Bookshelf/ Vol.I / Vol. IV. Part VI. Contents. Chapter I. 1. 2. 3. II. 1. 2. 3. III. 1. 2. 3. IV. 1. 2. V. 1. 2. Appendix I. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. II. 1a. 1b. 2a. 2b. 2c. 3. 4. III 1. 2a. 2b.



The Futurists’ is the second, or rather third, grand anti-Protestant Apocalyptic Scheme. I might perhaps have thought it sufficient to refer to Mr. Birks’ masterly Work in refutation of it, [1] but for the consideration that my own Work would be incomplete without some such examination of this futurist Scheme, as of the Schemes preceding: moreover that on more than one point (chiefly as regards the 6th Seal and the Apocalyptic Beast) Mr. Birks’ own views of some of which I have spoken elsewhere, [2] must necessarily, in my mind, have prevented his doing full justice to the argument. - Besides which, there is otherwise abundantly sufficient difference between us to prevent all appearance of my trenching on his ground. [3]

The futurist Scheme, as I have elsewhere stated, [4] was first, or nearly first, propounded about the year 1585 by the Jesuit Ribera; as the fittest one whereby to turn aside the Protestant application of the Apocalyptic prophecy from the Church of Rome. In England and Ireland of late years it has been brought into vogue chiefly by Mr. (now Dr.) S. R. Maitland and Mr. Burgh; followed by the writer of four of the Oxford Tracts on Antichrist. [5] Its general characteristic is to view the whole Apocalypse, at least from after the Epistles to the Seven Churches, as a representation of the events of the consummation and second advent, all still future: the Israel depicted in it being the literal Israel; the temple, Apoc. xi., a literal rebuilt Jewish temple at Jerusalem; and the Antichrist, or Apocalyptic Beast under his last head, a personal infidel Antichrist, [6] fated to reign and triumph over the saints for 3 1/2 years, (the days in the chronological periods being all literal days,) until Christ’s coming shall destroy him. Of which advent of Christ, and events immediately precursive to it, the symbols of the six first Seals are supposed to exhibit a prefiguration singularly like what is given in Matt. xxiv.; and therefore strongly corroborative of the futurist view of the Seals and the Apocalypse. - Thus, while agreeing fully with the Pręterists on the day-day principle, and partly with them as to the literal Israel’s place in the prophecy, they are the direct antipodes of the Pręterists in their view of the time to which the main part of the Apocalypse relates, and the person or power answering to the symbol of the Apocalyptic Beast: the one assigning all to the long distant past, the other to the yet distant future. And here is in fact a great advantage that they have over the Pręterists, that, instead of being in any measure chained down by the facts of history, they can draw on the unlimited powers of fancy, wherewith to devise in the dreamy future whatever may seem to them to fit the sacred prophecy.

Notwithstanding this we shall, I doubt not, find abundantly sufficient evidence in the sacred prophecy to repel and refute the crude theory; whether in its more direct and simple form, or in any such modified form as some writers of late have preferred to advocate. The consideration of the latter I reserve for another Section. That of the former will be the subject of the Section on which we are now entering.


I purpose to discuss it with reference separately to each of the four points just noticed as its most marked characteristics: - viz. the supposed instant plunge of the prophecy into the far distant future of Christ’s coming and the consummation; - the supposed parallelism of the subjects of the Apocalyptic Seals with the successive signs specified by Christ in his prophecy on Mount Olivet as what would precede and usher in the Apocalyptic prophecy; - and the supposed time, place, and character of its intended Antichrist.


Now, to begin, there seems here in the very idea of the thing a something so directly contrary to all God’s previous dealings with his people, and to all that He has himself led us to expect of Him, as to make it all but incredible, unless some clear and direct evidence be producible in proof of it. We read in (Amos iii. 7), “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” And of this God’s principle of action all Scripture history is but a continued exemplification: his mode having been to give the grand facts of prophecy in the first instance, and then, as time went on, to furnish more and more of particulars and detail: so, gradually but slowly, filling up prophetically that part of the original prophetic outline in which the Church for the time being might have a special interest; but always with the grand main point kept also in view. Thus to Adam, after the fall, there was revealed God’s mighty purpose of the redemption of our fallen world through the seed of the woman: to Noah, together with declaration that this original covenanted promise was renewed to him, the prediction of the coming judgment of the flood: to Abraham, together with similar renewal of the grand covenant respecting Him in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed, the more particular prediction and promise, also, as to his natural seed becoming a nation; and occupying Canaan: to Moses, when leading Abraham’s family, now become a nation, from Egypt, together with reminiscence of the great Prophet like him, that was to come, sundry predictions also about the several tribes; and further, respecting Israel nationally, the prediction of its apostasy from God in the course of time, and consequent temporary casting off, captivity, and return. So too again, long after, when the time of their first captivity drew near, together with repetition of the same great promise, which in the interim had been ever more and more particularly dwelt on, e.g. especially by David and Isaiah, - I say as the time of Israel’s first captivity drew near, then there was predicted by Jeremiah its appointed term, 70 years; and then again, just at the close of the 70 years of that captivity, Daniel’s memorable prophecy of there being appointed yet 70 weeks, or 490 years, until Messiah should come, and be cut off though not for himself, and the Jewish city and sanctuary be destroyed by a Prince that should arise: a prophecy this last which Christ himself, after coming at the time so defined, expanded, when speaking to his disciples on Mount Olivet, into the full and detailed prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem. Such, I say, had been the method pursued by God for above 4000 years, in the prophetic communications to his people, through all the Old Testament history. And now then when the prophetic Spirit spoke again, and for the last time, by the mouth of his apostles, more especially of the apostle St. John, what do the Futurists contend for, but that God’s whole system is to be supposed reversed; that in regard, not of smaller events, or events in which the Church was but slightly concerned, but of events in which it was essentially and most intimately concerned, and of magnitude such as to blazon the page of each history of Christendom, the whole 1800 years that have passed subsequently are to be viewed as a blank in prophecy; the period having been purposely skipped over by the Divine Spirit, in order at once to plunge the reader into the events and times of the consummation.

The case is made stronger against them by comparing more particularly the nearest existing parallels to the Apocalyptic prophecy in respect of orderly arrangement, I mean the prophecies of Daniel. For we see that they, one and all, prefigured events that were to commence immediately, or very nearly, from the date of the vision. So in that of the symbolic image, Dan. ii.; which began its figurations with the head of gold, or Nebuchadnezzar. So in that of the four Beasts, Dan. vii.; which also began the Babylonian Empire then regnant. So in that of the ram and the goat, Dan. viii., which began from the Persian Empire’s greatness; the vision having been given just immediately before the establishment of the Persian kingdom in power. So, once more, in Dan. xi.: where the commencement is made so regularly from the Persian Prince “Darius the Mede,” then reigning, that it is said, “There shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be richer than they all, and shall stir up all against Greece;” i.e. Xerxes. Strange indeed were there in the Apocalypse such a contrast and contrariety, as the Futurists suppose, to all these Danielic precedents! - Moreover, the fact of its following those precedents seems expressly declared by the revealing Angel, at the opening of the vision in Apoc. iv., “Come up, and I will (now) show thee what must happen meta tauta, after these things.” A statement evidently referring to Christ’s own original division of the subjects of the revelation into “the things which St. John had first seen,” (in the primary vision,) “the things that then were,” (viz. the then existing state of the seven Churches,) and “the things which were to happen after them.” - Thus our inference as to the speedy sequence of the future first figured in the Apocalypse upon the time when the Apocalypse was actually exhibited, seems to me not only natural, and accordant with all the nearest Scripture precedents, but necessary. And it both agrees with, and is confirmed by, the other divine declarations, made alike at the first commencement and final close of the Apocalypse; to the effect that the things predicted were quickly to come to pass, the time of their fulfillment near at hand. [7]

And what then the Futurists’ escape from such arguments? What the authority for their unnatural Apocalyptic hypothesis? On the argument from the analogy of Scripture, and specially of Daniel, no answer that I know of has been given. [8] With regard however to those statements, “To show to his servants what must shortly come to pass,” and again, “Seal not the sayings of this Book, for the time is at hand,” Dr. S. R. Maitland replies that, since Christ’s coming is often aid in Scripture to be quickly, [9] and the day of the Lord to be at hand,” [10] albeit very far distant, we may similarly suppose the whole subject of the Apocalyptic predictions to be distant, though prophesied of as “shortly to come to pass.” [11] An answer little satisfactory, as it seems to me. For the principle it goes on seems to be this; - that because two particular cognate predicate phrases have the word quickly, or its tantamount, attached to them, to each of which phrases a double meaning attaches, - a lesser and a greater, - a nearer and a more distant, [12] - the former typical perhaps of the latter, and this latter avowedly veiled in mystery, in order to its being over looked for by the Church, - that because these have the word quickly attached in dubious sense to them, therefore events of a quite different character, and that are altogether most distant in time, nay and a long concatenated or chain of events too, may be also so spoken of: - a principle this on which all direct meaning of such words as quickly, or at hand, in sacred Scripture might, I conceive, be gainsayed, denied or disputed. - Nor indeed is it from these adverbial expressions, insulated and alone, that the whole difficulty arises. For we have further to observe that the events Apocalyptically prefigured to St. John as first and next to happen in the coming future, are connected and linked on in a very marked manner with the then actually existing state of the seven Asiatic Churches, as the terminus ą quo of all that was to follow: it being said by the Angel, forthwith after the long and detailed description of them in Christ’s seven dictated Epistles, to the Churches, “Come up, and I will show thee what events are to happen after these things;” a dei genesqai meta tauta - just like the defined present terminus ą quo in Dan. xi. 2, “There shall stand up yet three kings in Persia.”

But stop! Are we quite sure of our terminus? Behold the futurist critic and expositor, as if by sleight of hand, shifts the scene itself on the seven Asiatic Churches, which I spoke of as constituting the terminus ą quo of all that followed in the prophecy, some two thousand years, or nearly so, forward in the world’s history. “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” (Apoc. i. 10), he explains to mean, “I was rapt by the Spirit into the great day of the Lord.” [13] And so, instead of merely contesting the direct sequence of what was prefigured in the Apocalyptic visions of the future, beginning Apoc. iv. 1, from the definite commencing epoch of St. John and his seven Asiatic Churches, - instead of this, I say, he takes the bolder ground of making the great day of Christ’s coming to judgment to be the avowed subject of all that followed St. John’s announcement of being in the Spirit; including first and foremost, of course, the description in the seven Epistles of the seven Churches; so as to leave open the idea of their being Churches non-existent until the supposed prefigured time of the end? Assuredly not. The Apostle’s salutation is presented to them in Apoc. i. 4, five verses prior to his announcement of being in the Spirit, in terms just like St. Paul’s to the then existing Churches in Thessalonica or Philippi; “John to the seven Churches in Asia, Grace be unto you!” - Besides which who can help being struck with the violence done by Dr. M. to the Greek original, in construing its simple verb substantive, with the preposition in and ablative following, “I was in the Spirit on (or in) the Lord’s day,” [14] as if it were a verb of motion, with into and an accusative following? [15] - Dr. Maitland argues indeed, as “a sufficient reason” in favor of so rendering the clause, that the Sunday, or Christian sabbath, was not in St. John’s time, or till two centuries afterwards, called the Lord’s day, h Kuriakh hmera. [16] But this will be found on examination to be a statement altogether incorrect. [17] Rather it will appear that the great day of the Lord, or judgment day, to which Dr. M. would apply it, has never, either in the Septuagint or the New Testament, the peculiar appellation Kuriakh attached to it in the adjectival form; nor, I believe, in the early Greek Fathers. [18] - Thus the verbal argument too is against, not for, Dr. Maitland. The sleight of hand by which he shifts the seven Churches, and Epistles addressed to them, into a distant future, proves to be one that sets the sense of language, as well as the requirements of grammar and context, at defiance. And the difficulty remains, as it was, a millstone round the neck of the Futurist principle of interpretation.


To the subject I have already briefly alluded in my Vol. i. [19] And as may be remembered, it was there shown that, while there was scarce a point on which the asserted accordance could be made out, there was at least one on which irreconcilable discordance could be demonstrated; and this one so interlacing with the rest as to involve in its failure the whole theory of parallelism. For while, as regards the 1st Seal, it appeared that there was nothing in its symbols to identify the rider with Christ, or the rider’s progress on the white horse with that of gospel-preaching, - and, as regards the 2nd Seal, the difference suggested itself between its civil wars and the wars of nation against nation in St. Matthew, - as regards the 3rd Seal the utter impossibility was shown of its symbols ever figuring famine; seeing that 5 lbs. of barley was defined in it as procurable for a man’s daily wage of a denarius, and with wine and oil in abundance. - Moreover, even supposing that the earlier Seals’ symbols were capable of identification with the signs in Matthew, it would remain for the Futurists to prove that the gospel-preaching, wars, famines, pestilences, and persecutions that Christ spoke of were meant as signs immediately precursive of his personal second Advent; and not rather of the destruction of Jerusalem: - a point this difficult indeed of proof: and of the furnishing of which by any of the School, in contravention of the other more natural interpretation, so given by the best expositors, I must confess myself wholly incredulous.

But, at any rate, they insist on the 6th Seal prefiguring the consummation; as what may help (though certainly, unless the previous Seals have that reference too, with most insufficient help) [20] the Futurist view. Says Dr. S. R. Maitland; “Can any unbiased reader doubt that this passage refers to the day of judgment?” [21] And Mr. Burgh: “This Seal so obviously refers to the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, . . . that I must say there is no room for difference of opinion.” [22] So again R. D. in the Dublin Christian Examiner, for December, 1844; (a writer of whom more in my next Section;) “If there be a day yet future, it is the day of the wrath of the Lamb, [i.e. as in the 6th Seal,] when he shall be revealed from heaven in flaming fire:” with declaration added of the impossibility of rightly expounding the imagery of the 6th Seal, where his wrath is spoken of, except with reference to that day. And so too Dr. Todd, [23] and most other Expositors of the School. - Now, in order to understand here the real value of the Futurists’ argument, it is essential to inquire at once, very distinctly, whether by Christ’s coming they really mean his personal visible coming to judgment; and, if so, on what construction of the imagery of the 6th Seal, literal or figurative? R. D., we saw, declares plainly that it is indeed his personal coming, “when he shall be revealed from heaven in flaming fire.” And I presume he would have the elemental convulsions of the Seal construed literally, as that which is to attend it. But, if so, does it not seem passing strange that we should have no representation whatsoever of the flaming fire that is to accompany Christ’s second coming; nothing shown, or said, even of his own glorious epiphany; nothing of the rapture of the saints to meet him? So as to the evidence from omission. Besides which may we not say that there seems to be that stated which absolutely forbids the supposition of any literal construction of the figures? For were the stars literally to fall to the earth, so as in the Apocalyptic vision they appeared to do, then the earth would not only reel to and fro like a drunkard, but be struck from its orbit into fragments: [24] whereas from the Sealing vision in the second part of the same 6th Seal, next following, and which depicts the Angels of the four winds as preparing to blow upon it, it appears that the earth still existed afterwards, and with men still inhabiting it, just as before. What then remains (unless, with Dr. Todd, we boldly eject the Sealing vision from its place in the Apocalyptic Book) [25] but to construe the symbols figuratively: and with this, and the consequent reference in them only to some mighty revolution, religious or political, to abandon all argument for the Seal’s signifying Christ’s personal coming to judgment? - Indeed by some of the best-known advocates of the School (contradictorily to R. D.) this seems to me pretty much admitted. As Dr. Maitland has maintained silence on the point inquired into, we cannot do better, I think, than to look for explanation to Mr. Burgh, the next most popular writer probably on the same side. And, strange as it may seem to my readers, they will find that if the passage quoted a little while since in part from him be completed, and the hiatus represented by the dots filled up, it will read thus: - “This Seal so obviously refers to the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, containing as it does the very signs and omens of his coming, [26] . that there is no room for difference of opinion.” Does Mr. Burgh then mean, after all, that instead of depicting Christ’s coming itself, this Seal merely depicted certain signs and omens showing that it was near? Such is indeed the case. So at p. 150; “When these several signs of Christ‘s coming shall have been developed, [viz. in the Seals preceding,] then the sixth Seal opens with the day itself of his coming, OR [ I pray the reader to mark this significant little word, OR] with the signs by which it is more immediately announced!!” And what then, we next ask, as to the precise signs thus immediately announcing the advent; - the sun be coming black as sackcloth, the moon like blood, the stars of heaven falling to the earth, and heaven itself removing like a scroll rolled up? Is the description to be taken literally or figuratively, of physical and elemental, or only of political change? For a direct, straightforward answer to this question I look into Mr. Burgh in vain. In one place he seems to assign a literal meaning to the 6th Seal. [27] But, judging from the sequel, this can hardly be. For he considers the Sealing Vision 7th Seal, Trumpets, &c., all chronologically to carry on the subject. [28] And as he makes the Sealing Vision depict the sealing of a Jewish remnant, to be saved from the judgments threatened by the tempest-angels on the godless of the nation, and the other visions similarly to refer to the earth as still existing, and men dwelling on it, I infer that he cannot suppose any physical changes to have been intended by the sixth Seal’s vision, such as to have destroyed earth, and sky, and earth’s inhabitants. The rather since I observe, that he explains the palm-bearing vision next following, as only, at that point of advance in the sacred drama, an anticipative, prospective representation of the heavenly blessedness of the saints; and infer consequently that their translation, and therefore Christ’s second coming, will not, in Mr. Burgh’s opinion, even at this epoch (an epoch subsequent to the sixth Seal), have yet taken place: nay that at a much later epoch, that of Apoc. x. 7, the consummation will not have occurred; “judgment having followed on judgment, but the end not being yet.” [29] Hence it seems evident that Mr. Burgh, like myself, must construe the symbols of the sixth Seal figuratively; and if figuratively, then, according as the figure is elsewhere used in Scripture prophecy, of mere political or politico-religious change and revolution. In which case all argument for having anything to do with Christ’s second advent vanishes; and together therewith all aid from it, (if aid it could give,) as well as from the Seals preceding it, to the Futurists’ Apocalypse Scheme.


A point this quite essential to their system, just as much as to the Pręterists’; for it is thereby that they identify, and link on, much of this prophecy with those in the Old Testament respecting the ultimate restoration and conversion of the Jews: insomuch, I believe, that if the Apocalyptic Israel were proved not to be the literal Israel, there is not a Futurist but would admit that their cause was lost.

“The Jew,” says Mr. Burgh, emphatically, (p. 432,) “is the key to prophecy.” And again (p. 165) on the same Apoc. vii.; “I can understand (though I do not think an undoubted instance of it exists) how the name Israel may be supposed to be figuratively applied to the Gentile Church in Scripture: but to suppose that not merely the name of Israel is so applied, but that the names of every one of the twelve tribes have also a spiritual meaning, and apply to the Gentile Church,” this he would have to be incredible indeed. Again, on Apoc. xi. 1, “Rise and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein, but the court without, measure not, for it is given to the Gentiles, and they shall tread under foot the holy city forty and two months,” he remarks to the effect that every word marks to an unprejudiced reader that the passage concerns the Jewish nation; and that it is matter for astonishment that it should have been so allegorized by most of the English Protestant expositors, as to exclude all reference to the Jewish people. [30] And so too Maitland, Todd, [31] and, I believe, all the chief writers of this school. Now in my Chapter on the Pręterists’ [32] I showed, 1st, that a figurative explanation of the Jewish Apocalyptic symbols was not only accordant with St. Paul’s application of them to the Christian Church, but accordant also with our Lord’s own express explanation of the Apocalyptic figure of seven candlesticks, in what seemed like the holy place of the Jewish temple, to signify the seven Asiatic Christian churches: 2ndly, and in objection to their literal system of explanation of these Jewish symbols, that the Pręterists are forced by it into inconsistency; explaining the temple symbol, as they do, and its adjuncts elsewhere in the Apocalyptic drama, to signify things Christian. Just so it is also with the Futurists. - Let me turn to Mr. Burgh, as before, for illustration. And as regards the Jewish temple, and temple-worshippers on the Apocalyptic scene, I observe, first, that he makes “all the saints” that offered incense there in (Apoc. viii. 3, “And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.”) - to be “the Lord’s people:” not unconverted Jews at all; nor even converted Jews alone, but only in part. [33] Next in (Apoc. xi. 1, “And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.”) - he explains the temple, and altar, and them that worship in it, to designate a “converted” remnant of the Jewish nation; [34] that is, mark, a Christianized remnant; and whose worship consequently will not be Jewish, [35] but Christian. Further, with regard to the twelve tribes of Israel, he makes the New Jerusalem of Apoc. xxi., - that same city “which had twelve gates, and the names written thereon of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel,” viz. of Judah, Reuben, Gad, &c., the very same that were noted in Apoc. vii. originally, and that are there re-mentioned just as fully and as specifically, - he makes it mean- what? “No doubt,” thinks the reader perhaps, “the blessed and glorious state of the Jewish nation in the millennium.” Nothing of the kind: (Mr. Burgh well knew certain stringent reasons, of various kinds, against this: [36] ) but the polity of the Christian Church, completed and beatified: “that same,” he observes, “which St. Paul meant in that magnificent passage addressed to the Hebrew Christians, ‘Ye are come unto Mount Zion, and the general assembly, and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven.’ I view it,” says he, [37] “as identical with the final consummated blessedness of the whole Church.” I doubt not he is here perfectly correct. But what an astounding exemplification of the inconsistency of the Futurists! Of course, if under the names of the twelve tribes of Israel, written respectively on the gates of the New Jerusalem, there be meant the true Christian Church in its heavenly completeness and beatification, then the 144,000 sealed ones on earth out of all the tribes of Israel must surely mean the completeness of any particular period of God’s own Israel, or true Church on earth; and the holy city and the temple still the same mystical body, in regard of its polity and of its worship, respectively. [38] - Such is the general Protestant view. And on it all seems harmonious; as well as all accordant with Christ’s own most illustrative explanation of the Jewish symbol of the candlesticks, at the beginning of the Apocalypse. Whereas, on the other hand, enough, I think, has been said to show that in the Futurists’ system, let the advocate be able as he may, this its essential characteristic will prove on real examination to involve confusion, inconsistency, and self-contradiction.


Under this head I shall have to remark on the difficulties which beset their theory, and the contrast between it and the Scriptural statements, with reference, 1st, to Antichrist’s time of reign and local seat of empire; 2ndly, to his religious profession.

1. Now then, as to the time of Antichrist’s rising, [39] it was defined as following speedily after the breaking up of the old Roman empire. For, forasmuch as the let, or hindrance, which in St. Paul’s time prevented, and was still for some certain time after to continue to prevent, Antichrist’s manifestation, was understood by the early Church to be the then regnant Roman empire and emperors, [40] (and for the correctness of this its understanding of the point, as of one avowedly revealed, there was almost apostolic voucher, [41] ) the inference might seem sure, and to be depended on, that Antichrist would be a power elevated on their falling. - Again, next, as to Antichrist’s local and political relations, his Roman political origin and local connection is a fact, as I have elsewhere more than once had occasion to observe, strongly and in various ways set forth in prophecy. First, if elevated on the old empire’s dissolution, as of that which before hindered his rising, then surely the probability might seem to be that he would rise in its place, as well as on its fall. Secondly, the fourth Beast of Daniel, from whose head in its last or ten-horned state the little horn of Antichrist was seen to sprout, could only (according either to the facts of history, or the declared judgment alike of the best classical writers and chief of the early Fathers) be construed of the Roman empire. [42] Thirdly, the city of Antichrist, Apocalyptically called the great city and Babylon, and which he was depicted as supporting and upbearing, was by the indubitable marks of a seven-hilled locality, and a supremacy in St. John’s time over the kings of the earth, signified to be Rome; and moreover its transfer marked as all but immediate, from being the seat or capital of Paganism, to being that of Antichrist. [43] Such, I say, was the triple Scriptural foreshadowing of Antichrist’s political relations and local connection with Rome, from his first rise on the old Roman empire’s falling.

But what when the theory of a still future Antichrist (in opposition to that of the Papal Antichrist) is held at the present time? There is nothing, I think, that can more strikingly show the extent and insuperability of the difficulties with which these various prophecies encompass it, than the attempt of him who, of all others of the literalist school, has set himself most fully and elaborately to meet them; and to whom Mr. Burgh refers with satisfaction, as furnishing important corroboration to his Scheme; [44] - I mean the Oxford Tractator of the Four Sermons on Antichrist. [45] It may be well to exhibit this at some little length.

To begin then with the Thessalonian prophecy, and the difficulty from the fact of its let (which with the Fathers he feels constrained to interpret of the Roman empire) [46] having full 13 centuries ago past away, and so too the time for Antichrist’s manifestation, [47] our Tractator’s confident answer in his first Sermon is this, - that, whatever the apparent historic fact, in the eye of prophecy the Roman empire is regarded as not past away, but still existing, and the let with it; viz. in its predicted ten horns or kingdoms, the Romano-Gothic constituency of modern Western Christendom. [48] But scarce has he made the answer than he contradicts it, forced by the strong facts of history: confessing in his third Sermon that the self-same breaking up of the Roman empire that was foretold did take place, at the time of the Gothic irruptions. [49]

Which however being admitted by him, and the admission also made, as we have seen, and must well remark, of the ten Romano-Gothic kingdoms of modern Western Christendom answering to the ten horns of Daniel’s and the Apocalyptic prophecy, - not only does the first difficulty from the Thessalonian Epistle remain unanswered, but a new one rises out of these other prophecies before him. For nothing can be clearer from them than that Antichrist was to be a power contemporary with the ten horns of the symbolic Beast: - like a little horn (of rapid enlargement) ruffling it, as Mede says, among the ten; or a common head supporting, and furnishing a center of union to them: - that is, according to these admissions, a power contemporary with the Western kingdoms of the middle and the modern age. Our author seems to feel the difficulty; and, reckless of the new contradictions that it involves, casts away both the one and the other of these previously-made admissions: asserts, - on the ground of the Romano-Gothic kingdoms of the 5th and 6th centuries not having been clearly and exactly ten, [50] - that the real decuple division intended by prophecy did not then take place, but is yet future; [51] and further, as to the breaking up of the empire, that it was not then really effected, but only had a bare beginning: - the commencement of a long process of dissolution which has in fact been ever since going on; and which, after full thirteen centuries, is not yet completed. [52] - Is this a thing credible?

And then there is yet another difficulty that here meets him. For both Daniel’s and the Apocalyptic symbol depict the Roman empire as a bestial monster, as well until the precise predicted division into ten, as under the ten and Antichrist afterwards. And thus his interpretation seems to involve the consequence of Papal Rome (the object in no slight degree of this esteem, and reverence) having been a Beast, or impious and persecuting Empire, in the view of inspired prophecy, even though not under Antichrist, throughout the long and (as he would have it) [53] still uncompleted period before the grand predicted decem-regal division. As if to get rid of this difficulty, he cites the two Apocalyptic notices of the Beast in its last or antichristian form, as “the Beast that was and is not and yet is,” and as that which had “received a deadly wound but revived:” intimating that it is the very interval of the “is not,” - the very death-state of the Beast from the deadly wound of the Gothic sword, - that has been filled up by Papacy and its contemporary subject-kingdoms of Western Christendom; the bestial Roman Empire (I presume he means its bestial principle) being all the while torpid, prostate, dying; [54] and the long, long protracted parenthesis of Papal rule one in character not bestial but Christian. [55] In answer to any objections that might be raised as to the credibility of this torpor of the Beast’s dying , or death, or death, extending through so many ages, he adds that it was the opinion of the early Church that the monster would lie torpid for centuries, and not revive or wake up again till near the end of the world. [56] But what the authority of the early Church, unsupported by Scripture? And where moreover the early patristic authority to any such effect? Instead of patristic opinions on the matter being such as he has represented, the reader may sufficiently see, by reference to notices on the subject in other and earlier parts of this work, [57] that, although the primitive Fathers slightly differed among themselves as to the nearness of Antichrist and the consummation, - some few thinking it a century distant, or perhaps two centuries, the rest much closer and even at the doors, - yet that, as to the idea of any long interval occurring, between the expected breaking up of the old Roman Empire and Antichrist’s revelation, during which the Roman Beast was to be torpid, - the thought seems never to have entered their imagination. [58] And certainly just as little did they anticipate two breakings up of the Roman Empire before Antichrist’s coming: the first of their own imperial Rome into something very like ten kingdoms; the other, ages afterwards, of those long-established decen-regal kingdoms into ten other kingdoms still more exactly defined. - As to Scripture prophecy, forasmuch as in Daniel the bestial character of the fourth Wild Beast, or Roman Empire, is represented symbolically as continuing uninterrupted even to the time of its destruction, and in the Apocalypse the transition-period between the empire in its Pagan draconic form and the empire in its anti-christian and bestial, (i.e. between the Beast as it “was,” and the Beast as it “is,”) is both declared to be brief, [59] and also described as all filled up by the Pagan Dragon’s still persecuting the woman the Church, (albeit that he was then fallen,) in active hostility, and so driving her into the wilderness, [60] - it is evident that the Tractator’s hypothesis meets from it a negative altogether decisive, and one from which there can be no appeal.

Yet once more the difficulty meets him of Babylon the Great, the city of the seven hills, being the predicted seal of Antichrist: - which local connection of Antichrist with Rome, as his capital, constitutes of course a most strong and palpable corroboration of the Protestant view of the Roman Pope’s being Antichrist. And what then our Tractator’s escape from it? Overlooking altogether the decisive fact of the woman sitting on the Beast when in its last and antichristian form, [61] he first alludes to the circumstance of the Angel’s describing the woman-city symbolized to be one that it was simply Rome Pagan to which the guilt attached of the harlotry spoken of, and of being drunk with the blood of the saints, [62] - albeit declared a bloody harlot continuously from St. John’s time even to the very end of her career; [63] and then passes to the Angel’s other statement about the ten kings hating and burning her with fire, [64] as direct evidence that Rome could not be the city of Antichrist: the order of things being this, (so he states the prophecy,) that the ten kings were fated to rise first, and, after rising, to destroy Rome; then Antichrist to appear, and supercede or subdue the ten kings; and so Rome to have fallen before Antichrist’s manifestation. [65] - But how could Antichrist be altogether posterior to the ten kings, when they are declared, as the Tractator admits, [66] to receive their power at one and the same time with the Beast Antichrist; and indeed depicted as rising together in the symbolization of (Apoc. xiii. 1, “And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.”?) Again, how could Antichrist be the restorer of the Roman empire, which the Tractator also confesses him to be, and bearer too of the Roman appellative Latinos, [67] if locally altogether unconnected with Rome, and only rising after Rome’s final destruction? In fact, he admits, a little after, both that Rome was  to be his local seat; [68] and, as to its final and total destruction, that it would not be by the ten kings’ agency, but according both to Scripture prophecy and the expectation of the Fathers, through the agency of earthquakes, lightnings, and the fury of the elements: [69] - an admission based on prophetic truth; [70] and in which he furnishes his own refutation of his own argument.

Thus, look where he may to escape from the difficulties of his prophetic theory, and substitution of a personal Antichrist yet future for the Papal Antichrist of the old Protestant interpreters, the prophecy meets, and stops, and proves too strong for him. At last, in the spirit of the ancient Academy, he takes refuge in doubt and skepticism. Perhaps, he says, after all it may be that not Rome literally is intended in the prophecy, but rather the world, or some other great and wicked city: [71] - or perhaps, if Rome be the city intended, her sufferings from the Goths, &c., in time past may be considered sufficient punishment; or the Church within her may prove her preservative, and so the final threatened judgments be averted. [72] Again, he regards Antichrist, and Antichrist’s persecution of the saints, Perhaps we may have been wrong in supposing such things to have been foretold; and they may, after all, never arise. [73] - Such I say is the conclusion of the writer; - a not unfit conclusion to a Treatise so marked by inconsistency and self-contradiction. Now it is mainly doubtless to the insuperable difficulties of the Tractator’s anti-protestant futurist theory about Antichrist, that these inconsistencies and self-contradictions with reference to Antichrist’s predicted time of rise after the old Roman Empire’s breaking up, and local Roman connection afterwards, are to be attributed; [74] - a fact evidenced by the similar or equal inconsistencies, and self-contradictions, of all other expositors of the same school on the same point. [75] And it is in this point of view that I have felt it my duty thus at length to exhibit them. At the same time, considering that it is no vulgar or inferior hand of the Tractarian school that has penned the Tract, and that the palpable failure of his attempt at diverting the prophecies respecting Antichrist from application to the Roman Papacy involves it in the most conclusive disproval and condemnation of the general Tractarian system of religious doctrine, - allied as it is so closely to that of Rome, - must not the thought also force itself on the mind, Is this the logic, this the theology, that half Oxford of late has been wondering after? [76]

2ndly, as to the Antichrist’s profest religion.

The triple Scriptural evidence in proof of the predicted Antichrist being a great professor of Christianity, - viz. that of his unrighteous system being defined as the deceivableness of unrighteousness, that of his chief agent and minister being figured as a lamb-like false prophet, and that of his designation by the name of a Vice-Christ, (in his own profession, of course, as if of Christ’s appointment,) - is what my readers must now be familiar with.

But the Futurists’ representations on this head are altogether different from what we might thus have inferred from Scripture. According to them Antichrist’s profession is to be that of a downright open atheist: - a theory this all but necessary indeed to their system; for why, except on account of some such different and more horrid kind of irreligion, overlook the Papacy, and judge Antichrist? So Maitland; “The blasphemy of the Little Horn seems . . to be downright barefaced infidelity: something more like what was exhibited in France during the Revolution, than like anything ever seen in the Church of Rome.” [77] Also Dr. Todd; “We are to look for an individual Antichrist; . . a power openly and avowedly professing atheism; and blaspheming the very name and semblance of Christianity.” [78] And so too others. [79] But then what explanation do they give of the passage just referred to, as indicating something so different in the Antichrist’s religious profession? In Dr. Maitland I observe no reference to them. As regards Dr. Todd, while overlooking that most striking symbol of the lamb-like two-horned Beast, that was prophetically set forth as Antichrist’s attendant and prime minister, [80] and this down even to Antichrist’s last war against the gospel, and consequent destruction by Christ, [81] he however notices, and seeks to set aside, the other two. St. Paul’s expression about the deceivableness of unrighteousness he explains away, as if meaning merely the deceivableness of false miracles, externally supporting the iniquitous moral system; [82] though surely the expression seems to imply a deceivableness by great pretensions to religion in the moral system itself. Again, as to the designative term Antichrist, though quoting a criticism of Mr. Gresswell which explains the force of the word almost exactly as I have done, viz. as meaning “another Christ, a Vice-Christ, a pretender to the name of Christ,” . . appears to be, and sets himself up as, the counterpart of the true,” - I say, though he thus quotes Mr. Gresswell, [83] defining the term so as to set aside, by the very force of it, all idea of the predicted Antichrist’s being an avowed atheist, yea, and confesses that “this is indeed it by simply saying, “It is plain that John applied the name in the looser sense of enemies to Christ by false doctrine.” But how so? The statement in 1 John ii. 22, “He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son,” is the one grand New Testament passage on which his atheist counter-theory rests. But mark how the next verse, “He that denieth the Son hath not the Father,” shows that the denial of God the Father meant by St. John was only by denying Christ. And how denying Christ? surely in Paul’s language, “While professing to know God, in works denying him.” The Gnostic application fixes this meaning on it. And so in truth the Oxford Tractator confesses; [84] and gives it an alternative explanation. How fully an apostle might apply the phrase to professedly Christian teachers appears from (Jude 4, “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”) - Here he speaks of false teachers, who had come into the Christian body privily, “denying the only Master and Lord Jesus Christ:” men who were “spots in the Christians’ feasts of charity.” And so too 2 Pet. ii. 1; “There shall be false teachers among you, who shall privily [conspiratorially, secretly,] bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them.” [85]

The same general notion about Antichrist that makes the Futurist paint him as an avowed infidel and atheist, leads them to paint him also as an open avowed anti-moralist: legalizing, and indeed enforcing, men’s renunciation of the obligations and restraints of marriage; agreeably, they say, with St. Paul’s prophetic notice to Timothy about the apostatizers in the last days, (for they explain this as meant in the way of a universal prohibition,) “forbidding to marry.” [86] The anti-moral excesses and outrages at the first outbreak of the French Revolution are referred to by way of illustration. So Dr. Maitland: - “The plain language of Scripture warrants us to expect . . that the same apostate power shall forbid to marry: and they who have any acquaintance with the real doctrines of apostates from Christianity, whether French philosophers, German illuminati, or liberal infidels of England, will require no proof that such a law may be expected, if an infidel apostasy should become dominant.” [87] So too Dr. Maitland’s faithful follower, Dr. Todd: “This much seems beyond a doubt, that a total prohibition of marriage in itself, and not a restriction imposed upon some particular class or order of men, must be intended in the words.” [88] And so again the Oxford Tractator. [89]

Now the whole force of this argument, as corroborative of their own Futurist views of an individual Antichrist, and subversive of the common Protestant view explaining it of the Papacy, arises out of the idea just noticed of the predicted prohibition being one of universal application. But, to show the utter incorrectness of this idea, notwithstanding the learned Dublin Doctor’s declaration of its indubitableness, two considerations will, I believe, suffice: the one a probable argument drawn from the context of the prediction: the other an ex-absurdo  proof drawn from the supposed thing predicted.

First then, and as regards the context which immediately precedes the verse in question, [90] what find we to have been there St. Paul’s subject and argument? We find nearly the whole preceding Chapter occupied with the Apostle’s directions to Timothy as to what would be fitting, and should be required, in bishops and deacons: - including the remarkable particular, respecting both bishops and deacon, that each should be the husband of one wife; [91] and also a reference to wine, as that which neither bishop nor deacon should use to excess: [92] it being implied that in moderation they might both lawfully and properly use it; as he said to Timothy himself a little later, [93] “Let the deacons be husbands of one wife, &c.,” that St. Paul digresses momentarily to intimate the necessity of his thus instructing Timothy by letter, (having been prevented from personal conference,) how he ought to act in his responsible office of a presiding bishop in the Church of God; that whose high object it was, like a pillar erect on its basement, to hold up and exhibit the great gospel truth of the mystery of godliness, of which that a and w was God manifest in the flesh: and this the rather because of Spirit told expressly of a coming apostasy from the faith, in which there would be another rule of life and godliness; with forbidding to marry, and enjoining of abstinence from meats, though God had given them as his good creatures for man’s use. This noted he then resumes the thread of his general directions at verse 6; “Suggesting these things to the brethren, (viz. all that he had previously enjoined,) thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ.” - Such, I say, is the connection and context of this brief but memorable prophecy; and thus does it intervene parenthetically in the course of St. Paul’s instructions to Timothy about ministers of the Church; including that of their being husbands of one wife, and not using wine in excess. All which being so, would it be reasonable to suppose that St. Paul digressed to a prophecy in no wise specially connected with his ministerial subject, but concerning alike all men; or, rather, to one closely connected with it and having regard specially to ministers and functionaries in the visible Church? Surely the latter. In which case, and considering the far-famed Papal injunction of celibacy on the priesthood, (not to add also on the monastic orders,) and that of the forbidding of meats also, wine inclusive to multitudinous ascetic orders, the prophecy becomes, just as Mede in the main expounded it, [94] a prophecy that had most signal fulfillment in the Popedom; and so, instead of an argument for Futurists, furnishes an argument strong against them. [95]

Secondly, I should be glad to know, where there truth in Drs. Maitland and Todd’s universal anti-marriage theory respecting Antichrist, how it could consist with Christ’s own prophetic declaration in Matt. xxiv. 38, “For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,”?) For, according to these learned Doctors, the yet future Antichrist’s empire over the world is to be universal; and his power such that whosoever refuses to receive the mark, and obey his injunctions, is to be slain. [96] Of course this must apply to the injunction about not marrying and not eating meats, just as well as to other injunctions. And since Antichrist’s reign is, as they rightly hold, to be only ended by Christ’s coming, this injunction must needs be in force, and acted on, even until then. Yet, behold, Christ tells us that, “as in the days before the flood men were eating and drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage, until the day when Noe entered into the ark, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be.” - Just accordant with which is the further fact that on the tremendous destruction of Antichrist’s own city, the seven-hilled Babylon, by volcanic earthquake and fire, so as described in Apoc. xviii., among the things mentioned as only then ceasing in Babylon is “the voice of the bridegroom and bride.”


And here I might fitly conclude this part of my critique, since on the only other great point of difference about Antichrist, viz. the year-day question, involving that of Antichrist’s duration, I have written very fully in my Chapter on it in the 3rd Volume. [97] - But I think it well, ere concluding, to add a few remarks in correction of certain representations by Futurists respecting the Papacy on the one hand, and the Antichrist on the other, on points which bear on my last head, and seem to me too important to pass in silence.

The first is Dr. M.’s representation of celibacy under the Popedom as if, first, it extended only to the parochial Clergy, and affected one sex only; - secondly, as if it was only enforced on the Clergy from the view (perhaps mistaken view, he says) of their so better performing their clerical functions. - This is not the way that Ranke speaks of it, in his History of Popes. [98] And assuredly that was not the master-motive which induced the Papal determinate enforcement of it at all hazards. In the view of making use of profest religion to subserve both irreligion and worldly policy, it was one of his measures the most characteristic, and most extraordinary. Extending not merely to the parochial clergy of Western Europe, but to the numberless communities of monks and nuns, its first effect was to consecrate, at the same time that with the strong arm of power it enforced upon them, that rule of celibacy which, under the semblance of purity and holiness, opened wide the way, and almost precipitated them into it, of licentiousness. [99] And, when direct Papal rule was established over the convent, (not to speak of the priesthood,) then in those innumerable monasteries, male and female, - containing within their walls members from most of the high and considerable families in the several Western kingdoms, and absorbing in their domains no small proportion of the national territory, the accumulated result, it was said, of the piety, or rather of the superstition of successive generations, - I say in these monasteries, thus as an act of religion endowed, and thus as an act of religion peopled with devotees, it was found that he had formed, and held in his grasp, so many almost inexpugnable fortresses, filled with hostages for its fidelity, in the heart of each kingdom of Western Christendom. [100] Was there ever such a “forbidding to marry,” in any other Church, or Sect, that Dr. M. has put forward for comparison on this head? - Nor must I omit to except strongly against what Dr. M. says of the abstinence in our own Church, good and praiseworthy. [101] By the English Church the doctrine of justification through faith in Christ alone is laid down as its very foundation-stone. With the Roman Church the rule of fasting, as of celibacy, is laid down as a principle of merit and self-justification, in opposition to the gospel of Christ.

Next, and with reference to Dr. Todd [102] and other Futurists’ view of Antichrist’s religious or rather anti-religious profession, as that of an open avowed atheist, anti-religionist, and anti-moralist, let me express my deep conviction, that it is not merely

unaccordant with the Apocalyptic and the other cognate prophecies of Antichrist, but appears, even intellectually speaking, a mere rude and common-place conception of Satan’s predicted master-piece of opposition to Christ, compared with what has been actually realized and exhibited in the Papacy. My opinion of the Pope’s being Antichrist is not indeed founded on any such ą priori notion of the thing; but on the complete identification of the one and the other, after a rigid comparison of the Papal history, seat, character, doctrine, and doings with those of the Antichrist of prophecy. Having however shown this, let me now explain and justify the superadded sentiment just expressed respecting the Papal system; as being, beyond anything that the Futurists have imagined, or ever can imagine, the very perfection of anti-christianism. And I will do it by simply putting a case in point. Which then, I ask, Reader, would you view with deeper amazement and abhorrence: - an avowed open desperate enemy, sworn against your life, family, friends, property: - or one, that, while professing the utmost friendship, were by some strange impersonation of you, in your absence, to insinuate himself into your place in the family; seize your estate, seduce your wife to be as his wife, [103] your children to look to him as their father; and, if yours be a king’s dignity, to seize your kingdom for himself; then to make use of his opportunities to train them (wife, children, and subjects) into unfaithfulness and rebellion against all your solemn and cherished wishes and commands; falsifying your letters and forging your handwriting, in order the more effectually to carry out his plan; and even at length framing an image, and breathing voice into it, and by magic art and strong delusion making men believe that it was your own self-speaking, in expression of perfect approval of his proceedings, as those of your chief friend, plenipotentiary, and chosen substitute? - Such is somewhat of the view of Antichrist, sketched in Scripture prophecy: such, what has been realized in the Popes and Popedom. And, horrid as was the atheism of the French Revolution, yet must I beg leave to doubt whether in God’s view it was as horrid and abomination, even at its worst, as the blasphemous hypocrisies and betrayal of Christ in the polished Court and Church Councils of his usurping Vicar and impersonator at Rome. Sharp as were the thorns and nails and spear of the Pagan soldiery, they were surely less painful to the Savior than the kiss of Judas. [104]

[1] The Work referred to p. 265, Note 2192 suprą.

[2] Viz. in my Critique in the Appendix to Vol. i.

[3] It may be right to add that the main part of the present Section formed the conclusion of my Chapter on the Year-day in the first Edition: (from p. 982 to 1007:) which Edition, though published after Mr. Birks’ work, was, up to the end of Part V., including the Chapter spoken of, printed some considerable time before it; and indeed, in that incomplete state, was in Mr. Birks’ hands, as well as Mr. Bickersteth’s, while the former was engaged in writing his book.

Mr. Birks however made a point, as he has told me, of not reading that particular Chapter; in order that his testimony and statement might be altogether independent of mine.

[4] See pp. 196, 197 supra.

[5] See p. 264 supra.

[6] Mr. Burgh’s peculiar way of stating this will be noted presently

[7] Apoc. i. 1; “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show to his servants what must shortly come to pass:” Apoc. xxii. 10; “Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this Book, for the time is at hand.”

Let me quote the famous critic Michaelis on this point.” If it be objected that prophecies in the Apocalypse are not yet fulfilled, that they are therefore not fully understood, and that hence arises the difference of opinion in respect to their meaning, I answer, that if these prophecies are not yet fulfilled, it is wholly impossible that the Apocalypse should be a divine work; since the author expressly declares, Chap. i., that it contains ‘things which must shortly come to pass.’ Consequently either a great part of them, I will not say all, must have been fulfilled; or the author’s declaration that they should shortly be completed is not consistent with matter of fact.” - Introduction to the New Testament, Marsh’s Edition, Chap. xxxiii. § v. p. 503.

[8] I cannot except Mr. Burgh; though, at p. 431, he seems to refer to Daniel’s prefigurations of the Image and the Four Beasts, as if almost constituting a precedent for such a mighty prophetic gap, because of the last empire being most dwelt on in the explanation. For at p. 248 he admits them to figure the four Antichristian empires that were to last from Daniel’s own time to Messiah; and consequently that there is in these two prophecies no prophetic gap whatsoever. - As to the longer dwelling on the fourth Empire in Daniel, there is just the same in the Apocalypse; I mean on the usual Protestant explanation of its symbol of the ten-horned Beast figuring that empire in its last and Papal form.

[9] Apoc. iii. 11, “Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.”; xxii. 7, “Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.”, 12, “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.”, 20, “He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus”.

[10] Dr. M.’s references are to Isa. xiii. 6, “Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.”; Obad. 15, “or the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head”; Joel i, 15, “Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.”, ii, 1, “Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand; ”; Zeph. i. 7, “Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord GOD: for the day of the LORD is at hand: for the LORD hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath bid his guests. ”, 14, “The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.”; In all these cases “the day of Jehovah” is the phrase used.

[11] Answer to Digby, pp. 46, 47.

[12] In Illustration of the former of the two phrases being sometimes used in the nearer and lesser sense of Christ’s coming to execute some particular act of judgment, during the world’s present existence, I may refer to Apoc. ii. 5; where Christ in his address to the Church at Ephesus says, “Repent, and do thy first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of its place.” So again Luke xx. 16; “The Lord of the vineyard shall come, and shall destroy those husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others.” Also in Matt. xxiv., and the parallel passages in Mark and Luke, Christ’s coming seems to be used, primarily at least, of his coming to destroy Jerusalem: (see my next head:) and sometimes too, subordinately, of Christ’s coming to take his saints to himself at death. So (comparing Phil. i. 23, we may perhaps primarily construe it in the passage, “Behold I come quickly;” “Amen! Even so! Come, Lord Jesus; come quickly!”

Similarly, as I need hardly remind the reader, the day of the Lord is also frequently used in the Old Testament of God’s interposition to inflict some particular temporal judgment on a guilty nation: e.g. that of the locusts, noted in Joel i. 15, which is one of the passages cited by Maitland.

[13] “In reply to this,” (viz. the objection against Dr. M. of making things still future of which it was declared that they should shortly come to pass,) “I must say that I believe a great subject of the Apocalypse to be the events of that period which is called in various parts of the Scripture the day of the Lord, and by St. John the Lord’s day; and that the Apostle was carried forward ‘in spirit’ to that day, and enabled and directed to describe what shall then come to pass.” - “Must he not have been carried forward in spirit into the day of the Lord,” says Dr. M. elsewhere; “when in the verses preceding he exclaimed, Behold he cometh with clouds?” Jewish Expos. Aug. 1823. So too Todd, p. 59.

R. D., a correspondent of the Dublin Christian Examiner, of this same school, has urged very much the same translation, and same explanation of the Apocalyptic text. See the number for February, 1845, p. 381. - Mr. Burgh, too, p. 18, speaks of it approvingly, though doubtfully. - And Mr. Kelly, a writer on the Apocalypse subsequent to my 1st Edition, adopts the same view even more strongly; and advertises his Book as an exposition, “not on Mr. Elliott’s principle, but in the light of the day of the Lord.

[14] Egenomhn en IIneumati en th Kuriakh hmera. Apoc. i. 10.

[15] Compare Matt. iv. 1; “Then was Jesus led up by the Spirit into the wilderness;” anhcqh upo tou IIneumatov eiv thn drhmon or parallel passage Luke iv. 1, hgeto en tw IIneumati eiv thn erhmon - also  2 Cor. xii. 4; “he was caught up to Paradise;” hrpagh eiv ton IIaradeison. Aooc. xvii. 3; Aphnegke me eiv erhmon en IIneumati Apoc. xxi. 10; Aphnegke me en IIneumati ep orov mega &c. - Strange that this palpable grammatical difficulty should never have occurred to Dr. M., Todd, or Burgh! - In sequence to Apoc. xvii. 3, argues Dr. M. (ap Todd, p. 297,) might not John have said, “I was in the spirit in the wilderness?” Yes! but only after telling by a verb of motion, and the preposition into, how he got there.

[16] “A principal, and, as it appears to me, sufficient reason for this opinion is, that this title (the Lord’s day, h Kuriakh hmera) is not used for the first day of the week in the New Testament, or in any writer that I can find before the time of Constantine: and in fact Nicephorus tells us that it was he who directed that the day which the Jews considered the first day of the week, and which the Greeks dedicated to the sun, should be called the Lord’s day.” Answer to Digby, p. 46.

[17] Suicer, on the word Kuriakh, after quoting the passage from Nicephorus to which Dr. M. refers, ‘Hn Ellhnev prwthn eicon hmeran, Ellhnev d hliw aneqento, Kuriakhn katwnomase, (sc. o Kwnstanteinov,) observes; “Hoc falsum esse evincunt testtimonia Patrum Constantine antiquirorum.“ And he adds a suggestion that Nicophorus may perhaps have only meant that Constantine brought the appellation, into public use, and set it apart as a holiday; a fact noted by Sozomen in his Ecclesiastical History Book I. 8. - Further, in proof of Fathers older than Constantine applying the Apocalyptic appellative to the Sunday, or Christian sabbath, Suicer cites Ignatius, calling it in his Epistle to the Magnesians thn kuriakhn, thn anastasimon, thn basileda, thn mpaton paswn twn hmerwn and also an inscription of the age of Alexander Severus;

Etei Alexandron Kaisaron

Tw A Arch

Ai Kuriakai tou IIasca

Kata etov.

To which I may add, that Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, speaks against fasting on the Lord’s day, Ei tiv Kuriakhn h sabbaton nhsteuei, plhn enuv sabbatou - that Irenęus states, To en th Kuriakh mh klinein gonu, the not bending the knee on the Lord’s day, to be a symbol of the resurrection: - that Clement of Alexandria (Strom. vii. 12) speaks of the true Gnostic observing the Lord’s day; Kuriakhn ekeinhn thn hmeran poiei - that the Commentary on the Gospels by Theophilus (Patriarch of Antioch under the second Antonine, as Jerome informs us) reports the third day from that of Christ’s crucifixion to have been, from the resurrection of Christ on it, called the Lord’s day; “ą resurrectione Domini appellatur:” (I quote from the Latin translation , B. P. M. ii. 171:) - that Melito, Bishop of Sardis, a contemporary of Theophilus, is said to have written a Treatise IIere Kuriakhn, on the Lord’s day; (so Euseb. H. E. iv. 26;) and Origen (against Celsus, B. viii.): Ean de tin pron tauta anqupoferh ta peri twn par hmin kuriakwn, h tou pasca, h thv penthkosthv also Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, Thn shmeron thn Kureakhn agian hmeran dihgagomen and the Pseudo-Justin Martyr, Quęst. 115. - I may add that Tertullian in sundry places, given by Bishop Kaye, p. 408, calls it Dies Dominicus; and Commodian, a contemporary of Cyprian, or immediate successor, (Lardner iii. 134,) also uses it; “De die Dominica quid dicis?” - Thus, instead of no writer before Constantine calling the first day of the week the Lord’s day, there is a chain of patristic writers, both Greek and Latin, that do so, from after St. John’s time downward, through the second and third centuries.* - Bingham’s view corresponds; xx. 2. 1.

[* In turning to Dr. Maitland’s Paper in the Jewish Expositor, Aug. 1823, to which he refers for a fuller discussion of the subject, I find that he sets aside the quotation from Ignatius to the Magnesians as not Ignatius’ own; and probably so far with reason: (see my Vol. i. p. 16:) and exception applicable also to the quotation from the Epistle to the Philadelphians. But we must remember that though not Ignatius’ own, they were yet probably written in his name by some writer prior to Constantine’s time. Dr. M. objects too to the citation from Irenęus, under a doubt of the word kuriakh being that of Irenęus himself: but I conceive without reason. As to Tertullian’s, Clement’s, and the other examples unnoticed by Dr. M., they are, I believe, indisputable. - Dr. Todd, I see, pp. 295-303, cites Papers on the point by Dr. M. and others from the British Magazine of 1839. They in no wise disturb my argument.]

Let me add an illustration that I find in Michaelis on the N. T. Vol. vi. 61, and which seems to me interesting. Speaking of the kuriakon deipnon in 1 Cor. xi. 20, he says, “This may be translated, as in the Syriac version, a meal which is proper for the Lord’s day, or a Sunday meal.” And he adds; “In the controversy relative to the celebration of Sunday, it is extraordinary that this translation of kuriakon deipnon in so ancient a version as the Syriac should never have been quoted.” How ancient has not yet, I believe, been exactly settled by Syriac scholars.

[18] It is called in the Septuagint h hmera Kuriou, or h hmera Kuriou h megalh, but never, I believe, with the adjective h Kuriakh hmera. Of the early Fathers I can only say that, in my limited reading of them, I have not met the phrase.

[19] App. p. 609.

[20] It only brings the subject soon on the tapis.

[21] On Antichrist, p. 21.

[22] P. 157, 4th ed.

[23] P. 106.

[24] I am glad to see that this argument for the figurative intent of what appeared is the vision from the stars falling to the earth, has been urged also, though on another passage of Scripture, by Olshausen. Contending for the literal meaning being intended by Christ in the heavenly signs that he spoke of in Matt. xxiv. 30, 31, “And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31: And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” - Olshausen notices the distinctive point of the stars not being there said to fall on the earth; which, he considers, would fix their symbolic meaning. “Nothing is here said of stars falling to the earth, as is said of a star, Rev. viii. 10, “And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;”, [and vi. 13, “And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind”] in symbolical language.” Clarke’s Ed. p. 268.

[25] “If the 6th Seal be a prediction, as undoubtedly it is, of the day of judgment, it is impossible that the next vision can be a continuance of it.” Todd, p. 109. Sound logic would rather have argued thus: “The sealing vision is, and must be, a continuance of the 6th Seal: therefore the prior figuration cannot be one of the day of judgment.”

[26] Viz. says he, those next . . in Matt xxiv. 29, 30. He means, I presume, only xxiv. 29. “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:”. Verse 30 mentions the Son of Man himself coming in the clouds of heaven, of which the 6th Seal tells nothing.

[27] At p. 186, reprobating all figurative interpretation of the Trumpets, he refers to similar expositions of the 6th Seal as “still more needing confirmation.”

[28] He says, p. 164; “The remainder of the book must be . . subsequent in order of fulfillment to the opening of the Seals.” So too p. 170, &c. He is here at issue with Dr. Todd.

[29] P. 203. - I may add, as an inference from Mr. Burgh’s explanation of Apoc. xxi. 1 that the passing away of the heaven as a scroll, and other contemporary elemental changes figured in the 6th Seal, will in his judgment have nothing whatever to do with that passing away of the old earth and heaven which is described Apoc. xxi. 1, as the event that is to be succeeded by a new heaven and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.

[30] Pp. 205, 206.

[31] Todd, p. 112.

[32] See pp. 272-273 suprą.

[33] Burgh, 183, Dr. Todd, p. 131, blames Mr. B. for even assigning any prominence to converted Jews in this incense-offering body. “it is the prayers of the universal Church.”

[34] Ib. 268.

[35] Mr. Burgh indeed, at p. 183, strangely calls it “a Jewish service;” and, still more strangely, on Apoc. xi., makes Antichrist to be sitting in this temple. But this only the more illustrates the difficulties of his theory.

[36] Specially that the Philadelphian Gentile Christians were spoken of as forming part of this Israel and its twelve tribes. Apoc. iii. 12, “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.”.

[37] Burgh, p. 380.

[38] So Hengstenberg, i. 421, &c., strongly.

[39] I assume in all that follows, as a point long since proved, the identity of the Antichrist with the Little Horn of the fourth of Daniel’s four Beast’s, the eighth or last head of the Apocalyptic Beast, and St. Paul’s Man of Sin.

[40] See my Vol. i. pp. 228-231, 234, 388-393.

[41] 2 Thess. ii. 6, “And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.”.

[42] See my Vol. i. ibid.

[43] See my Vol. iii. pp. 115, 129, 130.

[44] P. 447.

[45] No. 83.

[46] “I grant that he that withholdeth, or letteth, means the power of Rome; for all the ancient writers so speak of it. I grant that as Rome, according to the prophet Daniel’s vision, succeeded Greece, so Antichrist succeeds Rome, and our Saviour Christ succeeds Antichrist.” p. 5.

[47] “He that letteth shall let until he be taken away: and then shall the Wicked One be revealed,” &c. 2 Thess. ii. 7, 8, “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8: And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

[48] “But it does not hence follow that Antichrist is come:” [this extract follows continuously, it must be observed, on the one preceding:] “for I do not grant that the Roman empire is gone. Far from it. The Roman empire remains even to this day.” - Then, speaking of the ten horns of the prophetic symbol, he adds: “As the ten horns belonged to the Beast, and were not separate from it, so are the kingdoms into which the Roman empire has been divided part of that empire itself; - a continuation of that empire in the view of prophecy, however we decide the historical question. And as the horns or kingdoms still exist, we have not yet seen the end of the Roman empire. That which withholdeth still exits, though in its ten horns.” pp. 5, 6.

[49] “The Roman empire did break up, as foretold.” p. 30. See my Note 2351 below. So again Tract No. 90, p. 77; “God promoted in the way of Providence, and he cast down by the same way, the Roman empire. . . The Roman power ceased to be when the barbarians overthrew it: for it rose by the sword, and it therefore perished by the sword.”

[50] So Maitland earlier. Also Burgh, p. 249. - Let me suggest to these Futurists whether it might not be worth their while to take up the question of the phrase twelve apostles, as used by St. John Apoc. xxi. 14, “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”; and expose its incorrectness, in consequence of St. Paul having before that been called to be an apostle, besides the original twelve, and having so made the body thirteen. Besides that, after Judas fell, there were for a while only eleven.

[51] “The Roman empire did break up, as foretold. It divided into a number of separate kingdoms, such as our own, France, and the like. Yet it is difficult to number ten accurately and exactly . . . We must suppose therefore that it [the decem-regal division] is yet to come. With this accords the ancient notion that they [the ten kings] were to come at the end of the world, and last but a short time; Antichrist coming upon them” p. 31.

It is quite curious to observe the differences of Romanist Expositors one from another, as well as of our Tractarian Expositor from himself, on this terribly perplexing difficulty. Thus, while Bellarmine stakes his defense of the Popes against the charge of being Antichrist on the fact of the uninterrupted existence, even to his own time, of the Roman Empire, it is admitted by Bossuet and Miley, accordantly with the Tractarian in his later mood, as the very principle of their solution of the prophecy, that the Roman power ceased to be, and perished, when the Gothic barbarians overthrew it. Nay, not these Pręterist Romanists only, but even the Futurist leader Ribera (not without others following) confesses to the same fact. “Ribera in Apoc. xii., et Estius et Justinianus in 2 Thess. ii. 3, causati sunt ą multis retro annis Imperium Romanum verč defecisse, atque has angustias in quas jain redatum videmus in Germaniā, indiguas esse nomine Romani imperii, quasi putres quasdam tabulas fracti et dilacerati Imperii.” Whence Ribera argued, “hujus (sc. Romani imperii) extinctionem non posse reputari pro signo adventūs Antichristi.” But no, answers Malvenda, from whom I cite the above: the extinction of the Roman empire is, and must be, the sign of Antichrist’s manifestation: and, since Antichrist has not yet come, THEREFORE the Roman empire cannot have past away. - My readers will do well to mark the argument on either side, as well as the dissension. Malv. i. 402.

Among the moderns Dr. S. R. Maitland holds strongly on this point with Ribera and Bossuet; Mr. C. Maitland (in his “Apostolic School of Interpretation”) as strongly with Bellarmine and Malvenda; while the Tractator sides undecided first with one, then with the other. “It is difficult to say whether the Roman empire is gone, or not. In one sense it is; for it is divided into kingdoms: in another sense it is not; for the date cannot be assigned at which it came to an end.” p. 31.

[52] “Such were the scourges by which the fourth monster of Daniel’s vision was brought low: . . . such the process by which that which letteth (in St. Paul’s language) began to be taken away, though not altogether removed even at this day.” p. 34.

[53] See the extract Note 2351, p.290.

[54] So at pp. 32, 50, &c. Again, p. 26; “The Roman empire, which once was, and now sleeps.” So that it has been sleeping some 1200 years and more: and all that figures on the European page of history, from the time of Charlemagne to that of the Crusades, from that of the Crusades to that of Louis XIV, and from thence to the French Revolution and its wars, ending with the battle of Waterloo, is to be regarded, according to our Tractator, as only the troublous dreams of the sleeping empire, in its primary and imperfectly ten-divided state!

So, somewhat similarly, the Lyra Apostolica:

The floodgates open wide;

And madly rushes in the turbulent tide

Of lusts and heresies: a motley groupe they came:

And old imperial Rome

Looks up, and lifts again half-dead

Her seven-horn’d head:

And schisms and superstitions near and far,

Blend in one pestilent star,

And shake their horrid locks against the saints to war.

[55] At p. 31 the writer says, that with regard to any “seduction or delusion to be practiced on the world,” it has not been fulfilled in the seven-hilled Rome, since the division of the empire or the Gothic invasion: and at p. 45 that Rome has not, since that time, been a persecutor of the Church; for he speaks of “the Church having been sheltered from persecution for 1500 years.” Again, at p. 37, after stating the guilt of old Pagan Rome in persecuting the saints, and the consequent guilt and doom of the city, he asserts that the only assignable reason why Rome has not thus suffered the fullness of God’s wrath, is because “a Christian Church is still in that city, sanctifying it, interceding for it, saving it.” - In Note at p. 38, he intimates indeed that “no opinion, one way or the other, is here expressed as to the question how far, as the local Church has saved Rome, so Rome has corrupted the local Church: or whether the local Church in consequence, or, again, whether other Churches elsewhere, may or may not be types of Antichrist.” But the first clause in Italics (and we may shrewdly suspect too the last clause about other Churches italicized) will show that there is meant in this Note but little of qualification to the writer’s previously quoted statements in favor of Papal Rome.

[56] “Another expectation of the early Church was that the Roman monster, after remaining torpid for centuries, would wake up at the end of the world, and be restored in all its laws and forms.” p. 24. He gives, I observe, no patristic authority for this statement. Perhaps he had reference to the ideas of Nero’s revival mentioned See pp. 136, 145, 270, 271 suprą: which however implied Nero’s dormancy, not the Roman empire’s; and moreover was an idea that gained but little hold on the Christian Church. Our Tractator’s own next quotation is from Hippolytus, (the same that I have given in my Vol. i. p. 229,) which says nothing either of the torpor of the Roman Beast for centuries, or of its restoration in all its (i.e. according to the Oxford writer’s meaning old Rome’s) laws and forms. The purport of Hippolytus’ observation is to the effect that Antichrist would be a reviver and restorer of the Roman Empire as notably as Augustus was: not, however, by Augustus’ or the old Roman laws; but by his own new laws: dia ton up antou orizomenon nomon.

[57] See my vol. i. ibid.; where the expectations to this effect are set forth of Justin Martyr, Judas, Tertullian, Cyprian, &c. Hippolytus too (after Irenęus) thus expressed the same expectation: “What more remains? what, but the passing of the iron legs of the image into the ten toes; or Roman Empire into ten kingdoms?” They who, like Lactantius and Hilarion, regarded the consummation as at the distance of a century or two, (induced very much to that opinion by the expectation of the world’s seventh millennary being its sabbatism, and with notions about the mundane chronology such as to admit of their nevertheless supposing the consummation not very distant,) I say these Fathers seem to have expected that whatever interval of time remained, it would be mainly before, not after, the breaking up of the old Roman empire. - I reserve for a later Chapter in this Appendix a more direct comparison and contrast between the Patristic views and the Futurists’.

[58] Even Augustine, though an innovator to a considerable extent in Apocalyptic interpretation, at the epoch of the Gothic invasion, so as I have shown in an earlier part of my Book, Vol. iii. p. 277, and introducer of the idea of the Beast being (secondarily at least) a symbol of the world and its city, in opposition to the City of God, and likely to last some uncertain time longer, yet never, so far as I know, suggested the probability of any long interval of torpor affecting the Roman Beast, before the last paroxysm of persecution and wickedness under Antichrist.

[59] See Apoc. xii. 12, “Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

[60] See Apoc. xii; and my Commentary on it in Chapters 1 and 2 of Part iv.

[61] Compare verses 3, 8, and 11 of Apoc. xvii.; “I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-colored Beast, having seven heads and ten horns:” - “The Beast that thou sawest was and is not:” - “The Beast that was and is not, even he is the eighth, and goeth into perdition.”

[62] “This great city (Rome) is described under the image of a woman cruel, profligate, and impious; . . . and is called by the name of Babylon the Great, to signify her power, wealth, profaneness, pride, sensuality, and persecuting spirit. I need not relate how all this answered to the character and history of Rome at the time St. John spoke of it.” p. 29. - With regard to the Beast ridden by the woman, he says; “The Beast on which the woman sate is the Roman Empire. And this agrees very accurately with the actual position of things in history: for Rome, the mistress of the world, might well be said to sit upon, and be carried about triumphantly on, that world which she had subdued, and made her creature.” Ibid. Of the monster figured being the Beast, not under its sixth head, - that which ruled in St. John’s time, - but under its eighth and last head, according to the Angel’s explanation, our Tractators says not a word.

Mr. Burgh, I may observe, expressly makes the Rome depicted in vision, and ridden by the Beast, to be Rome ridden by the Beast under its sixth head; in direct contradiction to the Angel’s declaration, that “the Beast which thou sawest. . . is the 8th King.” Apoc. xvii. 8, “The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.”, 11, “And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.”. See Burgh. pp. 158, 159..

[63] Apoc. xviii. 24; “in her was found the blood of the prophets and saints, and of all that had been slain on the earth.”

[64] Apoc. xvii. 16; “The ten horns which thou sawest on the Beast,* these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.”  *[The Tractator reads epi to qhrion, as in the English authorized version. See his p. 30.]

[65] “Rome is to fall before Antichrist’s rises: for the ten kings are to destroy Rome; and Antichrist is then to appear, and supercede the ten kings. As far as we dare judge from the words, this seems clear.” p. 20. So again p. 39.

[66] “We are expressly told that the ten kings and Antichrist’s empire shall rise together; the kings appearing at the time of the monster’s resurrection, not in its languid and torpid state.” p. 32.

Let me remind my readers, with regard to Dan. vii. 21, (“The ten horns are ten kings that shall arise, and another shall rise after them,”) that the Septuagint translation, in correct rendering of the Hebrew (see Gesenius) reads opisw autwn, behind, or locally after, the ten. (So in my Vol. iii. p. 91, Note 1.) Thus Daniel’s statement needs not be considered at all inconsistent with that of the Apocalypse, xvii. 12, “The Ten Horns are ten Kings that receive power as kings at one time with the Beast:” i.e. according to the Angel’s explanation, the Beast under its last head.

[67] This is admitted to have been the patristic expectation. p. 25 The writer adds, p. 26, “He will knit the Roman empire into one.”

[68] “He will earn the title of the Latin or Roman King, as best expressive of his place and character.” p. 26.

[69] He cites Gregory in particular: “Rome shall not be destroyed by the (barbaric) nations; but shall consume away internally, worn out by storms of lightning, whirl-winds, and earthquakes.” p. 35. He might have cited further, to the same effect, Tertullian, Lactantius, and others.

[70] All this will be found explained and illustrated in the last part of my Commentary. See on the one point of the ten horns tearing and burning the harlot-city in the earlier ęra of her imperial history, pp. 16, 17; and on her final and everlasting destruction by volcanic earthquake and fire, p. 100 suprą.

[71] “As Babylon is a type of Rome, and of the world of sin and vanity, so Rome in her turn may be a type also, whether of some other city [yes to come], or of a proud and deceiving world.” p. 38 - See on this point my examination of Dr. Arnold’s prophetic theory, in a later Chapter in this Appendix.

[72] “Rome’s judgments have come on her in great measure, when her empire was taken from her: her persecutions of the Church have been in great measure judged; and the Scripture predictions concerning her fulfilled. Whether or not she shall be further judged depends on two circumstances: - first, whether the righteous men in the city, who saved her when her judgment first came, [that executed by the Goths.] may not through God’s great mercy be allowed to save her still; next, whether the prophecy in its fullness relates to Rome, or to some other object, or objects, of which Rome is a type.” p. 39. “Perchance, through God’s mercy, it [Rome’s destruction] may be procrastinated even to the end, and never be fulfilled. of this we can know nothing, one way of the other.” p. 38.

[73] If such a persecution [that of Antichrist] has been foretold, it has not yet come, and therefore is to come. We may be wrong in thinking that Scripture foretells it, though it has been the common belief of all ages: but if there be, it is still future.” p. 49; and so too p. 52.

[74] Perhaps in part too from intentional obscurity: - for such is avowed by some of the Tractarians. Though surely on important theological questions, if on any other, obscurity is above all things to be deprecated, and light sought.

En de faei kai olesson.

[75] In my chapter on the Year-day, Vol. iii. p. 298, I have noticed Dr. S. R. Maitland’s strange and most untenable theory, after Lacunza, respecting the intent of the quadripartite Image in Daniel; as if of the empires symbolized in it, the first of which the Prophet himself defines to be Babylon, the Macedonian empire (not the Persian) was the second, the Roman the third, and Antichrist’s empire (still future) the intended fourth.* By this singular theory Dr. M, may perhaps hope to escape from the decisive anti-futurist argument of the ten subordinate kingdoms of Antichrist’s empire being figured in Daniel as originating out of, and dating from, the breaking up of the old Roman empire: which empire he fully admits to have perished under the Goths’ destroying power, and past away. But, as was there argued by me, the idea of the Image having a gap of not less than thirteen centuries between its third prefigured empire and its fourth is really nothing less than absurd. Nor is the idea less manifestly absurd, which Dr. M. and Dr. Todd propound, with I presume the same object, of the four Beasts of Dan vii. being four contemporary empires of the latter day, the 4th and most terrible that of Antichrist+ Besides which the argument from St. Paul’s predicated hindrance or let, (viz. of the old Roman empire,#) as the hindrance whose removal was to make way for Antichrist’s manifestation, and that still stronger one from the Apocalyptic designation of Rome’s seven-hilled city as Antichrist’s imperial seat, still remain in full force against them.

* On Antichrist, p 5, 6.

“The Roman empire has long ceased to exist. . . Surely the empire founded by Romulus, and ruled by Augustus and Constantine, has past through a regular decline and fall to absolute extinction.” p. 6.

Let me add a few further remarks on this singluar opinion.

1. As to Dr. Maitland’s argument for considering the Persian empire as a mere continuation of the Babylonian under a new dynasty, because of Babylon not being destroyed on the Persians taking it, but continuing one of the capitals of the Persian empire, the same arguemnt might be used to show the identity of the Macedonian empire also with both the Persian and Babylonian. For Alexander, after the conquest of Persia, similarly made Babylon one of its capitals. In fact the Bible itself represents the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus as the overthrow of its empire. (So Isa. xiv., Jer. I., Ii.) And in Dan. viii. it is expressly revealed that the 2nd great empire was Persian, the 3rd Greek. - 2. His statement of the Persian empire being, not inferior to Nebuchadnezzar’s, according to the divine descriptions of the second empire of the Image, but equal to it or greater, is most questinable: i.e., if we receive the account which Berosus gives of the Babylonian kingdom, as extending westward to the Straits of Gades. - 3. As to his argument that the universal sovereignty ascribed to the third empire of the Image was not attributble to Alexander’s empire, was it in the strictest sense of the word attributable any more to that of Rome? The unquestionable lmiitation of the meaning of such expressions in Scritpure must be taken into the account, of which I have before spoken: (compare the similar statement made respecting Nebuchadnezzar’s, Dan. iv. 22, “Thy dominion, O king, reacheth to the ed of the earth;” and respecting that of the Persin king Cyrus, Ezra i. 2:) and, as to the common use of it, the story of Alexander’s weeping because he had no more worlds to conquer, sufficiently shows its appropriateness. - See to the confirmatory argument in my Vol. i. pp. 429, 430.

It should be observed that the uninterruptedness of continuity known to have existed between the first, second, and third empires symbolized, is of course the strongest confirmation of uninterrupted continuity being intended in the symbol between the 3rd and 4th.

+ On Antichrist, p. 9. In this view Dr. Maitland is followed only by Todd; and opposed, I believe, to nearly all the day-day, as well as the year-day prophetic interpreters. - Its untenableness is evident. In (Dan. vii. 7, “After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.”) - the other Beasts are spoken of as “before it,” i.e., prior in time. And how indeed could these other Beasts have had “dominion,” as the third, or leopard, is said to have had, if contemporary with the fourth, which brake all others powers in pieces? Dr. M. in his Reply to Mr. Cuninghame (p. 61) says; “Three other kingdoms may be contemporary with a fourth which possesses universal sovereignty, . . as easily as the kingdoms of Saxony, Wurtemburg, and Holland were contemporary with the French Empire under Napoleon.” - Unfortunate parallel! Had those petty dependencies of France dominion? Or did they answer to the character of “great beasts,” so as the three first empires, as well as the 4th, to Daniel? Besides which the correspondence of the 4th Beast’s ten horns with the ten toes of the Image seems obvious, and suggests a similar correspondence between the two visions in other points.

# At p. 18 of the same treatise on Antichrist, Dr. M. acknowledges that the meaning of this let was revealed to the early Church: and, as I have often said, the early Church understood it of the old Roman empire or emperors.

Dr. Todd at pp. 335-338 of his Treatise on Antichrist thus tries to get rid of the argument against his theory hence arising. “But this opinion, notwithstanding its antiquity, and the great names that have given it their sanction, must now be considered as having long ago been refuted by time. The Roman empire is now extinct and no potentate possessing the character and marks of Antichrist has as yet been manifested in the earth.” An instance of the petitio principii sufficiently amusing? The Protestant expositors whom he proposes to refute say that there has appeared just such a potentate, and this commencing from the very epoch of the old Roman empire’s extinction, agreeably with the Fathers’ views of the “let” “But I say such an one has not appeared,” is substantially Dr. T.’s argument; “and therefore the Fathers’ view of the “let” was an error!”

Malvenda, i. 402, adopting the statement of Rabanus on Antichrist, argues differently thus: - “The Fathers rightly judged the “let” to be the old Roman empire; and that Antichrist would follow on its removal. But Antichrist has not yet come. Therefore the Roman empire has not been removed: but continued to exist still, after the Gothic catastrophe, in the Frank or German emperors, vel si qui alii!”

[76] This was written in my first Edition; I think in 1843. What has past since only furnishes reason for my letting it stand as it was. (2nd Ed.)

[77] Second Enquiry, p. 105. So again in his Answer to Cuninghame, p. 57: “I must repeat over and over again, that the spiritual common sense of the Church of God in every age, from the days of Daniel to those of Wicliff, is set in array against the fundamental point of Mr. Cuninghame’s system: for it. . . knew nothing, and looked for nothing in the character of Antichrist, but an individual infidel persecutor.” - On the Fathers’ opinions, see my next Section.

[78] On Antichrist, p. 37 Compare his p.153.

[79] Mr. Burgh, p. 265, says, “Infidel indeed it will be in one sense; from its marked hostility to the Savior, and open denial of his having come in the flesh.” - So too the Oxford Tractarian on Antichrist, p. 16: “Both St. Paul and St. John describe the enemy as characterized by open infidelity, . . . and the blasphemous denial of God: and St. Paul adds that he will oppose all existing religion, true or false.” He illustrates at p. 21 by reference to the atheism professed at the French Revolution.

[80] How could he have been so short-sighted as to overlook its force and significancy, when he had Lacunza in his hand, painting it out so strikingly, though himself a Romanist? See p. 258 suprą. See too my Vol. iii. pp. 195, 204, &c.

[81] Apoc. xix. 20, “And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.”.

[82] Too on Antichrist, p. 228. - Mr. Burgh adds strangely that it will be a religious system, from Antichrist’s requiring the worship of himself, and from the counter-Trinity of the Dragon, Beast, and False Prophet, ibid.

[83] p. 92.

[84] At p. 15 he thus expresses himself; “Antichrist will be led on from rejecting the Son of God to the rejection of God altogether, either by implication, or practically;” and, at p. 18, remarks that he was, according to the Fathers, “to observe Jewish rites.”

[85] On the Old Testament passage from Daniel xi. 36-39, see my pp.49-55 suprą, in proof that it can as little as 1 John ii. 22 help out the Antichrist atheist theory.

I might add that even the Futurists’ own fancy that Antichrist is to rebuild, or occupy when rebuilt, the Jewish temple at Jerusalem,* might have prevented this strange atheist theory of Antichrist. For why built except for the Jews’ worship: that which implies a recognition of the Old Testament, and consequently a profession against atheism? - But this indeed is but their fancy. The Scriptural notices lately referred to, and which the Oxford Futurist accepts, respecitng Antichrist’s Roman capital and seat, sufficiently refute the Futurists’ nothing of his having Jerusalem and its temple as the chief seat of his empire and worship. Their theory on this head, like their Antichrist, would seem between the two seats to fall to the ground.

* [On the important point of Antichrist‘s great city being simply and only Rome see my Vol. ii. pp. 433-439.]

[86] 1 Tim. iv. 1, 2, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2: Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;”.

[87] Second Enquiry, p. 130.

[88] Todd, p. 306. At p. 335 he follows Maitland in illustrating from the French Revolution.

[89] At p. 21 he too illustrates his view of Antichrist’s religion on this head by reference to “the annulling of the divine ordinance of marriage,” at the French Revolution, and “resolving it into a mere civil contract, to be made and dissolved at pleasure.”

[90] I set aside, in order to clearness, the break of a new Chapter-heading at (1 Tim. iv. 1, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;”). For it is a break which has of course no authority; and here tends unfortunately to obscure the clear view of the context.

[91] 1 Tim. iii. 2, 4, 12: “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”, vs. 4, “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;”, vs. 12, “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.”.

[92] 1 Tim. iii. 3, “Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;”, 8, “Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;” The meats and drinks, brwmmta and pomata, are often connected together, as in Heb. ix. 10, “Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.”.

[93] 1 Tim. v. 23, “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

[94] I do not insist on Mede’s exposition of dedaskaliai daimoniwn. I have elsewhere spoken on this point. See my Vol. iii. p. 103, and also Vol. ii. pp. 9 and 497. But it does not affect the question we are now discussing.

[95] Let me observe, with reference to Dr. Todd’s illustration from Antichristian sects existing in St. Paul’s time, or that arose after, to whom the description in the prophecy might primarily or partially apply,* (save only that they were rejected as heretics by the majority of the Church, and so the characteristic of an apostasy, in St. Paul’s sense, would hardly attach to them,) I say that in regard of those Encratite Gnostics, and the Manichęans afterwards, it was not upon all members of the sect that the injunction was laid of abstinence from marriage and meats. By no means. A person must be but ill informed on the subject if unaware these Sects had members perfect and imperfect: and that it was only on the perfect, including generally the ministers of the Sect, that the restriction was incumbent. So that theirs was pretty much as restricted a prohibition as in the case of the Romish Church.

*[Todd, p. 306. - I observe that Chrysostom too on this passage illustrates from the Manichees. IIepi Manicaiwn, kai Egkrathtwn, kai Markianistwn, kai pantuv autwn tou ergasthriou, tm tuiauta fhsin.]

[See my Vol. ii. p. 525; and specially what is said from Mosheim as to the rule of abstinence applying only to the perfect and the ministers of the Manichees.]

[96] So put by Dr. Maitland, ibid. 99.

[97] It was shown in my Chapter on the year-day that the general principle of figuring the longer times of the things symbolized by correspondent shorter times of the symbol, is one not only suggested by nature, but recognized in Scripture; the longer youth and maturity of Israel, for example, having been beautifully figured by Ezekiel under the shorter youth and maturity of a woman: and it was shown too that there was almost a necessity for such enignatic yet definite expression of the great prophetic periods that had reference to the time of Christ’s advent, in order to the fulfillment of Christ’s apparent double purpose, 1st, of his coming being never regarded by his people as very distant, (though in reality very distant in time,) 2ndly, and as the time drew near, of its approach being evidenced by chronological as well as other proof. - Moreover, as to the specific year-day scale of proportion, it appeared that shortly before Daniel was chosen to receive and publish his symbolic prophecies about the great Gentile nations, involving the specific periods of 1260, 1290, 1335, and 2300 days, as attached to the symbols, his brother prophet Ezekiel had been directed to act out a figuration concerning the Jewish nation involving specific periods of days also; and with the distinct announcement from God that the scale and proportion of time was to be a day for a year.± Besides which to Daniel’s own prophecy of the 70 weeks the same year-day ambiguity attached.¢ So that of any definite enigmatic scale the year-day was of all others the most Scriptural and probable. - It was also shown that, instead of the common sense of the Christian Church having been arrayed against this year-day principle, so that, as Dr. Maitland affirmed, it was unheard of for some thirteen centuries, the principle was recognized by a complete catena of expositors, from Cyprian and Theodoret down to the Reformation: nor in fact ever objected against, as unscriptural or unsound, till the objections, some time after the Reformation, of Cardinal Bellarmine. Thus, if I mistake not, not only was answe