Imatges de pàgina

terrible, and strong exceedingly, having great iron teeth, devouring and breaking in preces, stamping the residue with his feet, and having ten horns; we should not naturally believe, that these ten horns were designed to symbolize the broken fragments of the empire of this beast, after the period of his power was long past, and bis dominions had fallen under the ravages of succeeding barbarous nations.

3. The Roman beast was dead of his wound given by Constantine, long before the division of his empire took place. The sixth, the Imperial, the most mischievous head of this beast, was wounded to death, in the revolution from Paganism to Christianity. The Roman empire then ceased to be a beast. This beast was; but now was not, Rev. xvii, 11. Nothing more was to be seen of him, except in his image in the power of the Papal beast, Rev. xiii, 14, till he should revive in his own avowed, as well as real Pagan nature, under his seventh head, and should have his deadly wound completely healed under his eighth head, which is of the seven, being specifically the sixth revived, ascending in the last days from the bottomless pit, and going into perdition. How then can we conceive that some kingdoms which should rise out of the broken mass of the empire, some centuries after it became Christian, and the old beast was dead, should be represented as his horns? The Papal horn might be represented as a horn of this beast, though he rose after the beast was dead. For notice is given that his rising was to be afterward: And another shall rise after them, and he shall be diverse from the first, Dan. vii, 24. But can we infer from this representation, that all the ten horns were to rise into existence long after the death of the beast? Let us examine the propriety of such a representation. We find the Antichristian beast of the last days has his ten horns, Rev. xvii, 12. Now, could it be proper to view the ten horns of the Antichristian beast as symbolizing some future kingdoms, to arise on the ground, and out of the broken mass of the Antichristian empire, some centuries after Antichrist is no more? Are they not designed to symbolize the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

vassal kingdoms under the very dominion, and which constitute the strength of Antichrist? The latter no doubt is the fact. And why did not the same thing hold true of the ten horns of his precursor, the ancient sixth head of the Roman beast, which is mystically revived in Antichrist? Why is it more proper to view the ancient ten horns as coming into existence long after the power, and even the existence of the Roman beast became extinct, than to view the ten horns of Antichrist as coming into existence long after Antichrist himself shall have gone into perdition? If the vassal kingdoms, actually under the power of Antichrist, be his ten horns, why were not the vassal kingdoms actually under the power of the ancient Imperial head of the Roman beast, the ten horns of that beast?

4. Another argument in favor of this opinion is found in Dan ii, 44; And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; andit shall break in pieces and consume all those kingdoms; and it shall stand for ever. In the days of what kings? Those represented by the preceding ten toes of the great image; which must have been the same with the ancient ten horns of the Roman beast, In their days the God of heaven was to set up his kingdom. This must, at least primarily, refer to the coming of Christ in the flesh to set up his Gospel kingdom. But if this was to be in the days of those kings, which constituted the ten toes of the image, and these were the ten horns of the Roman beast, then the vassal kings under Imperial Rome, at the commencement of the Gospel dispensation, were indeed those ten horns. Consequently they could not have been the kingdoms, into which the Roman empire was divided in after ages. It was so far from being in the days of the latter, that the God of heaven set up his kingdom, in any peculiar sense, that it may rather be said to have been in their days, that Satan was suffered to erect the Papal and Mohammedan pillars of his kingdom; and the church of Christ fled into the wilderness for 1260 years.

This passage in Dan. ii, 44, is one of those predictions which are constructed with a view to receive a


twofold accomplishment. Its first accomplishment has been just noted. But its ultimate one is still future, and will be fulfilled in the destruction of Antichrist, with his ten horns; and the introduction of the Millennium. The latter event is clearly connected with the passage, The Stone cut out of the mountain without hands, is to smite the image upon the feet; (the parts of it then in power) upon which the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold are dashed in pieces, and like chaff are blown away; and the Stone becomes a great mountain, and fills the world. This will be fulfilled in the battle of that great day of God Almighty, and the subsequent Millennium. But though this be the ultimate fulfilment of the passage, it had a primary fulfilment in the apostolic age; in which we learn that the primitive ten horns of the Roman beast were then in existence.

There is one passage, which at first view may seem to militate against this interpretation; viz. Dan. vii, 24, And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings, which shall rise; and another shall rise after them, and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. This may seem to indicate, that these ten kingdoms were to be at some period subsequent to the Roman empire; or were to rise from its ruins. But the text does not necessarily convey such an idea. the arguments in favor of the forementioned scheme, be conclusive, and this text be fairly capable of receiving a construction, which accords with it, such a construction must obtain. The ten horns, according to the scheme above given, did indeed rise out of the Roman empire. The Roman government was first. And those kingdoms rose into view, under this new relation, of the horns of the Roman beast, one after another, as the Ro. mans formed new conquests, in ages far future to the period of the prophet Daniel. Might not the expoundiny Angel then say, of those vassal kingdoms of the Roman empire, The ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kingdoms which shall rise? Ten kingdoms did rise from, by, or through the power of the Roman dynasty, and both rendered terrible, and characterized the old Roman beast. The clause in verse 8, And behold there


[ocr errors]


came up among them another little horn, may have induced some to suppose, that the ten horns must have been collateral with the Papal horn, or in existence at the same time with it. But no such thing is implied. The clause is only a description of the symbol. The horns there must have been beheld by the prophet all at

But this did not indicate, that the actual existence of the events symbolized should be all at once. The expositors upon the old scheme make the origin of some of the horns some centuries before that of others. And my exposition does only the same. But the explanatory text, verse 24th, decides, that the Papal horn, and the ten horns were not collateral. And another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first. Here the Papal horn was to be posterior to the other horns. And nothing is indicated but that this posteriority was to be as long, as was the rise of Popery after the death of the Pagan beast, in the year 320.

There is one more passage, which has led to the supposition, that the horns of the ancient beast were the kingdoms, into which the European branch of the Roman empire was divided; viz. Rev. xvii, 16, which relates to the ten horns of the beast from the bottomless pit hating and destroying the Papal harlot. But these are the ten horns of the Antichristian beast of the last days; and not the ten horns of the ancient Roman beast; as has appeared in the preceding section.

-5. Another argument in favor of the view given of the ancient ten horns, I think may be derived from the account of three of them being plucked up before the Papal horn, if we consider this account in the light of its fulfilment. Verse 8, I considered the horns, and behold there came up among them another liitle horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots. Verse 20, And of the ten horns,—and of the other, which came up, and before whom three fell. Verse 24, And another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. Concerning these three kingdoms plucked up by the Papal power, authors have been much divided, and much perplexed. Some have supposed they were

Lombardy, Ravenna, and the neighborhood of Rome.* Some have conjectured them to have been the exarchate of Ravenna, the senate and people of Rome, and the German empire.t And others have formed other, and contradictory conjectures. But one difficulty is, those places on which expositors have hit, could not be called kingdoms among the kingdoms, into which the Roman empire was divided. Or, over those places which might be called kingdoms, the Pope never obtained civil jurisdiction. For expositors have taken for gr nted, that the Pope's obtaining civil jurisdiction over these three kingdoms, was the true idea of their being plucked up before him. And there never have been three places found, which might be properly said to have been three kingdoms rising out of the old empire, over which the Pope did obtain civil jurisdiction. No wonder then that authors have been divided and perplexed upon this point. To perceive the difficulties, which attend their schemes, let us concisely examine them. Lombardy has been often mentioned as one of these three kingdoms. The Lombards did indeed set up a kingdom in Italy, after the subversion of the old empire. And they were afterward subdued; but not by the Pope. And but a small part of their kingdom fell afterward under the civil jurisdiction of the Pope. Could so small a circumstance then constitute the plucking up by the roots of one of those three kingdoms not ed in that ancient prophecy? Ravenna has been supposed to be one of these three kingdoms. Ravenna was an ancient city in Italy, the capital of Romagna. Of this, and of some provinces in its vicinity, it is acknowledged the Pope obtained civil jurisdiction, by the donation of Pepin, king of France. But could that petty territory be recognized in ancient prophecy as a kingdom, a horn of the Roman beast?

It never was a kingdom! And if every such section, having once belonged to the Roman empire, may be called a horn of that empire, we should be furnished with not only ten, but perhaps ten times ten horns of that ancient beast. · When Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths, took


*Orton on Dan. vii.

+Langdon on Rev. p. 146.

« AnteriorContinua »