« PreviousContinue »
subjugating, to its secular and ecclesiastical dominion, an immense range of nations chiefly inhabited by Christians. It signifies little by whose arms, by what tribes of adventurers, these lamentable devastations were accomplished, whether by the Saracens, the Tartars, or the Turks, since all of these adopted the pernicious doctrines of the great impostor. It is not the political warfare and dominion, but their effects upon the religion and kingdom of Christ, which are the object of Christian prophecy.
In this light we are authorised to contemplate this dreadful apostasy, which uniting the exertions of religious and secular power, severed from the Christian profession more than half its members, whose descendants are still subject to the same yoke of oppression, ignorance, and superstition. And can we suppose, that when the Holy Spirit was imparting to St. John a prophetic view of the papal apostasy, which has measured the same period of time, and produced corresponding effects in the western regions,—no such prediction should apply, or no part of the prophecy should extend to this apparent counterpart of it, this immense apostasy in the east?
nished as an evidence, by the doubts respecting it. And proceeding farther in this century, we read, that in a synod of French and German bishops, held at Franckfort in 642 by Boniface, as legate to Pope Zachary, it was enacted, that as a token of their willing subjection to the see of Rome, all metropolitans should request the pallium at the hands of the pope, and obey his lawful commands. This was the beginning of that entire devotion of the western clergy to the pontiffs which was more firmly secured by the imposition of an oath of fealty accompanying it, in the ninth and succeeding centuries. 1 This dominion over the clergy in such important countries, increased and extended to more distant regions, became a most effectual instrument in the hands of the Popes, for arrogating and obtaining their domineering power over the laity and their lawful kings. Such was the progress of ecclesiastical antichristian principles in the western division of Christendom; but in the east, their rise and progress are notorious and indubitable in this century, and (the date of them may be properly stated in the year 622, that of the hegira.
1 Hallam on the Ecclesiastical Power in the Middle Ages; and see his authorities, ch. vii.
This question did not fail to occur to me when I attempted, without the aid of commentators, the interpretation of this thirteenth chapter of the Apocalypse; and since the symbol of the two horns seemed to imply two supreme powers, which distinctly, each in his own province, should fulfil the corrupt and tyrannical character of the second beast or false prophet, I did not hesitate to apply one of these horns to the Mahometan, and the other to the papal usurpation. Both have attained the object of their pursuit by the acquisition and abuse of secular and ecclesiastical power united, by blasphemy, hypocrisy, and oppression, by lying wonders and seductive arts. Early in the seventh century, both seem to have attained that measure of antichristian character necessary for them to proceed in their iniquitous and destructive course. That course has been pursued by both with the same success through the same centuries; their power began to decline at the same time, and will end, according to this interpretation, at the same period predicted. The horns will sink together with the beast which bears them, as foretold in chap. xix. 20, of this Revelation. We may add, that each of these horns appears equally to illustrate the more ancient prophecies of Scripture which are analogous to this delivered by St. John. The little horn of Daniel came up from the former beast, rising out of the old established civil power, but he “is diverse from the other horns,” not merely secular; “ he has eyes, as the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things,” which foretell his seizure of ecclesiastical power, and his claim to divine dignity. Under which symbol we may now recognize the appearance of the second ecclesiastical beast of St. John, as representative of that same power, though not yet divided into the two horns or branches, each of which retain in the apocalyptic prophecy, his likeness so exactly.
We are not to be surprised that this prophecy of Daniel (ch. vii.) should be found to prefigure the same object as the second wild beast of St. John, yet without proceeding to describe his division into two branches. Similar instances are to be seen in the visions of this prophet, where the first prediction is general, and another succeeds to it, containing additional and specific information concerning the same object. The vision of the four beasts is the same with that of the image preceding it, but enlarged by additions under varied symbols. And it is generally remarked by Sir Isaac Newton, that “the visions of Daniel all relate to one another, every following prophecy adding somewhat new to the former."1
Hence it will not seem extraordinary that at the distance of time between the predictions of that prophet and those of St. John, he was not empowered to descend to that minuteness of description which characterizes the last and closing prophecies given to the apostle under the New Testament.
This vision of St. John may likewise be compared with the description of the expected antichrist by St. Paul,” which appears to be in some respects the commentary of an inspired apostle on the prophecy of Daniel, and yet is equally applicable to both the horns of the second beast of St. John. He describes “ an apostasy, in which that man of sin, the son of perdition, shall be revealed, he who opposeth, and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so thatįhe, as a God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is a God; even he whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power, and signs, and lying wonders.” This description applies equally to the papal or Mahometan horns; if there be any preponderance, it is in favour of the latter. If the reader should be willing to see a draft of these three prophecies compared together in the words of the Greek, it may
1 Sir Isaac Newton on Daniel, part i. ch.3.
2 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4,9, where observe, that in the Greek the word is Oeov, without the article, and coc, and not 'O Oe0c,ma God, not God, or, the God.
be found in the first publication by this author.'
These observations may tend to obviate one objection which has been adduced to invalidate the interpretation of the two horns of the lamblike beast, as here offered to the student in prophecy.
Secondly, it has been objected by Dr. Benson and others, against the admission of the Mahometan power as the prophetic antichrist; that Mahomet, the founder of this power, was not originally a Christian; but the objection has been withdrawn or silenced, by the admission, that although not a Christian, he was a leader of a great Christian apostasy, and founded his religion upon a selection from the doctrines of the Old and New Testaments, accommodating them to the taste of numerous heretical tribes of professed Christians and of Jews, whom he allured by peculiar favours and exemptions. In my former work, all this is proved by historical deduction; and it is also shown, by the testimony of many the most respectable inquirers, that the Mahometan religion, having been so founded, and its practice regulated upon such data, ought to be esteemed a Christian apostasy, or may be considered a Christian heresy. These deductions, at length, would enlarge this part of the present work beyond its proper
Part iv. sect. 4, p. 354.
dimensions, and cannot be given so effectually in an abstracted form. The reader, therefore, who may desire to satisfy his opinion on this part of the subject, is referred to the original work.
It is stated, as a third objection, that the Mahometan power was at no time seated at Rome. But where is the sacred prophecy, which designates this capital as the residence of the expected antichrist? We look for it in vain in the prophecy of Daniel, or in the further disclosure by St. Paul, or in the apocalyptic vision now under consideration. In the seventeenth chapter indeed of this inspired book, a vision will be presented, in which a woman, mounted on a scarlet-coloured beast, having seven heads and seven horns, is said to be “ that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth.”
This beyond doubt is Rome; and the whole of the prophetic description is applicable to the papal horn, but not to the Mahometan, as will be shown in the sequel.
Lastly, it has been objected, that Mahomet attempted no miracles-no more did the Roman pontiffs. To such direct and undeniable evidence of a divine commission, neither of these potentates could appeal; nor were they so rash as to expose themselves to so sure a test. Indirectly, indeed, by the artful seizure and mysterious interpretation of occurrences, suited to their purpose, they endeavoured to impose themselves on an ignorant and deluded people, not as performing miracles in their own persons, but as the objects of miraculous interposition. It is
Part iv. sect. 4, p. 365, &c. An afterthought has occasioned this, with some variations, to be inserted as an appendix to the present work.
2 See 2 Thess. ch. ii. ver. 9, 10, 11, where St. Paul states such pretended miracles to be successful with the apostate Christians, in future times, on account of their pleasure in unrighteousness, and their aversion to the true religion, “ because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved, and for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."