earth, and we may '' now say, in the language of prophecy, six *' Roman Heads are fallen." '' It is really curious (especially considering Mr. Faber's strong language respecting the concurrence of expositors) to see two such writers, as himself and Mr. Mede, disputing whether, during whole centuries, there were any such things as Roman Emperors in exist- ence. With regard to the second jiart of this objec- tion, in which Mr. Mede argues, that if the 1260 days are taken literally, the period of Antichrist must be future, and therefore we must be "yet " Vol. III. p. 21. Ill this new work Mr. Faber has altered his scheme of the heads, and making the first head go to sleep at the expulsion of Tarquin, supposes it to have revived in Augustus, and to have continued alive and awake until the year 1806. This of course makes no differ- ence as to the point for which his opinion is here quoted. 24 EXAMINATION OF " under the times of the Red Dragon," I answer at once — that I believe the period of Antichrist is still future; and whatever may be thought of this opinion, it is matter of pure amazement to me hov/ any man can doubt that we are "under the times of the Red Dragon." Is it not plainly declared that the Dragon is Satan himself? What meaning is there in language, or how are we to expect assurance from a written revela- tion, if we can make the Dragon any thing but the great enemy of man, while we read, " The *' great Dragon was cast out, that old Serpent, " called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth " the whole world." (Rev. xii. 9.) No doubt we are under his times, and the " accuser of the " brethren" is not yet cast down. Should this lead, as Mr. Mede intimates, to the supposition that the trumpets are still future, I cannot help it. It is not my business to defend his system; and the fact that the great Red Dragon is the Devil, seems to me so clearly revealed, that I should think it would raise a doubt in the mind of any reasonable person, as to the soundness of any system of interpretation incompatible with it. I do believe that the trumpets are all still future, and (as I have already said) all the interpretations which I have seen describing their fulfilment, appear to me so forced and unsatisfactory, as strongly to confirm this opinion. mede's arguments. 25 Having thus gone through the five arguments, I proceed to notice an objection which Mr. Mede has appended to them. " Objection. But what example elsewhere in Scripture " of days signifying years? " Answer. Daniel's seventy weeks. But you will say " the etymology of the Hebrew word ruty is as ap- " plicable to sevens of years as sevens of days, and " therefore this instance proves not. I answer, the " question lies not in the etymology but the use, " wherein i;niy always signifies sevens of days, and " never sevens of years: wheresoever it is absolutely " put it means of days, is no where used of years. " Objection. But in the tenth of Daniel we find, as it " were for distinction's sake, weeks of days; which " intimates there are weeks of years, which the use of " the word might indift'erently signify. "Answer. It is ill translated; the Vulgar is better. " which hath days of weeks — * Lugebam trium Heb- " domadarum diebus,' meaning that Daniel fasted and " did eat no meat in the day time for three weeks to- " gether, or some such like sense. (Gen. xxix. 27.) " The week which Laban would have Jacob fulfil be- " fore he gave him Rachel was not the seven years' " service, but the seven days of Leah's wedding feast, " as the Targum translates, and the Vulgar, * Imple " hebdomadam dierum hujus copulit.' Nor can it be " otherwise by the age of Rachel's children. " Secondly. Let it be shewn in all the prophecy of " Daniel (or, for aught I know, in any other of the " prophets), where times of things prophesied expressed " by days are not to be understood of years. For " when the Angel means days, in Daniel, he express- " eth it, therefore, not by days (for so it were doubt- E 26 EXAMINATION OF " fill), but by evenings and mornings, ch. viii. 14, when " he speaks of the persecution of Antiochus." With regard to the argument drawn from the prophecy of the seventy weeks, I have akeady spoken fully in my former Enquiry ; and I be- lieve I have there noticed every part of it, ex- cept that which, in order to get rid of Daniel's three weeks of days, (Dan. x.) suggests that he did not eat in the day time, " or some such like " sense,"which I really think requires no answer at all. To avoid repetition, therefore, I shall pass at once to the second answer : " Let it be " shewn in all the prophecy of Daniel (or, for " ought I know, in any other of the Prophets) " where times of things prophecied expressed " by days are not to be understood of years." I am perfectly amazed at this brave challenge, which I sincerely lament, because I know that bold assertion will generally carry the multitude by storm;' and that comparatively few readers ' This is not all, or perhaps the worst, when such broad assertions are made by writers of name. Ready-made de- " monstrations," and " certainties," and " impossibilities," and bold, round assertions, are very handy for persons who undertake to lay down the law on subjects which are some- what new to them. Dr. Hamilton, in his recent publication against the Millenarians, says, " Notwithstanding all that "Mr. Maitland has urged to the contrary; in every " OTHER CASE, a day in the language of prophecy, de- " notes a year." Pref. p. xi. Whatever astonishment I might feel that such an asser- mede's arguments. 27 take the trouble to enquire whether a writer has good ground, or any ground, for what he affirms with confidence. I answer that I know tion should be made by Mede, 1 was less surprised to find it in the work of a writer who had just before made this frank, but humiUating, confession; — " It is matter of re- " gret that the service which I have attempted in the fol- " lowing pages to discharge, has fallen into my hands. "Few of my brethren could have been more unqualified for " the undertaking. Prophecy and the MilFenium had at- *• tracted less of my attention than the other parts of Reve- " lation. They had seldom presented themselves to my " notice in the course of expounding the Scriptures weekly " to my congregation." p. ix. How it happened that the prophecies presented themselves but seldom " in the course " of expounding the Scriptures," I cannot well understand ; but I do not say that it was Dr. Hamilton's duty to have attempted any explanation of them, if they had. I think, however, that every man of real Christian spirit, whether he be a Millenarian or not, must join in the regret which the author expresses ; especially as it is not apparent, or in any way, that I have seen, explained, why a person who con- sidered himself (and who from the simple fact which he states evidently was) peculiarly disqualified for the busi- ness, should have undertaken it. Neither does it appear why, if the author wished to write a book, he did not take one of " the other parts of Revelation," with which his words seem to imply that he considered himself better ac- quainted ; or why, if he must write a book on this subject, so momentous to all, so new to him, and, in the judgment of all parties, requiring so much calm and patient investiga- tion, he should have done it " during a busy season of the " year, when he was imperatively bound to attend to more " important matters." 28 EXAMINATION OF of only these prophecies in the Scriptures which predict a period in terms uf datjs, and whether any one of tliem is to be understood of years, the reader may judge : — 1. That respecting the Deluge, " Yet seven '* days and I will cause it to rain upon " the earth forty days and forty nights. '' Gen. vii. 4. 2. Joseph's prediction relating to the But- ler and Baker, " the three Branches are " tJiree days — yet within three days shall '' Pharoah lift up thine head and restore " thee, &c." Gen. xl. 12. " The three " baskets are tliree days,"" &c. v. 18. 3. Where it is predicted respecting certain of the plagues of Egypt, that they should be inflicted or removed, on the neM day. Ex. viii. 10, ix. 5, x. 4. 4. The prediction to Joshua, that on the seventh day the walls of Jericho should fall. Jos. vi. 4. 5. The prophecy of Elisha, at the siege of Samaria, that the next day a measure of fine flour should be sold for a shekel. II. Kings, vii. 1. 6. Jonah's prophecy respecting Nineveh, " Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be " overthrown." Jon. iii. 4. 7. Our Lord's predictions relating to him- self, that, as Jonah had been three days mede's arguments. 29 and three nights in the whale's belly, so he should be three days and nights in the heart of the earth, Matt. xii. 40; and that he would in three days rebuild that temple which they should destroy. John ii. 19. 8. Beside these, I am not aware of any other passage but that relating to the ten days, mentioned Rev. ii. 10, of which I have spoken already ; and which, as far as I can find, the greater part of com- mentators do not understand to mean years. I am not aware that any individual has ever supposed the word ** day," in any one of these passages, (except the 7th and 8th) to mean year. There are, indeed, those who imagine the ten days in No. 8 to refer to Dioclesian's persecu- tion ; and others, who suppose the three days in No. 7 to be fulfilled by our Lord's personal ministry during three years, but their opinion is far from being generally received. I would, however, particularly recommend the second passage to the attention of those who talk of *' symbolical " prophecies, and argue that in the explanations of them we must expect the pe- riods to be mystically expressed. Let me ask in my turn, — Is there any pro- phecy which is known to have been fulfilled in a given number of years, (except that of the 30 EXAMINATION OF seventy weeks,) the period of which had been specified otherwise than by years ? I find these predictions in terms of years : — 1 . The bondage of Abraham's posterity in Egypt, during 400 years. Gen. xv. 13. 2. The seven years of plenty and of famine, predicted by Joseph to Pharoah. Gen. xli. 27. 3. The forty years' wandering of the Isra- elites. Num. xiv. 33. 4. The seven years of famine predicted by Elisha. II. Kings, viii. 1. 5. The sixty-five years respecting Ephraim. Is. vii. 8. 6. The three years respecting Moab. Isa. xvi. 14. 7. The seventy years respecting Tyre. Is. xxiii. 15-17, Jerem. xxv. 11, 12. 8. The two years relating to Jechoniah's return. Jerem. xxviii. 3, 11. 9. The seventy years' captivity. Jerem. xxix. 10. 10. The forty years' desolation of Egypt. Ezek. xxix. 12, 13. I would beg the reader to consider these pas- sages, and then to look again to Mr. Mede's question, and I think he will wonder how a writer, so well acquainted with the Scripture, could ever propose it ; and I wish it may lead him to examine, meekly but carefully, all such mede's arguments. 31 broad assertions, even when sanctioned by- names as much entitled to veneration as that of Mede. The remainder of this objection, w^hich re- lates to the application of the 2300 Evenings and Mornings, (I)^n. vrii. 14) to Antiochus Epiphanes, is now, I apprehend, of no other use than to shew that Mede's opinion differed from that of almost all his successors; and is directly opposed to all the popular systems of the present day. Most modern writers, I be- lieve, are prepared to follow Sir Isaac and Bishop Newton, and to say with the latter, " these 2300 days can by no computation be *' accommodated to the times of Antiochus " Epiphanes, even though the days be taken " for Natural days."'" To mention only the three writers to whom I have before alluded, and whom I quote as the most popular MTiters on the subject, Mr. Faber, Mr. Frere, and Mr. Cuninghame ; all concur in understanding the days to mean years, though no two of them agree as to when the period began, and while Mr. Cuninghame makes the period 2300 years, Mr. Faber and Mr. Frere make it 2400. For my own part, I should agree with Mr. Mede in supposing the mornings and evenings to mean natural days, though not for the reason which ™ Vol. 11. p. 73. 32 EXAMINATION OF, &C. he suggests. If, as he supposes, the angel avoided saying days, lest he should be supposed to inedin years, the end has not been answered, for, as I have stated, almost every modern writer does understand him to mean years. I merely suppose the 2300 evenings and morn- ings are to be taken literally, because I know of no reason for supposing otherwise. If it be asked why it pleased God to employ this form of expression, rather than the simple word day, I do not know that I am bound to find or to make a reason; but to myself it does not ap- pear very unnatural, considering that the sub- ject matter of the prophecy is the cessation of the morn'wg and evening sacrifice. Having thus gone through the five reasons adduced by Mede, I venture, with some confi- dence, to ask the reader whether it is not too much to say that they " clearly demon- *' STRATE the antichristian, or apostatical times, "to be more than three single years and a - half." REMARKS PASSAGE IN " DIALOGUES ON PROPHECY,'* PART IV. P. 312. " Philalethes. — Do you feel quite confident the 1260 *' days means always 1260 years? " Anasfasius. — The question in this place is rather, what " period is meant to be measured by the words * time, " times, and half a time.' The argument drawn from •' the word ' day,' never meaning a * year' in other *' parts of Scripture, is wholly inapplicable here, for " the word is ' time,' and not ' day ;' and certainly " there is as much right to assume that the word 'time' " signifies a 'year' as any other period; and it will " hardly be contended that, in the fourth chapter, ver. " 16, of this same prophet, the word signifies only a " day, when during ' seven times' Nebuchadnezzar " was to have his nails grow as long as birds' claws, " his hair like eagles' feathers, and he was to be driven " from men. In chap. xi. 13, we find the expression, " ' shall certainly come at the end of times, even years,' " marg., which alone might settle the question." This may be very conclusive against those persons who have contended that a " time" F 34 REMARKS ON A PASSAGE IN means a literal day; and really such freedom has been used in accommodating the terms of time to the events which particular periods were required to contain, that I can readily believe such writers to exist, though I have not met with any of their works. The Jews are charged by Justin Martyr with making a ** time" a century; and I could easily bring a Protestant commentator to back that interpre- tation, or to maintain that days are literal days, or weeks, or months, or years (of different sorts,) or even periods of 360 years. I can therefore suppose that some writers may maintain that the " times" of Daniel mean days, or even hours.^ As, however, I have not maintained such an opinion, or any one compatible with it, it is not my place to defend it. Indeed, if the author of the Dialogues should succeed in proving that a " time" means a literal ?/e«r, it is obvious that " Scaliger, indeed, seems to use the words time and day as synonyiues.— He makes the 3^ times, the period which elapsed between the rise of the Albigenses, and the Re- formation ; " car vn temps oujour en V Ecriture signijie cent " ans." Scaligerana, prima, p. 39. Is not the reader pre- pared to exclaim with Vitringa, *' Quam hoc docte et pie " cogitatum!" He adds, however, with a simplicity which in a commentator of less gravity might almost induce a sus- picion that his admiration was ironical, " magno tamen mer- " carer, loca adscripta esse, quae Scaliger respexerit, ubi " annos in verbo Dei pro Secularibus sumi dicit." — Cited by Langius Gloria Chr. p. 122. DIALOGUES ON PROPHECY. 35 he will establish my doctrine at the expence of his own. But he proceeds — " With respect to the word ' day' not being used in syra- " bolical prophecies for a year, I know not how this " new conceit has got into some people*s heads; but " since it is there, we must revert to our elements of " criticism again ; so true is it in this, as in every thing " else, * there is nothing new beneath the sun.' " Multa renascentur quae jam cecidere cadentque " Quse nunc siint in honore." Can the author really mean that he does not know how this "conceit" has got into some people's heads ; and is he so little acquainted with the history of interpretation, as to suppose that it is a "new" one? Can he mention a writer, from the days of St. Paul to those of Wickliffe, who has maintained that " days " stand for ** years," either in symbolical prophecies, or in any other part of the Scripture? I proceed, however, to notice the authorities which are brought forward against the literal interpretation of the days. " Dr. Cressener says, speaking of another prophecy of " Daniel, namely, the 70 weeks, or 490 days, that " they are taken for so many years, ' by almost the " UNANIMOUS CONSENT of ALL INTERPRETERS.' '* Dem. of Apoc. 170. " Whiston says, ' there can remain no reasonable doubt " in the case.' p. 17. " By Bishop Chandler you are referred to Aulus Gellius, 36 REMARKS ON A PASSAGE IN " who, in Lib. III. ch. x,, gives an account of a work " of M. Varro, on the number seven, in which the " author, ' addit se jam duodeciviam annorum hebdoma- " dam incjressum esse; that is, in his 78th year, ' et ad " eum diem Septvaginta hebdomadas librorum conscrip- " sisse;' from which expressions it is clear that the " mode of counting days as years was not unusual '* even by the heathen." As to the statement of Dr. Cressener, even supposing that, instead of relating to the 70 weeks, (of which I have spoken fully in my former Enquiry,) his words had reference to the 1260 days, what is it to the purpose? It is not denied that the 1260 days are taken for years '' by almost the unanimous consent of all interpreters," in the limited sense in which such round assertions of commentators must be very commonly understood — that is, by most protest- ant interpreters — a limitation absolutely ne- cessary, unless we suppose him who makes the assertion to be altogether ignorant or dishonest; and which very conveniently gets rid of the primitive church, the whole body of the fathers, and, in fact, of every writer before the Reform- ation. I began my former Enquiry by stating that my design was " to promote an investiga- " tion of the grounds on which most protestant " commentators have been led to consider the " prophetic period of Daniel and St. John as " consisting of 1260 years." I did not question DIALOGUES ON PROPHECY. 37 the fact, but the reason of it ; and I did not suppose that such a question could be decided by a collection of authorities. If 1 had, I might have cited enough from those writers who lived during the long course of ages, in which (as far as I know) nobody doubted that the days were literal days; and even among protestant writers, notwithstanding their " almost unani- *' mous consent," I believe I might have pa- raded the names of Scaliger, ForBes, Bullin- ger, Broughton, Lightfoot, Langius, Venerna, Leydekker, Bengel, Roos, Wetstein, Grotius, Hammond, Brown, Michaelis, Herder, Storr, Eichorn, Bertholdt, and Dathe ; and might probably have found many more, if I had taken the trouble to look for them. Where a question has been much litigated, nothing is more easy than to multiply authorities on either side; but I should be unwilling to rest my argument in any degree upon the mere dicta of any writer, whose judgment 1 did not respect in other mat- ters; and I should think that any advantage which I might gain over an adversary by such means was scarcely fair. While, for instance, I believe Whiston to have been a peculiarly wrong-headed man, I should think that my opinion would derive very little real support from his affirming that *' there could be no rea- ** sonable doubt in the case;" though his name might swell my list of authorities ; and his bold 38 REMARKS ON A PASSAGE IN assertion might carry away those who might not be aware, that on the same principle of submission to his authority, they should deny the Deity of Christ, and bind up the Sibylline Oracles in their bibles, by way of returning to what he called "primitive Christianity." Argu- ments, even from persons more absurd and here- tical than Whiston, demand attention ; but the were dicta of such persons are entitled to none whatever. It will be much for the reader's advantage, not only to investigate how far writers quoted are to be admitted as authorities, when bare, dogmatic assertions are produced; but also, when facts are stated, to enquire how far they warrant the inferences drawn from them. A striking illustration is offered in the next sen- tence. It is certainly true that Aulus Gellius devotes a whole chapter to giving an account of a work by M. Varro, on the various virtues and powers of the number seven, which after the Greeks he called a "hebdomad."" Gellius, having stated many of his sayings on the sub- ject, adds, that so far he wrote well enough; but that, beside these, he had put together some poor conceits about the seven wonders of the world, &c.; adding also, with respect to ° " Septenarii numeri quem Graeci etBo/jiada appellant, " Virtutes, potestatesque mxiltas, variasque dicit." DIALOGUES ON PllOPHECY. 39 himself, that he had entered upon his twelfth hebdomad of years, and had up to that time written seventy hebdomads of books.'' Now, is it not most surprising, that this con- ceit of Varro's, which, as far as appears, was wholly his own, and which is quoted in a con- temptuous manner by the writer who has pre- served it, should be confidently produced to shew that *' the mode of counting days as years *' was not unusual even by the Heathen."** To me it seems to prove nothing but that the old gentleman having written a whole book on the number seven, had so filled his mind with hebdomads, that he saw them (as Brown did the quincunx) where nobody else ever dreamed of the matter; and therefore indulged himself P " Hzec Varro de numero septenario scripsit admodum '• conquisite, seel alia quoque ibidem congerit friguliusculaj " veluti septem opera esse in orbe terrarum miranda, et sa- '• pientes item veteres septem fuisse, et curricula ludorum " circensium solemnia septem esse, et ad oppugnandas '• Tliebas duces septem delectos. Turn ibi addit se quoque " jam duodecimam annorum hebdomadam ingressum esse " et ad eum diem Septuaginta liebdomadas librorum con- " scripsisse : ex quibus aliquammultos, quum proscriptus •* esset, direptis bibliothecis suis non comparuisse." — Aul. Gell. Lib. III. c. 10. •• If it proved any thing, surely it would rather prove that the Heathen counted years for days. But then, perhaps, we are to suppose that if they did one, they did the other. Why not? But does it not quite as much prove that they counted books for days? 40 REMARKS ON A PASSAGE IN in the conceit of stating his own age, and how many books he had written, in terms of his fa- vourite number. I believe that the mode of counting daj^s as years was altogether unknown " by the heathen." If it " was not unusual," plenty of instances may be brought; and I won- der that they have not been adduced by writers like Mede or Faber, from whom we are war- ranted to expect all that classical learning, and a knowledge of pagan antiquity, can bring to the elucidation of the subject. But the author proceeds — " Lowth on Jer, xxx. 7, says, * The word clay often com- " prehends a succession of time, in which a whole series *' of events is transacted.' * The word day, says Mede, " p. 945, ' is used ordinarily for tempns, yea, longissi- " mumJ' Daubuz observes, that ' the terms of days " and years must be determined by the circumstances " and intent of the writer.' Gataker has shewn that " even the word r]i.iEpa is often employed in an enlarged " sense. More, speaking of the term three days and " a half, says this last expression would of itself be " sufficient to shew the absurdity of confining the term ** day to a period of 24 hours, adding, ' there are " scarce any now so ignorant as not to be ashamed to " conceit these days to be natural days."' Myst. of '' The remark already made on Whiston, applies equally to More. It is a mere dogmatical assertion of what is perhaps hardly true in the latitude in which it is likely to be taken by most readers. I imagine, however, that the " scarce any" who took the days for literal days were, and always will be, more numerous than those who adopt More's own opinion, that each of those days is a period of 360 years- Apocalypsis Apocalypseos, p. 106. DIALOGUES ON PROPHECY. 41 " God, p. 177. Dr. Kennedy observes, p. 581, that " the word av sometimes denotes 12 hours, as in Gen. " 1. 5, viii, 12, and sometimes 24 hours, as Gen. i. 5, " and vii. 17 ; and ' when this term occurs without any " explanatory adjuncts, it seems to be quite indefinite, " and to carry along with it no determinate significa- " tion at all.' M. Gibert, in a letter published in " Amsterdam, in 1743, shows, by the authorities of " Macrobius, Eudoxus, Varro, Diodorus Siculus, " Pliny, Plutarch, St. Augustin, &c., that by a year " the ancients meant the revolution of aoy planet in the " heavens, so that it sometimes consisted only of one " day. See Encyclop. Art. Chronology," The word day, and its representatives, in every language of which I have any knowledge, does, I believe, signify, and is " used ordinarily for tempus — yea longissimum." Thus the " day *' of the Lord," the '' day of vengeance," the " day of small things," &c. as these phrases are used in the scripture, are periods which nobody supposes to consist of twenty-four, or any other particular number of hours. The word, how- ever, cannot be used in the Hebrew lano-uao-e with more latitude than it is in our own; yet who ever dreamed that such a use of the term would warrant, or in any way give colour to, our understanding a given number of days to mean that precise number of years? Let us apply this argument to our own language ; to which, I believe, it is equally applicable. Sup- pose we should read of any convict, that *' as G 42 REMARKS ON A PASSAGE IN " long as he remained in this country, and was ** able to pursue his evil courses with impunity, " he turned a deaf ear to all good advice ; but " in the day of adversity his heart was gradu- '* ally softened, and his whole conduct seemed *' to indicate a complete reformation. On his " return to England, he immediately sought " out his father, and entreated his forgiveness, *' with every mark of contrition; but after he " had spent two days of sobriety and peace in " the bosom of his family, he was discovered " by his old associates in crime, whom he re- '' joined, and with whom he soon after commit- '' ted that offence for which he incurred a " second seven years' transportation." What if some critic should maintain from this pas- sage, that the subject of the narrative lived decently with his friends, after his return, for fourteen years'! Should we not laugh in his face, if he told us that the word day in the English language often signified '' tempiis — yea " longissimiim" that "without some explana- " tory adjuncts" it seemed to be " quite indefi- " nite," and in *' their absence to carry along " with it no determinate signification at all ;" that in the present case, however, the author had given us a clue to the sense in which he used it, by calling the first period of exile a day of adversity; and that it would violate all the rules of homogeneity to suppose that he spoke DIALOGUES ON PROPHECY. 43 of figurative and literal days in the same sen- tence ; that every canon of interpretation, and sound criticism, required that the days of so- briety and peace should be of the same nature, kind, or quality, as the day of adversity, which was indisputably and irresistibly demonstrat- ed to have extended to no less a period than seven literal years. It may perhaps be said — *' Yes ; but we are " not here speaking of plain matters of fact, " but of a symbolical prophecy." I answer, that we are speaking of no such thing, but of the way in which the word day is " ordinarily'' used; and this ordinary use is the whole foun- dation of the present argument. Let us keep to one thing at a time ; as to symbolical pro- phecies, I have said something already, and shall have occasion to say more in the course of this Enquiry. With the argument drawn from the way in which the word day is *' ordi- '' narily used," they have obviously nothing to do. As far as I know, the word " day" is ordi- narily used in Hebrew as it is in English, and has nothing more mysteriously indefinite about it in one language than in the other. If then the argument is good in one language, it is equally good in the other ; but the truth is, that when stripped of its reference to the Hebrew lan- guage, and translated into plain English, it is not easy to overlook its absurdity. 44 REMARKS ON A PASSAGE IN If in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or any other language, a passage could be produced, either in a symbolical prophecy or any where else, (I say nothing of ordinary use — for that is really too much) in which a definite number of years has been expressed by the word days, it will be to the purpose. As to what Mr. Gibert has said, I do not see that any reply is necessary ; for at the utmost it can only go to shew that a year may mean a day' — but as I have not yet seen it, and in fact do not well understand where to look for it, I know not how far even that is proved. The author adds — • ** The Jews unanimously have considered the days of " Daniel to be symbolical of years, and in order not to ** weary yon with quotations, yon may consult at your " leisure the Talmud, Treatise of Sanhedrim, ch. xi. " p. 97." This is a most amazing assertion. As I can- not find any thing on the subject in the corres- ponding part of the Mishna, I presume that the reference is intended to apply to the Gemara, which I have not the opportunity of consulting. I wish that the passage had been given ; for surely, however familiar the author himself may be with the Gemaras, he must have known that they were inaccessible, or unintelligible, to nine tenths of his readers ; and that to tell them to ** consult the Talmud, at their leisure," was DIALOGUES ON PROPHECY. 45 little more than a mockery. What the passage referred to may contain, I know not; but I must flatly contradict the assertion that " the *' Jews unanimously have considered the days " of Daniel to be symbolical of years." I am as unwilling as the author of the Dia- logues to tire my readers with quotations ; but yet I shall beg leave to ofl'er the testimony of two Jews, who are pretty good authorities in such a case. The first is that of Josepiius. That he un- derstood the times of Daniel to mean literal years, is evident from his application of the prophecy to the profanation of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes. He says, '' this desola- ** tion happened to the Temple in the 145th " year, on the 25th day of the month Apelleus, " and on the 153d Olympiad; but it was dedi- '' cated anew, on the same day, the 25th of the " month Apelleus, on the 148th year, and on " the 154th Olympiad. And this desolation " came to pass according to the prophecy of ** Daniel, &c."' He also distinctly applies the prophecy of the 1290 days to Antiochus Epi- phanes.' The second is that of Aben Ezra, who quotes Saadias Gaon. Speaking of the pro- " Antiq. B. xii. c. 7. § 6. Whiston's Trans. ' Antiq. B. X. c. xi. § 7. 46 REMARKS ON A PASSAGE, &C. phecy of the seventy weeks, he says, " Dixit ' honorabilis magister noster Saadias, quod * istce septimanae sunt annorum. Testimonium ' autem hujus rei est illud quod Daniel dicit ' post haec Dan, x. 2, &c. ' Ego Daniel fui ' lugens tribus hebdomadibus d'lerum, panem ' desiderabilem non comedi, &c. usque ad com- ' plementum trium hebdomadarum dierum;'' ef ' non memorav'it cum septuaginta hebdomadi- ' bus, dies. Recte autem exponit et bene. — ' — — — Et scito, quod dies semper sunt ' dies et nunquam anni in sacra scriptura ; verum ' possibile est si dixerit dies, quod sit annus ' perfectus, redeunte anno in iteratione dierum, ' ut cum dicitur Ex. xiii. 10, a die diando ' nQ-D"" D\'2"'D id est ab anno in annum ; qui sunt ' annus perfectus. Cum vero dicitur cum 7m- ' mere, duo dies, tres dies, 7ion possunt esse ' anni; sed oportet quod sint dies sicut sunt: ' et propter hoc dicitur Lev. xxv. 8, D''Jt Jornandes de Rebus Geticis, cap. Ivii. 158 ON THE INTERPRETATION A. U.C. 259. Consuls, again. 270. Interrex. a. Sempronius fol- lowed in that office by S. Lartius. 271, Consuls restored. Was this head slain by the interregnum, supposing it not to have fallen by repeated Dictatorships ? or did the Consular head exist when there were no Consuls ? 295. Dictator, Q. Cincinnatus. ■ — Consuls. 302. Decemviri appointed — ov fourth head began to exist. 304. Consuls, 308. Military Tribunes — or Jifth head began to exist. — Consuls again. Here is a specimen of less than seventy years. It would be tiresome, and surely it is needless, to pursue the shifting forms of the Roman go- vernment; for he who is not convinced by this specimen, of the unfitness of a beast with seven successive heads, to symbolize such an empire ; or of the impropriety of representing these heads as consecutive ; would be as little moved by a detail of the subsequent alternations of Consuls, Military Tribunes, Dictators, and those periods when none of them existed. To myself it appears not only unwarranted, but OF *riIE HEADS OF THE BEAST. 159 absurd, to conceive of the heads as thus rising' and falling, and to suppose that the beast had sometimes one head, sometimes two, sometimes none at all, and sometimes one or more of the old ones revived. I apprehend that there are only two ways by which we can fairly enumerate the forms of Roman government ; that is to say, either by changes of official title in those who held the supreme power, (in which case we shall find too many,) or by substantial changes of the Con^ stitution, of which we shall not find enough for our purpose. Still, I know of no other way by which we can reckon; and I beg the candour and patience of the reader while I make a few remarks on these. The former method appears to have been adopted by most writers. Mr. Faber says, *' although the Austrian Archduke ceased to be ** the representative of the last head, because he *' formally abdicated the official title of Roman " Emperor, Napoleon did not become the re- " presentative of that head, because he never " assumed the official title in question." Vol. III. 10. Mr. Cuninghame says, "It merits our " most attentive consideration that until the " renunciation of the Lnperial Titles of Rome by ** Austria, rendered Napoleon the virtual repre- ** sentative of the Caesars, his enterprises on the " Continent of Europe were crowned with 160 ON THE INTERPRETATION " complete success, but now he occupied the " throne of the beast," &c. p. 310. On this plan, then, what are we to do with the Interrex, whom we so frequently find possessed of the supreme power in the Roman state? The official title of Emperor was not more formally abdicated by the Austrian Archduke, than the official title of King was formally abo- lished by the Romans. Now, I hope I shall not give offence to the learned reader (if I am so honoured as to have any), by supposing that some other person, into whose hands this En- quiry may fall, may say, " Who ever heard of " an Interrex? and who would think of putting " him among Kings and Consuls and Empe- " rors?"' I answer — he was as great a man — was, as truly, the supreme head of the govern- ment — and was, as completely, distinguished by his own peculiar official title as any one of them — and if he had been wanted to make up the number, or could have been admitted with- out prejudice, you certainly would have heard of him — but tell me honestly, whether the titles of Decemviri, Dictators, and Military Tribunes, are not better known to you from books written on prophecy, than from the Roman history it- self? And might not something like this be suggested respecting Odoacer, and Genseric, and Alaric — of the Exarch of Ravenna and the Kingdom of the Heruli ? OF THE HEADS OF THE BEAST. 161 But, not to pursue these questions at present, I readily admit, that, as far as I know, the In- terrex has always been excluded from the list of heads; and this, I presume, for the obvious reason, that he would make one too many. I can imagine no other reason why he should not be admitted; and of the consequences arising from it, I intend to speak presently. In the mean time, let me ask what relation Fabius Maximus bore to the state- when he was Prodictator ? ^ There seems to me to be no pretence for saying that he was a Consul, and special care was taken in his appointment not to make him a Dictator. If, however, it be said, that though he never had, or pretended to have, and was specially and carefully excluded from, the official title, yet he was in fact neither more nor less than a Dictator, I shall thankfully accept the concession, and hope to have an early opportunity of using it ; but on our pre- sent plan it gives no help, because we are reck- oninsf bv the official titles of those who held the supreme power. Whether the Prodictator can be said to have done this might admit of some question ; because a Consul co-existed, whose power did not merge, as it would have done in a Dictatorship. This, however, makes no difference as to the argument ; for undoubt- ^ Livy, xxii. 8. Y 162 ON THE INTERPRETATION edly the supreme power was either in the Pro- dictator, or in him and the Consul jointly ; and either way we shall not find such a head in the list which we are examining. Should any one say, " minus insignis quia non *' (liuturna, mutatio fuit," I answer freely that I agree with him; as I do also with Livy, who used those words to express his opinion of the Decemvir ate J' Again — was the Roman empire never go- verned by a Triumvirate ? I anxiously de- sire to be concise, and I feel that it is enough simply to allude to this notorious part of the Roman History, and to ask, if the Triumvirates did not form a head of the beast, what head had he during their existence ? What shall we say of Perpetual Dicta- tors ? Perhaps it will scarcely be safe to reply that the perpetuity of their office did not distinguish them from common Dictators. Might not something too be said of the Senate? I think, if it were wanted, we might find some way of shewing that it was, at some time or other, possessed of supreme authority; and might dismiss all gainsayers to dispute the matter with Otho, who has satisfactorily de- cided the point, by expressly and emphatically (though unconsciously, and without any know- ' Lib. III. c. 33. OF THE HEADS OF THE BEAST. 163 ledge of the prophecy) calling it '* Caput '' Imperii."* It is obvious, however, that we have already got beyond the prescribed number of "official " titles;" and yet I can anticipate no reason- able or consistent objection to those which I have proposed to add to the list. Let them, however, be all rejected, and the difficulty still remains, and is equally fatal to the system. If these persons were not heads, during their offi- cial existence, surely it cannot be pretended that the beast had any head at those periods at all ; and if he was without a head for one hour, he must have become, on Mr. Faber's principle, totally extinct. " Symbolical decorum," says that writer, " which is founded upon physical " realities, forbids us to ascribe vitality to the " hieroglyphical hydra when not a single one " of his seven heads is in existence." " " The ** excision or deadly wound of any single head " must prove mortal to the whole beast ; unless '' previous to, or at the precise time of, the exci- " sion, he puts forth (like the fabled hydra) ''another head."*' "We may safely assert," he adds, when speaking of the seventh head, (and I suppose it is equally true of all the others,) " that the seventh head must rise up " either shortly before the fall of the sixth, or in » Tac. Hist. Lib. I. c. 84. ^ Vol. III. p. 17. ' Vol. III. p. 27. 164 ON THE INTERPRETATIOX " the very moment of its fall, because otherwise *' our interpretation will exhibit the hierogly- *' phical solecism of a wild beast continuing to *' live, though in a headless state; a thing im- *' possible in nature, and therefore equally *' impossible in a symbol, which is professedly ** constructed upon the oeconomy of nature."* What is implied in this statement, is roundly asserted by Mr. Gauntlett. " Not a day can "be mentioned," says that writer, "for more " than seven hundred and fifty- two years be- " fore the birth of Christ, to the 18th June, " 1815, on which a head of the Roman empire " did not exist under one of the forms symbo- " lized by the seven-headed apocalyptic beast, " described in this chapter." — (2d Ed. p. 306.) Such an assertion would have amazed me, if it had been the first time that I had found the facts of history mistated, by writers on the 1260 years. As it is, however, I am used to it, and can take it coolly. I am quite sure that Mr. Gauntlett did not mean to say what was untrue ; and that this is the case with too many writers on the subject, in the present day, who ^ Vol. III. p. 22. In this the reader will probably agree with Mr. Faber: but it seems to give a hard blow to his own system, which requires him to maintain that while the beast lay dead he put forth a new horn. See vol. I. 192. If such a thing be not " impossible in nature," it is at least something very much out of the common way. OF THE HEADS OF THE BEAST. 165 still do, in fact, perpetuate error, and publish most glaring falsehood. I believe they are too apt to take things on trust from their prede- cessors, without examining for themselves ; and thus, what was stated carefully, and, perhaps, with some latent exclusion, by the first writer, is copied by a second without observing some nicety of phraseology ; or, perhaps, with some alteration of his own to make it clearer — a third takes it as he finds it, but, perhaps, abridges or compresses it into a more dogmatic form — it gathers strength in progress, and soon passes from hand to hand as current truth. It is my duty, however, to state, that not only " a day," but a period of several consecutive years, may be mentioned, in which there was not in the Roman Empire either King, Consul, Dictator, Decemvir, Military Tribune, Empe- peror. Pope, Interrex, Prodictator, or Triumvi- rate, or any living creature, that either Mr. Gauntlett or any one else, as far as I know, has ever suspected of being a head of the beast. Now, if during this " solitudo magistratuum," as Livy calls it,'' which lasted four or Jive years, * Livy says, " per quinquennium urbem tenuit." Lib. vi. 35. Eutropius says, " quadrenniura ita fluxit ut potestates ** ibi majores non essent." Lib. II. iii. " An anarchy," says Ferguson, " of five years (from U. C. 377 to U. C. *' 382) ensued, during which time the republic, bereft of all <* its officers, had no magistracy besides the Tribunes of the 166 ON THE INTERPRETATION and in which there was no head in existence, the beast did not die, what could kill it? and may I not ask, in Mede's words, " how shall we " ever know when it is dead for adoe?" To be sure, if it got over this, it might well survive lesser periods of suspended animation; such as, when " after the death of Jovian, the throne of ** the Roman world remained ten days without " a master."*" It is not needful, therefore, to refer to such cases ; but I would seriously ask the reader, whether it is not high time to exa- mine a system of interpretation which requires such an arbitrary selection of facts, and such an inconsistent application of principles. Surely, we cannot fairly make out the fallen forms of Roman government to have been five, if we count by official titles; let us consider what would be the effect of counting by substantial chans.es of constitution. As far as I can understand the History of the Roman Empire up to the time of St. John, it was simply this — a Monarchy existed until the people rose and destroyed it — a Republic was then formed, which existed, under various mo- difications, for several centuries ; during which it tended generally, and gradually (if I mistake not, I might say, naturally) to a Democracy in " people, who were not legally vested with any degree of *' executive power J' f Gibbon, IT. 483. OF THE HEADS OF THE BEAST. 167 theory, and an Aristocracy in practice, until at length Monarchy was restored. How to make more changes, without descending to such mi- nor variations of constitution as would make too many, I know not ; and I believe the thing is impossible. I am at a loss to conceive how the Monarchy of the Emperors can be said to differ essentially from that of the Kings. In fact, mere historians, who have no system to support, see no sub- stantial difference between a King, a Dictator, and an Emperor. Thus, the author of the Uni- versal History says, " In short, the Dictator- " ship was a kind of absolute monarchy, though ** not durable;"^ and again, " as Wlq regal power '' loas i^evived in the Dictator, he was allowed to '* create a chief officer in the army, under the ** name of Magister Equitum, that is. Master or " General of the Horse, which answered to the " office of the Tribunus Celerum in the time of *' the Kings." Vol. XI. p. 385. Hooke says of the Dictatorship, " This new kind of govern- ** ment erected at Rome might be called an ab- •^ Should this want of durability appear to create a differ- ence the reader will remember that the Emperor (or, more properly speaking, Princeps — only then we should get another head where we have too many^already) was origi- nally but a temporary office. Were it otherwise, the Per- petual Dictator would remove all difficulty with regard to Emperors, as he now doe« with respect to Kings. 1G8 ON THE INTERPRETATION " solute monarchy in a republic, though not " durable." (Vol. I. 163.) And, in fact, what- ever change there might be in official title, what r^eal difference was there ? Niebuhr says, " The " most important record of this period is the " introduction of the Dictatorship, of which '* Rome derived both the name and office from " the Latins. Monarchy was necessarily and " universally the first form of government. The " Latin cities appear to have merely modified " it to an elective power, and the Roman Dic- " tatorship also was the undiininished regal au- '' thorityr Vol. L p. 376. If the Dictator was so much like a King, how is he to be distinguished from an Emperor ? the resemblance, or rather identity, was obvious enough to a mere historian; " Neque quid- ** quid," says Eutropius to the Emperor, " si- *' milius potest dici quam dictatura antiqua, " huic imperii potestati quam nunc tranquillitas *' vestra habet." I. xii. Thus far I had written before I was aware that Mr. Faber had published any work, on the prophecies supposed to relate to a period of 1260 years, since that one which I have hitherto quoted. I have now seen his Sacred Calendar of Prophecy, and as he expresses a wish that it should supersede his former publication, it would be unfair to represent him as holding any opinion which this work disavows, or im- OF THE HEADS OF THE BEAST. 169 pliedly retracts. I am not aware, however, that I have done so ; and, in fact, my references to his work, in this Enquiry, have been by no means with a view to produce any peculiarities, by which his system is distinguished from those of other writers, who hold the same fundamen- tal doctrine of the existence of a period of 1260 years. I have been accused of putting forth Mr, Faber as the *' single representative" of prophetical commentators : it certainly was not my intention, and I should have thought that any person who had read my former Enquiry, could not suspect me of thinking that any one writer on the 1260 years could be taken as a representative of the rest. If I have referred to Mr. Faber more frequently than to other writers in this Enquiry, it is for this simple reason — that a great part of it was written in a country where English books are extremely scarce, and where, though I was able to bor- row the work of Mr. Faber in the capital, I could get no other English writer on prophecy, and I believe the whole kingdom could not have furnished one. On the point now in question, however, Mr. Faber has changed his opinion, and proposes a plan, by which (if we can persuade ourselves to adopt it) we may certainly get over some great difficulties. He says — " The apostle teaches us, by the z 170 ON THE INTERPRETATION " declaration of the interpreting angel, that, in " his time, one of these heads was in actual ** existence, that five had antecedently fallen, " and that another was yet future. " Now, in the time of the apostle the Roman " Emperorship was tha polity in actual exist- " ence. Hence we may be certain that the " Roman Emperorship is the head which the " apostle characterises by the words one is, and " which history teaches us to have been then " the supreme form of Roman government. " But the apostle further declares, that five ** other heads had antecedently fallen. " Here, in comparing his declaration with " the testimony of history, we are encountered " by an apparent difficulty: for St. John states *' that oxAy Jive heads had fallen; but history, " upon the first inspection of it, seems to inti- " mate that si.v supreme forms of Roman go- *' vernment had become extinct. These six " are enumerated by Tacitus as the Kingship, '* the Consulate, the Dictatorship, the Decem- " virate, the Military Tribunate, and the Tri- " umvirate:" and, after he has enumerated them, he remarks, that *' the second Triumvi- " rate terminated in the sole rule of Augustus, " who, with the title of Prince, reduced all '' things under the Emperorship. Thus it " might seem that, according to St. John's " statement, Jive heads only had fallen when OF THE HEADS OF THE BEAST. 171 *' the Emperorship was established : while, ac- *' cording both to the accurate specification of *' Tacitus, and to absolute matter of fact, sLv " forms of supreme government had already at ** that period become extinct." '' Mr. Faber then goes on to establish the claim of at least the second Triumvirate to be consi- dered as a head of the beast, and adds — " How, then, it will be asked, are we to re- " concile the statement in the A'pocalypse with *' the voice of history? " To this question I reply, that the difference '' is apparent, not real. Mr. Mede, and those *' who have followed him, omitting the Trium- " virate, make the Kingship one of those five " heads, which in the time of the apostle had " f alien, or had become eMinct. But, in truth, " the Kingly head, so far from having fallen, "■ had then, after a sleep or quiescence of seve- ** ral centuries, recently awaked in the full *' vigour of renewed action." I apprehend that this solution of the diffi- culty will astonish most readers; and until I find that it has been more generally adopted than I can suppose that it ever will be, I do not feel myself called upon to do more than merely to mention it. It certainly had not oc- curred to me, that the heads might have all the " Sac. Cal. III. 185. 172 ON THE INTERPUETATION convenience, without the prejudice, of extinc- tion, by going to sleep. Mr. Faber, however, adds, in confirmation of his opinion; — *' It is not unworthy of note, that the singu- " larly accurate language of the Apocalypse *' perfectly accords with the present arrange- *' ment. " Five Kings have fallen, and one is. The *'' interpreting angel does not &dLj;Jive Kings " have fallen, and the sixth is; for, had such " been his phraseology, he would have required *' us to pronounce, in plain opposition to his- " torical testimony, that the Roman Emperor- '* ship was the si.vth head of the wild beast. " But he says; Five Kings have fallen, and one ''is; a mode of expression, which precisely *' corresponds with literal matter of fact: for, " though five had fallen, the then existing King " was the first, not the slvth. As the angel " speaks, one is; not the sixth is.'' To this it may be sufficient to oppose the plain language of the interpreting angel^ — • " There are seven Kings : Jive are fallen, and one ** is ; and the other is not yet come." Rev. xvii. 10. If this does not imply that the one that is, is the slvth, I think we may give up at- tempting to understand what language does mean, and confess that there are no limits to what it may be made to mean. OF THE HEADS OF THE BEAST. 173 I am glad, however, to find Mr. Faber con- tending for two points for which I have argued, but which have hitherto been very commonly denied by expositors. First, that the Kingship and Emperorship cannot fairly be considered as distinct heads ; and, secondly, that the Trium- virate has as much claim to be reckoned a head of Roman government, as any other form which ever existed. Whoever doubts on these points may find much to satisfy him in the part of Mr. Faber's work to which I have referred. For the reasons which I have assigned, it seems to me quite impossible that the common interpretation of the seven heads of the Beast, should be the true one. As I have already stated, I believe that it was merely devised to meet the exigency of the case, and to answer the question, " If the Beast is the Roman Em- *' pire, what can the seven heads be?" — If it be now retorted on me, '' Well, and what ccui they *' be, if they are not these forms of govern- *' ment?" I must answer, " I do not know." Quis pudor, illud Nescio honoratum constanti proraere voce Quoin sit opus? Male hoc, quam dici wescif; — though certainly not for the reason assigned by the satyrist ; for when I see what interpreta- tions are received by the public, "with decorous gravity, I should not fear " turpes audire ca- 174 ON THE INTERPRETATION " chinnos," however ingenious I might be. But, in fact, I am unable to offer any explanation of this mysterious passage. I incline to follow Langius' in the opinion that the angel did not refer to the time present, when he was speak- ing to St. John; but to the future period, fore- shewn in the vision. If, to explain my meaning, I may be allowed to paraphrase the words of the angel, I would say, " The Beast before you '* is characterized by having, or having had, " seven heads — but at the period during which "he is now shewn to you (that is, when the " woman is drunk with the blood of the saints, " ver. 6, and the time of her judgment draws " on, ver. 1), five of those heads are fallen." This I am inclined to think, but this I pretend not to DEMONSTRATE. I am fully sensible, that he who merely opposes a system, has a less pleasing, and less dignified, task, than he who frames one; and whenever God shall enable me to explain any part of his word, I shall esteem it a high honour, and a cause for deep grati- tude. In the mean time, while I take not upon • " Quid auteni sibi velit quinarius illorum, qui cecide- " runt, mimerus, fateor, me nulla posse conjectura assequi, " nee mihi placere sententiam illorum qui, h^iec ad quintu- " plicem regirainis Romani autiquissimi formam, diverse " etiam modo, referunt. Johannes qiiidem utitur prgeterito, " ceciderunt, sed sensu prophetico de future." Langii Glo^ ria Christ i, p. 203. OF THE HEADS OF THE BEAST. 175 me to be an architect, I am thankful to be em- ployed as a surveyor; and to exercise the humble — but not useless — office of pointing- out the unsoundness of buildings, which I might not have had the talent to conceive, or to erect. PRINTED BY HOUGH AND PACE, GLOUCESTER. k