|
THE following inquiry has been made with
the view of ascertaining, whether Scripture itself would not
supply better means of discussing the great question of
prophecy than those usually had recourse to; and, then,
whether results different from those generally arrived at,
and more in unison with Apostolic Christianity, would not be
obtained. Certainly no one, accustomed to any thing like
sound investigation, can feel satisfied either with the
means generally used, or the results arrived at. This has
been the author's feeling.
In order therefore, to lay before readers
generally the real state of the case ; the nature of the
principles visually employed, and the conclusions thence
arrived at, have been examined in the first place, and shewn
to be unsound. In the next, others have been proposed and
shewn to be in unison with those generally adopted by the
early Christian Church, and the conclusions arrived at to be
in the main the same. These principles are moreover, those
which have been recommended by the best writers on
Hermeneutics, with this exception, that they apply Scripture
in the interpretation of itself, to a far greater extent;
render the process of interpretation more easy and natural,
and the results arrived at much more certain.
It will hence be readily perceived that,
to discuss some single question of prophecy, whether as to
the second coming of Christ, the Antichrist, the Millennium,
the Restoration of the Jews, or the like, is not the object
of this work, although in its details it embraces them all:
that its object rather is, to consider prophecy as one great
question perfectly at unity with itself,—as it must be if of
divine origin,—and, as involving all these collateral
considerations, forming in detail its constituent parts.
And in this it is, that the peculiarity of the following
Work consists. It exhibits this question in its own
remarkable simplicity, integrity, and unity; and presenting
a whole as closely connected, inseparable, and harmonious,
as it is simple, obvious, and satisfying: Christianity such
as the Prophets had foretold, taught and established by the
Apostles, and now working its wonders of mercy and of love
in this country, and in all its dependencies, as far as the
imperfect faith of their several inhabitants will permit it
to do so.
One great and valuable result of the
whole is, that the question of Prophecy is not a
difficult one; and another, that all has been fulfilled.
Difficult indeed it has been made; but then, this has grown
out of the adoption of technicalities, with which it had
nothing to do: and great is the wonder that these should so
long have kept their ground, and the world have hence
remained in so much perplexity and doubt on the subject.
The case will perhaps, henceforth, be different. Every thing
connected with this question cannot, I think, but assume a
much easier, and more instructive aspect. The Law, the
Psalms, the Prophets, &c. of the Old Testament; the teaching
of our Lord, as far as this question is concerned; that of
His Apostles and the book of the Revelation, of the New,
must become matter of much easier apprehension, unless I am
very greatly mistaken, than it has been. While all these
will, in their united and aggregate capacity, form a chain
of evidence such as to be irresistible, and, at the same
time, a source of spiritual instruction and edification,
such as a Revelation from above, made for all sorts and
conditions of men, would be reasonably expected to supply.
Not indeed that these have been entirely wanting.
Christianity, like some chymical bodies under certain
circumstances, is too powerful to be confined in its
effects under any amount of pressure whatsoever. And, as to
the fulfilment of all, this must depend on the goodness of
the proof offered; which I leave to the judgment of the
Public.
It only remains now for me to commit my Work to the
patient and candid examination of the Reader, intreating him
not to be too hasty in coming to his conclusions upon it.
Much perhaps not met with before may be presented to him,
which may require some time for reflection: besides, it will
be necessary to view the whole as constituting one great
subject: and hence, as entitled to consideration in the
combination and agreement of all its parts; each of which
involving questions of grave and interesting import. These
things being duly attended to, I cannot but hope, that the
interest of its perusal will prove as great to the reader,
as that of its writer has been in its composition.
PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION
IT will be very justly expected, that any
one offering to the Public a new work on Prophecy,—so many
having appeared of late years,—would have some strong
reasons for doing so; and, that he would make it his first
business to render these. I believe I have such reasons, and
it is my intention now to render them as briefly as I can.
My reasons then are: I. The fact, that
many are quite unaware of the grounds on which this question
has been placed, and are hence, scarcely in a situation to
judge, either of the goodness, or not, of the results
arrived at. This will make it necessary, II. to examine
these; and to shew the nature of their results; and then,
III. should these appear to fall short of what the nature of
the case requires, to propose others on which reliance may
be placed, and such as to afford results answering
more fully to the terms of Holy Writ.
And first, as to the Principles
adopted :—for from these will appear the sort of grounds
usually taken in discussing this question. These then are,
as far as I have been able to ascertain them, those only of
ingenious conjecture, supported in detail by what may be
termed the doctrine of resemblances. For example, the
meaning of a prediction of Scripture is, in the first place,
guessed at; in the second, the event so supposed to be had
in view, is made to quadrate with it, to a certain extent,
just in proportion to the amount of ingenuity exerted: the
resemblance so obtained is, as it is then thought,
too near to have been undesigned. And the conclusion is,
that the needful has been satisfactorily ascertained.
Now it is not my intention to condemn, by
wholesale, the use of conjecture ; this would be absurd :
all 1 intend to urge is, that conjecture be sober, and be
severely dealt with : in other words, that the
resemblance be not only good, but that it be proved, by
some other considerations, to constitute an identity
with the event, &c. supposed to be foretold. Because,
without such check as this, since resemblances are
extremely pliant things, and are easily made to bend to the
will of their authors, they may be found perhaps in a
thousand other things, equally satisfying, and equally
applicable to such prediction. And hence it is, that an
Antichrist has been found in perhaps every age of the Church
; and, in some of these, more than one individual has been
fixed upon, and urged,—as the taste may have suggested,—as
the very and undoubted character foretold. The same, it need
not be dissembled, has been, and is still, the case among
ourselves.
There is a reason for this in the nature
of things, and such as ought ever to put us on our guard, as
to such resemblances : it is this: The affairs of the
world are subject to certain and invariable laws. The nature
of man is everywhere the same. Similar conduct will
therefore in all times, and in all places, produce similar
results: and, if prediction be appealed to, any one of these
may readily be mistaken for the one predicted. E. g. States
and Empires necessarily arise out of small beginnings.
Necessity, in the first instance, calls for and produces
industry, thriftiness, economy, and the like : these again,
naturally produce wealth, extent of influence, and so on:
these will, in the next place, bring in luxury, indolence,
want of good faith, and "the other thousand nameless ills."
And to these, will as naturally succeed, poverty, weakness,
disagreement, and dissolution.
These different circumstances will again,
produce extraordinary characters: that is, the talent
bestowed on particular persons will now be called forth,
which would otherwise have remained latent. War will create
heroes ; peace, characters such as circumstances may
require; lawyers it may be, statesmen, poets, or the like.
And, should prediction have foretold some extraordinary
character connected with any of these callings; a little
ingenuity will discover an individual so nearly
resembling the description given, as to supply a
tolerable conclusion, that this could not have been
undesigned. This again,—should the particular period for the
appearance of such character not have been well defined, or
the definition given not have been understood,— will be
deemed ground sufficient also, to fix the period of his
appearance. And such has actually been the fact as to the
Antichrist of Scripture.
This then has been the case with the
interpreters of prophecy to a marvellous extent: and the
consequence has been,—and must continue to be, so long as
the same system is pursued,—one ingenious writer has
superseded another, because his conclusions have been more
plausible, and exciting, than those of his predecessor. And
for this again, the nature of the case supplies the best of
reasons. It has been very generally determined, that much of
prophecy is yet to be fulfilled:—right or wrong is not now
the question.—It has also been generally supposed, that
certain obscure marks have been given, by which the several
periods of fulfilment may be known. This would, of
necessity, produce a large number of competitors for the
discovery of the period, or periods, so intimated. And the
consequence has been, these have been very numerous, and
their discoveries as various as their several tastes. Some
have lived long enough to witness the failure of their own
predictions, as to such periods: others, to see, and lament
over, these failures: while all have deplored the
encouragement thus given to infidelity, and the
uncertainty of the once more sure word of prophecy
daily increased.
Still, the source of all this has
remained undetected, and undisturbed : new predictions—for
such indeed are all such interpretations,—have been made to
supply the places of the former unhappy ones. The period of
fulfilment has accordingly been urged onwards ; and, unless
I am greatly deceived, must continue to be so, even to the
consummation of all things [It is a
very natural and indeed constant, result with the
Interpreters of prophecy, to push into futurity every thing
that cannot be readily made out. It was this, as we shall
presently see, which induced many of the Fathers to place
the Antichrist not far from the dissolution of all things.
Hence too, Mr. Mede and his followers hare wandered into the
obscurities of futurity for a large portion of their
conclusions: and, for the same reason, Dr. Todd has
committed all,-— if I understand him rightly—to the
nox caliginosa of his predecessors; leaving the whole
in a perfect state of chaotic darkness and confusion!],
unless something more certain, and better grounded,
be in the mean time proposed and received. There is
moreover, another evil attending this progress of
prophetical interpretation : it is this: As much is thus
carried out into futurity, it has unhappily been determined,
that, not only a great part, but that the most glorious
part, of prophecy remains yet to be fulfilled. The
consequence of this again necessarily is, that something
better than what we now have is expected to take place; and
hence, that Christianity, as we have it, is not the glorious
system foretold by the Prophets: and again, that another and
better Dispensation is to supersede that taught and
established by the Apostles! This, though not holden by all,
is by very many; and consistently so. It is the genuine
result of the grounds taken : and it is a bad one;
and such as might naturally be expected from the adoption of
bad principles.
Another consideration, of great moment,
has likewise grown out of all this; and, as far as I am able
to judge, is equally groundless as to authority, and bad as
to consequence. It is the adoption of judaizing principles,
and then the arriving at judaizing results ; both of these
greatly affecting Christianity, and tending marvellously to
obscure the letter of Scripture, and to destroy the
evidences to its truth. In this case, we have the period for
the restoration of the Jews to Palestine, determined by a
cabbalistic process of Rabbinism ; and, of necessity,
subject to all its uncertainty. Then again, a sort of
pre-eminence is ascribed to the Jews, so restored; and
Christianity is injured, both as to its claims and its
power, just in proportion as the Jew is advanced, and his
system is extolled.
Add to this the confident predictions
daily issued as to the nearness of this glorious period, and
the general excitement so raised, even to the highest
possible pitch. Every new circumstance of political
importance is seized upon, as the certain forerunner of all
this ; and the natural consequence is, those most
extensively wrought upon are tempted to make the affairs of
this world necessary to religion, and to substitute a walk
by sight, for that of faith: not to insist upon the grievous
mistake of reposing matters of such importance upon
conclusions which, when duly sifted, amount to nothing
beyond the conjectures of good, but grievously mistaken,
men. It will be unnecessary to dilate on these points now,
as they will be abundantly discussed and exemplified, in the
course of the following inquiry, when proof of their
character and effects will be given. We now proceed
therefore to our examination of the critical principles and
practices of Mr. Mede, which are those adopted by all our
writers on prophecy.
Part I.—On the Principles of
Scriptural Interpretation adopted by Mr. Mede and his
followers.
We have, in Mr. Mede's work on the
Revelation, a sufficiently full development, and
application, of his principles of interpretation. We shall
commence with his comment upon the seals. He tells
us, in the first place, that, "The first prophecy of the
seals comprehendeth the destinies of the Empire. The other"
(Rev. x. 9,10.) "of the little book, the destinies of the
Church, or of Christian religion, until at length both shall
be united in the Church reigning; the kingdoms of this world
becoming our Lord's, and his Christ's." No one will, as yet,
mistake this for any thing more than an expression of Mr.
Mede's opinion. Let us now see what he advances in support
of it.
"For," continues he, "as in the Old
Testament Daniel did as well foreshew the coming of Christ,
as digest the destinies of the Jewish Church, according to
the successions of Empires; so it is to be conceived, that
the Apocalypse doth measure the state of Christianity by the
affairs of the Roman Empire, which should yet remain after
Christ. Neither," adds he, "doth the event cross it." I
remark: This may be very true, or it may not: certainly the
reasoning offered so far, is any thing but sufficient to
convince us that it ought to be received.
For, in the first place, Daniel has
indeed determined in a most particular manner, the destinies
of the Jewish Church, as also the period in which the
Christian Church should be established. But, Can we hence
assume,' that the Apocalypse has in like manner determined
those of the latter? Mr. Mede tells us that the event doth
not cross this. But here again the question may arise, Can
we safely rely on his exposition of the Event ? We shall
presently see.
Our first question will be then, Are we
reasonably bound to conceive that the Apocalypse is,
just as the Book of Daniel is, a collection of predictions
intended to determine the events, with their times, which
should continue to occur in the Christian Church! In the
first place, it has never yet been satisfactorily shewn,—and,
I think, cannot be,— that the Apocalypse does contain a
series of new predictions as it is the case with
Daniel. My own impression is,—and the following pages will,
perhaps, suffice to prove its truth,— that the Apocalypse
contains no original predictions at all; but exhibits, on
the contrary, at once a synopsis, and system of
interpretation, of all such prophecy as refers to the
establishment of the Christian Church, and nothing else. Nor
again generally, has prophecy before it any thing beyond the
establishment of the everlasting Covenant made with Abraham:
in other words, the establishment of the New Covenant in
Christ Jesus, Abraham's seed in whom all nations should be
blessed. The Apocalypse itself declares moreover,—rand this
on principle,—that the testimony of Jesus is the
spirit of prophecy; not the prediction of certain political
events, with their times, which might more or less affect
the external circumstances of the Church, even to the
consummation of all things. Nor, again, is the Kingdom of
Christ to be considered so far a Kingdom of this world, as
to have for one of its main elements those events of time,
which are clearly foreign to its express, and expressed
requirements. —Of all which, abundant proof will be found in
the following pages.
But, if we allow Mr. Mede's parallel to
hold good, then must it militate most effectually against
his theory. E. g. The prophecies of Daniel, it is certain,
are not consecutive as to time. Generally speaking,—and as
it respects every thing connected with our inquiry,—they are
confessedly repeated predictions of the same things.
The first Vision (Chap, ii.), clearly predicts the fall of
the four great Empires, which should precede that of our
blessed Lord. The second (Chap, vii.) foretels the same
thing, as also does the third and the fourth. If therefore,
we are to adopt the analogy here recommended by Mr. Mede, we
must refuse to accept his arrangement of the times, as to
the seals and the little book, &c. For my own part, I
entertain no doubt,—and sufficient proof will be given
below,—that the different Visions of St. John are, just as
those of Daniel are, repetitions of the same events and
times; and that this repetition has been had recourse to for
the best of purposes, viz. to enable him to take up all the
more remarkable predictions of the Old Testament, and to
apply them to the establishment of the Church of the New:
and further, to afford the best key to the true
interpretation of them all; such as otherwise we never
should have had.—Sufficient exemplification of this will be
given in its place.
To Mr. Mede's interpretation of the
Seals, I have nothing generally to object: still I say,
means are afforded in the Scriptures and histories of those
times, such as will supply a far more particular and
trustworthy explanation of them. This I have endeavoured to
give in the following pages; how successfully, it is for
others to judge. So much for generals, let us now come to
particulars, and examine some of Mr. Mede's principles, in
their application to certain parts of Scripture : and it is
not so much the conclusion here, as the means used for
arriving at it, that we have in view.
He tells us then, on the first seal
[Comment on the Revelation in loc],
that " The first chance of the Roman Empire, and surely very
notable, is the original of the victory of Christ; whereby
the Roman gods begin to be vanquished, and their worshippers
being pierced with the arrows of the gospel, begin every
where to fall away," &c. Which is generally true: let us now
consider the sort of proof offered, as to the particulars.
"The discloser of this seal," says Mr.
Mede, "is the first beast, in the shape of a Lion, standing
at the East; and sheweth a horseman coming out of his
quarter, that is, an Emperor; from whose getting on
horseback to ride, that is, coming to his Empire, the
distinct space of the first seal is to begin ; to wit, from
the glorious exaltation of our Lord Jesus Christ
[Mr. Mede very properly directs us
here to Ps. xlv. 5, but this he does merely to apprise us,
that " to be carried on horseback is a badge of authority."
"Lo! the woman riding upon the beast," Chap, xvii. 3; and
"in the same sense Deut. xxxii. 13; Isa. lviii. 14; Ps. lxvi.
12." It does not seem to hare occurred to him, that Ps. xtv.
5 would apply the best possible interpretation to this
place. I find Mr. Mede frequently in this predicament.]...The
beginnings of the following seals are directed by the Roman
Emperors," &c. Now, to object to these positions is not so
much my present business, as it is to shew that the
principle here applied, i.e. mere conjecture,—can furnish us
with no result worthy of confidence. And first, as to what
is said of this first beast, his being in the East, and
exhibiting a horseman, or Emperor, as just now stated.
It is assumed here then, that,—as the
four beasts or living creatures, standing before the throne,
appeared respectively as a Lion, a Bullock, a Man,
and an Eagle; and, as it is said by Aben Ezra, that
the ensigns of the Hebrew camp in the wilderness were, to
the East Juda, a Lion; to the West
Ephraim, a Bullock; to the South Reuben, a
Man; and to the North Dan, an Eagle: and
this again, because " The Talmudists seem to give the
reason thus: four things are proud (or which excel) in the
world; the lion among the wilde beasts, the bullock amongst
cattel, the eagle amongst birds, and a man whom God hath
endued with beauty, &c.; which," Mr. Mecle continues, "may
be confirmed out of the four-fold face of the Cherubims
:...by which is signified, that it was the Lord, and the
king of the four bands or camps of Israel, which was
carried on them:" (that)—we may safely rely on this
exposition. Let us see.—
That these four Beasts had these
several characters, cannot be disputed; for John himself (ver.
7, here) gives it: but then, why these four should be
selected, to the exclusion of the other eight ensigns,
surrounding the Israelitish camp, the Talmudical
extract just mentioned, can scarcely suffice to shew; and
the same is perhaps true, as to the ensign of a Bullock
ascribed to Ephraimu Joseph,—personated here probably
by Ephraim,—is said (Gen. xux. 22), to be "a
fruitful bough:" where indeed (ver. 9), Judah is
said to be a Lion's whelp. The ensign of Ephraim
therefore, should rather seem to be the Bough of some
fruit-tree, than a Bullock. And again, Dan
is said (ib.) to be "a Serpent by the way, an adder in
the path:" and hence, some have supposed, that out of
Dan the Antichrist should come. But Aben Ezra tells us,
that the ensign of Dan was an Eagle. I only ask, Is the
conjunction of these two Jewish notions, foundation
sufficient whereon to build any system of Scriptural
interpretation ? or, Is this sufficient to confirm the
position, that hence the Cherubim were so
constructed, and so to be understood ? Surely all this is
any thing but certain: and yet it is here put forth with
unhesitating confidence !
We are also told (pari ratione),
that "the beginnings of the following seals:" i. e. after
this first, " are directed by the Roman Emperors;" and we
find accordingly, in the comment on the second seal, " The
discloser of this seal is the second Beast, in the shape of
a Bullock placed at the West: and whilest in the vision he
biddeth look back towards him, thereby he warneth, that this
seal beginneth, when Trajan the Spaniard bare
rule, being an Emperour coming from the
West,"..."thenceforth the same" (i.e. western) "stock
reigned even until Commodus; where the space of this
seal endeth." In the first place, we have no intimation
whatever,—as far as I can see,—of John's looking towards the
West, much less of his being bidden to do so. This is all
pure imagination! In the next, If we are hence to assume,
that Trajan was the first persecuting Emperor;— which
the place would seem to require;—then would this manifestly
"cross the event:" for, as shewn below (p. 201, seq.), it
was Domitian,—who is represented in Holy Writ, as
also in some of his own coins, &c. sitting, and not
riding,—— who was the first Persecutor.
And again, On what solid grounds can it
be assumed, or maintained, that out of these four Beasts
ministering before the throne, three must represent
persecuting Emperors? And then, that the following ones, up
to the times of Commodus, will supply all that is
required to satisfy the terms of St. John, as given under
the second seal 2 One would, at first sight, hardly imagine
that any thing like this could satisfy the words of this
Evangelist. Let us now see what Mr. Mede further advances
for this purpose:—
We have then, I. The slaughter of the
Jews under Trajan and Hadrian, proved
sufficiently well from Dion and Orosius, &c.
Mr. Mede then concludes thereon,—and the matter which he
gives is not without its value,—" that this. ruine seemeth
to have been the most grievous fit of all that unheard-of
tribulation, which our Saviour had foretold should come upon
the Jews. And therefore not unworthily chosen by the Holy
Ghost, before all other events of that time, for the
expressing of this second space, since it excelleth, as well
because of the nation, as of an accomplishment so renowned."
To all this I have nothing to object as matter of history,
and as belonging to the times of these Emperors (see p. 314,
below). What I want to know is, How it can be made to appear
that Trajan, Hadrian, and Commodus, personated
three of the four Beasts of St. John, full of
eyes, &c., whose employment was to praise God, and who
actually constituted the Cherubim of glory ? I say
here, as before, that nothing perhaps short of inspiration
can pronounce all this to be wrong: while it is certain,
that nothing like proof has yet been offered that it is
right; or, that the assumptions with which we set out, have
thereby been established as good.
Under the third seal, we have the shape of a man
standing at the south: i. e. the Emperor
Septimim Severus, an African, and therefore from the
south. He was too the only Emperor out of Africa: and so he
might be, and yet have nothing to do with this question:
for, not a word about the south occurs in St. John! But we
have an Emperor here standing, not riding;
while riding in our first seal, constituted the mark
of imperial authority! But, I must correct myself; a little
lower down (p. 45 seq.), Severus and Alexander
are made to personate the Rider on the black horse:
we have therefore now, two Emperors represented by this,
one rider who comes from the south, one of whom belonged not
to that quarter! Again, this horse is made to imply by its
colour,—usually signifying sadness, mourning, terror,— "
the severity of justice." Is not this again, a
rather large assumption ? for nothing like proof is offered
in support of it. Again (ib.), " The pair of balances cannot
fitly be joyned with the measure." Which is not true, for it
is shewn (p. 349, below), that in mystical language of this
sort, this usage is common.
Mr. Mede goes on : "In these reigns, more
glorious and notable than any in past times, or following
times,'" there were neither dearths nor famines ; but, on
the contrary, great plenty, and the most impartial
administration of justice. He does not seem to have been
aware, that as yet he had offered nothing like proof, that
these reigns were meant by St. John: nor, if they really
were, how we are fairly to account for the colour of the
horse, i.e. black, usually denoting sadness,
mourning, and terror, in times so singularly
glorious! Surely the sadness, mourning, and
terror, experienced by the thieves of these
times, according to Mr. Mede, could hardly have been of
sufficient importance to induce the Sovereign Disposer of
events to honour their sufferings here, as thieves,
with the colour of this horse ! The characters moreover of
these two Emperors, have merited the honourable and lasting
distinction of a pair of balances, in the Church of Christ!
This surely would have been to make the testimony of
Severus and Alexander the spirit of prophecy. Let
the reader judge. But Severus was, according to Eusebius, a
cruel Persecutor! [His testimony
is (Eccl. Hist. lib. vi. c. 1), " Porro cum S everus
persecutionem adversus ecclesias excitasset, per omnes
qwidem wbique. locorum ecclesias ab athletis pro pietate
certantibus illustria sunt confecta martyria," &c. In
Alexandria and the Thebais this raged more particularly, and
in which the Father of Origen is said to have been beheaded,
and Origen himself to have been vigorously sought after in
order to put him to death. See ib. capp. iv, v. Alexander
was indeed a very excellent Prince: but this tends in no
degree, as far as I can see, towards connecting him with
this black horse.] His reign could therefore,
hardly be thought a glorious one by the suffering Church.
"Our fourth seal is disclosed by the
fourth beast in the shape of an Eagle, standing at the
north,...whereby is shewed that the beginning of the seal is
to be fetcht from an Emperour thence arising:" i. e.
Maximinus the Thracian, bred and brought up in
the north.—But could this place be fairly supposed to be in
the North by St. John 2 It is true indeed that
Maximinus was a beast, a murderer and persecutor of a
very rare description, and so was Gallienus his
successor. It is also true that slaughters, famines,
pestilences, and dearths prevailed during their times, to an
extraordinary degree ; still, neither any one, nor indeed
all, of these things put together, will tend in the least to
prove, that these Emperors are here personated by the Rider
on the pale horse. Mathematical demonstration cannot
indeed be required : but something amounting to probability
at least, should have been proposed; and, I think, is to be
had: but which, if not more worthy of acceptance than all
this, ought certainly to be cast to the winds.
"The two seales that follow," continues
Mr. Mede, "have no help from the Beasts, like as the former,
concerning the time of their beginning; and therefore none
here (are) any more to be seen upon horses." But, it may be
asked, Were any Roman Emperors there to be seen upon horses?
Mr. Mede has assumed that there were: as he also has that
three of these were also shewn forth, in the Cherubim of
glory! and that in all this, the events do not cross the
supposition. All which, I must say, affords nothing like
reasonable proof, that the assumptions, good or bad, are
worthy of acceptance. But, as the introduction of these
Emperors has so conducted us to the times of Gallienus, we
can now, according to Mr. Mede, proceed ourselves onward to
the rest.
Our fifth seal then, dates from
Aurelianus; and we are told, that " the most notable
chance of the Roman estate under this seal...is that
persecution of the Christians begun by Dioclesian,
continued by others, the most bitter by much of all
which were before." In this fact Mr. Mede is right; while it
must be obvious to all, that his mode of conducting us to it
cannot be depended upon.
And upon the whole of this,—which .is
given merely as an exemplification of the principles and
practices of Mr. Mede's school,—what have we, I ask, short
of the wildest sallies of a most luxuriant fancy, unchecked
by any thing calculated to confine it within the bounds of
judicious inquiry! We have, for example, the Israelitish
camp introduced, for the purpose of directing our attention
to the four Cardinal points of the heavens. We next have
these, connected with the "four living creatures before
the throne" One of them is converted into our Lord,
because He is elsewhere said to go out riding on, conquering
and to conquer. This riding next suggests the notion of
Empire: and accordingly, the other three living creatures
are metamorphosed into three Roman Emperors! and, as the
Cardinal points just mentioned, must be divided among these
riding Emperors, the three points which we have now
to deal with must be, the South, West, and North;
the East being previously disposed of. This being
settled, we have the birth-places of these Emperors
determined, viz. Africa, Spain, and Thrace!
Surely it must be superfluous to carry this out farther.
Every one, accustomed in the least degree to critical
inquiry must see, that the system, and the conclusions, so
devised, conducted, and recommended for adoption, must be
beneath the respect which would entitle them to any extended
examination, and much less to acceptance.
The following is added, not because it
has any thing to do with Mr. Mede's system, but because good
examples of Scriptural interpretation are contained in it.
"The chance of this" (sixth) "seal," says he, "is an
admirable shaking of the heaven and earth. Whereby the
wonderful change and subversion of the state of Rome
heathen, by Constantine the Great, and his successors
the standard-bearers of the Lamb, figured; whereby suppose
all the heathen gods shaken out of their
heaven.""..."Furthermore," continues he, "the Emperors,
Kings, and Princes, who thought to help their gods so
greatly in danger, to denounce war against Christ's
standard-bearers, to fight with their powerful forces; and
being even conquered to renew the battle with all their
strength, were slain with unheard-of slaughter, discomfited,
and put to flight; until at last, their condition growing
desperate, there was none could be found to succour any more
the Roman religion, falling to ruine with so great a crush."
Mr. Mede then gives the text (Rev. vi. 12—IV), with
particular remarks on each verse. I will notice those on
verses 13,14.
"The heavens vanished," &c...." The whole
place is taken out Isa, chap, xxxiv. ver. 4, where
plainly," adds Mr. Mede, " in the self-same
representation... the Holy Ghost doth point out the
destruction and mine of the kingdom of Edom, as here
the Kingdom of Idols. The heavens,'' saith he, "shall"
(be) "rolled together as a book" &c. "The meaning
whereof the Spirit in the Revelation would render something
more clear by a double supply of words," &c..,."
Furthermore," adds he, "concerning the same ruine of
Edom,... do Obadiah, Jeremias, chap. xlix. from
the seventh ver. to the 22. Ezek., xxxv.
through the whole, and xxv. 12, handle it; which
therefore I mention, lest any should conceive the
description of Isay applicable only to that great day
of universal judgment." All which—and more might be added—is
to the purpose. If Mr. Mede had always adopted the course
which he has here, he would have long ago solved all the
difficulties connected with this Book.
He next proceeds (p. 80, seq.) to the
seventh seal, which he makes to synchronize with the
whole seven trumpets: and to contain all that is
enounced under them. In like manner his first Vial commences
with his seventh trumpet, and the remaining ones proceed
onwards to the consummation of all things. The intervals
occupied by the first six seals, six trumpets, and the last
seven vials, respectively, he makes to occupy, I.—as we have
seen,—the period of the Apostolic preaching, of the
persecutions under the Caesars, and of the establishment of
Christianity, in a sort of infantine state under
Constantine. II. Under the trumpets, he finds the events of
the Church under the Papal corruptions and persecutions: and
III. Under the vials, the state of the Church after the
second appearing of our Lord, by whose coming the Papal
Antichrist is to fall, the Jews to be restored, and a sort
of Millennial state then to follow: all which, it might be
supposed, would be established by good and powerful proofs.
We shall see.—
One reason for this adjustment is the
fact, that a certain analogy runs through these several
series of enouncements and events, which Mr. Mede thinks
ought not to be disregarded; but his chief reason appears
to be the following [In a tract
entitled Paraleipomena, "Remaines," &c., p. 1. seq.
Vol. II.], viz. "The Apocalyps considered only
according to the naked Letter, as if it were a History, and
no Prophecie, hath marks and signes sufficient by the Holy
Spirit, whereby the Order, Synchronisme, and Sequele of all
the Visions therein contained, may be found out, and
demonstrated." He proceeds, " For example: Are we assured
what the Prophecie of the Whore of Babylon meanes?
For here, here, I say, we must first pitch: and therefore
(mark it) the Angel himself of purpose expounds this Vision
onely of all the Visions the Scheme representeth. Doe we
know then," continues he, "what this meaneth ? If we doe,
then behold the Scheme, and see there what will follow:
viz." &c. That is, Mr. Mede having lengthened out the period
of prophecy beyond that of the seals generally, he offers
this as a proof that he was right in so doing, and as a safe
ground on which to place his further speculations. He
proceeds therefore,—
1. That all the Visions contemporating
with Babylon's times, must be expounded of such
things onely as belong to the times of Babylon's
whoring.
2. All Visions preceding must be
interpreted of things foregoing it.
3. All Visions following, of things to be
after it, &c. "Verbum intelligenti sat est." This
contains the sum and substance of Mr. Mede's progressive
scheme; the foregoing, a specimen of his reasonings; and
both these, as followed out by himself, and by all his
followers, exhibit the true and real grounds of his and
their expositions. Let us examine it.
As to the first point, I agree with Mr.
Mede, viz. that there are things given by the Holy Ghost in
the Revelation, quite sufficient to suggest, and to guide,
its true interpretation [E.g. We hare
Rev. i. 18, "/am he that liveth, and was dead," &c.
which must have been intended to shew us, that this person
was Christ, as remarked in its place. Ib. ver. 7, " He
cometh with clouds," &c., must have been given to teach
us, that this had been somewhere else said, and to direct us
to such place or places for its interpretation. The same
must be true of all places either quoting, or alluding to,
the Old Testament, which is abundantly exemplified in the
following work.]. But I dissent from him when he
says, that the Angel has not afforded any explanation,
except only as to the Whore of Babylon, because I find many
other such explanations. [In Chap.
vii. 14. " These are they which came out of great
tribulation," &c: i. e. in the persecutions of the
Little Horn, and from what follows (ib. 16, 17,) they must
be members of the Church below, not above. Again, xi. 15 :
"The kingdoms of this world have become," &c.: i.e.
the Church of Christ is established. Again, xiv. 4: "
These were redeemed from among men," &c.: so also xii.
17: " It is done." Again, xix. 8: " The fine linen is the
righteousness of saints." See ib. 10. " The testimony
of Jesus," &c. ib. 13. "His name is the word of God."
ib. xxi. 3. "The tabernacle of God," &c. to which
very many more might be added : all of which are, of
necessity, to be taken in their obvious and direct import.]
I am left now to suppose that, by the
Whore of Babylon, and the interpretation given by the
Angel, the general matter of Rev. chap. xvii. is meant, and
by the explanation in view, its last verse: viz. "And the
woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth"
(i. e. at this time) "over the kings of the earth"
Here then, according to Mr. Mede's own rule, we are to
take this "according to the naked Letter." Let us do
so; and What will the result be ? Quite the reverse of what
his system requires! The Angel says then to John, "The
woman" i. e. Babylon's Whore, " is that great
city (now) holding rule over the kings of the earth."
But the city which then held this rule, was
heathen Rome, not Papal Rome, beyond all
possible doubt. This, I say, we do know most certainly. So
far this question is settled, upon Mr. Mede's own
principles. Mr. Mede has here made a very common mistake by
supposing, that the present time, so intimated, must
be that present to himself!
There are, it should be observed, other
ways of arriving at this result, which we may as well
now notice. One, the supposed probability, that the
descriptions given both by Daniel and St. Paul of the
Antichrist, answer too well to that of the Roman Pontiff, to
have been accidental. He is therefore, the Antichrist. The
answer to which is: Resemblance does not constitute
identity: and hence, many of the other resemblances
so proposed, have been found to fail. But there are
considerations, quite sufficient to set this question at
rest. I will adduce one only. According to Daniel (chap. xi.
31), Arms should stand on his part, and they
should...take away the daily sacrifice,...and place
the abomination that maketh desolate. Now it is certain,
that the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the
abomination that maketh desolate was set tip by heathen
Rome, and by no other power: as it also is, that our
blessed Lord Himself has applied this prediction of Daniel,
to these very events. See Matth. xxiv. 15, with its
parallels. That there is a resemblance between these
and other descriptions of the Man of sin, and the
Pope, there can be no doubt: but, as before, these are
not sufficient to establish an identity. Another way
of getting to the same conclusion is, a cabbalistical
solution of the number 666 of the Apocalypse. It will be
seen in its place (Chap. xiii. 18), that there are good
reasons for believing, that this reading is not genuine ;
and, that if it were, still it will admit of so many
solutions, that it is perfectly useless; and further, that
the place is sufficiently clear without it. Other such
expedients are noticed below in their places.
To return to Mr. Mede: he places the
times of Babylon's Whore then, far beyond those of
Heathen Rome, and within those of Papal Rome.
But, according to the interpretation of the Angel, they are
those of Heathen Rome, Mr. Mede is therefore,
clearly wrong in so fixing this his first, and
governing particular; and this, even according to his own
rules of interpretation!
And, in the next place, no credence can
be given to his other leading positions, viz. That
whatever comes before this, i.e. in the order of the
text, must be interpreted as taking place before it,
in the order of time: and, whatever comes after it,
as occurring after it in like manner. This is
virtually to assume the whole matter at issue, and upon
grounds that are palpably false: every, the merest, tyro in
Biblical criticism knowing, that the order of the text
cannot be taken as determining the order of events in any
case, much less in the language of prophecy; and of this
abundant proof will be found in the following pages
[ It will be seen below on the
Revelation, that the Scriptures referred to by St. John,
under each of the several series of the Seals, Trumpets, and
Vials, actually contain some particular, or other,
sufficient to suggest to us their several periods; and
that, in no case, do these extend beyond the establishment
of the Church under Constantine. That Mr. Mede's rule is
false in principle, the visions of Daniel, as expounded by
every commentator, will abundantly shew; which must suffice
here.]. I remark here once for all: Nothing can be
more plausible, or dangerous, than the numerous
technicalities of this sort in use among us. Again, the
opinion that this Whore of Babylon represents
Papal Rome, is clearly a pure assumption; arid, as just
now proved, it is a false one. And the conclusion
must be: The Scheme of Mr. Mede, resting on these grounds,
is at once groundless and deceptive. We may
now examine another of his strong grounds, on which he and
his followers place the utmost reliance, and urge with but
too much success.
We are told in his sermon on Isaiah
[Edit. 1652. Vol. I. p. 243, seq.],
chap. ii. 2, 3, 4, that "hills or mountains
are States, Kingdoms, or Societies of men, which consisting
of degrees, rising unto a height one above another, are
compared unto mountains raised above the ordinary plain and
level of the earth. The Mountain of the Lord's House,"
continues he, "is that State and Society which is called
the Church and People of God...the Kingdom of Heaven, that
is, a Kingdom, whose both King, and King's throne, have
their residence and place in the Heavens." A little lower
down we have,..." the time should one day come, that this
People or Church of God, should not only be the most exalted
state upon the Earth, and the most ample and universal
Dominion that ever was in the World; but the most
peaceable," &c.:—which is a genuine Jewish notion !
"But now comes the question," continues
he, "whether this, as we have described it, be and hath
already been fulfilled ? or whether the time thereof be yet
to come ? or if already in any wayes fulfilled, whether it
be not in part onely performed, and the full accomplishment
reserved for the time to come!"—He then presses the
followers of the Pontificate on the perpetual visibility of
the Church, and wishes to know, whether even they can point
out any time past, or present, in which Popery has exhibited
so glorious a visibility as this prophecy of Isaiah
foretells. He next argues that, should such a fulfilment
have taken place—and he denies not that it partially
has,—still, it cannot be shewn that such glorious visibility
must necessarily continue : and that, to have so
fulfilled the prophecy once, would satisfy the terms of the
prediction.—Let this be borne in mind.
We are next taught (ib. p. 247), "that we
must distinguish of times...that there are times when the
Church is indeed visible, but not glorious. Secondly, times
when it is neither visible nor glorious. Thirdly, times when
it is to be both visible and glorious." "In the times
immediately after Christ's passion...it was neither visible
nor glorious." "In the times of the persecuting
Emperors...and the nations began to flow unto it, it was a
society indeed visible, but not glorions: I am sure it was
not in the tops of the mountains; but the Imperiall
mountain of Some... overtopped it.. .trampled it
under their feet [That is, just as
prophecy had foretold it should.]...we speak here of
the externall glory.. .In the times of Constantine...
the sun seemed as it were to break forth of a cloud, and the
Christian society became for a while, both visible
and glorious:"—I remark: Now therefore, according to
Mr. Mede's own shewing, the prophecy was fulfilled; while no
assurance had been given by the Prophets, that this
external glory should continue.
We are next told that, "presently
after".. .this glory of the Church was not only eclipsed,
but even the visibility thereof in a manner covered, and
altogether darkened... with that...overspreading cloud of
Arianisme [Which, in truth, has
nothing whatever to do with the matter, as it will be seen
below.]. He next urges the
Antichristianisme of papal Borne: then the light
obtained by the Reformation; and he adds, " We hope,... it
shall become, not" (only) "more visible then yet it is, but
far more glorious then ever hitherto it hath been, when
the fulnesse of the Gentiles (as St. Paul speaks),
shall come in."—And this he defines, a little lower
down, (p. 279), by the distinction of " a Society of
Christian believers, joyned together in one external
Communion, of the same publicke profession, use of
Sacraments, and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction or Government,''
&c.
It must be clear enough from all this,
what Mr. Mede's notions were on these points: we shall now
shew that every one of these is groundless, and unworthy of
regard. In the first place then, he allows, as noticed
above, that if the Church has been once fully established,
the terms of prophecy do not require, that it be always
maintained in that state [It will be
shewn hereafter on Eev. Chapp. i—iii, that Scripture
actually provides for the contrary.]. In the times of
Constantlne, he also allows, the Church did become..
.both visible and glorious for a while; but,
according to his own reasoning, nothing more was required
for the fulfilment of the prediction [Isa.
ii.]. So far we have no valid objection to the fact,
that the Church was once established both visibly and
gloriously. But still, it was not fully so. It
was indeed both visible and glorious, but not to the
extent that will satisfy Mr. Mede, &c. But, Why ?—
The reasons are, according to Mr. Mede,
"We find in the Prophecies.. .that there are two sorts and
times of the calling in of the Gentiles; the first is that
which should be with the rejection and casting off of the
Jews, and as St. Paul saith, to provoke them to jealousie:
such a calling as should be in a manner occasional, that
God might not want a Church
[(The Italics are mine.) In other words, the Apostles
taught, and the nations received, a mere temporary,
make-shift, Christianity: and such is that which we now
possess ! This, I say, is a true and necessary result of the
principles of Mr. Mede; many of his followers too, carry it
out to its legitimate length: viz. that Christianity, as we
now have it, is to pass away, and to be followed by
something that is better. But see Gal. i. 8, 9, on this!],
the time the Jews were to be cast out: for this is that
which St. Paul means, Rom. xi. 15, That the casting away
of the Jews, is the calling of the Gentiles, or
reconciling of the world: whence we may see, that the
Apostles were not to preach Christ to the Gentiles, until
first offered to the Jews: they refused him: and this is the
calling of the Gentiles which hitherto hath been for many
ages."
"But," continues he, "there is a second
and more glorious calling of the Gentiles to be found in the
Prophecies of Scripture; not" (such) "a calling as this is,
wherein the Jews are excluded; but a calling wherein the
Jews shall have a share of the greatest glory, and to have a
preheminence above all other nations, when all nations
shall flow unto them, and walk in their light.
This is that calling and that time which he calls the
fulness of the Gentiles: I would not, brethren, (saith
he), have you ignorant of this mystery, that blindness in
part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the
Gentiles be come in; and so all Israel shall be saved
[The matter here discussed, is taken
up again in another Sermon on Jer. x. 11, in which we are
told (ib. p. 83 seq.) that, of all the inhabitants of the
world, Christianity is but about one sixth part: Mahomatisme
has 1, and Ethnicisme a little more than 3. But, as remarked
elsewhere, this has nothing whatever to do with the
question. Christianity was one carried out under miracle,
and set up generally throughout the universe: and this is
sufficient for the terms of prophecy. We then have Ps. xxii.
27 : xlvii: lxvi, &c. in all which the establishment of
Christ's Kingdom is predicted. 1 Cor. xv. 25, 26, is next
quoted, which however, refers not to the fulness, but the
duration of Christ's Kingdom: besides, " all put in
subjection under Him " does not necessarily mean, that
not a sinner shall remain de, facto, but rather de
jure, not subject to the Son of Man. The ancients
understood this place differently from Mr. Mede, and perhaps
more correctly. " We see not yet" &c. Heb. ii. 8, i.
e. de facto: for the Apostle lived not to the period
when this should take place. Again, ib. 5, " The world to
come;" i. e. Christianity, which had not then been
established in power: it was therefore to come (Gr.
mellosan). We next have Rev. xii. 6, the 1260 days,—
during which the Church should be nourished in the
wilderness,— turned into so many years, by a sort of
cabbalistical hocus pocus. But this again, is all mere
assumption. His last consideration here, (p. 87,) is on
"the fulness of the Gentiles," Rom. xi. "Now," says he,
"because the Jews are not yet called, it followeth that
the fulness of the Gentiles is yet to come." But the
Jews have been called, and refused to listen thereto
: this conclusion is therefore unsound. Verbum sat.]"
&c.
We have here therefore, given
sufficiently at length, the grounds of Mr. Mede's
belief, viz. that the Jews are yet to have a particular
call to join the Church; that the Church itself shall be
more gloriously, visibly, and fully established:
and we are now to rest satisfied, that sufficient proof
has been afforded, as to the several and consecutive series
of the Seals, Trumpets, and Vials, belonging to these
several periods, and then so stretching out until all
prophecy shall receive its entire and final fulfilment.
Let us examine all this as briefly as we can.
In the first place then, there is no
prophecy whatever to be found in the Scriptures,
declaring that "so all Israel shall be saved" as just
now given by Mr. Mede. This place, it is certain, contains
a doctrine, not a prophecy, (see p. 38, &c.
below), and, when fully stated, stands thus, " And they,
(i. e. the Jews), if they abide not in unbelief,
shall be grafted in... .and so all Israel shall be saved:"
i.e. IF they believe and receive the Gospel, then shall they
be saved: which will suffice for this place. And, as to the
prophecies relating to the Jews, and seeming to
foretell their restoration to Canaan, not so much as one is
to be found really promising any such thing: all
promise to this effect that can be found, relates to that
party among them which is usually styled, "a very small
remnant," " the Outcasts, Dispersed" and the
like, of Israel and Judah;—while the contrary is
positively affirmed of " the multitude'" of them, as
shewn below, (p. 33. seq. &c.) Nor again, is it any where
foretold that all nations shall flow to the Jews,
and so, virtually at least, secure a pre-eminence to
them. All that the prophets have said
[Isai. ii. 2, seq.] is, that " all nations shall
flow unto it," i. e. at some period after their times,
and in "the last days" (see below, p. 99, seq.),
to the mountain of the Lord's house, the true Zion of
God: not to the multitude or people of the Jews. And, in
the days of the Apostle Paul, this Zion consisted both of
Jews (i. e. the Election, or Remnant),
and Gentiles; of Barbarians, Scythians, Bond, and Free;
among whom there was "no difference" and consequently
no pre-eminence; of which proof sufficient will be found
below.
It is equally groundless to affirm, that
the prophecies of Scripture speak of two times of calling,
or of two sorts of calling, of the Gentiles; or, that the
second of these shall be the most glorious: nor has any
thing been here advanced tending in the least degree to
prove this: nor can there be. The truth is, Mr. Mede has
deceived himself by a faulty view of Holy Writ to the
effect, that the Jews were now to be cast out, as if
this,—predicted as a fact,—carried with it an impossibility
of their being otherwise; while the truth is, the Gospel was
first preached to them, and many of them received it; but,
upon their multitudes' wilfully rejecting it, the
Apostles turned to the Gentiles. And again, if their casting
away,—because of unbelief,—did administer to the
reconciling of the world, and to the riches of the
Gentiles; and also, if their receiving the Gospel at
that time, would have greatly increased these,—as no doubt
it would,—it cannot 'hence be inferred, that St. Paul meant
to teach that a second, and more glorious, call was in
reserve both for them, and the Gentiles: much less, that any
pre-eminence would, in any case, be conferred on either of
these. Besides, St. Paul manifestly makes the conversion of
the Jews, the duty of the Church [Rom. xi. 31.];
which is virtually to deny, that prophecy has any thing to
do with it. Nothing is more common, I know, than to dwell
very fondly and largely on inferences of this sort, and then
to press them as if they were demonstrations: when it must
be obvious to every one, having the least experience in
inquiries of this sort, that no reliance whatsoever ought to
be placed upon them. So far we have seen nothing, tending to
prove that Mr. Mede's arrangement of consecutive periods is
well grounded, or, that Jews, as such, are yet to receive a
particular call, and so to have a pre-eminence among the
nations : all that has been said therefore, on these points,
can claim nothing Beyond the respect due to the opinions
of Mr. Mede: or, which is the same thing, to mere
assumptions.
Let us now examine, a little more
particularly, the argument as to the glorious visibility
yet in reserve for the Church, but of which neither Mr.
Mede, nor his followers, could ever yet see it in
possession. I affirm then, if the Church has,—as allowed
above by Mr. Mede himself,— been once in possession of the
glorious visibility contended for; and, if this has
been such as fully to answer the terms of
prophecy,—and this is the fact as shewn, (below, p. 340, seq.),
then, I say again as before, no expectation can be
entertained from prophecy, of a still fuller, and
more glorious, fulfilment of its terms
[The question, as to degree now
before us, is a very difficult one to deal with, because
tastes, which entirely govern it, will differ. If however
inspiration has pronounced upon it, this ought to satisfy
us; St. Paul says then (Col. i. 5, 6.) " The Gospel... is
come unto you as it is in all the world," (ver.
23,) " and which was preached to every creature which is
under heaven." Now there is no prediction to be found,
promising more than this. If it was foretold that this
should cover the earth, even as the waters covered the sea;
still, the Apostle's "every creature under Heaven,"
is quite as comprehensive: of this there can be no
doubt. And, if it be allowed, that after Paul's time both
the extent of its progress, and the number of its recipients
were still greater, this will make no difference here. It
was perhaps enough for miracle to do, generally to spread
Christianity abroad in the different regions of the world,
and then to leave it to its own expansive powers to cover
the rest. And if it be true, that miracle ceased with the
Apostles, or with their immediate converts,—as many have
thought,—this must have been the case; and the Church,—as it
must be the case ever after,—sent it into the remoter and
less frequented places. One, of other places countenancing
this, is Horn. xvi. 25, 26, where it is said,..." the
mystery which was kept secret, but now is made manifest, and
by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the
commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all
nations," &c.: i.e. the work of proclaiming this mystery
had, "according to the commandment," now been done,
i. e. completed, and this " in all nations,'' through the
Scriptures of the Prophets, and/or the obedience of
faith. It should seem therefore, that the propagation of
the Gospel had been now completed, according both to the
commandment and prophecy : and so far, miracle must have
been put forth: and it actually was. Much was indeed yet to
be done in overthrowing its opponents: and this also was
done, but that is quite another thing. It may be true
therefore, that no such large fulfilment of prophecy was
ever intended, as many are willing to believe.]. I
now say moreover, that, after this once so realized
consummation, it is not visibility either more
or less glorious, that is to be sought or expected.
With Papists and others who know of nothing beyond
externals, such a visibility may be consistently
urged: and in this Mr. Mede has perhaps done well in his
argument against them, as given above; but, with those who
look for the true Zion, the case is quite different:
they will look,—as the Holy Remnant did of old, and as the
Prophets who were of this party also did,—for the
spiritual glories of St. John's New Jerusalem,
(see below on Rev. xxi.), and St. Paul's City of the
Living God, (see p. 87, note, and 476, seq.) ; for the
spiritual manna contemplated by faith in the
Eucharist, and the blood also viewed by faith in the Cup of
the New Testament, by which alone the conscience can be
purged from dead works, and enabled to serve the living God;
and indeed for all the blessings, to be sucked as
consolations from her breasts, as an entirely spiritual
Mother. And it is truly astonishing that a person so
spiritually-minded as Mr. Mede evidently was,—and the same
may be said of many of his followers,—could be so far
wrought upon by the dissimulations of Jews,—for this is
judaizing,— as to have adopted opinions so adverse to the
spirit of the Gospel [We may now
notice a prophecy, which has of late been appealed to as a
most triumphant proof of the goodness of Mr. Mede's theory.
This was first published in 1701, by a Mr. Robert Fleming;
and its object was, according to its last Editor, (London
1848, pref. p. v.) to give a new resolution to the grand
apocalyptical question concerning the rise and fall of the
Antichrist, or Rome Papal. The process leading to the result
sought, is this : " The first rise of Antichrist he dates in
a.d. 606 . . . from which he computes that his reign of 1260
prophetic years' duration will expire in 1848."—I remark,
all this is mere assumption, and it rests on false
grounds, as shewn above. And, if the event had answered
the terms of the prediction exactly; still Mr. Fleming would
have hence been no more a Prophet, than Mr. Murphy was when
he foretold, some time ago, the coldest day of the winter
following. But the event here is of no such character. The
Pope has indeed been forced to quit Rome ; but this no more
proves the fall of Popery, than the imprisonment of the Pope
did in the days of Bonaparte. We next have the fourth vial
of the Revelation poured out upon the Sun; but the Sun
is, it is said, a type of the French Monarch; and
that the period would close about the year 1794. Here again,
the grounds are false as before, and the events
faulty. The Sun's being a type of the French Monarch is,
too, a perfectly groundless assumption, as to the mind of
St. John. And the French Monarch, Louis XVI., was beheaded
early in 1793. As a Prophecy therefore this is
utterly false! nor did the Revolution then set on foot
end till some years after 1794. The period is wrong
therefore, at both ends! Dismissing however, for a moment,
the groundlessness of all such prophesying as this, I would
only ask, Who would expect to find St. John predicting, for
the edification and consolation of the universal Church,
particularly of his own times, and generally of
all ages, under imagery the most lofty and splendid, the
event of a runaway Pope ? or the decapitating of a
French King ? or,—what is still less likely,—that the
Prophets of Israel would be engaged in calling upon heaven
and earth to witness the solemn predictions of such trifles
?]
There is still another consideration
closely connected with this, as suggested by his words cited
above : viz. "a Society of Christians.. joyned in
one externall Communion...use of Sacraments,
...Ecclesiastical /Jurisdiction or Government."" Now
attached as I am to my own Communion, and ceding to no man
in this particular, I cannot nevertheless be brought to
believe, that it is necessary to the spiritual
glories of the Church;—of its visibilities I now make
no account;—that Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and
government shall in all cases be identically the
same: of this even the Apostolic Churches could scarcely
boast. These things are but externals; good indeed in their
place, and very desirable, could they be universally
realized. To formalists who know of nothing better they are
every thing ; while at best, they are entitled only to
subordinate consideration in the spiritual household
of God; and can never be appealed to as marks either of
fulfilled, or unfulfilled, prophecy.
Of this sort too is another
consideration, frequently brought before us by Mr. Mede, and
his followers: viz. that the political government of the
Rome of the Caesars, still exists under that of the Pontiff
and others: and the same consideration may be, and is
indeed, extended, to the existence, political or otherwise,
of the City of Rome itself. When we are told for example,
that Babylon should be destroyed, and that under
this, mystically-speaking, the spiritual Babylon also
should; we need not imagine that, as the fall of Babylon was
according to the letter, in the first instance, the fall of
the spiritual Babylon should also in the second. It
is enough here if the spiritual Babylon, as such,
fell, leaving the literal and political one just as it was.
Christ's Kingdom is not of this world. It has nothing
whatever to do either with political, or literal,
considerations such as these. We may fairly leave all
such to Jews and Romanists, whose hopes rest on nothing
better. The Church has moreover been established once in
its literal extent and glory; but, that being done,
its spiritualities alone are its great essentials.
If therefore it could be shewn, that a
real and true succession of the Government of the Caesars
now existed—which cannot,—this could not in the least affect
our question, which is, Does the spiritual Kingdom
of the Son of Man now exist or not ? And to this the
answer is : It does in all its spiritual integrity,
privileges, and powers: and of this, proof sufficient will
be found below. It was in this way too that Babylon, as an
Empire, passed to the Medo-Persians; that of these, to
Alexander the Great; that of him, to his four Successors;
and then to heathen Rome : all and each of these remaining
in other respects, just what they were before : and hence it
is said, (Dan. vii. 12,) that "their lives were prolonged
for a time;'''' while "'their dominion" (only) "was
taken away:" i. e. as Kingdoms they remained; as
Empires, they ceased to exist as all externals
therefore,—whatever they may have had to do with the
establishment of the Church at first,—and in this they had
much to do,—have now neither part nor lot in this matter:
and the same is true, whether these be of an
Ecclesiastical, or of a secular, character. No
objections therefore of this sort, directed against
Christianity as we now have it, are entitled to any
consideration, except only to be treated as assumptions, and
altogether visionary : the same, —as shewn above,—may be
said of Mr. Mede's distinctions of times, as to the
Seals, Trumpets, and Vials; of two distinct callings of
the Jews and Gentiles: and it is of no moment whatever,
whether the assumptions be made in the Scheme itself, or in
the Rules given for its guidance, or on the text of Holy
Writ; they are still but assumptions, and might as well have
been made of the whole matter in debate, simply and at once,
as under any modification whatsoever of it. In either case,
they are unworthy of confidence.
So far then, we have seen the grounds and reasonings of
Mr. Mede, on the strength of which his opinions have been,
and are still, recommended and extensively received. But he
has something further to offer on the restoration of the
Jews, which should not be omitted. This gives us a parallel
drawn between the conversion of St. Paul, and that which,—
as Mr. Mede will have it,—is hereafter to take place with
the Jews : when, according to the theory above considered,
the last Vial of wrath shall have been poured out, and the
Pontifical Antichrist destroyed. My principal reason for
giving this is, to shew generally by what sort of reasoning
this argument is also urged.
" The Mysterie of St. Paul's
Conversion, Or The type of the
calling of the Jews"
|
1. Paul amongst the sons of men, the
greatest zealot of the Law, and persecutour of the way of
Christ.
2. Paul in the height of this his
zeal, and heat of his persecuting fury, found mercy, and was
converted.
3. Paul converted by means
extraordinary, and for manner strange: Not as were the rest
of the Apostles, by the ministry of any teacher upon earth,
but by the visible revelation of Christ Jesus in his glory
from heaven; the light whereof suddenly surprising him he
heard the voice of the Lord himself from heaven, saying,
Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me ?"
|
|
1. The Jews amongst the nations most
obstinate, zealous of Moses, and the most bitter enemies of
the followers of Christ.
2. The Jews through persisting unto
the last in their extremity of bitterness, and mortall hate
to Christians ; yet God will have mercy on them, and receive
them again to be his people, and he to be their God.
3. The Jews not to be converted unto
Christ, by such means as were the rest of the nations, by
the ministery of Preachers sent unto them
[1], but by the
revelation of Christ Jesus in his glory from heaven, when
they shall say, not (as when they saw him in his humility)
Crucifie him : but Blessed is he that cometh in
the
name of the Lord [2]. Whose coming then shall be as a lightning
out of the East,
shining into the West: and
the signe of the Son of man
shall appear in the clouds
of heaven; and every eye
shall see him, even of those
which pierced him ; and
shall lament with the spirit
of grace and supplication
[3]
for their so long, and so shamefull unbelief of their
mercifull Redeemer."
|
1)
And yet Paul himself says (I.e.),
"Even so have these," (i. e. Jews) "also now not
believed, that, through your mercy" (i.e. in preaching
the Gospel to them,) "they also may obtain mercy,"
(i.e. just as the believers had, by the preaching of the
Gospel to them). Paul's doctrine is therefore, in direct
opposition to this of Mr. Mede.
2) The places
cited in the margin here are, Isay lix. 19, and iv. 5: Dan. yii. 7,13: 2 Mace. ii. 8
: Matth. xxiii. 39, and xxiv. 27, 30: Luke xiii. 30: 2 Thess.
ii. 7, 8 : Rev. i. 7. Of the apocryphal Scripture we need
say nothing, as it can have no authority in this place. Of
the rest, as follows, viz. on Isai. mx. 19, see page 378
below; on Ch. iv. 5, see p. 370, &c.; on Dan. vii. 11, 13,
page 152, seq. On Matth. xxiii. 39, "Blessed is he that
cometh in the name of the Lord," it will be sufficient
to remark, that it is a quotation from Ps. cxviii.
26, and that it is no more necessary to suppose from this,
that Christ must appear personally, than it is, that Rev. i.
7, is to be so interpreted. See what is said on this place,
p. 231, &c. below. Comp. pp. 107, 121, seq. Besides, He
that cometh in the name of the Lord, would rather imply
some one, any one, of the Lord's Ministers, than the Lord
himself. In Matth. xxi. 9, indeed, it is applied to Christ
himself, but this was when He came in the form of a servant,
and in great humility. See Zech. ix. 9. On Matth. xxi. 27,
30, see p. 122, seq. Luke xvii. 30, evidently refers to the
same events, as does Matth. xxiv. 17. See the last
reference, on 2 Thess. ii. 7, 8, p. 201, seq.
3) The place had in view here, is Zech.
xii. 10, which does not refer to the Jews generally, but
only to that Holy Remnant, which should constitute
the true Zion in the days of our Lord, and is styled (ver.
7,) " the glory ofthe house of David." It is
astonishing to what an extent Scripture has been misapplied
on this point.
It cannot be necessary to follow out this
" mysterie" or parallel any farther, extending as it does to
six other paragraphs. The only question that need be asked
respecting it is, Are we to understand Mr. Mede here as
giving positive and direct predictions ? or, as offering
certain conclusions, the results of good and sound
interpretations of Holy Writ ?
I answer, The first of these is not to be
supposed. Mr. Mede was a man of too much real piety to be
suspected for a moment, capable of so much wickedness;
and yet the " type" is given positively as such. The
second then, must have been his intention : and here he has,
unhappily, failed to seize the sense of his authorities.
There is, moreover, another fault in this parallel, and it
is a fatal one. St. Paul himself argues most conclusively
from the types of the Old Testament, to the realities of the
New: but the nature of the Mosaic Covenant gave authority
to this: it was shadowy, and to be superseded by
better things. But St. Paul's conversion took place under
the New Dispensation, and under this he legitimately so
preached; for, in his days this shadowy system had entirely
passed away. How then, I ask, can St. Paul's conversion be,
on Scriptural grounds, typical of something still to
come to pass 2 Surely it must be superfluous to add any
thing to this, except the remark, that it is judaizing to
the fullest extent !
There is one consideration more, of which
Mr. Mede and his followers make much use: it is what is
called "the year-day theory:" i. e. the art of converting
any given number of days into as many years. The necessity
for this is the fact, that a very large portion of prophecy
is referred to futurity by this school: and hence it becomes
desirable to discover some means of getting at its period.
By thus turning days into years this is done : it is then
foretold accordingly, when the times and events so predicted
shall happen. The first place tried in this way, is Daniel
ix. 25, se«j. Where however, as shewn below, it can neither
be made to answer : nor from the circumstances of the case,
can it be applicable. For a substantial refutation of it, as
applied to other places, see Mr. Todd's Discourses on the
Prophecies, (Dublin, 1840,) page 395, seq., with the authors
there referred to.
I have then, a right to conclude on the
whole of this, that, whatever the results of Mr. Mede, and
his followers may be,—and they are universally
governed by these his principles, and generally arrived at
by his mode of reasoning,— whether good or bad, they can scarcely
challenge respect, much less confidence: and that, however
cleverly or learnedly they may be propounded, or seriously
recommended, they evince, from first to last, nothing beyond
an unsupported tissue of conjectures; or, what is virtually
the same thing, of mere assumptions. The Scriptural
interpretations of the Jews moreover, are, and ever have
been, conducted on the same principles ; and have in very
many instances, arrived at the same results! In all cases,
they have succeeded to a marvellous extent, in obscuring the
context of Holy Writ, and in lowering the character of
Christianity [As shewn above.]: and the consequence has been, much that was
intelligible and plain [I need here only remark that, the
more sure word of Prophecy, of St. Peter's times, has
been made in ours the most unsure that can be conceived. We
shall have presently to adduce something more to this effect.] both to the early converts to
Christianity, and the earlier Writers of the Church, has
been involved in more than Egyptian darkness; and, as with
the Jews, has been consigned to an indefinite futurity as
the only means of saving its character as inspired. There is
no intention here however, of impugning either the
learning, ability, or good faith, of any of these gentlemen.
They have done the utmost that could be done under the
principles of Mr. Mede. It was perhaps more their misfortune
than their fault, not to have observed that those principles
were faulty. Nor do I arrogate to myself the merit of having
discovered those that are better. On the contrary, I have
had no doubt that the earlier and better Writers of the
Church were guided by others far superior, and these it has
been my endeavour to follow out.
Having then so far considered the
principles and practices of Mr. Mede, the first, and
perhaps the most popular writer, who adopted these ; we will
now very briefly review those of the last: viz. the Rev. E.
B. Elliott: and here I shall select a portion of his work, in
which he does not differ essentially from myself, except
only in the manner in which his inquiry has been
conducted. [I
use Vol. m. 2d Edit. 1846.]
Mr. Elliott heads this part of his work
("Introduction to Rev. xii. 1") with these words: "
Retrogression of the Visions:" the consideration of
which forms his first inquiry. " It will be necessary," says
Mr. Elliott, " to call the reader's attention to the
evidence of a retrogressive character in both it, and
the two subsequent...visions."—We have here therefore,
according to the shewing of Mr. Elliott himself, three
visions of St. John at least of a retrogressive'''
[Mr. Mede
made the same discovery long ago, " The Apostle," says he, "
resumes the Vision ab ovo,
to make a more particular description of the seven
Angels.. .whence they had their Vials," &c. ("Remaines on
some passages," &c. p. 32. Ed. 1648. Vol. II.), and this, if
I understand Mr. Mede aright, refers to the very place under
consideration here.]
character: and to these is to be added,—as I shall shew,—that
of " the witnesses." Mr. Elliot's words are: " The
retrospective history of Christ's two Witnesses not
forming an exception" (i. e. to the general progressive
character of these), " because that is given in
conversational explanatory narrative by the Angelic
interlocutor."—Let us see how far this reason will hold.
It is true indeed, an Angelic
interlocutor does instruct St. John, verbally of course, as
to the particulars of these Witnesses (Chap. xi. 1, seq.):
but Does not St. John get the whole of his Revelation from
instructions of this sort ? In the very outset of his
Book it is said, "The Revelation... which must shortly
come to pass: and He (God) sent and signified it by
His angel unto His servant John." We find accordingly,
that throughout the first three Chapters here, the message
is in every case that of the Angel to St. John. There are
cases indeed elsewhere, in which John merely narrates the
particulars of the visions as he saw them: while, in every
one, where we have explanation, it is given either by Christ himself, or by some Angel. But
it must depend entirely on the nature of the context,
whether the events had in view, are to be considered as
belonging to past, present, or future time; it being quite
out of the question to imagine, that the mode of
making any revelation can have any thing whatever to do with
these. I must conclude here therefore, that the reason so
assigned for the retrogression adverted to, is
altogether inadequate to the purpose for which it has been
given.
But the fact of the case, when more
particularly considered, is, the language used is not mere
conversational narrative: it is that both of command and of
prediction. "Rise," it is said, "and measure
the temple,"..." and the holy city shall they tread under
foot forty and two months. And I will give power unto
my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy" &c. In verse
6, the Angel conversationally tells John what powers these
witnesses should possess; still this contains prediction, as
before. Now I say, If this place will supply any good reason
for a retrogression by the manner of its
enouncements, the same may be said of every place similarly
circumstanced throughout this whole book. The truth however
is, this notion about conversational narrative can
constitute no trustworthy canon of interpretation in any
case, because it is groundless and deceptive. I agree,
nevertheless, with Mr. Elliott when he says, that "we have
an interruption here, and a breaking off from the subject
next preceding," because there is good reason for this
[See on the place below.];
not because the conversational nature of the place will
account for it.
But the thing most to be observed here
is, a positive infraction of Mr. Elliott's own principles,
and of those of his leader Mr. Mede: and this again, the
very thing which Mr. Elliott has somewhere condemned in me !
He adds,— and I beg to recommend the consideration
particularly to himself,—"I say many" (i.e.
retrogressions), "because in effect between the new
visions and the old there are traceable many and striking correspondencies ; more, if I mistake not, than have
hitherto been thought of," &c. To this Dr. Todd, and some
early Fathers, will give a hearty Amen! In the
following pages, Mr. Elliott will find some of these
correspondencies pointed out, quite as far as he here thinks
they may be. He allows indeed, that Chapters vi. vii. viii.
ix. x. xi. on the one hand, and Chapters xii. xiii. xiv. on
the other, will supply examples. It will be shewn
sufficiently at length below [See the several proofs of these, as given in
their places.], that the series of these
here made two, the context requires, should be
reduced to one. I make no account of the conjecture,
that the outside writing of the Roll (i. e. of the sealed
book) might have had its particular synchronizings with
those of its inside; I. Because this is unnecessary; and II.
Because it is incapable of any thing like reasonable proof.
Let us now consider Mr. Elliott's
interpretation of the vision before us (Rev. xii. 1, seq.),
"The travailing woman,.. was evidently Chrisfs
true Church on earth" &c. He adds, "Another character
was,...the Bride, the Lamb's wife." To which, I
think, no good objection can be made. He goes on, " The sun
is no where in the Apocalyptic imagery made the
representative of Christ." Which is faulty: unless it can be
shewn, that we are not to look elsewhere for any solution of
the Apocalyptic imagery, except only in the Apocalypse
itself. St. John tells us (Rev. xxi. 23), that " the City
had no need of the sun...for... the Lamb is the light" (i.
e. luminary) " thereof:" i. e. the Lamb is its
sun, in some sense. "Unto you that fear my name"
says the Prophet (Mal. iv. 2), "shall the Sun of
righteousness arise :" i. e. of necessity, Christ,
in the healing, enlightening, and warming, influences of
His grace. Again, Ps. Lxxxiv. 11, "The lord God is
a sun and shield: the
lord will give grace
and glory." Which may
perhaps be taken as the best comment on the words of St.
John; and therefore as proof sufficient, that Mr. Elliott's
view of this place has no foundation in truth. '
Mr. Elliott's next assertion is equally
destitute of foundation ; and, what is worse, it bears upon
its surface an antichristian doctrine. " Thus," says he (p.
9), " we are led to see that the representation here given
of Christ's Church, was not one universally or generally
true ; but designative of it at some remarkable and
particular time," [So
Mr. Mede as noticed above, that God may not, in the mean
time, be without a Church. In other words, Christianity was
given only as a sort of make-shift, until some second
advent,—a mere figment of the imagination,—should be
followed by a Millennium!] &c. His reasons given are I. "
The heaven meant is evidently political elevation"
This is one of Mr. Mede's notions: and it is groundless
; for the obvious reason, that the Church considered in
itself, and, as here exhibited, before the period of
its political 'elevation, is, 'as a kingdom,—which
is only another name for it,—not of this world. This
reason therefore, will no more suffice to shew, that by
heaven is meant political elevation, than it will
in other places, where we are either told or taught that the
vision was in heaven, and where no such notion can be
entertained. And, as to the inglorious sort of Christianity
here supposed to be symbolized,—i. e. as taught by the
Apostles, and now professed among us,—I must be allowed to
tell Mr. Elliott, that he is making something worse than a
mistake: he is preaching that doctrine which the Apostle has
declared, is to be received as entailing a curse even on the
Angel that should propound it!
Mr. Elliott's second reason is (p. 10),
"As to the description of her travailing...to bring
forth a male child; the meaning of this," adds he, "
will best appear from the very similar prophetic imagery in
a vision descriptive of the yet future restoration of the
Jews," &c. The allusion is to Isaiah (chap. Lxvi. 8, 9). Let us examine
this. We have in this context then, two parties clearly
pointed out; viz. those that tremble at God's word,
and also their brethren that hated them, and cast them
out. Now, it is to the joy of the former, that God
shall appear; and to the shame of the latter. And
the latter are the Jews generally. Of this there can
be no doubt. The Zion here mentioned therefore, must
be the true Church, which should so bring forth even
a nation in a day: for to her, was the glory of the
Gentiles to flow like a stream (ver. 12), not to the
Jews : they are to suffer shame as the enemies of God (see
verr. 19—24, inclus.). We certainly can have no restoration
of Jews here therefore. The promise is clearly made to
the Zion of God in Jewry; while shame and
vengeance are to fall upon its oppressors.
"Thus the male child," continues
Mr. Elliott, " of which the literal Zion is to be
delivered, is declared to mean" (i. e. by Mr. Elliott), "
her children united and multiplied into a nation
or dominant body politic; with triumph," &c. But does
it appear from St. John, that this Zion was now exhibited as
a dominant body politic, when in fact she had now
to submit to a persecution in the wilderness for forty
and two months ? Is this a mark of political domination ?
Isaiah, it is true, speaks of the same Zion and of a
triumph to take place, apparently after this event. We have
here therefore, a palpable confusion of times, and of
things; not to insist on the obviously groundless
assumption, that this vision's being seen in the heavens
implies political domination.
Mr. Elliott continues, " In like manner
we may interpret the man-child of whom the
spiritual Zion, or Church of Christ, appeared
travailing to be delivered,—not as the child Jesus, born at
Bethlehem, an explanation on no account admissible, —but as
its children united into a body politic, and
raised to dominant power.'' It certainly is
marvellous, that the appearing only of this vision in
the heavens, could supply assurances so strong as these,
that political domination, union, &p., are meant, and that the birth of the child
Jesus at Bethlehem must certainly be excluded, and
particularly as it is said by St. John, that this Child
should rule the nations with a rod of iron; which
must necessarily refer to Christ exclusively, in its primary
sense. It probably did not occur to Mr. Elliott that, as
Christ is the federal head of His Church, the powers and
privileges primarily and properly belonging to
Him, are secondarily and subordinated ascribed
to His people. I hold therefore, that the Child Jesus is
intended in all this; and that, although the Church had no
such dominant power before it suffered persecution in
the wilderness; dominant power was nevertheless promised to
it by the Prophets: and that such it obtained at the
appointed time. We have here therefore much error, and not a
little confusion.
But Mr. Elliott has reasons to advance,
why this glory of the Church is not that ultimate
glory to be realized at the second coming of Christ, i.
e. when the Jews are to be restored, as stated above. The
first is, that "she was immediately afterwards to be
persecuted by the Dragon, and then to spend 1260 days, or
years, in the wilderness" (pp. 11, 12). But it is
sufficiently evident, as shewn below (p. 190, seq.), that
this persecution in the wilderness was to try and to purge
the spiritual character of the Church, not to mark
its inferiority in this sense; but quite the
contrary, to shew its power, and hence to foretell its
triumph. Mr. Elliott however, places these two
considerations " in the most admired disorder;" and then
concludes, as it was easy for him to do, that the
subordinate and lesser earthly triumph i. e. obtained at the
close of these persecutions, was typical of the greater
still to come. So far, we have the Christianity of the
Apostles made quite of a piece with the political
circumstances of the Church, inferior and poor!
and the events of Christian times made typical
of other events, also to happen in Christian times,
without at all considering that the Christian system is not
one of types !
But we have another monstrosity here:
viz. that out of the one birth brought before us by
St. John and Isaiah, Mr. Elliott manufactures two!
The first to take place upwards of 200 years after the times
of St. John ; the other above 1200 years! In St. John
moreover, the woman cries out in the very pains of
parturition: Mr. Elliott keeps her in this situation for
280 years before her first delivery, and about 1260 before
her second ! But Isaiah is most pointedly adverse to Mr.
Elliott. His words are: "before she travailed, she
brought forth; before her pain came, she was
delivered of a man-child." The Prophet, apparently to
make this still more striking, adds: " Who hath heard
such a thing ? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be
made to bring forth in one bay? or shall a nation be
born at once ? for," continues he, " as soon as Zion
travailed, she brought forth her children." Nothing
surely, can be more directly opposed to the statements of
Mr. Elliott than are these Scriptures; and let it be borne
in mind, Isaiah has before him, beyond all doubt, the very
event exhibited here by St. John !
In page 17 too, this woman, or Zion, is
made to sustain a gestation of 40 weeks. I am at a loss to
discover whence Mr. Elliott got this: yet he says, "
calculated on the year-day prophetical chronological scale
from the Lord's ascension," &c. i. e. 40 weeks of years
making 280 years. It is added, " Her travail had begun above
a prophetic week before, in the Diocletian persecution; and
long, and painful, and ineffective hitherto, had been her
sufferings,...she had brought forth wind: she had wrought no
deliverance in the earth," &c. The utter incompatibility of
this with Isaiah and St. John, we have seen above. I now
remark: It is equally at war with St. Paul, who tells us
that, even in his days, the Gospel had been preached to
every creature under heaven, Col. i. 23 ; and (ib. 6),
"The Gospel...which is come unto you, as it is in
all the world." He adds,—which is much to our purpose,—"
and bringeth forth fruit" &c. (comp. Rom. x. 18, seq.). And again, in all those
places in which believers are styled children of God,
adopted children, and the like, it must be evident, that
some deliverance, aye, and that a great one, had been
wrought in the earth long before the times of Diocletian !
And to this, every Father of the Church before this time
bears abundant testimony. What therefore, are we to think of
the goodness of this conclusion ?
But "one word more." These 40 weeks were
clearly fabricated, in order to carry us onward beyond the
times of Diocletian: but, as all history attests,— and as shewn below, —the persecutions of our Zion commenced long
before the times of Diocletian. The truth is, his
persecution was the last of a series: and it continued not
longer than about ten years. Our 40 weeks gestation have
therefore, been fabricated in vain; for it must have
produced its fruits at least 150 years before! We have then,
an unwarranted, unsuitable, and absurd, period of gestation
assumed; an unwarranted cabbalistic ground for this
is next advanced, and all this with a confidence as great,
as if it contained the plainest words of Holy Writ! And this
again for the purpose of recommending an utterly false and
deteriorated view of our holy faith! It will be sufficient
to remark, that such an accumulation of rash, vain, and
groundless assumptions, is, happily indeed, but rarely to be
found among us: and the wonder is, how this has been so
readily and extensively received and believed.
Come we now to the grounds on which these
two different periods are attempted to be established: and
here we shall find Mr. Elliott just as happy as in his
preceding criticisms. "First," says Mr. Elliott (p. 13,
seq.), "there seems to me to have been, to a certain extent,
a chronological indication in the very use of the symbol of
a dragon. For it is a rule...in the Apocalypse to
make use of no self-adopted symbols of a country, in
reference to times earlier than their actual adoption in
that country." I have only to affirm here, that no symbol is adopted either by
St. John, or by any other sacred Writer, not common to Ms
own times: I leave it to Mr. Elliott to prove the
contrary, because negatives are not things capable of
proof. The said rule is therefore, a delusion. He adds, "And since it was not till near the close of the second
century that the dragon was first used as a Roman
ensign, nor till the third that its use had become common,
we might thence probably infer that the time represented in
the vision was scarce earlier, if so early as the third
century."..." So the intended period would seem to have been
some little time before the total dejection of Paganism...
at the commencement of the fourth century." We have
therefore, the time for this first birth determined, under
the operation of a palpably false rule; and this
again, in applying a symbol which, had it even been in use
in St. John's times, does not appear more likely to have
been employed by him, than was that of the Roman Eagles!
Such are the reasons advanced for the first and shortest
protraction of the labour-pains of our Zion !
Let us now come to the second. We are
told then (p. 11, seq.), " These coincidences might perhaps
at first incline us to attach the more glorious meaning to
the symbols of the vision" (i. e. of a restoration of the
Jews, &c.)." But the next figuration," continues Mr.
Elliott, " of the fortunes of the woman, or church, shewing
that she was immediately afterwards to be persecuted by the
Dragon, and then to spend 1260 days, or years, in the
wilderness, decisively negatives the position," &c. Mr.
Elliott gives us, therefore, one series of persecutions here
under the Roman Emperors, ending with a glorious song of
victory : but, because he finds woes denounced after the
close of this; he takes it for granted that another series
of persecutions must necessarily follow. The probability of
a retrogression here, could not have occurred to him,
notwithstanding the many obvious intimations of this
appearing in this context [See in its
place below]. Having therefore thus arrived
at a very considerable extension of time in this case, he
gives us at once its limit: viz. 1260 days, or years, i. e.
as I understand him, these days, taken by the year-day
theory, standing for 1260 years. We have seen above (p.
xxiii. seq.), how readily Mr. Mede managed this matter :
viz. by means of a palpably false induction; and then how he
attempted to prop this up, by an erroneous exposition of
certain places from the Prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah. It
was not the good fortune of Mr. Mede to devise our 40 weeks,
and 1260 year-days, of painful gestation: nor, as far as my
memory serves me, did he develop the theory of a first and
second birth. From all which it should seem,—contrary to the
opinion of Mr. Birks,—that the progress made in this sort of
conjecture, has not tended to supply additional light to our
question.
It is not my intention to follow Mr.
Elliott further, nor to follow out the resemblances
adduced as proofs for all this; I will only affirm, that the
whole is perfectly groundless, incapable at once of support,
and unnecessary to the interpretation of any portion
whatsoever of Holy Writ. I have shewn below
[see pp. 190, 352, 366,
364, below.], what I
believe to be the true intention of this number: and, until
something better shall be advanced to the contrary, to that
I must adhere. If then, we may place any reliance on what
has been now said, it must follow, that there is just as
much authority for Mr. Elliott's second series of
persecutions, as there is for his second male child-birth,
and the double gestation of 280 and 1260 years.
I need not perhaps now press the
consideration, that the principles and practices here
brought before us, are unworthy of confidence; the thing
must be too plain to need this. Every one in the least
degree experienced in inquiry of any sort, cannot but see in
what light they ought to be viewed: of the goodness or
badness of their results I now say nothing. Mr. Elliott's
work, I need not
add, evinces great research, acuteness, and patience; and
much that is very valuable is to be found in it. It is the
lax, purely conjectural, and hence wholesale assuming,
system of Mede, that forms its one and great blemish. This I
now venture to recommend to the consideration of Mr.
Elliott; and I will hope, that his candor will appreciate
the motive which prompts me to do so: viz. the desire to
advance the knowledge of revealed truth.
Part II.—On the Principles of
Prophetical Interpretation, propounded in the Works of
J. H. Todd, D.D., of Trinity College, Dublin, &c.
the works of Dr. Todd on this subject,
which have come to my knowledge, are two: the first printed
in Dublin, 1840, entitled "Discourses on the Prophecies,"
&c.: the other printed also in Dublin, in 1846, entitled
"Six Discourses on the Prophecies relating to Antichrist,"
&c. [I
have preferred taking Dr. Todd's works, although both Mr.
Maitland and Mr. Burgh published before him; the former in
1826 and 1829, the latter in 1832: because Dr. Todd gives
his views more in detail, with his arguments in support of
them. The "First Elements of Prophecy," by Mr. Birks,
London, 1843, will supply a sufficiently extensive and
correct list of others of the same school.] Much valuable matter is to be found in these
publications, evincing great learning, clear and forcible
writing; arguments urged with much earnestness, and often,
as it appears to me, with success. There are however
instances, as it will presently be shewn, wherein Dr. Todd
has in his anxiety, as it should seem, to overcome his
opponents, been any thing but happy.
Having premised thus much, I shall,—as it
is my wish to be as short as I can,—proceed at once to Dr.
Todd's statement of his own views, as to what is called the
literal and figurative interpretation of
Prophecy, and as to their legitimate application; these involving
primary, and most necessary, considerations. His views on
these points are given in the Preface of his second work, as
follows:—
"The literal sense of Scripture,"
says Dr. Todd (p. vi.), "is commonly defined to be that
signification of the words which the author intended, and
which his contemporaries, in the ordinary use of language,
would have understood....The spiritual sense, on the
other hand, is that interpretation which supposes the things
designated by the literal sense to denote other things not
immediately signified by the words."
[Mr.
Maitland much to the same effect, "Inquiry," p. 2. seq. Mr.
Faber*s statements on the year-day theory, are then
subjected to a searching examination, as Mr. Mede's also are
in the "Second Inquiry," p. 7. seq., and, I think, shewn to be untenable. Mr. Maitland,
nevertheless, has recourse to principles quite as
questionable as those which he condemns: e.g. "Nothing,"
says he, ""can be more reasonable than to assume, that the
same mode of computation which is used by an author in one
passage.. .will be used by him in all others." (Inquiry, p.
4.) I remark, certain it is that the same author does not
always confine himself, either to the same mode of
computation, or to the same usage as to words generally, e.
g. We have in Daniel the last or seventieth week of his
whole number of weeks, given as the period in which the
events of his series should close (Chap. ix. 27): but (ib.
Chap. viii. 26), the things evidently had in view there, are
styled the vision of The evening and morning: i. e.
of some one day. This period again (Chap. xii. 1,) is
called that time; but (ib. ver. 4, 9, &c.) it is,
the time of the end. And again, (Rev. xii. 6,) we have
the period of 1260 days; but (ib. ver. 14,) this is said to
be a time, times, and half a time. This 1260 days
appears again (ib. xi. 3,) as the period of the witnesses'
testimony: but (ib. ver. 9), 3½ days marks the same period.
Again, (ver. 2), gives 42 months, corresponding, as it
should seem, to another 3½ days: which (Chap. ix. 15), an
hour, a, day, a month, and a year, evidently
designate the same period. Nothing is more common than to
make reasonable assumptions of this sort, and then to
act under them to the utter confusion of the text of
Scripture, when no such assumption ought to have been made,
but each place have been investigated upon its own merits.] I remark, this latter
definition certainly is either useless or faulty. For, if
the literal signification is taken to be that which
the author intended, according to the first definition;
then, I say, as things spiritual might have been
intended, the term "literal" here, can have
no signification different from that given to the word
spiritual, in our second definition. And this Dr. Todd
appears to have felt, for he has added, "The literal sense,
however, does not exclude metaphor.... We speak—in ordinary
discourse—of 'the light of knowledge,' 'the fury of a
tempest,'" &c. Some similar examples are then given from
Scripture : and Dr. Todd very justly concludes, that such
usages do not exclude the literal meaning. He also
says that their grammatical meaning is not their
literal signification. What he means therefore, in the
first instance by literal sense, is probably what he
now intends by grammatical meaning: i. e. the
strictly natural sense of words, unapplied under any
metaphorical sense whatever : which nevertheless appears to
me here to involve some confusion.
He adds, " The most strictly literal
sense of holy Scripture does not exclude the use of
Symbol...a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under
her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars; the
words woman, and sun, and moon, and stars, are all to
be understood literally, even though we suppose the Holy
Ghost, by these symbols, to have signified the Christian
Church, or the Jewish nation, or the Mother of our Lord,"
&c. "Hence," he adds, " all legitimate forms of
spiritual interpretation are founded upon the literal
sense, and presuppose it." Might he not have said with equal
propriety, that all genuine spiritual interpretation
does the same thing? For certainly the latitude which he
himself allows here, will fully bear this out. He adds, "They," i. e. all the legitimate forms, &c. are
usually regarded as threefold: allegorical,...moral,...and
anagogical:" ' i. e. in this last case, " when we
draw from the literal sense a deep and mystical
signification, especially in reference to things eternal and
unseen."
It is obvious then, that in the
literal sense, Dr. Todd does include every figurative
sense whatsoever, in opposition to the strictly
grammatical, or natural, signification of words and phrases. In what then does he differ
from those whom he here considers his opponents ? for it is
certain, they do not urge their figurative meaning of words
and phrases, in opposition to the grammatical
or strictly natural ones. I answer, all I can
discover as intended here is, a difference in the
application of this literal, alias figurative,
sort of diction. He thinks,—and I hold,—truly, that the
applications objected to are violent and unnatural, so much
so that they appear totally to disregard the words of the
enouncements on which they are given. "The evil," he says
(pp. x. xi.), " is increased by the looseness with which
these terms are applied:" by which he must rather have
meant, not the terms typical, &c. but the figures
employed under them: for the evil has consisted in the
result, not in the naming one figure by the term which
really belonged to another.
Dr. Todd's exemplification of his meaning
is: "the modern interpreters... acknowledge... neither St.
Michael, nor the Devil, nor the Angels, nor the casting out
of Satan from heaven" (i. e. on Rev. xii. 7—9): "all is
figure and allegory." Michael, the dragon, and the war of
angels, are but " the robe of state," to use the words of
Bishop Hurd, in which the events... were arrayed by the
Prophet, and disguised from vulgar apprehension."—Still, I
say, Bishop Hurd does ground all this on the words given.
How could he otherwise have said, that they constitute " the
robe of state ?" Sic. All therefore that Dr. Todd could have
meant here, must have been, that this figurative sense
commits violence on the passage. The same, it is his object
to shew, is true of the interpretation given by Mr. Faber;
viz. " As heaven denotes the visible Church general, though
with special limitation to the Church general of the
Western or Latin Empire" (which, I say, is certainly very
questionable), " so the conflicting angels are...nothing
more than mere mortal men," &c. The same may be said of Mr.
Mede's (ib. p. xiv.) i. e. that his " robe of state" is
unsuitable.
Let us now see what Dr. Todd himself makes of this place, and in what way he has dealt with
the symbols here given: which will afford us a good ground
for judging of the value of his applications: and I
think it will be found, that Dr. Todd is here precisely in
the situation of his opponents. They have had recourse to
mere conjecture for the solution of the symbols used; and he
does the same thing! He then offers such reasons, as
appeared to him the best, in commendation of these.
[" A real event," says he, "
is predicted." Very true: but the question is, How is
this event to be understood ? Have we literally a war in
heaven, or have we something else which may be spoken of as
a war; because, as allowed above, the literal sense
may imply a figurative one ? All we have in answer to this
is, the place " has been appointed to be read for the
Epistle on.. .St. Michael's Day." I must confess I am unable
to see how this can settle the point. Dr. Todd appears to
have understood a real war here: with what propriety let the
reader judge. (See on the place, p. 368, seq. below.)] Let us
examine them.
He says then (ib. p. 230), " I would
infer, therefore, that the scene of this vision is not in
the higher heaven, where was the throne of God, and the four
and twenty elders and the four beasts, in which was laid the
scene of the former visions'" (but Who shall prove from the
words of St. John that this is true ?), " but in the lower
heaven, where are the sun and moon and stars, in the midst
of which the woman was seen by the Apostle." (but, Does St.
John say one word, so much as hinting at any such thing?).
Dr. Todd proceeds, " And that after her child was caught up
from this lower heaven unto God and to his throne, the woman
was found on earth ; and therefore... no longer clothed with
the sun," &c. But, Does it indeed appear "therefore," that
the woman had now lost these her distinguishing glories ?
Certainly St. John says no such thing, nor can any such be
legitimately deduced from this context. So far therefore,
all is unsupported conjecture: which, for any thing mortal
man can know, may be true, or not. The probability
is, perhaps, from what is said on this place below, that it
is not true.
All I now insist upon is, that Dr. Todd's
application of the Symbols here, is no better grounded than
those of Bishop Hurd, Mr. Faber, or Mr. Mede, objected to
above.
Dr. Todd next states his objections to
the popular interpretations of this Vision (pp. 231—9), and
he gives us his own, as follows: " And first, I would
observe that the woman seen by the Apostle in the vision
denotes, not the Christian Church, for the reasons already
suggested, but the Jewish nation." Dr. Todd's reasons are,—
" This interpretation is in strict
accordance with the language of the Old Testament, in which
Israel is frequently spoken of under the emblem of a woman;
and it is also remarkable, as tending to explain the symbols
employed in the prophecy, that the dispersed and rejected
state of the Jewish nation is represented by the Prophets
under the emblem of a barren woman." Isaiah i,iv. 1, "
Sing, 0 barren" &c. is then cited, and it is added: "
These passages are sufficient to shew that the emblem of a
woman, as a figure of the Jewish people, was familiar," &c.
And again, " If by the barren and deserted state of a
forsaken wife, were pourtrayed the rejection of Israel,...we
may perhaps fairly infer, that the sign of the woman
travailing in birth, ... would denote the removal of that
wrath, and the reception of Israel once more," &c.
Now I would ask, Have we any thing here
beyond mere conjecture ? Let us see: We are told, in the
first place, that the Jewish nation is represented in the
Old Testament, under the emblem of a woman: this place of
Isaiah is then cited by way of proof; and this again is
taken, by a mere supposition, as prefiguring the restoration
of the Jews to the favour of God! But, I ask, Does this
Barren woman of Isaiah necessarily represent the
Jewish nation ? The probability, I think, is, that the
Zion of Isaiah (Chap. lii. 1, &c.) is the thing
meant: and not the Jewish nation: unless indeed it
can be shewn, that these must necessarily signify the same thing: but this cannot be done : and
for proof of this, see pages 23, seq. of the following work.
I will affirm too, that this same Zion of Isaiah, is
the Zion spoken of also by him in Chap, xlix., where
it must be sufficiently obvious that, within this the
Jewish nation generally cannot be included, (see also
below, pp. 360, &c.) The Jewish nation cannot therefore be
meant here, nor, for the same reasons, can any restoration
of the Jews.
But Dr. Todd finds another place in
Isaiah, still more to his purpose. It is Chap. Lxvi. 3, seq.
Let us see what use he has made of this. "It begins," says
he, " by describing the rejected state of the Jewish
nation." (Is not this therefore, rather a description of its
sinful state ?) when " he that killeth an ox," &c. Dr. Todd
proceeds, " It speaks also of a Remnant, in the midst of the
nation, persecuted by their brethren, to whom the coming of
the Lord will" (would 2) " bring-joy and deliverance... He
shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed," &c.
Now, let it be asked, Is it not then to the Remnant here mentioned, that this joy and deliverance are promised ?
And again, Must it not be against their persecutors,—God's
enemies in this place,— that His vengeance is so denounced
I And these, according to Dr. Todd's own shewing, can
be no other than the Jewish nation generally! Is it
not marvellous that Dr. Todd should, at one moment, seize
upon this Remnant, persecuted by their brethren, to whom the
Lord's appearing should bring joy and deliverance, and then
throw them overboard the next, declaring that this joy
should, at that appearing, restore these very persecutors to
God's favour ? The truth is, a most important element of
prophetical interpretation has here been lost sight of, and
a Judaizing conclusion has accordingly been arrived at!
" The prophecy," continues Dr, Todd, goes
on to speak of the restoration of Israel in the following
language: " Before she travailed," &c. (ib. ver. 1—13).
" Here," adds Dr. Todd, " it is beyond a doubt that the
Prophet, under an emblem exactly similar to that of the
Apocalyptic vision,— a woman in travail...predicts a future
restoration of Jerusalem, and a return of the Jewish nation
to her allegiance." I remark: the emblem in both cases has,
"beyond a doubt," the same event in view: while I must
affirm, that the result here claimed as doubtless, is
grounded on nothing better than mere conjecture or
assumption, and that it is therefore unworthy of
acceptance.
"We may, therefore," continues Dr. Todd,
" reasonably conclude... that the woman clothed with the
sun... is the nation of Israel," &c. I answer, This might as
well have been assumed at once, as by a number of
intermediate steps; because nothing like reasonable proof
has been offered for one of them ! On the contrary, the
reverse is plainly intimated in the place, just now cited
to recommend it.
There are however, some difficulties
occurring in this prophecy, which, as Dr. Todd very
candidly, and indeed very truly, says, he knows not how to
solve, "and of which," he says, "no system of
interpretation, with which I am acquainted, appears to me
to have furnished any sufficient explanation." He then
proposes two modes of meeting this difficulty ; and his
conclusion is, (p. 245): " But these interpretations appear
to me to afford no clear or satisfactory explanation of the
clause, in which we are told that the child was caught up
unto God, and his throne:" implying, as it should seem, that
they do of every other: and this I deny. My reasons are,—
"Supposing the woman to signify the
Jewish nation, at the period when she shall be again
remembered by her Maker and her husband, and when she shall
be restored... to the land of promise, what are we to
understand by the Man-child who is born to her, and why"...
? " The man-child is said to be one who is to rule the
nations," &c. " This... is one of the characteristics of the
Messiah Himself."
..."And elsewhere in the Apocalypse,"
continues our author, "it is said of our Lord in His
second coming, and out of His mouth goeth a sharp sword,
that with it He should smite the nations," &c. I remark, the
terms '•'His second coming" are so applied, as to
assume the whole matter in debate ! Could Dr. Todd have been
so remiss, as not to have seen this ? I further remark, Dr.
Todd's Jewish nation does not, under our New
Covenant, constitute a nation at all according to
Holy Writ; nor are they, in the estimation of its Author,
a people. [See
p. 96, seq. below.]
And again, this New Covenant knows of no
land of promise, except the heritage of the heathen of
which the Remnant, touched upon above, have long ago been in
possession; and that, in and under this Covenant, there is
no difference between Jew, Scythian, Barbarian, &c., as it
is abundantly shewn below (pp. 44, seq.).
Let us now come to Dr. Todd's two
solutions of some of the difficulties of the place in
question. His first is, (p. 245) "The Jewish Church may be
said to bring forth Christ, when, after many ages of
widowhood and barrenness, she receives Him by faith, and
acknowledges Him as her Lord and Saviour."—But, Is Dr. Todd
quite sure that the apostate Jews, can be considered, and
properly named, a Church, during this period? St.
John seems to have considered them a synagogue of Satan,
and their misnamed Holy City [Page
16] the Jerusalem of
Palestine, nothing better than an Egypt or Sodom.
[See p.
356.]
This, I think, must also be ranked among Dr. Todd's
unsupported assumptions.
But, What are we to think of the
reasoning which makes the receiving of Christ, the
same thing as the sending of Him forth, as at a birth ? Is
not this an unwarrantable departure from the Letter ?
and the very thing condemned by Dr. Todd in this his Work ?
Mr. Burgh is here cited in a note, supposing that " the
expectation of the second coming of Christ formed in the hearts of the
Jewish people, to be intended by the travail of the woman:
and therefore that the actual coming of Christ is typified
by the birth of the Man-child." But this, as before, evinces
a most unwarranted sort of criticism, and makes at the same
time, two groundless assumptions. As to its criticism, it is
absurd to argue, that any supposition entertained by the
Jews of the coming of Christ, can be taken to predict either
His first, or His second coming: because there is no
conceivable connexion between the contingency of such a
supposition, and the certain coming of the Saviour. Besides,
this would be to make such supposition,—should it ever
exist,—equivalent to a prediction of the event in question:
which is too futile to deserve a moment's notice. As to the
assumptions made, such second coming of Christ is
one; another, that certain declarations of the New Testament
are to be taken as typifying things still to come to
pass : both of which are groundless and delusive.
The following then, is Dr. Todd's second
interpretation; viz. " She may be said to bring forth a
man-child, who shall rule all nations with a rod of iron,
when there is gathered from the midst of her a remnant upon
whom, according to our Lord's promise, that privilege shall
be conferred." I remark, It is to be regretted that Dr.
Todd has not cited this promise. I affirm too, that no such
privilege is, as far as I have been able to discover,
anywhere promised except to his disciples: who,—so far as
these were of the Jewish nation,—did, as shewn below,
actually constitute this Remnant : and, of necessity, the
Remnant to be so gathered according to the Prophets, had in
them been gathered. And, once more, If Dr. Todd's first
explanation was objectionable, on the ground of an
unwarrantable departure from the letter, this is more
so. Neither of these interpretations therefore, carries with
it any thing beyond mere conjecture.
We now come to Dr. Todd's "more
plausible" solution of the place, the child " was caught
up," &c. And here we have the Remnant noticed above, caught up
and placed before the throne of God, in the sealed 144,000,
of the Apocalypse: which however, he thinks far from
complete, or entirely satisfactory. He adds,—very justly as
I think— " Our knowledge of the prophecies, which speak of
the last days [These
terms hare proved a most fertile source of mistake.
Something is given below, which will perhaps supply a
better chance in future, for understanding them. (p. 90.
seq.)] of the Church, is as yet in its infancy; we
have hitherto been studying them upon a wrong hypothesis... labouring to adapt fanciful and far-fetched fulfilments" (I
add, and non-fulfilments) "to predictions," &c. I most
cordially agree with Dr. Todd in the greater part of this :
while I cannot in the assumption,—for an assumption it
is,—that the predictions he alludes to are unfulfilled. My
opinion is, that none are unfulfilled: my proofs will be
found in the following pages.
Dr. Todd adds (p. 247, seq.), " There
are, however, some things in the prophecy we have been
considering, which, if I mistake, not, are clear and
indubitable...After the dragon... is cast out of heaven,...
he is represented as persecuting... the Woman,...and after
the Woman had escaped into the wilderness, he turns his fury
against the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments
of God, and have the testimony of Jesus." He adds, " The
duration of the former of these persecutions is not
specified, but the duration of the latter may be inferred
from the statement that the Woman shall be nourished...for a
time, times, and half a time, or...for 1260 days, or 3½
years." And here he is, I think, right. The reason why the
duration of this former persecution is not specified, is
perhaps this : It has been shewn in its place, that this
woman symbolized the true Zion of God among the Jews,
and that Satan was now cast out of it. Jerusalem having been
trodden down, and having therefore ceased to be holy, Zion
took refuge of necessity in the wilderness of the world : its
constituents having been warned to escape out of its
troubles, and to fly thither for safety. These its true
constituents again, were the Holy Remnant and
Elect of Israel, of whom St. Paul makes himself one
(Rom. xi. 5, 7). We have now therefore, passed from the
consideration of Zion in the abstract, to its
Constituents. It was in the wilderness accordingly, that
Satan now waged war with these, the Remnant of Zion's
seed: and these were they who held, and who should proclaim
far and wide, the testimony of Jesus; being the first-fruits
to God and to the Lamb, under the New Covenant. This
former persecution therefore, had been of a duration
equal to that of the Theocracy itself; for no sooner were
the Jews out of Egypt, than they returned in their hearts
thither, making a calf, and placing the life even of Moses
their deliverer in jeopardy. (See how he and the Prophets
speak on this point, p. 24, seq. below).
Dr. Todd's next paragraph virtually tells
us, that the persecution of the Woman by the Dragon, was
only after his fall from heaven ; which is, I think,
incapable of proof. It is true, verse 13 tells us here, that
the Dragon did persecute the Woman after his fall from
heaven: but it will not hence follow, that he did not
persecute her before. For, if the woman here symbolizes the
true Zion of God; and if this war in heaven was, in some
sense, actually carried on by the influence of Satan within
it,—of which proof is offered below in its place ; then must
the persecution of the Dragon have been carried on long
before this casting out and down, even from the commencement
of the Theocracy, as just now remarked. That the army of
the locusts however, does not synchronize with this
former persecution of the Woman, has been shewn in its
place where its period is determined: while it clearly does
with the latter, carried on against the Remnant of her seed:
which seems to me, sufficiently to account for all the
particulars given here by St. John.
"All this," continues Dr. Todd, "agrees
exactly with the hypothesis that the Woman is a symbol of
the nation of Israel." He then proceeds to tell us what,
according to his view of the place, it was intended to
foretell. I remark, The opinion that the Revelation of St.
John, contains predictions of events still future, rests on
nothing better than groundless assumption, as shewn below.
This then, being the case, this prediction of Dr. Todd,—for
such it really is,—. is unworthy of credit.
But we have something further, given by
way of confirmation of Dr. Todd's view:..." This
interpretation of the flight of the Woman," continues he, "
receives some confirmation from our Lord's prophecy:... When
ye, therefore, shall see the abomination of desolation,
spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, stand in the holy place,...
then let him" (i.e. of this Remnant) " that is in Judea flee
into the mountains."... " And when ye shall see Jerusalem
compassed with armies, then know that the desolation
thereof" (i. e. as foretold by Daniel) is nigh," &c. Now
here, I say, we have marks the most certain, by which to
know when all this should happen: viz. during the generation
at that time existing, and when the disciples should see
Jerusalem encompassed with armies. And the fact is, Within
that generation they did see Jerusalem so compassed about
with armies, as they also did its desolation. It is equally
certain, that the Jewish nation was not so warned by
our Lord to flee to the mountains, but only His disciples,
the true Zion in her Holy Remnant. They did so fly,
and the mountains received and protected them; and among
these, and in the wilderness of the world, they did erect
the Church of the Gentiles.
Of the period then here meant, there can
surely be no doubt; for it is fixed, beyond the possibility
of mistake. Let us now see what Dr. Todd adds, and then ask
ourselves, whether any reasonable doubt can remain, as to
that which should constitute " the last days of the
Church :" rather of that of the Old Covenant; for
the Church of the New knows of no last days.
[As shewn below from the consideration,
among other things, that a kingdom which never shall end,
can have no last days.] "For
these be the days of vengeance," adds Dr. Todd, from Luke
xxi. 22, " that all things which are written may be
fulfilled: i.e. within these. If then, all things written
were now to be fulfilled,—and this our Lord positively and
plainly declares, What other days, or things are we, after
these should have expired—and their limit has been shewn
below,—to look for ? and within which, the predictions both
of Dr. Todd and his opponents, shall have their fulfilment ?
Dr. Todd's last and inexplicable difficulty, I pass over,
assuring him that it will vanish, upon the dereliction of
his present theory. [I find, upon turning to my
proof-sheets, that my solution of this difficult place,
(Rev, xii. 5.) "And her child was caught up unto God, and
to His throne," has by some mishap, not been printed.
The MS. was probably mislaid and forgotten. I give the
comment again, therefore here. This place then contains
a synechdoche, or, as the grammarians would say, a
pregnant sense: by which is meant, that the literal
enouncement contains another of a more comprehensive
character. We have seen that by the Child, Christ is
primarily meant, and secondarily, His faithful
people, now born as it were in a day,—which last
expression is similarly comprehensive. The ascension of our
blessed Lord is therefore, as it appears to me, the
primary sense intended here.
In the next place, we have the first
followers of our Lord caught up here, (mystically speaking),
and established as kings and conquerors, in the kingdom of
their Lord and of heaven. We have the same thing taught in
Chap. xi. 12, where it is said of the witnesses, " they
ascended up to heaven in a cloud" (i. e. as their Lord
had done), " and their enemies beheld them:" i. e.
their enemies witnessed their victory. We have here
therefore, the victory complete: the Woman was preserved in
the Wilderness with her Remnant, who were made Priests and
Kings with God and with Christ: and, as such, were to reign
in their successors for ever. This will, I believe,
sufficiently account for every phenomenon here; and nothing
is, as far as I can discover, either forced or unnatural. ]
Dr. Todd then proceeds to speak of the
treading down of Jerusalem, of the abomination of
desolation, and the flight to the mountains, as if none of
these events had yet taken place! Surely the faith that can take all
this in, must be of a most accommodating character, and such
as can take refuge in the merest system of assumption,
rather than the plain, direct, and combined, testimonies of
Scripture and of facts ! The truth is, the origin and cause
of all this palpably shallow reasoning is, Judaism. Dr.
Todd,—and the same is the case with his opponents,—has
failed to discern between him who really served God, and
Mm who served Him not. This discernment the Jew
cannot, as such, for a moment entertain; the instant this
would be done, must be the last of Judaism. This I have no
doubt, Dr. Todd and others will eventually see : that is, if
they really prefer truth to prejudice. Then too, will
they,—and not till then,—see Christianity as it is; and that
the spirit of all prophecy is the testimony to it.
As it cannot but be edifying to see Dr.
Todd's conclusion upon all this, I will now give it. " On
the whole then," says he, "we see from this prophecy, if
the view I have taken of it be correct, that in the latter
days, when the Gentiles shall have fallen away, and the
Candlestick of the Christian Church shall have been removed
from amongst them " (but Where do we find this foretold? St.
Luke says, chap. i. 33, " Of his kingdom, there shall be
no end!"), "the Jewish nation, after their restoration
to the promised land" (which however, the Scripture declares
is no nation, and that to Canaan as a promised land
they shall never go), " shall again be subject to fearful
persecutions, and the great body of them forced to abandon
Judea, and to take refuge in a place prepared for them Of
God, where they shall be preserved ' until the indignation
be overpast;' that a formidable power shall then arise,
headed by two remarkable leaders, who shall fix their seat
and establish their authority among the apostate Gentiles,
setting up a gross and blasphemous system of idolatry,
persecuting the saints, the holy people" (Jews of
necessity, for there is now no Church among the Gentiles),
"and putting all to death, whether Jew or Gentile...who
refuse to conform to the idolatrous worship... then
established,... the kingdom thus...set up...shall be
destroyed...by the immediate presence and sudden appearance
of Him,' out of whose mouth goeth a sharp sword,'" &c.
Whatever difference there may be
therefore, between the systems of Mr. Mede and Dr. Todd,
both bring us to the same result, by means of precisely the
same principles! In the interval, the former does indeed
allow a sort of makeshift Christian Church to exist; the
latter wholly annihilates it! and both tell us, either
directly or indirectly, that theirs is the system of the
primitive Church! Dr. Todd tells us moreover, a little lower
down, that his system gives an interest to the Revelation
of St. John, which no other can; and hence, we are left to
infer, that it is worthy of all acceptation. We shall have
something to offer presently on the system of the ancient
Church, when it will appear, that the assertions of Messrs.
Mede and Todd are to be taken with certain limitations. And,
as to the interest created by the views either of Dr. Todd
or Mr. Mede, it will be enough *now to remark, that this is
not to be mistaken for proof, that either of their views is
correct [And yet nothing is more common than this as an
argument!]. I need perhaps scarcely remark that, what we have
hitherto seen offered by Dr. Todd as arguments, can claim
title and place no higher than those of assumption: and the
same is true of the strange prediction just now quoted.
I might now fairly leave Dr. Todd's work
to shift for itself; but, as he has offered some objections
to the usual, and, as I hold, true interpretation of some
important places in Daniel, I have deemed it my duty to
examine them. Dr. Todd tells us then (Discourses on the
Prophecies, &c. 1840), " that the general opinion of
commentators" (on. Dan. ii., and the three empires succeeding that of
Nebuchadnezzar) " seems to be, that the Persian monarchy,
the conquests of Alexander, and the Roman empire, are
symbolized." He adds, "The arguments... employed to support
this,... appear to rest on very weak foundations," Sic.
Dr. Todd's first proof of the weakness of
these foundations is, a palpable misapplication of the
terms (ib. ver. 41), viz. " the kingdom shall be divided"
His words are: " We learn...from Daniel's
interpretation, that the feet and toes of the image, being
composed part of potter's clay and part of iron, indicated
that' the kingdom should be divided.'" Again (pp. 53—6),
"The iron mixed with miry clay...denoted... that the
divisions of the kingdom, or the kings who are to
preside...shall not cleave one to another." Whence it should
seem, as well as from other places in his work, that this
division was to be into ten, i. e. Icings, or
kingdoms, here represented by the ten toes of
the image : which is palpably wrong [This
mistake runs through most Commentators, ancient and modern:
which is remarkable, as the thing is so obviously false.]. Daniel's words are, "
As the toes were part of iron, and part of clay,
so the kingdom" (i. e. when divided) " shall
be partly strong, and partly weak" (i. e. shall consist
of two irreconcileable parts, or rather sorts of
characters). He adds, which should confirm this:..." they
shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed
with clay." Daniel does not say "the kingdoms"
but " the kingdom" under this division, " shall be
partly strong and partly weak." Nor does he say, that the
toes shall not cleave one to another, but that the iron and
clay, of which both feet and toes were composed, shall not.
It is true, he virtually makes these toes to represent ten
kings: but then, it is not necessary, nor indeed intimated
by the terms used [ See p. 146 seq. below.],—but quite the contrary,—that the
division mentioned should be extended to them severally.
Dr. Todd is not indeed the originator of this
mistake; but, as his reasoning is founded upon it, he has
virtually adopted it; and his conclusion is not only weak,
but wholly groundless. Some of the " extreme obscurity"
therefore, which he saw in this part of the prophecy,
may now perhaps be considered as removed.
On the interpretation which makes
Christianity the cause of the fall of the fourth empire of
Daniel in that of heathen Rome, Dr. Todd says, "There are
great inconsistencies,'" &c. " A large majority of the
expositors," continues he, " who have adopted this opinion,
maintain... that the fourth kingdom is the Roman empire;
but if so, in what sense can it be said that the Roman
empire owes its fall to Christianity?" He then adds, " The
interpretations therefore given by these expositors...are
manifestly inconsistent." That is to say, If they have with
him mistaken the one case, and, if he has here propounded
what he believes to be a question that cannot be answered;
they are manifestly inconsistent! Surely Dr. Todd could
never have intended to propose this question as an argument,
much less as a conclusion ! But whatever he intended, it
certainly proves nothing.
Again, " If," says Dr. Todd, " the
smiting of the feet of the image by the stone...denote the
overthrow of paganism,... then paganism, and not the Roman
empire, must be the fourth kingdom represented by the legs
and feet of the image." I would say here, Not quite so fast,
Dr. Todd: for if this prophecy did,—as Daniel tells us it
did,—represent empires to fall, then may the Roman empire
have been intended as one: and, if with this, the fall of
paganism was also intended,—and from what is offered in the
following work, it is evident that this is the case ;—then
may also the fall of paganism have been intended by the
Prophet, and no inconsistency whatever have been
manifested.
Dr. Todd proceeds: " And if the fourth Kingdom be
the Roman empire, then the stone must denote not
Christianity, but the combination of causes to which the
Roman empire owes its destruction." But here Dr. Todd has
perplexed himself with a manifest sophism. Many causes may
indeed have wrought with Christianity, in bringing about
this event,—the Author of Christianity being the Disposer of
them all,—while this may have constituted its main and
principal one; and, if any reliance can be placed on
prophecy, as expounded in the following pages; He has made
the enouncement again and again, that He would in its time
consummate this. Besides, it is mere assumption, not
reasoning in Dr. Todd's affirming, that this stone
did not denote the one great cause, or the combination of
causes, which led to this event.
Dr. Todd's next argument applies well
against the theory of Mr. Mede and his followers ; but is
weakness itself when urged against those who hold,—what the
fact of the case truly is,—that the Roman empire has long
ago fallen. " If," says he, " the legs and feet of the image
be still standing" (i. e. under any form whatever), " the
stone has not yet smitten them ;...for," adds he, " nothing
can be plainer than that the stone was not seen to become a
mountain until after the ruins of the image had been swept
away, like the chaff of the summer-threshingfloors." To
which, I do not see how any refutation can be offered by the
followers of Mr, Mede.
Our next inconsistency is found in the
ten Kingdoms into which the Roman empire was to be divided,
in order to suit the division of the Kingdom foretold in the
toes of the image. This I dismiss, because it has been shewn
above, that no such division was ever foretold.
We next have the sudden
destruction of the image urged, as inconsistent with the
slow and gradual decline of the Roman empire. Besides,
Christianity, we are told, has now been eighteen centuries
in the world, but its saving light has not yet reached all
the dark habitations of the heathen, &c. To the first of
these I say, the sudden destruction of this image
cannot be said to be inconsistent with a long and lingering
system of decay preceding it,—and this the introduction of
the clay seems to intimate: the decay may have been slow,
and still the destruction sudden, or, as the Prophet words
it [ Isai. xLvii. 9, seq., where this event is
mystically foretold.], " in a moment:'1'' and this too,
notwithstanding this long and lingering decay. It would be
to trifle with the reader to press this farther: I will only
add, It is marvellous that a writer so acute as Dr. Todd
certainly is, should for a moment have entertained it.
But " Christianity...has not yet reached
all the dark habitations of the heathen." I wonder greatly
that Dr. Todd should have said this. He is anxious to be
thought the reviver of the opinions of the first
Christians; and certainly in this case, they are to a man
against him. And indeed, so is St. Paul. See pages 343—347,
and 197— 201, below.
I would now recommend to him the
following place from Tertullian (Adversus Judaeos, p.
105. Ed. 1580). After quoting or alluding to Isaiah, chap.
xlv. 1 ; Ps. xxiv. 7; xix. 4 ; Rom. x. 18, the Father thus
proceeds: " Quod ipsum adimpletum videmus. Cui enim dexteram
tenet pater Deus, nisi Christo filio suo? quern exaudiverunt
omnes gentes, id est, cui omnes gentes, crediderunt, cujus
et prsedicatores Apostoli in Psalmis David ostenduntur, in
universa, inquit, terra exiit sonus eorum: et usque ad
terminos terras verba eorum. In quern enim alium universse
gentes crediderunt, nisi in Christum qui jam venit 2 Cui
enim et alise gentes crediderunt, Parthi," &c. Quoting Acts
ii. 9—11, inclusive, he adds, "et caeterse gentes, ut jam
Gaetulorum varie-tates, et Maurorum multi fines, Hispaniarum
omnes termini, et Galliarum diversae nationes, et
Britannorum inaccessa Romania loca Christo vero subdita, et
Sarmatarum et Dacorum, et Germanorum, et Scytharum et
abditarum multarum gentium, et provinciarum, et insularum
multarum nobis igno-tarum, et quae enumerare minus possimus.
In quibus omnibus locis Christi nomen, qui jam venit,
kkgnat : utpote ante quern omnium civitatum portse sunt
apertse, et cui nullse sunt clausse [See Irenams, Edit. Grabe, p. 45. 1. 18;
46, 3, 9, seq; 221, 2; 370, 10, 15, &c. Justin Martyr Edit.
Thirlby, p. 369. 20, seq; 328. 5, seq.; 400. 5, seq., &c.
Cyprian, adversus Judseos. Lib. II. throughout. De Unitate
Ecclesije, p. 108, &c. Edit. Dodwell. Euseb. Hist. Eccl.
Lib. vm. i: also Lib. i. cc. ii, iv: De Vita Const. Lib. i.
cc. Yii, viii, &c; also his Prsep. Evang. and Demonstr.
Evang. passim. See also Lux Sanct. Evang. Fabricii, where
extracts to this effect from most of the Fathers will be
found.]," &c. Where this
Father appeals to these facts as testimonies to the fulfilment of prophecy.
Now I ask, Which of these authorities are
we to take ? They appear to me to be plain, and in direct
contradiction to Dr. Todd. It has most likely not occurred
to him, that even the Revelation itself nowhere provides for
the establishment of a Christianity, incapable of loss or
diminution. I will only add here, that if Christianity had
actually made the progress in the days of the Apostle, which
Tertullian's words plainly require, then must the stroke of
the stone representing this in Daniel have taken effect, and
its growth into a great mountain been any thing but slow.
I need not stop to consider Dr. Todd's
objections to the theory of Mr. Mede, as urged in his next
article (p. 59). I will pass on therefore to his next
argument, by which it is his object to shew, that the
kingdom of Christ, which is spiritual, cannot
consistently be opposed to that of Nebuchadnezzar, which
was not so. On the words, " In the days of these Icings
shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom," Dr. Todd
says, " If we are to call it (i. e. Christianity) a
Kingdom,
the word must be employed in a
very different sense from that in which we use it when we
speak of the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar, of Cyrus, or of
Alexander." He proceeds, " By what Canon of interpretation
are we justified in taking the same word in two different
significations almost in the same sentenced" &c.
I remark, Dr. Todd has here perplexed
himself by taking a defective view of this place, and again
by a want of knowledge of the Canons of interpretation,
necessary to a full understanding of Holy Writ. For, in the
first place, the kingdom of Christ was to succeed in a
literal sense, to those of Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus,
Alexander, and of the Csesars, bo that Kings should become
its nursing Fathers, and their Queens its nursing Mothers.
[See what is said on this pp.
98, seq. 129, &c. below.]
And, according to St. John, " the kings of the earth"
were as such, to "bring their wealth, and their
honour into it".
[See on
Key. xxi. 24.] And the fact of the case is,— as
shewn below,—this actually took place in the person of
Constantine the Great. [As
Mr. Todd pays much deference to the opinions of the early
Church, he will find, upon turning to the life of
Constantine by Eusebius, that he actually
compares him with Cyrus and Alexander the Great, and shews
that he was much a better man, and a greater conqueror than
either of them. I will cito a portion of what he says on
this latter particular. I take the Latin of Valesius. "
Ceeterum cum exercitum suum mansuetis ac modestis religionis
prseceptis munivisset, in Britanniam quidem et in eos qui in
ipso habitant Oceano ad solis occasum longe lateque diffuso,
signa intulit. Scythiam vero unireream quse sub ipso
septentrione posita, in plurimas gentes et nomine, et
moribus discrepantes dividitur, suo adjunxit imperio. Jam
vero cum ad extremes meridiei fines imperium propagasset; ad
ipsos nimirum Blemmyas et jEthiopas, eos quoque qui ad solis
ortum incolunt.. .ad ultimos usque continentis terminos..
.ad extremes Indos et circumsitos undique populos, cunctos
mortales qui universum terrarum orbem incolimt," &c. He
adds, "Igitur ad has usque gentes regiis allo-cutionibus
Deum suum cum omni libertate pnedicavit." See also
Tertullian, "De regno Christi teterno," in the page next
after that
noted above, where he makes the kingdom
of Christ to exceed in extent those of Nebuchadnezzar and
Alexander. And again (ib. p. 121), " De claritate gentium in
Christo Jesu."] This then being the fact, it is not necessary to the fulfilment of
Prophecy, that Christ's Kingdom should continue to
constitute a visible universal empire, as shewn
above. For no prophecy, as proved below, extends beyond
this period. There exists no necessity here therefore, for
having recourse to such different sense in the term
kingdom.
And once more, as to Dr. Todd's query about the Canon &c.
I say, It is no uncommon thing in Holy Writ, to use the same
word, even in the same context, in two different senses, the
one a literal, the other a spiritual one. E.
g. "Your fathers did eat manna...and are dead. This is
the bread...that a man may eat thereof, and not die"
(John vi. 49, 50 : see the next verse also). Now I ask, Must
we here take the second place literally, because we must so
take the first ? Dr. Todd will probably say, No. I answer,
We have here then a Canon of interpretation, justifying the
practice of taking the same word in two different senses, in
the very same context! Innumerable instances of this sort
are to be found, as Dr. Todd may easily convince himself:
and if so, then may Christ's kingdom still exist as
universal; and as such it does : and again, according to the
predictions of the Prophets, and even the declarations of
St. John, it shall as such for ever continue.
I need not now urge any thing further to
shew, that for all that Dr. Todd has so far said, the
exposition of Daniel's fourth empire by that of heathen
Rome, does not stand on a weak foundation. But, as he has
other arguments to offer on this point, on Daniel's second
Vision, let us now see how far these will hold.
In the first place then, Dr. Todd has no
doubt (ib. p. 64), that Daniel's fourth beast here (Chap.
vii. 23), has identically the same fourth kingdom before
it, that the image of Nebuchadnezzar has ; because it is
said, " The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon
earth." And in this Dr. Todd is right. He adds (ib. 65), "
In the former prophecy we read that the fourth kingdom shall
be divided; and we are here more expressly told that it
shall be divided among ten kings...in the former
prophecy...indicated by the ten toes, &c. here symbolized by
the ten horns of the beast."
I remark: It has been shewn that no such
division was spoken of there, either directly or indirectly.
I now affirm that the same is the case here: and that Dr.
Todd has nothing better than assumption for the support of
his opinion. " For we are told," adds he, " that another
little horn came up among the ten, before whom there were
three of the first horns plucked up by the roots," and this
is afterwards explained thus; " the ten horns out of this
kingdom are ten kings that shall arise, and another shall
rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and
he shall subdue three kings. It follows," continues Dr.
Todd, " that between the .eleventh king, and three at least
of the original ten kings, war and disunion shall prevail."
How Dr. Todd could have arrived at this
conclusion, none I presume but himself can tell. The
eleventh king here, must according to this quotation "
rise," in point of time, "after" the ten
preceding ones. How then, I ask, can dissension prevail
between him and them ? They must, as far as I can see, have
ceased to exist before his times : and therefore, any such
dissension must have been impossible. And again, If the ten
toes in the former vision implied ten kings, among
whom the kingdom was to be divided: How is it that
dissension between the eleventh king here and
three at least of these ten, can be adduced to
prove, that a division of the kingdom between these said
ten kings must have been intended ? For my own part, I can find nothing allied, in the least
degree, to this in the words of Daniel; and I think Dr. Todd
must be in the same predicament.
Nor does the being "diverse"
imply disunion, by any Canon of criticism with which
I am acquainted: and, as this eleventh king, or Little Horn,
could not possibly either pluck up, or subdue, any three of
those who must have disappeared before he arose; I am led to
believe, that some other three kings whom he could
subdue, must be meant. The same will be the case if we
substitute Rule for king here. Besides, the
mention of three must be sufficient to shew, that the
ten preceding are out of the question. The view of
this place adopted by me will be seen below in pages
152—167-To this the reader is referred.
Dr. Todd has no doubt however, that the
kingdom of the Saints here, is the same with that foretold
in the first vision. And in this he is certainly right. He
also shews a little farther on (p. 109), that the Little
Horn of Daniel's eighth chapter is identical with that of
his seventh. In this too, I believe he is right. It is
satisfactory moreover that he has obtained this conclusion,
by a process wholly different from that adopted by me. This
being the case then, it will follow, that the Little Horn of
both these chapters, will-symbolize the same Power that the
legs and feet of Nebuchadnezzar's image do. Let us now see,
whether this chapter (Dan. viii.) affords us any means of
ascertaining what Power this was. For if we can shew that
this is Heathen Rome, then must Dr. Todd's objections be
sufficiently answered.
It is said then, in this Chapter (ver.
11, seq.), " By Mm,'" i. e. this Little Horn, "
the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of
His sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him
against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression."..."
How long" it is asked, "shall be the vision concerning
the daily sacrifice, and the transgression" (i.
e. causing the judgment) " of desolation, to give
both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot ?""
Let us see what this must of necessity mean.
In the first place, " was taken away"
must certainly be taken in a future sense : i. e.
shall be taken away: the event had in view being
evidently future. [A
very common usage with the Prophets, as shown in my
Heb. Gram. Art. 236.] Again, by his sanctuary, must be
meant the sanctuary of the prince of the
host, just 'mentioned: i. e. Christ's sanctuary:
for no other Prince of the host had a sanctuary : and hence
the place, or locality, of this must be Jerusalem: which is
confirmed by the question of the Angel, viz. " How long
shall be the vision concerning the daily
sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give
both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?'''
We have here therefore, "the sanctuary trodden down"
corresponding to " the place of his sanctuary cast
down." By which it should seem, that both of these '
should fall, under the influence of the Little Horn.
We are also told, that this should take
place " by reason of transgression:" and accordingly,
the desolation so to be brought on is styled, the
"transgression of (i. e. causing) desolation."
Again, verse 23 here, we are told, that " when the
transgressors are come to the full, a King of fierce
countenance shall arise...and he shall destroy wonderfully.."
And, be it observed, this is said in explanation of the
vision before us. The destruction of the Sanctuary,
and of the Place of the Sanctuary, must therefore be
meant in each case. In the one place too, this was to be
by reason of transgression; in the other, when
transgressors should have come to the full: which must
of necessity apply to the transgression, and
transgressors, of the Jews, [See
p. 165, note, below.] and this have been given
for the purpose of fixing the cause of this destruction,
or desolation, upon them.
If we now turn to Chap. ix. 26, seq. we
shall find it declared, that at a certain period Messiah
should be cut off, and that after this, the people of the
prince that should come, should destroy both the City
and the Sanctuary. But we know of no destruction of
these, except that which took place by the Romans
under Titus: and this did take place some time,—just as it
is foretold,—after the Messiah had been cut off. That
transgression had now come to its full among the Jews, both
the Scriptures, and Josephus their own historian,
abundantly attest; [See Wars of the Jews, Book v. &c.] as the fact also does, that
transgression of the most flagrant sort urged them to the
murder of our blessed Lord.
Again (ver. 27.)..." For the
overspreading of abominations He shall make it desolate:" i.
e. the Place of the Sanctuary of necessity; the latter of
which is here clearly implied in His making the sacrifice
and oblation to cease; which is again a mere echo of " the
daily sacrifice shall be taken away," &c., quoted above ;
and it is here, as it is there, said to be desolation, and
that " He shall make it desolate even until the
consummation:" i. e. " to give both the Sanctuary and the
host to be trodden under foot;" of all which the New
Testament will give us an authoritative interpretation.
Our blessed Lord says then (Luke xxi.
20,), " When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with
armies, then know that the desolation thereof is
nigh.''' He adds, (ver. 24,) "And Jerusalem shall
be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the
Gentiles be fulfilled.'1'' "How long?" asks the Angel,
as quoted above. The answer is, " Unto two thousand and
three hundred days:'''' which must indirectly, also
limit the period when the times of the Gentiles should be
fulfilled. [pp.
124,166, seq. below.] Our Lord himself moreover, limits this catastrophe to
the generation then existing (ver. 32). And we do know from
the facts of the case, that it did accordingly take place :
that at no other time did it, or could it, take place ; and
also, that in time to come, no such event can: and it was by
the Roman army under Titus that this was done. This being
the case, it must be equally certain, that the same Power
was had in view by Daniel, in every one of the other
predictions cited above : and that Dr. Todd's conclusion is
a groundless one. Further proof to the same effect will be
found in the following pages. We may now take our leave of
Dr. Todd's conclusions so far.
There is still another consideration of
great moment, on which Dr. Todd lays much stress, and which
ought not to be passed over: viz. that the division of
Alexander's Empire among his four principal generals as
usually holden, is groundless. Let us see what Dr. Todd
advances on this point.
"The prophecy," says Dr. Todd, (p. 170),
"first announces the rise of four Kings in Persia "..."And
a mighty King shall stand up, and shall rule with great
dominion, and do according to his will. And when he shall
stand up, his Kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided
toward the four winds of heaven." "The mighty King," says
Dr. Todd, "is not said to be a Grecian potentate...he may be
a fifth King of Persia...the opinion which seeks to identify
him with Alexander rests... on the supposed analogy between
this prophecy and the vision of the ram and goat, where the
power, symbolized by the great horn of the goat, is
expressly said to be the first King of Grecia." Let us
inquire then, how far this analogy can be said to be a mere
supposition.
In Daniel (chap. xi. 2, seq.) it is said,
" There shall stand up yet three Kings in Persia; and the
fourth" (i. e. in Persia) " shall be far richer than they
all." Again, "And a, mighty King shall stand up," &c..."
And when he shall stand up, his Kingdom shall be broken, and
shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven," &c.
Which last may signify, according to Dr. Todd, for aught
said to the contrary, a fifth King to stand up in Persia. I
ask, Would Dr. Todd tolerate for a moment, a supposition so
groundless ? I know not. But, if aught is not said here to
the contrary, let us inquire whether there is not reason for
believing, that something to this effect is said elsewhere,
sufficient to determine this question.
It must appear, I think, that a certain
progress towards the time of the end, is intended by Daniel
in both the Prophecies referred to by Dr. Todd. In Chap.
viii. 19, the Angel says to Daniel, " I will make thee
know what shall be in the last end of the
indignation" (Comp. ix. 26, 27). Again, Chap. xi. 35,
..." Some of them of understanding shall fall...even to
the time of the end." The only difference is, the
particulars of this latter Chapter are more abundant, ending
nevertheless, as it is obvious, in the same events and
times.
If we now turn again to Chap. viii. 23,
we shall find that " in the latter time of their
Kingdom," i. e. the four mentioned in the preceding
verse, " when transgressors are come to the full, a
King...shall stand up." This King or Rule
must be, as shewn above, the Roman: and the four preceding
powers must therefore, necessarily be those to which the
Roman, as an universal Empire, did actually succeed. And
these were, beyond all doubt, those four Generals among whom
the Empire of Alexander was divided. The Empire again, which
preceded these, must, of necessity, be that of Alexander.
And to this the words of Daniel agree to the very letter. "
The rough goat" says he, "is the King of Grecia :
and the great horn...is, the first King:"" i.e. in the
sense of universal, for this the context requires.
Turn we now to Chap. xi. 2, seq., where
we have four Kings of Persia, the last of whom is to stir
up all against the realm of Grecia. A mighty King is now
to stand up, whose Kingdom should "lie broken, and
divided toward the four winds of heaven." Now, is there
any fifth Persian King, to whom this can possibly apply ?
Dr. Todd seems to have known of none: if he did, Why has he
not produced him ? And once more, Did any universal rule
succeed the Medo-Persian, except that of Alexander the
Great? History, perhaps, knows of none. But Chapter viii.
here, not only supplies us with a Grecian Monarch who should
break the horns of the Kings of Media and Persia, just as
Alexander did; but whose Kingdom should be divided, just as
it is said in Chap, xi., that it should, and be replaced by
four Kingdoms, or, be divided towards the four
winds of heaven. It does seem therefore, that the
supposed analogy existing between these two prophecies,
is such as to present the highest possible degree of
probability, and to be therefore entitled to our entire
confidence.
And again, We have likewise in Daniel's
first vision, four consecutive Empires all united in the
same image,—intended perhaps to shew, that they should not
be dissevered from each other in their succession, by any
large interval of time. [It is true, the division of
Alexander's rule into four, has no place here: nor in
propriety could it. The Image presented four great universal
Empires, which should succeed each other: that division
exhibited no such thing: besides, it was a particular,
like much of the eleventh chapter, which could not enter
into a general outline, such as this first vision evidently
is.]— And the last must,—by the process
of reasoning adopted above,—have been the Roman. From the
descriptions given by Daniel of these four Empires, there is
no ground for supposing, that they were to be so disjoined
from each other in their succession, so that some hundreds,
and, it may be, thousands of years may intervene ; and, if
the same events are had in view, which are in the first
Vision,—which the nature of the case is sufficient to
prove;—then these Empires must be considered as following
each other in the closest order of succession. And of this
the abundance of particulars given in this eleventh Chapter,
may be appealed to as affording decisive proof. (See p. 170,
seq. below).
But Dr. Todd has some objections to
offer, against the notion of Alexander's Empire having
undergone any such quadripartite division: they are founded
on the writings of the original historians, and of others.
These we now propose to consider. His first conclusion (p.
503), after citing and discussing the statements of the
several historians, is, "I may now, I trust, appeal to every
unprejudiced mind whether it be fair to refer us to
historians who have given the foregoing accounts of the
division of Alexander's kingdom, in support of the assertion
that it was divided after his death into four parts only, or
even into four principal parts." I remark ; Surely Dr. Todd
must have been suffering under a most singular hallucination
when he wrote this. He gives us the accounts of the several
historians, as to how Alexander's Empire was divided among
his generals immediately after his death, and to be
holden by them as Satraps in favour of his family; he then
asks, Whether it be fair to suppose, that any such division
as that of four could have taken place (i. e. at any
time) after his death ! Every body knows, that this
primary division was a mere feint of these generals,
intended to afford to each of them an opportunity for
seizing the whole ; and that hence arose the almost
incessant wars which took place between them. We may
therefore dismiss all this as useless to the purpose for
which it was given.
We are next favoured with an extract from
the writings of Venema, (pp. 503—515), intended to shew,—from
the subsequent history of the events in question,—that no
such fourfold division of Alexander's Empire ever
existed. The truth is however there is nothing given here,
that may not be found in any of the histories of those times
: and, what is more to our purpose, something is to the
effect, that such fourfold division did exist, before the
latter period, of this rule, when the "King, of
fierce countenance" should arise and succeed it. E. g.
It is said in page 507, " Ex his continuis bellorum
fluctibus, per Alexandri duces suscitatis, tria maxima
emerserunt Regna, ad posteros longa serie propagata, mace-
donicum, quod post Seleucum, tenuit Ptolemseus Ceraunus...
sybo-macedonicum, a Seleuco Nicatore conditum,..et egyptiacum, quod Ptolemseus Lagi fundavit, et ad posteros
transtulit," We have here therefore, according to Dr.
Todd's own approved authority, three great and permanent
Kingdoms established, occupying the West, East, and
South, portions of the previous Empire.
Venema supplies us moreover with a
fourth, or Northern, portion to Alexander's Rule,
in the following terms: viz. " Haud diu post, durante
adhuc tempestate bellica"" (i. e. when the three
Kingdoms just mentioned took their rise) " inter duces
Alexandri, duo regna, eodem fere tempore, condita
sunt in ponto et Cappadocia, illud a Mithridate,
hoc ab Ariarthe" ..."Ampla emmet regione potitus est,
ut verba Plutarchi... habent, regumque Ponti ille
stirpem, quw octavo, ferme successione a populo Romano
deleta est, edidit," &c. As to the Kingdom of
Cappadocia now founded by Ariarthes, it formed no part
of Alexander's own rule. It is true he consigned it to Eumenes ; but then, he also did the necessity of this
General's conquering it for himself. We have here therefore,
even according to Dr. Todd's authority, four great
Kingdoms set up even during the lifetime of some of
Alexander's Generals, and occupying the four quarters
of the earth,, and enduring to the very times in which the
Power of Rome succeeded to them. They were Macedon
in the West; the Syro-Macedonian including the
whole rule of Seteucus, in the East; that of
Egypt, in the South; and of Pontus and
Cappadocia in the North; both which finally merged
into one, and continued so, until added as provinces to the
Empire.
Let us now see what Daniel says on this
subject. We must however bear in mind, that he rarely gives
any proper names of persons or of places, just as he does no
chronological enumerations as to time. He does that which is
infinitely better; he gives us particulars such as to suit
no times, persons, or places, except those which he had
before him: and this is the case here. He tells us then,
(Chap. xi. 4, seq.) that " Ms Kingdom,'''' i.
e. of the mighty King mentioned in the preceding
verse, " shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the
four winds of heaven;" i. e. toward the East, West,
North, and South, as before. In this Chapter too,
we have mention made of three of these, viz. the East,
North, and South (verr. 5, 6, 44, &c.). By the East
appears to be meant Babylonia, and the parts eastward of
it; by the West, Greece; and by the South,
Egypt and its dependencies.
If we turn to Chap. viii. 5, we shall
find, that the he-goat which broke the horns of the Medo-Persian
kings, came from the West: and (ver. 21) the rough
goat which does this is said to be the King of Grecia.
By the West therefore Greece is meant. The
next verse says, ''Now that being broken, whereas four
stood up for it, four Kingdoms shall stand up out of the
nation'''' (i. e. of the Greeks), " but not in his"
(own) "power." "And" (ver. 8,) ..."the great
horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward
the four -winds of heaven." The same events are
therefore, most probably had in view in each of these
places. In "for it came up four ...toward the four winds,
&c." the meaning should seem to be, that, in lieu of it,
and from its locality, viz. the West, or, Greece,
this should take place. And the fact is, from Greece,
and in place of its previous rule, it did take place in
the Successors of Alexander.
It is said again (ver. 9), " Out of
one of them,"" (of these, four, or, its substitute)
"came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great,
toward the South, and toward the East, and toward the
pleasant land?' Now, as this increase of greatness
proceeded in two at least of the' three
directions just mentioned, its progress must have been from
the fourth quarter, not mentioned here, that is, the
West: in other words, from Greece. This being the
case, it is from the West that the other Cardinal
points are now to be reckoned. By the East therefore,
will be meant Asia generally; by the South,
Egypt; by the pleasant land, Judea, and the countries
to the eastward of it, viz. Babylonia, Persia, &c.
Greece too, as before, will form the western
quarter. And in these directions was this Power to
increase, until, as it should seem, it should become a great
and Universal one. But it is not from this quarter
generally, that the Cardinal points are reckoned in Holy
Writ: Judea being the part from which the computation
is usually made. In this case also Egypt will be in
the South, as before; Balylonia, Sic. in the
East; the "children of the East" being they
who inhabited those parts: [See my Introduction to the Book of Job, p.
30.] while invasions from the
North are said to be from these, not because they came
southward, but because they generally came in through the
northern parts of Canaan. Asia Minor will now be in
the North; which is sufficiently accurate, as to its
position with reference to Judea; and Greece
will, as before, be in the West.
I have accordingly made the northern
quarter, Asia Minor (p. 164, seq. below), and
assigned it to Lysimachus; while Venema, as above, makes
Mithridates the Sovereign of the most northern. Mithridates
did however, make himself master of the greatest part of
Asia, and this he held until driven back into Pontus by
Lucullus the Roman general : and there he was eventually
vanquished by Pompey. This King was therefore the last, who
was possessed of Asia Minor, and was consequently, the
ultimate successor to the rule of Lysimachus and
Antigonus, the Successors of Alexander.
So far consequently, the history of these
events does agree strictly with the predictions of Daniel:
every and each of Alexander's Successors thus falling
eventually before the Power of Rome.
Dr. Todd now gives us in his notes, an
abstract of the history of Alexander's Successors, beginning
with the year 323, and ending with 280 (pp. 175—6) before
Christ: and, from the variety of circumstances so
enumerated, his conclusion is : " The reader will be able
to form some estimate of the great violence that is done to
the history, when we are told that Alexander's empire was
divided into four." In other words, Dr. Todd has brought
together a certain quantity of historical matter; and then,
judging from the chaotic state in which he has placed it, he
concludes that no such thing as the existence of four
Kingdoms can be found within it; much in the same way as
he does, that the Satrapies set up, on the death of
Alexander, could never be formed into four Kingdoms.
It has been shewn, that it was not
immediately after Alexander's death, that the quadripartite
division of his empire could, or did, take place. And, as
Daniel does not precisely determine the time in which this
should, we must of necessity collect it from the events of
those times. But this has been done, as cited above from a
writer, to whom Dr. Todd gives his cordial assent. Let us
now see what his difficulties are. In 323, b.c. Aridseus,
and the son of Roxana, are made nominal Kings of Alexander's
whole empire, Perdiccas is its Protector, and Antipater the
Prefect of Mace-don. In 321, b.c. Perdiccas is assassinated,
and Antipater becomes the Protector. In 318, b.c.
Polysperchon is made the Protector. In 317, the son of
Roxana is sole King. In 312, Cassander governs Greece, as
Administrator. In 294, Demetrius reigns in Macedon. In 286,
Lysimachus governs it. And, if we follow the Macedonian rule
down to Perseus its last King, we shall find that it was all
along a Kingdom in one sense or other: and, as before, it
held the Western quarter.
If we now follow Dr. Todd, through the
remainder of the Successors of Alexander, we shall find a
Kingdom in Egypt under the Ptolemies generally, down
to its reduction by Rome. The same is true of the East;
for, whether Seleucus or Antigonus, or any of the
Antiochi, be found either at Babylon, Seleucia,
or Antioch, still, that Kingdom is in existence. So
also is that of Asia, (here the North), under one
Ruler or another, and this is true of both these quarters,
up to the time that they were reduced by the Romans, and
made provinces of the Empire. [The
discrepancy therefore of Commentators and others, in the
names they give to these four kings, whether they begin with Ari-dseus, Perdiccas,
Antipater, or Cassander, in Macedon; whether they place
Antigonus, or Lysimachus in Asia; or Seleucus at Babylon or
Seleucia; or Antiochus at Babylon or at Antioch; the thing
is essentially the same: such a, fourfold rule
existed either virtually or actually during this period;
and, according to Daniel, such was to exist between his
third and fourth Empires. To urge anything beyond this, is
clearly to do violence to Holy Scripture, and seems to me to
evince a desire to perplex, rather than simply to develope
the truth. The remark of Mr. Birks (Elements of Prophecy,
p. 15), is sagacious and pertinent here; " Gibbon, the
infidel, affirms" (i. e. the thing) "to be so plain as to
prove that the prophecy was written after the event."
Porphyry did the same thing (i&.). The Neologians of
Germany—men generally well read in history,—are much" of the
same opinion, as also was the late Dr. Arnold, of Rugby. See
my " Examination of the Grammatical Principles of Professor
Ewald," p. 120. It is indeed a remarkable phenomenon, that
all these could so clearly see this division of the Grecian
Empire, as to take it for a ground to reason upon, while Dr.
Todd can discover no such thing!] It was not indeed till after
the battle of Ipsus, that these Kingdoms were clearly
developed; they were nevertheless provided for from the
first, as every one must see, by the artifices of
Alexander's most influential Generals ; and accordingly,
they came at length into being.
But then, Dr. Todd also finds six Kings
in Persia, in addition to those enumerated by Daniel; he
also finds certain Kingdoms in the East, and many in the
West, of which no mention is to be found in the
Prophet. He likewise finds some occasionally free States in
Greece; which he thinks annihilates the notion of a
Kingdom's existing there at all! And, upon the whole,
inasmuch as Daniel has not said all he would have him to
say; and, as it requires some thought and discrimination to
discover any four Kingdoms in being after the death of
Alexander; he determines that Daniel, and these events, are
irreconcileable! But, upon the same grounds, he could easily
prove that the Books of Kings and Chronicles in the Old
Testament, could never have been intended by inspiration to
be histories of the same times, persons, and events: that
the Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, of the New,
cannot be documents of inspired authority; and even, that
the Visions of Daniel,—sometimes omitting certain
circumstances, and occasionally adding others, —cannot be
genuine copies of the text of the Prophet!
I do not think .it necessary to follow
Dr. Todd further to shew, that very little reliance can be
placed upon much of his reasoning, and none upon his theory
; which really assumes that what he cannot see
accomplished, must necessarily be carried out into futurity:
depriving Christianity at once, of its best evidences, its
authority, and its power. Mr. Mede indeed, allows it some
authority from the Prophets ; some power and efficiency in
itself: but then, these are such as not to bear comparison
with what they shall be, as he thinks, at some future time:
the same is generally holden by these several schools: but,
as no adequate proof has hitherto been given by either, we
now leave this consideration, and betake ourselves to an
examination of the principles adopted in the following
pages, and of those of the primitive Christian Church.
Part III.—On the Principles of Interpretation adopted in
the following Work.
it is now my duty to lay down as briefly
as I can, the principles of interpretation had recourse to
in this work. As to the Grammar of the Hebrew Scriptures, I
have usually followed my own: [London,
Edit. in. 1841.] as to that of the Greek,
those generally in use. In the Rhetoric, I have to
acknowledge my obligations to Solomon Glassius, whose work,
though of ancient date, stands to the present day
unrivalled [Edit. Lipsise, 1743. There are modern
editions of this work; one by Dathe and another by
Bauer; but, as these have been deprived of some of the best
matter of Glassius, and accommodated to Neolo-gian views,
they are greatly inferior to the earlier Editions.].
But something beyond these elementary
works, was indispensable,—as it appeared to me,—to the
inquiry before us. There seemed to be a great theological
chasm which required filling up, before any thing like
certainty could be arrived at. I felt too, that the question
relating to the Jews, was inseparably connected with that
of Prophecy. I determined therefore, to inquire into the
nature of the Covenants in the first place, and to ascertain
if possible, how predictions made under the Mosaic, ought to
be interpreted when reaching into the times of the
Christian, Covenant: whether any precise period had been
fixed for the close of the former, and commencement of the
latter: whether Prophecy had pre-defined any period for its
own entire fulfilment; and whether something was not to be
found enabling us better to determine the precise times,
objects, &c. of the promises, the threats, and predictions
of the Old Testament, than anything usually had recourse to;
because,—as it appeared to me,—a great want of precision
prevailed on these points ; and that nothing beyond
ingenious conjecture, had been adopted for the purpose of
supplying it.
It will be seen from the general remarks,
with which our inquiry sets out, that I have been
particularly careful to observe the usages of Scripture.
From page 15 onwards, its theological character is
entered upon; and from page 23, its religious and
spiritual properties as influencing its declarations,
and therefore indispensable to the interpreter of it. I
found accordingly, that a most marked distinction was every
where kept up, between him who served God, and him who
served him not; and this again, to such a degree, as
fully to determine who the objects of threat, and of promise
respectively, were, and who were not: that even under the
Mosaic covenant, all were not Israel who were of Israel, and
that he was no Jew, who was one only outwardly; but that
circumcision of heart was the one great qualification,
where an expectation of being a partaker in the promises
could be reasonably entertained: and that he who bore a
different character, was as constantly the object of threat;
which, reasonable as it must appear, has been almost
universally disregarded in the interpretation of holy
Scripture !
This consideration alone gave,—in my
estimation,—an entirely new complexion to the question
relating to the Jews: and which, when duly followed out,
could not fail to determine the point, whether any
restoration of them to Palestine is to be expected, or not.
To this, the consideration as to the duration and cessation
of the Theocracy, lends a most important aid; and which, in
connexion with the character of the New Covenant, supplies,
as I think, a full and complete determination of it. The
circumstance of a holy Remnant among the Jews, has
often been touched upon by Commentators; but then, to
nothing like the extent to which it was entitled. My first
impressions on this point, are due to Eusebius, who in his
Demonstratio Evangelica, has shewn its paramount use
and importance, as I shall presently shew.
The question again, relating to the duration and close
of the Theocracy, has appeared to me to involve matter of
the greatest importance both to this question, and to
Christianity itself; which has however, for one reason or
other, been grievously overlooked. It has been evident to
me,—and my reasons will be seen below,—that the period for
the fulfilment of all Prophecy, as dependent on the nature
of the Covenants, has been so frequently and particularly
defined, that no reasonable doubt ought to remain concerning
it; and that this period has long ago passed away" This
consideration makes the evidence to the truth, of
Christianity complete; as it also does the character
of Christianity itself. And once more, a light so
powerful is by this means thrown over the whole of the Old
Testament, and an ease so remarkable supplied to its
declarations, that it has appeared most astonishing to me,
this should have remained so long under a bushel. It is to
the system of conjecture, abounding with useless
technicalities, as noted above, and partaking of no small
amount of Judaizing, that the want of precision, with the
palpable darkness under which we have been labouring, is to
be attributed. And it may perhaps be considered as a
recommendation to these results, that they have been arrived
at by the most easy and natural methods. No double,
triple, &c. interpretation of the Divine Word, in
the usual acceptation of those terms, has anywhere been
adopted: nothing beyond the application of a spiritual
sense to things enounced under the Old Testament, and as
done by the writers of the New, and taught by the best
writers on its Grammar and Rhetoric, has been had recourse
to—To judge on these matters however, is the office of
others.
It will be seen throughout, but more particularly in my Exposition of the Revelation, that I have endeavoured to make Holy Scripture its own interpreter, and
that I have done this to a very great extent: it will be for
others to judge, whether rightly or not. I have seen, or
thought I have seen, that the parallel places are applicable
to a much greater extent than has hitherto been supposed. In
this point of view, I have found the Revelation a
revelation indeed of the drift and scope of perhaps
every prophecy of the Old Testament, and again of Christ
Jesus in each and every of these. And here I think I have
seen such a concatenation, and interweaving of prediction
and event, spreading itself over the whole surface of the
Divine Word, as to constitute something like the "threefold cord which is not easily to be broken," or the
garment of Christ so knit together throughout, as to be
impervious to division, and to withstand every temptation to
rend it asunder.
I may indeed be deemed fanciful here; I
entreat the reader however, to think maturely on this point,
before he pronounces an opinion on it: for he will probably
find, that I have done no more than what the nature of each
case required, and what others have done, both in
determining places to be parallels, and in pointing out such
imitations and allusions as are found in one classical
author, and referring to the writings of another. This I
have thought the safest check to the application of a
mystical or spiritual serise, to the letter of
Scripture. Indeed I know of no other, on which reliance can
be placed. The exercise of a mature judgment, as well as of
great care and caution, is certainly necessary in all
this. [Nothing
can be more lamentable than the extreme laxness of the
Fathers in this respect. They seem to have thought that a
warm piety, and lively imagination, could not be forced too
far in producing a multitude of meanings from the same
words. The friends of the . Pontificate have improved upon
this, as indeed their system required, and have made it
matter of principle. The word of God, say they, being the
best, must also be the most comprehensive; and accordingly,
every sense obtainable from it, must be good and true: it is
for the Church to determine when each of these shall have
its just application. (See Gloss, p. mihi. 391, seq., so also Bossuet as cited by Dr.
Todd): which the sapient mind of Mr. Newman has lately
revived under the doctrine of Development: i. e. to say, in
other
words, It is the privilege of his
Holiness the Pope, with the advice &c. of his Cardinals,—for
in these alone consists the Church, annually to publish
the Bible of the Vatican: for certainly, that of the
Prophets and Apostles will submit to no such system.] Of myself I can only say, I have done the best in my
power. If therefore I have failed, and have occasionally taken that mystically,
which should have been understood otherwise, I crave the
indulgence only which is reasonably due in all such cases.
Another guide and check of the greatest
value, are the citations made in the New from the Old
Testament. Of these I have availed myself. And here, it is
not only that the true spiritual meaning of innumerable
places of the Old Testament is safely arrived at; but,—what
is more to our immediate purpose,—the periods of many
events, which have been made the subjects of Prophecy, are
ascertained with certainty: and, as we have no necessity
here for double, triple, &c. interpretations: no
partially, or imperfectly, fulfilled
prophecy;—expedients devised, for the mere purpose of
supplying crutches to a lame system, and unknown to Apostolical usage;—we arrive at conclusions as trustworthy
in principle, as they are consistent with fact, and with
the positive requirements of Christianity, in the New
Covenant once made, and once established, for the
universal good of man. In the application of these again,
great care and caution are requisite: and these, as far as
my powers, and the limits of my Work would admit, have been
applied.
On the Opinions and Usages of the Early Church, as to
Prophecy.
An important question may now arise, as
to how far these views agree with those of the early
Christian Church; and particularly as I find both Mr. Mede
and Dr. Todd with their followers, claiming much for their
theories, on the ground that they do so correspond to a very
considerable extent. " I am persuaded," says Dr. Todd
(Lectures on the Apocalypse},
"that the ancient
interpretation" (i.e. taking the visions of the seals,
trumpets, and vials, as synchronizing and intimating the
same events respectively) " contained in its main outline
the true views of the structure and design of Prophecy."
[He tells
us in his additional Notel,
(Lectures on the Apocalypse, p. 269), "that the
interpretation of the Apocalypse, which is found in the
writings of the Fathers of the third and fourth centuries,
is spoken of by St. Jerome,... as a change from an
earlier system. Jerome however says not one word about such
a change ! nor does he, as Dr. Todd elsewhere
implies, unjustly charge Ireneeus with Judaizing Dr. Todd
then gives an interesting outline of the Exposition of the
Apocalypse by Victorinus, in which much of the earliest
interpretation of the Apocalypse is retained: whether it
had, or had not, the doctrine of a Millennium seems now to
be past recovery: but this is of little importance. It is, I
think with Whitby, most probable, that the early orthodox
Church held no such thing. This fragment moreover deals
liberally, and in many cases soundly, in mystical
interpretation. It is much to be regretted that Dr. Todd did
not extend his inquiry to the fragments of Hippolytus,
Arethas, &c. I confine myself to the time preceding, and
ending with those of Eusebius.]
He then goes on to propose, what he thinks would tend to the
recovery of this ancient and true mode of interpretation.
Mr. Mede and his followers flatter themselves that the
ancients are with them. Let us endeavour to ascertain the
true state of this case.
It is certain, in the first place, that
neither the views of Dr. Todd, nor of Mr. Mede, will afford
from prophecy generally, any adequate foundation for
Christianity as we now have it, and as established by the
Apostles. Mr. Mede fairly admits, that the Christian Church
is but a temporary sort of make-shift, set up
because God would not be without a Church; but, that after
the destruction of the papal Antichrist, and the restoration
of the Jews, prophecy will,—as we have seen above,—have its
entire fulfilment in the establishment of a complete
Christianity. This too, is as far as I have been able to
inform myself, the creed of all his followers, insomuch that
some have openly maintained the notion, that Christianity is,—as we now
have it,—to pass away, and to be succeeded by another and
better dispensation. They also hold, that it never has been
preached and received throughout the world, to the extent
foretold by prophecy; and that, on this account also,
Apostolic Christianity must be superseded by a system more
complete, efficient, and universal. Both these opinions are
fully maintained by Dr. Todd: and, if there be any
difference between him and Mr. Mede, it is, that Mr. Mede
allows some authority to Christianity,—as taught by
the Apostles, —from prophecy; Dr. Todd, none. How such
notions as these would have been countenanced by St. Paul,
who habitually disputed with the Jews, shewing from the
Prophets that Jesus was the Christ; that the fulness of time
was come; and that, if an Angel from heaven preached any
other doctrine, he should be accursed; I do not now stop to
inquire. I only affirm, that they seem to be greatly at
variance with those taught by him; and, as we shall
presently see, taught by the early Church.
Now, whatever faults may be attributed to
the Fathers of the Church, certain it is that their notions
were diametrically opposed to these both of Mr. Mede and
Dr. Todd; of which proof will presently be given. In one
particular indeed,—and in one only,—they do, to some extent,
agree with them both; i. e. in the belief that the coming of
the Antichrist, and the period termed the end of the world,
were to take place at some indefinite time after that in
which they lived. In this,—as the following Work will shew,—they
were wrong as to particulars. On the other question, as to
the full establishment of Christianity, they were certainly
right. And the consequence is, both Mr. Mede and Dr. Todd
follow the Fathers, and the ancient interpretation, only in
that which was manifestly wrong; but leave them altogether
in that which was obviously right!
It will be readily granted, that the Fathers were not,
generally, great Biblical critics. If we except Origen and
Jerome, we can find but few who could read the Hebrew Bible.
In the Grecian philosophy they were, for the most part, well
versed. Their acuteness no one will doubt, was great, as
also was their piety. To their zeal for Christian truth,
they have had but few equals. We need not be surprised
therefore, if they retained the great and essential
doctrines of Christianity in their integrity, while they
failed on some points, which present matter rather of
critical, than exegetical, interpretation. And this, I hold,
was the case. Their general views of Christianity were
correct; their particular ones respecting the Antichrist,
and some other things, were not so.
As to the general doctrinal correctness
then of the Fathers, it will be impossible to read their
earlier writings, Epistles, Apologies, Controversies with
the Jews, and Commentaries on the Scriptures, without
perceiving that they looked upon Prophecy as their most sure
and faithful guide: and here,—be it observed,—they quoted
all prophecy, and in common with this, its interpretations
as given in the New Testament, and as frequent as any, the
Apocalypse itself, [It is worthy of remark, that Cyprian
quotes the Apocalypse for the purpose of proving that the
Martyrs were innumerable (Exhort, ad Martyrmm, p.
181, ed. Dodwell). "Post hsec vidi turbam mag-nam." Apoc.
vii. 9. Again, on the souls of the Martyrs, Apoo. xx. 4.
Again, (p. 171) he quotes Ch. xiv. 6, speaking of an Angel
flying through the heavens with the Gospel: and, p. 172,
Ch. xiv. 9, "If any one worship the beast," &c.
Again, p. 175, Ch. iii. 11, " Hold fast. . . that no man
take thy crown." In p. 177, we have Matth. xxiv. 4—31,
inclus. He adds, " Nee nova aut repentina hsec sunt, quce
nune acci-dunt Christianis," &c., evidently referring
the whole of this to that particular period. And in every
case, suitable citations from both the Old and New Testament
are adduced, referring the places given to the persecutions
then going on. Innumerable instances to the same effect
might be collected from the early Fathers generally, which,
however, neither time nor space will admit here. I will only
add: If these Fathers could not very clearly define the
extent of this period, this is a consideration of but little
moment to us.] in support of Christianity as then
established. In these discussions, they knew of no
Christianity beyond that which they had received; no
conversion of the Gentiles, besides that in which they
formed a part: they never so much as dreamt of some future
period, removed from that in which they lived, in which
Christianity should be more extensive, efficient, or
glorious: nor did they,—as far as my knowledge goes,—ever
quote any Prophet foretelling any such time. And, if some of
the earliest of them held that better times as to things
temporal awaited the Church; in this generally they were
not wrong. The kingdom had not then been given, de facto,
to the Son of Man,—as it likewise had not in the times
of St. Paul:—but, as they were not able to discover at what
precise period that would be done; all they could do was, to
speak of it as future, and in patience to wait for it: and
it is surprizing to observe, to what a degree of accuracy
some of them arrived in this respect. Within their times
indeed, some Judaized as extensively as did any of those in
subsequent ones: and it is in this that we find Mr. Mede,
Dr. Todd, and their followers respectively, following them.
I will now give a few examples of each of these. And first,
from the Epistle,—so far as it has been preserved—ascribed
to St Barnabas, [I
use the edition of Clericus, 1724.] which is perhaps one of the oldest
Ecclesiastical documents that we possess. In the first place
then, he looks upon the land promised to Abraham, as
given in the Man Christ Jesus:
[Vol. I. p. 18, i. e. because, man
is of the earth. Dr. Todd also, gives some interesting
matter from this Father. Discourses on the Prophecies,
p. 370. In the same place he quotes Hormas, Clemens
Bomanus, and Ignatius, &c., 'to shew that the time of the
end was believed then to be at hand: but more on this
presently.] which is fanciful
enough : it shews however this,—which is to our
purpose,—that the land of Canaan was not supposed to be
meant, now that the New Covenant had been established. He
goes on in the next place to shew how he made us
(i. e. Christians) a second formation (i. e. new
creation), in the last times. He then cites Ezekiel (xxxvi.
11) as saying, "Behold, I will make the last things as
(were) the former."—It is worth remarking, he does not
quote the Greek of the Septuagint here :— but the most
remarkable thing is, he makes the times in which he lived,
those termed the last in the Old Testament. He then
concludes, after citing Ezek. xi. 19, and xxxvi. 26; Ps.
xii. 3,
[I
have not been able to find this in the place referred to.] and xxii. 23, thus : We are therefore those whom
he has led into the good land.
[Ib. p. 19.]
After some that is good, and much that is
fanciful, our Author brings us to a prophecy, which extends
the blessings of Christianity to every land.
[Zeph. iii. 19. See the Note here, p. 38.] He then
quotes Ezekiel (chap. xtvii. 1) to shew, as it should seem, that the great river flowing from the right side of the
altar, in which grew up beautiful trees, represented at once
both Baptism and the Cross: so that all who were called, who
obeyed, and believed, should live for ever. On this see Rev.
xxii. 1, below.
The next thing I shall notice is a
citation from Isaiah, Chap. xlix. 6, " I will give thee
for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my
salvation unto the end of the earth:"" Chapters xlii. 6,
7, and lxi. 1, 2, are given, for the purpose of shewing, to
whom we owe this redemption. And here, the whole of
the Gentile world is necessarily meant, as it also is that
the day of Christ was that of the vengeance of our God, in
which He would comfort all that mourned. So far
therefore, although we have much that is fanciful, we also
have some that is judicious and true ; but nothing agreeing
either with Mr. Mede or Dr. Todd; but directly opposed to
both. ' We may now pass on to section xvi. p. 48, seq. where we also have matter, quite irreconcilable
with our modern theories. In the first place it is
said, as from Scripture: " Et erit in novissimis diebus,
tradet Dominus oves pascuce, et cawlam, et turrim eorum
in escitium." [I
quote the Latin version for the sake of convenience.] Which is evidently made up of several
places of Scripture. It is added, "Atque contigit
quemadmodum locutus est Dominus." Whence we may observe, the
last days here, are those in which Jerusalem fell: i.
e. they are the last of the Theocracy. Our Author
adds, " Quseramus igitur an exstet templum Dei." He
answers, " Exsistit."..." Scriptum enim est; Et erit,
Jiebdomada completa cedificabitur magnified templum Dei, in
nomine Domini.'''' Where, as before, we have more places
of Scripture than one: perhaps Daniel ix. 27, and Haggai
ii. 9, mixed together. Whence it is evident that, upon the
completion of this week (or these last days) of
Daniel, the Temple of God should be so erected, that every
Believer throughout the universe should be made to
constitute it. His words upon this are, " Discite ; accepta
remissione peccatorum, et spe habita in nomine Domini, facti
sumus novi, iterum ab integro creati: quare in domicilio
nostro vere Deus exsistit; habitat in nobis."..." Hoc est
templum spiritale Domino constructum:"
[Which
must put the reader in mind of the Tower, represented as in the course of erection
in the Pastor of Hermas, in his times and the last days:
symbolizing the then rising Church. The same vision
brings before us an enormous beast, from which nothing can
save men but the true faith of Christ. This is, of
necessity, the Beast and Antichrist of St. John. We have
however no notice of any Millennium here! Le Clerc's
Patres Apostolici, p. 82.] (comp. 1 Pet. ii.
4, 5; 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17; vi. 19, &c.). We have no inferior
Christianity here, and no reserves bolstered upon Jewish
speculations: we have, on the contrary, the full exhibition
of the renewing powers of Christianity, constituting in a
mystical sense a new creation, as exhibited in every
believer.
But it would be endless to follow the declarations of these early Fathers to this effect; I
will now therefore give a few extracts from one, who shall
be instar omnium on the general question before us. I
mean Eusebius of Caesarea, [
The Commentaries of this Father on the Psalms and the prophet Isaiah, will be read with great
advantage on this subject; and particularly, as giving us
an abundant exemplification of the belief of his times on
the application of Prophecy to Christianity.] and the work I shall select is
his " Demonstratio Evangelica,:" a work that is too
little known, but which deserves every attention on the
question of Prophecy. Beginning then, at Cap. r. of his
second Book, we have the promise made to Abraham, that in
his seed all nations should be blessed (Gen. xviii.
17, 18), shewn to be fulfilled in Christ. This is next
continued under the promise made to Isaac (Gen. xxvi. 3, 4).
And here again, Eusebius tells us that in Christ Jesus, as
the seed of Isaac, all nations were blessed. Deut.
xxxii. 43, is next cited, " Rejoice ye Gentiles with his
people .•" also Pss. xxii. 27—31; xtvii. throughout, and
xtvi. 1—3. We then have Zech. xiv. 16—18. Isaiah ix. 1, 2,
is next brought before us: then Chap. xilx. ], 6. And we are
told, that the places to the same effect, to be found in the
Prophets, are too numerous to be cited: he adds, that he
will now give other places to prove, that it was of this
calling-in of the Gentiles by Christ and of no other,
that the Prophets spoke. Such places in great abundance
are then cited, and be applied, in direct opposition to Mede
and Todd.
We may now pass on to Cap. xxxvi. And
here we are told, that it was not to the whole Jewish
nation, but only to a few of it, that the Divine promises
belonged:—which, of necessity, deprives the Jews generally
of any restoration. Isaiah, Chap. i. 7—9 inclusive, is now
cited to shew, that "Except the Lord of hosts had left
them a very small remnant, they had been as Sodom and
Gomorrah. Upon this he says: " At vero quia postquam
illis hsec evenerunt et chorus Apostolorum, et qui ex
Hebrseis in Christum crediderunt, foecundi instar seminis, ex illis ipsis servati
sunt, et per universam terram, atque in omne genus hominum
penetrantes, omnem civitatem, ac locum, et regionem, atque
Israelitico semine impleverunt, adeo quidem, ut ex illis
quasi spicae" (comp. Ps. txxii. 16), "quas in nomine
Salvatoris iiostri fundatse sunt Ecclesiae, sint enatse."
Rom. ix. 29 is then cited, giving this place of Isaiah. We
then have, ib. xi. 1—5 inclusive, just as done by me below
(p. S3, seq.), and for the very same purpose. We next
have other places given from Isaiah, in which the term
Remnant (reliquum) occurs, and in one of
these it is thus explained : "Quodnam vero sit illud
reliquum ex Israel, ipse Propheta explanavit cum dixit:
Omnes qui scripti sunt in Hierusalem, et qui vocati sancti."
To this, as an element, he universally adheres: and it
must be confessed that without it, the text of the Old
Testament will, for the most part, be without meaning.
He then tells us what that day would be,
in which God would be thus glorified.
[Page 66, Edit. 1628. I have to
regret that I cannot always cite the best Editions of the
Fathers: my distance from the University Libraries is the
cause of this.] This, he says, is
easily to be known from the threats denounced against the
whole Jewish nation, carrying with them, as they do, the
entire overthrow of Jerusalem. He then cites Isa. i. 29—31,
as a prediction of this. We next have Chap. ii. 2, &c. from
which he shews, that by that day is meant the period,
in which the idols should be cast to the moles and the bats,
and the Lord's house should be higher than the hills, &c.
For the same purpose Chap. iv. 3, 4, and Rom. x. 18, are
then quoted, and to shew that, within this period the
sound of this remnant did go out into all lands, and
their words unto the ends of the world. Eusebius
therefore, makes .this Remnant the first publishers
of the Gospel; and that day, day of the Lord, and
the like, the period in which this was to be done; and
actually was done. It would be endless to cite from him and
others, all the testimonies to be found to this effect. Nor can it be
necessary.
There is another consideration of great
value presented to us in this work of Eusebius: it is his
method of viewing the judgments denounced against the early
enemies of the Church among the Jews. On the Star that
should arise out of Jacob (Num. chap. xxiv. 17, Lib. ix.
cap. 1), he says: "At vero ipsius Prophetise oraculum quid
ait tandem fore, aut in illius novi sideris eruptione, aut
in Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi ortu, dignum quod
cognoscatur ? nempe fractionem ductorum Moab, et direptionem
filiorum Seth, prseterea reliquorum Judaicaj gentis hostium
hsereditatem." To these he adds, Edom, Egypt, Gog, Mesech,
Tubal, &c. as enemies of the Church; and tells us that their
fall is mystically implied in the declarations of the
Prophets, as here cited by him. This is therefore a
principle with him : and it is applied as such in the
following work; [See pp. 272, seq., 292, seq. and the parallel
places in the latioh.] where it is occasionally shewn, that the
context of the Prophets can be made out in no other way,
than as involving such mystical meaning.
Our Lord's coming in the clouds of
heaven moreover, formed no such difficulty with Eusebius
as it did with some of the Fathers (ib. p. mihi 436). He
makes this to indicate His Divinity, and the eternity of His
Kingdom. The words are: "Quse vero alterum ilium" (se. adventum) " et divinitatis amplius pree se ferentem,
manifestissime indicantur per illam in nubibus coeli
advectationem, perque illud aeternum in omnibus gentibus
regnum." And nowhere have I been able to find so much as a
hint at the Sabbatieal Millennium of the Jews, which so many
had imagined this should introduce. The only particular in
which I find Eusebius defective is, his not having seen that
in his days, the fulness of the Gentiles had, according to
Prophecy, come in (see ib. p. 458, b). He seems to have thought,—as many do among
ourselves,—that something still more magnificent was to be
expected. But this involves a question of degree only,
which will necessarily be regulated much by individual
taste.—It should be borne in mind, that all prophecy speaks
positively, and provides in the Divine power the means for
its own fulfilment. This was, in the case of Christianity,
miraculous power open and visible. And let it be observed:
when the period of prophecy should expire, miracle would be
withdrawn: it was so withdrawn from the Church in this
period. Surely this ought to outweigh every sort of argument
grounded on degree, and resting on taste only. We may
now return to the pseudo-Barnabas, for the consideration of
the Sabbatical Millennium of the Jews ; for this Father
favours us with it in all its beauty and glory.
[Sect. xt. p. 43, seq. Patres Apostolici.] Exodus,
chap. xx. 8, and Jer. xvii. 24, are quoted in the first
place. Genesis ii. 2, is then given to shew, that the
Creation was a work of six days; the seventh, a season of
rest: and hence it is inferred, that, because each day is to
be taken as a thousand years, [In proof of which St. Peter is, as usual,
confidently quoted.] after the^first six thousand
of the world, the next thousand will be a season or
millennium of rest. He then goes on to tell us, that God's
resting will sanctify that day (i. e. of a thousand
years), and that we,— receiving the promise, iniquity being
now abolished, and all so renewed,—shall be able to sanctify
it also; being ourselves first sanctified: i. e. under the
previous regimen; for our first sabbath, as he tells us a
little before this, [p.
46.] cannot be truly kept except with a
heart wholly pure. From which, and from what is here given
in the notes, in extracts from some of the most eminent of
the Fathers, [I. e. Irenaeus, Capp. 28. 29; Origen,
Lib. ii. contra Celsum; Stratonicus Bishop of Cumae, as
given by Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth. Lib. ii. under the word
Elias; Lactantius, Lib. vii. c. 14, de Diyino
prsemio; Hilarius, Canon xx. in Mattb..;
Hieronymus, Epist. ad Cypri-anum; Athanasius, Explicat. de
die Dominica: ib. in Cap. 65 Esa. The Talmud, Tract
Sanhedrin, cap. Helec, where 2,000 years are assigned to the
Patriarchal dispensation, 2,000 to the times of the Mosaic,
and 2,000 to those of the Messiah: and the Sabbatical
Millennium is to follow! Augustinus, de Civitate Dei, cap.
vii. and xxii.; also adversus Manichseos, Lib. prim, de
Genesi, &c. To these are to be added Justin Martyr,
Hippolytus, martyr; Cyril of Jerusalem in his Discourses on
the Antichrist, &c.: "where we shall find more than enough
to convince us, that Judaism had made no small havoc in the
• Church in their times.] it is sufficiently
clear, that things spiritual are
not now had in view, but things temporal only, as
blessings to be realized within the said Millennium. This is
as it should be; it shews the figment to be perfectly
Jewish: [It
is evident enough too, as Cave has well remarked, that this
pseudo-Barnabas had been a Jew. Still it is certain that in
no case, did these Fathers lower the character of
Christianity, in order to give importance to these their Judaizing notions. It is not so however now
with us!] for of spirituality they then knew nothing,
and even now they expect nothing from their Messiah, come
when he will. And, let it be noted here as before, the
Fathers, with their authorities the Jews, are opposed both
to Mr. Mede and Dr. Todd: treating of temporalities
only; these of both spiritualities and temporalities to be
enjoyed in this Millennial period.
But, that we may the more clearly see how
this error originated, it will be necessary to shew what
course these early Fathers took. If then we turn to
Tertullian (" Adver-sus Judseos, de Passione Christi," &c.),
we shall find that, by a computation of Daniel's seventy
weeks, he makes the first sixty-two to terminate in the
forty-first year of Augustus, and the birth of Christ. He
here tells us, that all Prophecy was now fulfilled : i. e.
vision and prophecy was sealed : by which he appears to
mean, that no Prophet appeared among t^ie Jews after this :
which is true: while his interpretation of this place is
not. [It is curious to observe how the Ancients, as well
as the Moderns, have laboured in vain to shew,
that Daniel's seventy weeks might be chronologically
determined; without ever considering that, if this period
was chronological in any sense, then must the positive
declarations of our Lord, viz.—that none but the Father
could know the period of Jerusalem's fall (Matth. xxiv.
36),—be false. Michaelis somewhere remarks, that no solution
of Daniel's seventy weeks, prior to his time was
satisfactory to him.]
Having then so far disposed of the first
sixty-two weeks of this prophecy, he takes the next seven
and a half; i. e. in all 69½, and tells us it was now that
Vespasian destroyed the Temple and the Sanctuary:—which the
text places in the middle of the seventieth week (i.e. his
69½).
[Whence it
must be evident, that Daniel's seventieth week was then
divided, just as it is in the following work ; the fall of
Jerusalem marking the period of its first portion: while the
close of the last, the Fathers never could see.] He also tells us, that now both oblation and sacrifice
ended according to Daniel's prediction. Still it is
certain, that he expected the coming of the Antichrist
after this; for he tells us in another Tract,
[DeFugainPersecutione, cap. xii. his
words are, "Antichristo jam instante, et in sanguinem, non
in pecunias inhiante, Christianum." A sufficiently lengthy
and humiliating account of the opinions of the Fathers,
respecting the Antichrist, will be found in Suicer's
Thesaurus, under the word.] that in his
own times this coming of Antichrist was at hand ; which is,
in the main, true. The calculation of one Judas mentioned by
Eusebius, [Eccl.
His. Lib. vi. cap. vii. The words are these (I give the
Latin of Valesius): " Eodem
tempore alius quoque scriptor Judas, de Septuaginta apud
Danielem septimanis disserens, ad decimum usque annum Sever!
supputationem temporum perducit. Qui etiam deoantaturn
ilium Antichrist! adventum jam turn imminere existimabat."] was perhaps Tertullian's authority here; for
this tells us, that the seventy weeks of Daniel extended to
the tenth year of Severus.
Now it was after the fall of this
Antichrist, according to these Fathers, that the first
resurrection should take place, the Sabbatical Millennium
commence, and then continue to the end of all things, and be
followed by the second resurrection. If we now examine Tertullian's
Tract, " De Resurrectione Carnis,"
[Edit. 1580, p. 42.] we shall find, that the
blessings of this Millennium were, according to him, to be
purely carnal, just as the resurrection was to be
solely of the flesh.
He first cites 2 Thess. ii. 1, seq.
[With
which he joins Rev. vi. xv. and xx., speaking of the
Martyrs.],
and adds on the words, "lie be taken out of the way" "Quis?
nisi Romanus status, cujus abscessio in decem Reges dispersa,
Antichristum superducet." He proceeds, " Et prostituta ilia
civitas a decem regibus dignos exitus referat, et bestia
Antichristus cum suo pseudo-propheta certamen Ecclesise
inferat; atque ita Diabolo in abyssum interim relegato,
primse resurrectionis praerogativa de solis ordinetur :
dehinc et igne dato, universalis resurrectionia censura de
libris judicetur. Cum igitur et status temporum ultimorum
scripturse notent, et totunj Christianse spe frugem in
exordio seculi" (i. e. novi) " collo-cent: apparet aut tune
adimpleri totum quodcunque nobis a Deo repromittitur....Aut
si agnitio sacramenti, resurrectio est,...et sequitur...quod
hasc spiritalis vindicetur, ilia corporalis, prsejudicetur."
Whence it appears that, upon this new age-or seculum taking
place, all that had been foretold by the Prophets should be
fulfilled, and that now the body should receive its
blessings, just as the soul had in its spiritual
resurrection ; and accordingly, that this spiritual
resurrection in Christ was, as such, complete and wanting
nothing. He then reproaches the Jews for their loss of
spiritual blessings, and congratulates the Christians,
that both the spiritual and temporal blessings are
ultimately to be theirs.
We need not perhaps, consult Tertullian
further on this point; a few extracts only from Irenaeus
will put this matter out of all doubt. He tells us then
(Lib. v. advers. Haeres. cap. xxv. Edit. Grabe, p. 438,
seq.), that the Antichrist should come, and take his seat
in the Temple at Jerusalem, for which he cites Matt. xxiv. 15,
seq. He then carries us to Daniel (Chap. vii. 8, seq.) and
tells us, that he has respect here to the end of the last
kingdom, i. e. the last ten kings among whom their kingdom
should be divided: for which, as we have seen above, not one
word of testimony is to be found in the Scriptures. After
citing verses 23—25, of this chapter, for the same purpose,
we are conducted to 2 Thess. ii. 8—12. To this man of sin,
Irenaeus now tells us, the widowed earthly Jerusalem shall
flee for vengeance on her enemies, (i. e. on the Church).
After another citation from Daniel (Chap. viii. 12, &c.), we
are brought to Chapter ix. and told, that from the middle of
the week, when sacrifice and oblation should cease, three
years and a half should follow for the action of this
Antichrist. [Here
again we have Daniel's seventieth week divided as before:
and the latter portion of it very properly assigned to the
action of the Antichrist. The end of this it was impossible
for him to see.] And this again he limits to the period, in which
the abomination of desolation should be set up, as foretold
by our blessed Lord (Matt. xxiv. 15). We cannot now be very
far therefore, from Tertullian's period for the coming of
the Antichrist.
The next Chapter (xxvi.) professes to
treat more clearly on the last time, and on its ten
kings among whom, according to St. John, the kingdom then (i.
e. in this Father's times) existing, should be divided. Rev.
xvii. 12, 13, 14, is then quoted, as Daniel (Chap. ii. 33,
34, &c.) also is, and we have the conclusion: " Si ergo Deus
magnus significavit per Danielem futura, et per Filium
confirmavit; et Christus est Lapis, qui prsecisus est sine
manibus, qui destruet temporalia regna, et aeternum inducet,
quas est justorum resurrectio,... confutati resipiscant qui
Demiurgum respuunt" (i. e. the heretics of those times). He
adds, " Quae enim a Demiurgo prsedicta sunt similiter per
omnes prophetas, base Christus in fine perfecit."" I. e. as
before, whenever this time of the end should come,—which could not be in the
days of this Father, [As shewn in its place below.]—then should all be fulfilled
as before.
If we now pass on to Cap. xxviii. we shall
find the Sabbatical Millennium, grounded as before, on the
seventh day's rest of Creation. This being settled, just as
it is by Tertullian, we are brought, (Cap. xxxii. seq.) to
the corporeal felicities of the just within this period: and
here all is too plain to be misunderstood. Our Author
proceeds thus: " Quoniam—sunt ignorantes" (i.e. the
heretics) "dispositiones Dei, et mysterium justorum
resurrectionis et Regni, quod est principium incorruptelas,
per quod Regnum qui digni fuerint, paulatim assuescunt
capere Deum" (i. e. as it should seem, under the previous
spiritual training of the Church) : " necessarium est autem
dicere de illis, quoniam oportet justos primos in
conditione hac quae renovatur, ad apparitionem Dei
resurgentes recipere promissionem hsereditatis, quam Deus
promisit Patribus, et regnare in ea." We have here
therefore, the promises made to the Fathers,—i. e. that in
the Seed of Abraham all nations should be
blessed,—transferred to this Millennarian state,
irrespective of all and every thing said either by the
Prophets or Apostles: i. e. The Jewish figment of a
Millennarian Sabbath over-rides all else!
Then follow the particulars: " In qua
enim conditione laboraverunt, sive afflict! sunt omnibus
modis, probati per sufferentiam, justum est in ipsa recipere
eos fructus suffer-entiae: et qua conditione interfecti sunt
propter Dei dilectionem, in ipsa vivificari: et in qua
conditione servitutem sustinuerunt, in ipsa regnare eos.
Dives enim,1" adds this good Father, " in omnibus Deus." We
then have Rom. viii. 19—21, and Gen. xiii. 14, 15, 17 ; xv.
18, quoted in support of this! It is then added: " Sic ergo
huic" (i. e. Abraham) " promisit Deus, haereditatem terrae,
non accepit autem in omni suo incolatu, oportet eum accipere
cum semine suo, hoc est, qui timent Deum, et credunt in
eum in resurrectione jtfstorum. Semen autem ejus," adds he,
" Ecclesia."
The Apostolic Church of Christ is here
therefore, the Seed ; while the inheritance is that of the
Millennial Sabbath. I ask, Is it possible to contemplate a
more unhappy, puerile, or Judaizing, wresting of the
Scriptures ? But let us proceed. This Father next tells us
that, as Christ's drinking of the fruit of the vine (Matt.
xxvi. 27, seq.) could not be said of disembodied spirits, it
must be referred to this possession of the heritage of the
nations. He continues ; It is hence said, " When thou
makest a feast,' sec. (Luke xiv. 12, 13), and again;
"Whosoever hath left lands, or houses,.,, shall receive
an hundredfold" &c. (Matt. xix. 29, &c.). He then asks,
What are the things a hundredfold in this time, and the
feasts given to the poor, and the suppers which are rendered
? " These," he answers, " are in the times of the Kingdom;
that is, in the seventh day, which was sanctified... which
is the true Sabbath of the just, in which they shall do no
earthly work ; but shall have the table at hand prepared by
God, (thus) feeding them with every sort of feast.1' Isaac's
blessing to Jacob is then cited (Gen. xxvii. 27), and we are
told that " the field'''' so mentioned is the
world (Matt, xiii. 38). The citation then goes on to the
end of verse 29. We next have the Vines of Papias,—as it
should seem,—. each bearing ten thousand branches, &c.,
which need not be detailed. [
I certainly misunderstood and misapplied all this in my work
of 1830 on the Revelation. I had no doubt Irenaeus was right in applying this to the
Church on earth, rather than to the Saints in heaven. So far
I was right, and so is Irenaeus: but I was wrong in not
seeing his Jewish Millennarian notions, Iren. Edit. Grabe,
p. 454.]
It may be said, perhaps with truth, that
the opinions of Irenaeus [Eusebius, (Eccl. Hist. Lib. iii. cap.
xxxix.) makes Papias a man of but slender intellect, and the
propagator among Christians of the Jewish Sabbatical
Millennium. His words are (I give the Latin only), " Idem,"
(i.e. Papias) " prseterea scriptor alia
nonnulla nudse vocis traditione ad se pervenisse testatur..
. fabulis propiora. Inter quse et mille annorum spatium post
corporum resurrectionem fore dicit, quo regnum Christi
corporaliter stet in orbe terrarum. Quse quidem ita opinatus
esse videtur.. .ex male intellects apostolorum narrationibus,
cum ea quse arcano... sensu et exempli causa ab illis
dicebantur, non satis pervidisset. Fuit enim mediocri
admodum ingenio prseditus :—plerisque tamen post ipsum
Ecclesiasticis scriptoribus ejusdem erroris occasionem
prsebuit, hominis vetustate sententiam suam tuentibus: puta
Irenseo, et si quis alius ejusdem opinionis fautor extitit."
From which it must be evident enough, that Eusebius,
together with many others of the early Church, never held
this opinion; and, that his notion of those who held it was,
that it originated in mistaken views of the meaning of the
Apostles and others.] were extreme in this respect, and
are therefore, not to be cited as testimonies to the
belief of these early Fathers. I answer, these opinions
were, most likely, those only of a portion of the Church
which chose to Judaize. And as to degree, it has but
little to do here: it is principle alone about which we are
now concerned. Men may have varied to an indefinite extent,
in the lengths to which they carried these notions : and, no
doubt, they did. But, if we take the opinions of the most
moderate (and Theodoret, [These
opinions of Theodoret will be
seen in his " Hoeretioarum Fabularum Compendium,"
Lib. v. Capp. xxi.—xxiii. inclus., as also in' his
Commentaries on Daniel, and 2 Thess. ii. &c., which however,
evince no greater a difference under the same principles of
interpretation, from those of Papias and Irenaeus, than do
those of Mr. Mede, Dr. Todd, and others, as now put forth
among ourselves. Every real lover of truth however, owes
much to Papias and Irenaeus, for two reasons. One, that they
bring us nearer to the source of this error, and exhibit it
in purls naturalibus: the other, that they exhibit it
in the extremes to which it may fairly be carried, and
hence—by a sort ofreductio ad absurdwm—give us
abundant opportunity for ascertaining both its origin, and
its character.]—a little later in time,—may
perhaps be a good example), the case as to principle is
still the same. The same Scriptures were misunderstood and
misapplied: and in this the error evidently took its rise.
The "coming of the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven"
they found it impossible to understand in any but a
literal sense; although the parallel gives, "the Sign of the
Son of Man." The judgments denounced too, they could
understand of none but of those of the last day;
although the prediction of our Lord limited the commencement
of these to the generation then existing, and Daniel
directed them first, to the fall of Jerusalem, and then
secondly, to that of the Power which should desolate it. In
like manner, the darkening of the sun and moon, the falling
of the stars, the passing away of the heavens, the earth,
the sea, the mountains, a new heaven and earth, and the
like; were things of which they could have no conception
generally, in any but a literal sense, although the usage
and context of Scripture in which these are found, was
abundantly sufficient to shew them the contrary.
The same is still the case generally
among ourselves.; and hence the literal, earthly, system of
the Jews has been adhered to; and this to such an extent,
that the absolute essentials of the New Covenant have been
criminally disregarded, and Christianity itself treated as a
mere makeshift ; an inferior, and transient system, which
is to end in something visible, tangible, and earthly, in
exact conformity, and resting on precisely the same grounds,
with that of the Jews! So far both Mr. Mede and Dr. Todd
claim an alliance with the Fathers; with this difference,
that Christianity does not with the Fathers lose any of its
excellencies, on account of their Millennarian reveries.
And, surely no one will doubt, upon a deliberate view of the
case, that the claim is good, and ought to be conceded. But,
whether the results so arrived at, are such as to claim
acquiescence, is quite another thing, and one upon which
readers are to pronounce judgment.
There is however, a consideration of
importance here, which ought to be noticed; it is this: The
earlier Fathers were so circumstanced, as not to be able to
ascertain when the time of the End, as foretold by
Daniel and others, should arrive; because they lived in
times before this could happen: it being obvious, that
times, to be known only by the occurrence of certain events,
given as signs of these, cannot possibly be determined
before such signs shall have appeared: and, as shewn below,
this was the fact. We need not therefore, be surprized at
finding them groping, as it were, like men in the dark, in
their endeavour to find this End; and hence wandering away
to the Day of Judgment, as the only one, of which they had
any definite notion. And hence,—as we shall see,—from the
apparent nearness of the End in question, as obvious
both from holy Writ and tradition, they entertained no
doubt, the general day of judgment was at hand: and, on this
account, prayers were then frequently offered up,
[Tertullian
(Apol. c. 39.) cited in Mr.
Dodwell's Dissertationes Cyprianicse, " De Martyrum
Fortitudine," Cap. xxv. " Quorum," says he, "illud, ni
finis in propinquo, ab Ecelesia etiam
crederetur I"] that
this day of judgment should be delayed, in order to extend
the times of the Church.
This again involves a consideration of
great moment to our inquiry. For, if these Fathers actually
held that the Antichrist was at hand and the time
short,—whatever might have been their mistakes in
applying this,—they must have been in possession of the true
and Scriptural view of this subject: and it is but
reasonable to suppose they would be, just as they were in
holding that the Church had been fully and
universally established, as the Prophets had foretold,
and the Apostles had taught. This I have shewn is to be the
case: and if so, then it will follow, that we have arrived
at the true ancient and ecclesiastical view of Prophecy, as
far as essentials are concerned.
The following are the remarks of Mr.
Dodwell. In his " Dissertationes Cyprianicw" ("De
Martyrum Fortttudine,n § xxi,) where, speaking of the
inducements to martyrdom during the persecutions, he says:
Of these, one was, the nearness of the time of the end;
which they erroneously supposed would bring the day of
judgment with it. " Nee enim illi," says he, " quod nos facimus,
spem—illam beatce resurrectionis futuram duntaxat
e longinquo speculabantur, sed ws ev Ta^ei, ut
loquitur Apocalyptae [See
on this, p. 232, seq. below.], nee ultra suam astatem
prorogandam crediderunt."
Mr. Dodwell proceeds, " Cum enim quae
prophetae de eayaTai^ rj/uepais prsedixerant,
[See ib. p. 90—132.] illi
ad Evangelium bectissime retulissent, facilis inde
erat erroris occasio ut post Evangelii brevi mundwm
finiendum existimarent." Nothing, I say, could be more
easy than this; nor perhaps, can anything be more certain,
than that it was the fact. " Proinde," adds he, " Dominum
ipsum ante passionein consulebant Discipuli" (Matt. xxiv.
3), [See
on this, p. 121, seq. &c. below.] "de signo adventus sui et consummationis
seculi quam cri/cTeXeiai/, [ Pages 133—6 below.] appellabant Platonici et
JEgyptii Hermetis Trismegisti discipuli, et
cnroKaTaffrdffiv-, quorum etiam vocabula adhibuerunt hac
in causa N. T. Scriptores. Nempe intelligebant his vocibus
illi, quos diximus, phi-losopM anni sui magni
circulum quo sphasrse omnes et stellse ad eundem situm
interque se aspectum essent rediturae. Tune enim nova omnia
etiam in hoc inferiori mundo reditura credebant quas antea
estate aurea, prioris nempe circuli initio
extitissent."
Mr. Dodwell is, I think, not quite
correct here in saying that the writers of the New Testament
so applied the terms <TuvT6\eia, and
aTroKarao-Tacris p[Of
the first of these terms, the usage in the Septuagint is
abundant, and as applying to these times. See Dan. ix. 27:
xi. 36: xii. 4, 13, &c. Of its use in the New Testament, see
p. 133, seq. below. The second of these does not occur in
the Septuagint, while the verb
anoKa6i<rrrjiu (from the same root) does, and with
reference to the events before us : it is in some places too
put for the Hebrew, ^Jjfi"!*brought back, i. e. as from
captivity. (See p. 84 below, note, and Schleusner, Lex. Vet.
Test, under this verb,) Mal. iv. 6: Ps. xvi. 5: Comp. Hos.
ii. 3: Jer. xv. 19: xvi. 15 : xxiv. 6: Isai. xxiii. 17. The word cnroKardoracrts occurs but
once in the New Testament, viz. Acts iii. 21, and there it
evidently refers to the restoration of all things by means
of Christianity: i. e. by the power of Christ, as coming in
the clouds to establish His Kingdom, and to make " all
things new."], in order to accommodate themselves to the usages and notions of
Plato, and the followers of Hermes Trismegistus.
Nothing perhaps can be more certain than, that the
Evangelists and Apostles accommodated both their notions,
and expressions, to those of the Prophets. And, as the
Septuagint Greek translation had applied certain Greek terms
in translating the Prophets, &c., they could do no less than
adopt them: and these are among those so adopted. That
Plato, and others had applied these, when speaking of the
same things, is sufficiently certain; but then, the
probability is strong,—because these notions and terms did
not necessarily arise out of anything they knew, or
could discover,—that both were taken by them also from the
Scriptures in one way or other. [It
was a very general belief of the early Fathers, that all the
notions of the Philosophers, agreeing with those of Sacred
Writers, had been borrowed from these: and, on this
assumption some of their best works were written: e. g. The Prseparatio Evangelica of Busebius:
much of Justin Martyr, Tatian, Clemens Alexandrinus,
Lactantius, &c. The expedient hit upon here by Mr. Dodwell,
is the sheet-anchor of the Rationalists of Germany, and is
quite as irrational as it would be, to ascribe the
opinions of a father to the inventions of his son! See
Tertullian on this subject, " De anima liber," at the
outset, the Prsep. Evangel, of Eusebius, and my Sermons and
Dissertations (1830), p. 143, seq.] I have no doubt this was
the fact.
Mr, Dodwell proceeds; " Et quod propius
ad hanc Christianorum causam spectabat, credebat
Plato (in Politico) novi circuli initio Xdyov
esse mundi gubernaculo praeficien-dum, et lona omnia
quse Eetatem illam auream comitarentur, ejus esse
prsefecturse tribuenda. Nihil certe aliud voluisse
Hesiodum ostendit doctissimus Heinslus in
eruditissimis suis ad Hesiodum prolegomeriis, quern
et Cumcei carminis nomine denotat imitaturque
Virgilius. Et tamen Virgilium tanquam sibi ofAo^/rjfftov ad suas partes
traxerunt primajvi Christl-ani. [
A good account of the Erythrsean
Sibyl, with a copy of her verses, will be found at the end
of Eusebius's " Constantini Oratio ad Sanctorum ccetum."
The verses of Virgil, with others, will also be found in
the same place as put into Greek by Eusebius, who thinks
that the Sibyl was really inspired. The more probable
opinion however 'is, that the substance of the whole of
these verses, &c., was borrowed from the Hebrew Scriptures.
Lactantius too, makes frequent citations from the Sibylline
oracles, some of which are obviously fragments of Scripture.
But, what is most important here is the fact, that, at this
particular period, the appearance of a remarkable personage
who should come out of Judaea to be Sovereign of the world,
and the Author of an entirely new state of things, was
generally entertained. This is an undoubted truth, and it is
an important one. Such person did appear: and such renewal
of the world did take place. This constitutes therefore, an
independent testimony to the truth of our conclusions, of no
mean character and value. There is another consideration of
much moment here: it is the cessation of the Heathen Oracles
throughout the world. Mr. Mede's Sermon on Jer. x. 11, has
some excellent remarks on this (p. 76, seq.); Eusebius too
declares (my Theophania, p. 135, and note,) that in the
times of Hadrian human sacrifice everywhere ceased. The
Oracular verses, cited by Mede, are very curious, and quite
of a piece with those of our Sibyl.] Inde intelligimus,"
adds Mr. Dodwell, " quam recte, et pro horum quoque dogmatum
tenore Chriatus Dominus, qui A.o'yos idem fuerit, etiam
ap-^aov ft,e'\\ovros altavos fuerit appellandus.
Intelligimus prasterea quam e gentilium pariter
principiis quibus assueverant primaevi Gkristiani e
gentlbus oriundi, pariter ac Judceorum de
Messia suo traditionibus, proni omnes fuerint ad
mundi finem jam jamque affuturam expectarent." — I do
not see very clearly, I must confess, how the converts from
the Gentiles could have expected the end of the world, upon
their belief in the recurrence of the golden age, and the
end of the Cumcei carminus eetas. Nor did the Jews
necessarily hold, that their j^n oVi'jjn world to come,
or o aiwv o /u.e\\a)v, should bring on with it
the dissolution of all things. It was the Christians, who,
not knowing how to separate the coming of Christ in the
clouds of heaven,
from the general judgment of the last
day, were the originators of this error.
We may pass over Sections xxii. xxiii.
xxiv., as affording nothing of moment to our inquiry, and
particularly as Mr. Dodwell throws his strength away in
endeavouring to remove the time of the End, according
to the New Testament, to some indefinitely distant period;
in order, as it should seem, to make it quadrate,—as the
early Christians did,—with the day of judgment. Let us now
see what he has collected for us on this subject from the
Fathers; we can then judge for ourselves as to its
application and value.
We have already noticed Tertullian's
account of the prayers of the Church for a delay of the
end. " Antichristum jam instare,'1'' scripsit de Fug.
in Persec. c. 12. This is enough for us .at present. " Jam
(§ xxv.) Cypriani tempore quampropinquum
crediderunt mundi finem....Antichristum et illi
instare credi-derunt. • Decium majorem metatorem
Antichristi appellat Lu-ciamts, metaphora a re
castrensi deducta.... De Galli perse-cutioneita ipse
Cyprianus: ' Illorumflenda...concisio, quossic diabolus
excaecat, ut aeternse gehennse supplicia non cogitantes,
Antichristi jam propinquantis adventum conentur imitari.1
Rursus ad Thilaritanos ita: ' Scire enim debetis, et
pro certo credere, ac tenere, pressurae diem super caput
esse coapisse, et occasum seculi atque Antichristi tempus
appropinquasse.'" And, as to the persecutions then going on
(ib.), " Nee quisquam miretur persecutionibus nos assiduis
fatigari, et pressuris urgentibus frequenter urgeri, quando
hsec futuri in nomssitnis temporibus Dominus ante
prsedixerit....Neque ali-quis ex vobis... futures
persecutionis metu, aut Antichristi imininentis adventu sic
terreatur, ut non...ad omnia inve-niatur armatus. Venit
Antichristus, sed et supervenit Chris-tus." Et ad Cornelium,
" Agnoscitne...quos Antichristus impugnet ?" After much to
the same effect, which I think it unnecessary to transcribe,
we have, " Adimplentur qusecunque prasdicta aunt, et appropinquante jam
seculi fine, hominum pariter ac temporum probatione
venerunt." [It
appears to have been generally held, that, whenever the
Antichrist should fall, all prophecy would be fulfilled:
but not a word have we of a restoration of the Jews! On this
point the Fathers will generally be consulted in vain,
except to deny it.]
';Eodem spectant," adds Dodwell (j
xxvi.), " et ilia, in libro de mortolitate quibus
pestilentiam ill am, helium, famem^ &c. e dictis
Domini S. Luc. xxi. novissimis temporibus, et regno Dei
jam proximo assignat. [The place alluded to is (p. 156,) "
Dominus... hortatu instruons, Ecclesise suse populum ad
omnem tolerantiam futurorum, bella, et fames, et terrse
motus, et pestilentias per loca singula exsurgere
prse-nunciavit, et docuit. Et ne inopinatus nos et novus
rerum instan-tium metus quateret, magis ac magis in
novissimis temporibus adversa crebescere ante prsemonuit.
fiunt," continues the Martyr, " ecce quce dicta sunt;
et quando fiunt quse ante prsedicta sunt, sequentur et
qusecunque promissa sunt, Domino ipso pollicente et dicente,
Cum autem videritis hcec omnia fieri, scitote quoniam in
proximo est regnum Dei." (Luc. xxi. 31.) Which, I
affirm, is an accurate application of this Scripture. See
p. 128 and 459, seq. below, and Dodwell's note on this
place: also ib. p. 162. To the same effect Tertullian (" De
Anima," p. 549.) " Onerosi sumus mundo, vix nobis elementa
sufflciunt. . . dum nos natura non sustinet. Revera lues, et
fames, et bella, et voragines civitatum pro remedio
deputanda, tanquam tonsura insolescentis generis humani: et
tamen cum ejusmodi secures maximam mortalium vim semel
ceedant." Which should shew, that even in his times, these
things had taken place to a very considerable extent.] Et de proximo futuris
persecutionibus ilia : ' Excedunt ecce in pace tutse cum
gloria sua virgines, venientis Antichrist! minas et
corruptelas et lupanaria non timentes.' Postea...'Antichristi
tempus in-festum appropinquare nunc ccepit," &c. Mr. Dodwell
adds, " Et quidem in primis persecutionibus id omnium
commune ut persecutors omnes pro Antichristis
haberentur," &o. And I say, rightly. Similar matter may be
added from the Fathers to some extent; which, however, would
add nothing important to our question.
Casting aside then, the notion about the
end of the world (in a physical sense), let us see how this
bears upon our question. There can be no doubt, I think,
that these Fathers believed their own times to be those
styled, "the times of the end"
[Nothing
is more common in these Fathers, than to speak of the times of the end, as
being those in which they lived: this is as much the cage
with those termed Apostolic, as with others. In these the
usage was good, and truly Apostolic: but as they had it not
in their power, from the nature of the case, to determine
the scriptural limit of these: and, as their successors had
not sagacity enough for the inquiry; this usage,—just as
among ourselves,—became destitute of meaning, and has
continued so to this very day! To what has been said below
(p. 99, seq.) as to this period, I will now add a place
(Heb. ix. 26,) which will be sufficient of itself to shew,
that the physical world could not be meant: viz. " Now
once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away
sin," &c. As this is opposed to " the foundation of
the world," it may be imagined that, an end
corresponding to this beginning, must be meant:—a canon not
to be relied on, as shewn above:—the fact of the case
however proves the contrary; as also does the establishment
of the New Covenant: the old one having passed away.] in Scripture. The
terras of our Lord's remarkable prediction alone, were
sufficient to fix this belief; for he had actually placed
the commencement of these within the generation then
existing, and the end of them to be, when the Gospel should
have been preached in all nations. The Apostacy too, which
he had foretold, and to which St. Paul alluded (2 Thess. ii.
3) had now taken place. The persecutions had begun
throughout the whole Roman Empire. Many of the Saints had
fallen. The times moreover to abound in wars, rumours of
wars, plagues, pestilences, famines, earthquakes, and the
like, had actually arrived. The Gospel had been preached
throughout the world, though it had not yet received the
support which the Divine mind intended. 'Still all was in
progress: all this these Fathers knew and believed. The full
end had not come in their times; and, be it observed, it was
out of their power to say when it should, as. shewn above.
All, therefore, that could be then known on this question,
they certainly knew, they believed, they taught; and upon the strength of
this, they went to prison and to death, with the greatest
alacrity, and indeed pleasure.
Dismissing therefore, every thing about
the Sabbatical Millennium as a mere Jewish figment,
every thing about the end of the world (in a physical
sense), and the general day of judgment; of the period of
which prophecy knows nothing : I conclude that the Church
was, in these early times, essentially in possession of the
truth .on this important question; and of this too, very
much as it is laid down in the following work. I have
therefore a right to conclude, that the ancient mode of
prophetical interpretation is here restored in the main, and
that both Mr. Mede and Dr. Todd have not only misunderstood
the Fathers on this subject, but they have endeavoured to
set up a system of interpretation, at once in its character
groundless, and in its results opposed to that adopted by
them. And I will affirm, that, whatever the plausibilities
may be, that have been, or may hereafter be, set forth by
ingenious men on this subject, there is no other system that
can be reasonably proposed for belief, or satisfactorily
maintained.
Having then so far considered the systems
of Mr. Mede, and Dr. Todd, it may be thought that something
should now be said on the question relating to the Jews, and
on the arguments usually advanced in favour of their
restoration, &c. My reply must be : Enough perhaps will be
found on both these points in our first Book on the
Covenants (pp. 1—132), if not to satisfy every inquirer,
certainly to shew that this subject has generally been very
imperfectly understood.
On the arguments usually advanced in
favour of a restoration of the Jews, something will be
found in the notes on a Sermon preached, some years ago by
the Bishop of London, before the Society for promoting
Christianity among the Jews (pp. 5—6,16, 23, 30, 33—34, 37,
39, 41—3, 86—7, 90, 97). I selected this Sermon, because it
has been often brought forward, as the most authoritative
and best written summary on this subject. If it be said that
the high station of the Bishop should have shielded him from
any searching inquiry on these matters, my answer must be,
This has appeared to me to constitute the strongest reason
for doing so. Station is apt to supply a power and
popularity to arguments, which they would otherwise never
possess ; and, as the arguments so advanced are
ill-grounded, and at the same time derogatory to the
character of Christianity, I deemed it my duty to meet them
in their strongest hold, and to expose their weakness when
recommended under the most commanding auspices. I have
certainly been greatly surprised, that the Bishop should
have thought of coming forward to advocate opinions, very
popular indeed, but which are so destitute of any foundation
in truth.
I may now advert to the darkening effect,
which this popular mode of interpretation has had upon the
Old Testament generally, and hence to a certain extent upon
the New. No one, I am sure, can look through the Tomes of
the Critici Sacri, the Synopsis of Poole, the
Scholia of the younger Rosenmuller, the publications
of Gesenius, Ewald, Hengstengberg, and even of the
enlightened Vitringa and others, without feeling that much
is involved in gloom impenetrable. Great ingenuity and
critical learning will indeed ever secure to their
possessors popularity at least: such were Bishops Lowth,
Horsley, Warburton, and Jebb ; the school of Ken-nicott
generally, in England, and of Mendelsohn in Germany. All
has been elegance, ingenuity, and some learning: but the
Theology of Scripture has been little regarded, and less
understood. The fashion of modern Germany is still worse:
the ingenuity put forth is great, the learning considerable
; but the Theology is heterodox, and heathenish ! With much
less learning and show, the early Christian writers came
much nearer to the intention of Holy Writ, and put forth
infinitely more of its spirit. The want of a knowledge of
the world had, indeed, often the effect of recommending to
them many plausible fancies which promised much, but gave
little: such were their attachments to monastic
institutions, ascetic exercises, excessive figurative
interpretations of Scripture, and much too great an
indulgence in the metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle.
Judaism had moreover its effects upon them, as shewn above;
as it certainly has had upon ourselves. I do hope and
trust, that all such things will, in future, be superseded
by those which shall make the study of the Bible more a work
of investigation than of conjecture, and the fruits of this
a much higher appreciation of its contents, and of the
system of faith which it so mercifully lays before us.
I have now merely to notice a work
published by me in 1830, [Six
Sermons on the Study of Holy Scripture, with two
Dissertations, and an Exposition of the Book of Revelation.
London, 1830.] giving an outline of the system
here proposed and carried out. My main object in this was to
suggest, whether the system, generally adopted by the
earlier Fathers of the Church, was not more consistent both
with the letter and spirit of Holy Scripture, more
conformable with the requirements of criticism, and with
the character of Christianity as taught by the Apostles and
believed among us, than that usually had recourse to. This
outline occupied a little more than 150 octavo pages; and it
was hoped, would be refuted as to principle, if it
were found to be wrong; for in this its sole peculiarity
consisted. On the question of its details it was not my
intention to contend with any one. In these, I freely
confessed that, in some instances, I felt nothing like
confidence. The truth is, the question was to me a new one;
and, on that account, I allowed I did not very clearly see
the whole of my way before me.
All however that has appeared on this work, has been confined to a few of its details;—and
here I thank Mr. Elliott, and all others who have offered
their opinions on these. Time had convinced me, that some of
them were incorrect. On the question of principle, however,
not a word has been said, as far as I know : although I
know, that some endeavours were made on this point, by
gentlemen quite equal to the task; and who were, by the
requirements of their office, called upon to do so. Yet, for
some reason or other, these proved fruitless. In the mean
time, I received from some on whose judgment I could rely,
the assurance that the principles advanced by me, deserved a
better trial than I had given them. I determined therefore
to continue my inquiries, which I accordingly did: and the
result has been, the Work now before the Public. In the
Dissertation (Part ii.), prefixed to my Theophania of
Eusebius, the period of the time of the end was
resumed and discussed ; but here, as before, I failed in
some particulars, while the conclusion was, in the main,
correct.
I have still by me in manuscript, this
inquiry prosecuted to a much greater length than it is here,
and involving a much larger number of particulars : but, as
I have deemed it best, first to investigate, and to publish,
what was most important on this question generally, I have
reserved these other particulars for publication (D.V.) at
some future period, should it appear desirable to do so.
This question is, as Dr. Todd has very truly remarked, in
its infancy. It seemed to me therefore, unwise now to
advance particulars, for which the public mind is not
prepared, and into which it can hardly be expected to enter,
until the grounds on which they stand, shall have been more
extensively investigated and adopted. My principles, I am
inclined to believe, are unassailable. To supply all the
necessary detail, must be the work of time. I have offered
that which has appeared to me sufficient for the present;
others will no doubt see further, be able to add much, and
to correct much. If however, I have succeeded in pointing
out the better way,— which I cannot help thinking is the
case,—then it will be my duty to thank God for having so far
assisted me; and shall trust, that the great result will
eventually be, the extension of His Kingdom, and the
advancement of His Glory.
Having therefore shewn, as I trust, the
necessity of some further effort for the solution of the
great problem of prophetical interpretation, and having
offered what I believe to be adequate to that end, I now
commit the whole to the consideration and judgment of an
impartial and generous Public.
BOOK 1
ON THE COVENANTS.
Chapter 1
Sect. 1.—General Remarks on the Nature of Revelation.
BEFORE we can enter on the interpretation of the Bible
with any prospect of success, it will be necessary to
consider some of its leading characteristics. Any book
indeed, coining down from ancient times, written in a
language that has long ceased to be vernacular, and
alluding to opinions and customs not now generally
entertained, will demand a similar investigation: and this,
I believe, is universally allowed. The reason is obvious;
without this there would be no reasonable hope of
understanding fairly, and fully, its contents. The Book now
before us has moreover, its own peculiarities, and these
constitute its chief excellencies. It claims to be a
Revelation from the Author of our nature, and to propound
fully and distinctly the knowledge and means of salvation
necessary to every soul of man, and without which it never
can attain to the happy immortality for which, even nature
suggests, it has been created; and at which, by the means
that this Revelation propounds, it can assure itself that it
shall finally arrive. These means it has developed under
various Dispensations, the nature of which will, of
necessity, greatly influence the principles to be applied in
its interpretation: of this we shall presently offer
abundant exemplification. We claim therefore, for the due
interpretation of this Book, nothing more than the nature of
the case requires, and nothing more than what is granted in
all similar cases; that is to say, a strict regard to its
own character, and to the modes of thinking and acting,
under which those who committed it to writing lived and
died.
The Dispensations then, under which these means of
salvation have been developed, are according to the Bible
three: that is, the modes under which religious belief and
worship have been conducted, have amounted to this number;—
religion itself remaining essentially the same under them
all. They have been termed the Patriarchal, the Mosaic, and
the Christian. The Patriarchal and Mosaic however, differed
not greatly, except in the number of their rites, and the
extent to which these were applicable: the former extending
to all mankind without reserve or limit; the latter, to the
descendants of Abraham only, and this generally within the
limits of Canaan. Both these exhibited in their various
services and ceremonies types and shadows of things to come.
The Mosaic indeed, added much to these, while it greatly
contracted the sphere of their application. These two
Dispensations therefore, so far resembling each other in
object, may for all practical purposes, and as far as we are
concerned, be considered as containing the essentials of
the First Covenant [By which I mean, the promise of a Redeemer given to our
first parents in the garden of Eden, Gen. iii. 15. The
covenant made with Noah, Abraham, and others afterwards,
was, in fact, a renewal of this with some additional
particulars]. and as such they have
generally been understood. The Christian Dispensation,
propounded in our Revelation as the last, and to which none
other shall succeed [The united testimony of the Prophets and Evangelists is,
that the kingdom of the Son of Man, i.e. Christianity, is
everlasting. In Dan. ii. 44, we are also told, that it, i.
e. the kingdom, shall not be left to any other people: i.e.
as successors to it.], may likewise be
styled with propriety, the Second, or New Covenant: and by
this name it is generally known.
Now any Book, claiming to be a Revelation from God, as
our Bible does, ought at the same time to bring with it
grounds sufficient to insure the belief of this: which
cannot be done among men, except by advancing proofs such as
mere man cannot; otherwise all may be deception and fraud:
it may be only the production of man, while it claims to
come from man's Creator; and hence may be made the means of
seconding the views—it may be—of the most artful and worst
of mankind, at the expense both of the lives and liberties
of others.
How then, could such proof be advanced in the first ages
of the world,—and to these the Bible carries us,—that the
document so put forth was of Divine authority ? The answer
is, This could be done only in one of the two following
ways: either by the immediate appearance of the Deity
Himself, or else by the performance of acts, to which men as
such are unequal. Nothing, I say, short of one or other of
these, could be satisfactory to reasonable beings in those
days. To men of succeeding times, the fulfilment of
predictions then made, and of which they could judge at all
times, could, in like manner, alone be satisfactory. No
other kind of evidence can be deemed sufficient in this
latter case. I now affirm,—and the following pages will
supply abundant proof of this,—that such evidence has been
afforded in the richest variety, and to an almost
incredible extent; and that this is so obvious and plain,
that he who runs may read it, and that he who reads cannot
but understand it. This point then, being established, the
authority of the Bible will be binding upon us : and this
again being done, our belief will be reasonably demanded on
those earlier revelations of the Almighty Himself which are
said to have been made, and also on those miraculous events
recorded as having taken place. But of many of these we also
have other evidence, as of the Deluge, the Call of Abraham,
the Deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, the Fall of
Jerusalem, the Dispersion of the Jews, the Destruction of
the Roman Empire, and the miraculous propagation of
Christianity.
It has been said that the two former Dispensations, known
generally under the name of the First Covenant, exhibited
typical rites and ceremonies, i. e. indicating or shadowing
out,—dramatically as it were—things to come. Under this
First Covenant a promise was made, even in the earliest
times, of a future Redeemer, who should be born in a
miraculous way, and should then overcome the tempter and
ruiner of mankind. The very peculiar manner in which this
promise is worded, must have been given for the purpose of
enabling us to know, whether any one making claim to this
were, or were not, the Person so promised. For this purpose
too, many other marks were given by the prophets, such as to
determine the time, place, circumstances, and consequences,
of his birth; and this again in such a manner as to make
deception quite impossible. But, under this First Covenant,
the very rites and ceremonies, as well as many other
particulars, presently to be noticed, were also made
declaratory, i. e. typically, of this great event, of its
privileges, and of its consequences. So that under this
First Covenant, we may be said to have had two distinct and
different sorts of enunciations or predictions of the same
things : the one in words, the other in rites and ceremonies
performed ; both of which should receive their fulfilment
when the great Antitype, attended by the particulars and
consequences so foretold, should have appeared.
The revelations so made under this First Covenant, must
have been visible, tangible, and, in other respects, such as
men could examine and pronounce upon, from the evidence of
their senses. And such they were : such was the deliverance
of Noah at the time of the Deluge; of the Israelites from
Egypt; of their sustenance during their forty years' sojourn
in the desert; the appearance of God on mount Sinai; the
passage of the Jordan under Joshua; and the conquering of
Canaan. Of these things, I say, men could see and judge; and
the testimony of the Bible is here that of those who lived
when they took place. Of many of those that happened under
the Mosaic Dispensation, profane history gives similar
testimony. We have therefore, in these cases, all that we
can reasonably require.
If then, under this First Covenant many of these
occurrences, as well as the rites and ceremonies, were
generally shadowy and typical, it will follow,—supposing
that the New Covenant, or Christian Dispensation, was
shadowed out by them;—and this we shall shew is the
case,—that the realities, tangible and visible, so
typifying or shadowing out others, not being the very things
[3 In St. Paul's words, not the very image of the things.
Heb. x. 1. The words seem to imply, a shadow as cast by an
image: the image, in such case, will be the reality, as
opposed to the shadow.] shadowed out, would necessarily
imply those of a different and, as it should seem, of a
superior character: and, according to the reasoning of the
Apostle Paul and of others his fellows, this was actually
the case. The visible and tangible system of the First
Covenant typified or shadowed forth, and so foretold,
others—as we shall presently see,—which should not be
visible or tangible to the senses, but by the apprehension
of faith. Spiritual things were here shadowed forth, and
these can only be spiritually discerned
[4 1 Cor. ii. 14.].
The system of evidence therefore, afforded by the real and
substantial character of these, would in " the fulness of
time," and when the New Covenant should be established, no
longer be wanted: it would have been continued through a
period long enough to make it binding, and then would be
superseded by another, claiming the entire faith of men in
all its appointments. To look therefore, for a system purely
spiritual under the First Covenant, would be to look for
that, which would neither suit the circumstances of those
times, nor could contribute satisfactorily to our
information now : as indeed every one must see. And in like
manner, to think of retaining any thing of the tangible and
visible elements of those times under the New Covenant,
which is purely and exclusively spiritual, cannot but evince
an utter disregard of its character
[5 And yet the Bishop of
London tells us, in his sermon preached before the Society
for the Conversion of the Jews (London, 1843. p. 8), that
even the Jews are yet to act some very important part
towards perfecting the Christian Church. His words are: "It
has been too customary with Christians to look upon the Jews
as a people who, having performed the part allotted to them,
have been laid aside... Their continued existence... has
been pointed out as a verification of the word of God." The
place here had in view is perhaps Lev. xxvi. 44, 45 : When
they shall be in the land of their enemies, I will not east
them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them
utterly, and to break my covenant with them... that / might
be their God. It is positively declared here, that God would
not utterly destroy them, so as to annul the covenant on His
part, which He had made with the fathers. This would have
been atoKy to have rejected them, so as not to have
left them the means of a return to mercy: a thing which St.
Paul positively denies (Rom. xi.), as we shall shew
hereafter. Their preservation therefore, has two objects
before it; one, the verifying of God's word, as to their
rejection and sufferings under this; another, His
faithfulness to the covenant on His part, and His mercy and
love for the sake of their fathers. In this case therefore,
they may return : but it is not hence to be inferred that
they certainly will. And if they return at all, it must be
to Christ: and then they will cease to be Jews ; they must
now receive the " new name" (Isa. txii. 2; lxv. 15) : and
again, this return and new name they can receive only
through the mercy of the Church (Rom. xi. 31). It is absurd
therefore, to imagine, that the Jews have been preserved,
in order that they might, as Jews, and as a nation, come
into the Church, and thence bring about some important
improvements in it. Besides, as a nation they are unknown to
holy Writ. See Hos. i. 9, and Rom. ix. 25, 26. When the
bishop tells us then, that " the Jews have still an
important part to act in the development of the Christian
Dispensation," I must be allowed to tell him, that he is
mistaking Christianity for Judaism; the requirements of the
New, for those of the Old, Covenant; and indeed acting over
again the very things which St. Paul has so strongly,
frequently, and justly, reprobated.
Jews, under their spiritual blindness, can be expected to
know and to do no better; while Christians, professing to
live under the new and spiritual system of the Apostles
doing so, must be altogether inexcusable.
If then this may be relied on, it will follow that we
must, in interpreting both the words, and signs, of
predictions given under the First Covenant, be careful to
bear in mind the exclusively spiritual nature of the things
so foretold. If, for example, the land of Canaan was given
to the Jews during " their generations'" only, and until the
fulness of time should come, when Abraham (the Father of
many nations) should become the spiritual " heir of the
world [Rom. iv. 13]," and his spiritual seed should
accordingly take possession of the heritage of the
heathen;—and the same is true of Circumcision, the
Priesthood, the Sabbaths, and every thing peculiar to the
Theocracy,—as we shall presently shew;—then can no
prediction made under the First Covenant, and mentioning by
name any one of these things, be so interpreted fairly under
the Second, as implying in any sense the shadowy system,
persons, rites, ceremonies, or places, then in being.
Abraham's [It is interesting to observe that, while the
Jews pertinaciously cling to the name of Abraham, they cast
behind their backs the great truth which it was intended
always to carry with it!] (not Abram's) seed are now that
spiritual seed which tread in the steps of the faith of
Abraham: circumcision is now, that of the heart: the true
scriptural Jew is now, the Jew who is one inwardly: the
inheritance of Abraham is now, not merely Canaan, but Canaan
absorbed in the inheritance of the whole world, of which
Abraham was the spiritual heir, and which must necessarily
now be possessed by his spiritual seed. The Jerusalem which
is above,—the spiritual Head and Temple of which is now
there,—is the mother of us all: while that which now is, and
is represented tangibly under Sinai in Arabia, and under the
system there delivered seeks to live, is in bondage with
her-children [Gal.
iv. 25, 26, seq.]: while believers of
that nation, in the days of the Apostle, assembled together
in the " Heavenly Jerusalem''—as far as that could be
known on earth— and in " the City of the Living God
[Heb.
xii. 22, seq.]," the Zion which He has declared He loves
more than all the dwellings of Jacob
[Ps. Lxxxvii. 2.].
Not indeed, that the earthly Jerusalem was then, or is now,
excluded. The first assemblies of our Zion met there, and
there received the consecration necessary to their calling;
which, in truth, sealed the new holy of Holies on earth
[Dan. ix. 24. Acts
ii. 2, seq.], i. e. the Church of the
Living God: that, I say, to which the Law, the Prophets, and
the Holy Ghost,—its invisible, but sensible, Shekinah,—give
their powerful and united testimony
[Heb. viii., ix., x.].
If then, the First Covenant has now passed away,—and this
inspired authority declares is the fact
[This consideration will
supply us with the best solution of the question, as to when
we are to interpret literally, or not; it involves the
necessary elements of this most important point, and will
never fail to shew us how we should act with reference to
the subject-matter before us. If Origen and his followers on
the one hand, and the Judaizers of all times on the other,
had duly attended to this, the confusion, which has so
greatly perplexed the Church, would hare never had an
existence.] and to this, as we shall
presently see, the nature of the case gives the most
abundant testimony;—then is Canaan no longer the peculiar
and exclusive country of the descendants of Abraham, who
must now be the spiritual seed: and, in this sense, they
succeed to the heritage of the Gentiles: of which they have
indeed long ago taken possession, as we shall shew
hereafter. No return from captivity therefore, foretold
under the Theocracy, and which did not take place within
its times, can possibly be now made to signify a return to
the Canaan of the Theocracy: no more than can a return " to
Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, and City of the Living God
[Heb. 1. c.],"
be supposed to imply a return to the services of the Jewish
Temple, to the Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage
with her children, or to any mere earthly locality
whatsoever. The thing is, on principle, at once absurd and
wrong: absurd, because it recurs to the times of a system
which have long ago passed away: wrong, because the mere
locality to which such return would be made, would be
adverse to the requirements of the New Covenant, and would
therefore be to a place of bondage, not of deliverance, for
this also is now exclusively spiritual: it is therefore only
to be had where the Law and the Prophets declare, with one
voice, it should be found, when the fulness of time should
have come, that is,—as we shall shew more particularly
hereafter,—when the Old Covenant should have wholly passed
away, and the New have been fully established.
Besides, Captivity can now be considered, under our
purely and, exclusively spiritual system, as spiritual only.
We can now know, for the same reasons, of no earthly
Babylon, Edom, Moab, or the like. Any Babylon, &c. so now
existing, and oppressing the spiritual seed of Abraham, can
only be viewed as spiritual. The whole world is now the
inheritance of Abraham's spiritual seed. In such case
therefore, Where, I ask, can be the place from which a
return can be made; place being now entirely out of the
question ? And, again, Who shall point out the locality and
place of return ? Canaan having long ago lost its exclusive
peculiarity in this respect. The Old Covenant must, to make
this necessary, be re-established either wholly, or in
part: which would be to Judaize to the same extent, and to
bring every one doing so, immediately under the anathema of
the Apostle Paul
[Gal. i. 8, 9. The last verse
of which limits this to the Gospel,— not as developed by
some hocus-pocus of Romish cunning, - but to that then
received by the Galatians.]. And once
more, The New Covenant knows of no exclusively favoured land
whatsoever. To claim any locality as a possession under it,
would be manifestly groundless: to claim any whatsoever
under that Covenant which has passed away, clearly foolish.
And once more, should even the land as given to the
Fathers, and as possessed by them, be named as the place of
such return; still, this would limit such prediction to
Canaan only, supposing it be confined to the times of the
Theocracy : but, supposing it to extend to the times of the
New Covenant, then—under its governing principle—must the
land given, signify that given to Abraham by the Covenant
properly termed "everlasting," and must include the
heritage of the heathen: the land so possessed, must be that
possessed by faith, which in them realized the substance of
things not seen. And this, we shall presently see, the terms
of prediction absolutely require.
Before, however, we can bring what has now been said to
this test of the revealed Word, we must offer a few more
considerations on its nature, and on the principles
necessary to its interpretation: we shall then be in a
situation to come to our proofs more fully and particularly.
We have seen then, that certain things foretold under the
elementary system of the First Covenant, and which should
come to pass under another of an entirely spiritual
character, must be regarded and interpreted as exclusively
belonging to it, and as partaking of its nature. We have now
to shew then, that it was also customary under this first
system, not merely to speak of things relating to the rites,
ceremonies, and the like, of that system, as shadowing out
others of a more spiritual one; but also of persons, things,
and even of events, as implying others likewise to take
place of an entirely spiritual nature. This usage, as to
speech only, prevails to some extent in all languages and
countries, and is termed Metaphor. It consists for the most
part, in applying language, naturally and primarily
expressive of things visible and tangible, to others having
some analogy with them, but which are of an abstract,
invisible, and untangible character. Without such usages
indeed, the appliances of language would be extremely
limited, and quite unsuitable to the purposes of life. This
every one must see. But it is not of this, carried out only
as far as necessity requires, that we now speak; it is of an
extraordinary extension of it, taken apparently from the
shadowy and typical system of the First Covenant, and
then applied to the common occurrences of life, or the acts,
or characters, of individuals, or of kingdoms, whether as
subjects of history, or of prophecy.
Under this usage, Zedekiah
[1 Kings xxii.]
made him horns of iron, and said to the king of Israel, "
with these shalt thou push the Syrians," tyc. Isaiah walked
naked and barefoot
[" Ch. xx. 3.], Ezekiel was made
to exhibit himself as carrying on a siege
[Ch. iv. 3.],
took a quantity of hair, and beat it about
with a knife [Ch.
v. 2.]; digged a hole through the
wall, and carried out his stuff as if going into captivity
[Ch. xii. 3. seq.].
So also Isaiah and his children were made signs to Israel
[Ch. viii. 18.];
their names, enunciations of future events, as in
Shear-Jashub, Mahershalalhashlaz
[Ch. vii. 3; viii. 1.],
and the like. Jeremiah bought a
portion of land in Anathoth
[Ch. xxxii. 7.]:
cast his girdle into the Euphrates
[Ch. xiii. 4.];
was sent to pull down, destroy, build, plant
[Ch. i. 10.],
&c.; where the declaration only, was made
equal to the events themselves, and all were made subjects
of prophecy.
As to Events which are the subjects of prophecy, both in
their primary and secondary acceptations. The predicted
fall of Babylon by Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others in
their times, and literally to take place, was intended also
to shadow out the fall of a mystical and spiritual Babylon
under the New Covenant, and can fully be understood under
no other view of it, even in the Prophets, as will be shewn
in its proper place. The same is true of the predictions of
the fall of Egypt, Idumea, Moab, Ammon, Philistia, Tyre,
Zidon, Damascus, Assyria, Gog, Magog, &c., as we shall also
shew hereafter; which, although real predictions, and as
such received a literal fulfilment, do nevertheless
mystically shadow out—as enemies of the true Church in their
several days—their entire fall also as its heathen enemies,
when God should make bare his My arm in the sight of all the
nations. And hence it is, that in the New Testament the fall
of these powers, as also that of Sodom and Gomorrah, is
made to describe that of the Antichrist and his fellows,
and even hell itself, as inflicting the vengeance of eternal
fire [Jude 7.]:
the judgment too foretold in Daniel to be inflicted on the
little horn, which should make war on the saints, that of
the final judgment of the great day, as we shall shew in its
place.
But it is not to places only that such declarations
apply: it is also to persons. The king of Babylon is in this
way made, in his assumption of Deity and claimed place among
the constellations [Isa. x;y. 13.], to shadow out the
Antichrist who should also make a similar claim, and should
fall in like manner, and by the same power. This has been
done as we shall shew hereafter, by Isaiah, Daniel,
Jeremiah, and others, in their predictions of the fall of
this king, or rather system of rule. The same is also done
with regard to the king of Egypt, Tyre, and others: and in
this way Jannes and Jambres opposing Moses, are made by St.
Paul to represent the opposers of the Apostles. The enemies
of the Israelites in the desert, particularly Amalek, Moab,
and Edom, should, it is said, fall, i. e. in a spiritual
sense, when He, who is foretold as the Star to come out of
Jacob, should appear, and smite all its corners, and destroy
the children of Sheth
[Num. xxiv. 17.]. And again, it is
in this way that Moses is, as a prophet, , leader, lawgiver,
and king [Dcut.
xviii. 15.], likened to Christ; so
also is Joshua, David, Solomon, Eliakim, Joshua the high
Priest [Zech. iii.],
and even Adam in some sense
[Rom. v. 14.].
In this way too, Jerusalem and Zion are, in their best days,
made to represent the Church under the New Covenant, as
Canaan also is the whole world, when it should have become
the spiritual heritage of Abraham's seed
[Ps. cv. 9—11].
In like manner also, the establishment of the Christian
Church, and the deliverance which it should afford to fallen
man, was to be "after the manner of Egypt
[Isa. x. 24,]:"
the Woman [Rev.
xii. 1], i.e. Zion, its spiritual
mother, to be delivered from the spiritual Egypt, and Sodom
[Rev. xi. 8.],
of its first days; that is, from the Jerusalem which then
was, and still is, in bondage with her children, and is its
enemy: she too escaped into the desert; was in like manner
there to be tried, and made white and clean: to be there
beset by the Edomites, Ishmaelites
[Ps. Lxxxiii. 6],
and others of those days, headed and
instigated by the great red Dragon, that old Serpent, the
Devil: there she was to sustain the warfare in much
suffering, much faith and patience: there to lengthen her
cords even to the extremities of the earth, to strengthen
her stakes, and to become more than a conqueror under the
powerful guidance, unceasing love, and favour of her
husband and spouse, who is, and ever shall be, the king op
kings, and lord of lords.
It would be endless to pursue this subject to the extent
of which it is capable: it shall suffice now to adduce a few
instances connected with it, happening in the usages of the
New Testament. " Lazarus is not dead, but sleepeth" said our
blessed Lord to His disciples: when they mistook His meaning
for that of taking rest in sleep
[John xi. 11.].
On another occasion he says, "Lift up your eyes, and loot;
on the fields; for they are white already to harvest." It is
added [John iv. 35,
36.], " And he that reapeth receiveth
wages, and gather eth fruit unto life eternal : that both
he that soweth, and he that reapeth, may rejoice together?
Where, let it be observed, the transition is most abruptly
made, and can be perceived only from a careful consideration
of the nature of the context: this is true in all such
cases, and therefore requires the greatest possible care in
the interpreter; and from the want of which, the greatest
confusion possible to be conceived has resulted.
In like manner
[Matt. ix. 37, 38.], " The harvest
truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few" our Lord
directing His followers, probably to what was then taking
place before their eyes. He adds, " Pray ye therefore the
Lord of the harvest, that he send forth labourers into his
harvest.'' (Comp. Isa. v. 1. seq. with Matth. xxi. 33, seq.)
So again, in the case of the Samaritan woman (John iv.
10, seq), "If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is
that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have
asked of Me, and he would have given thee living water" And
here, as it might be expected, the woman failed to catch his
meaning. She could see nothing beyond the tangible and
visible things before her, just as it is the case now with
the Jews, ignorant, — as indeed are all such,—of the Canon,
which alone could supply to his discourse its true and
proper interest; viz. (as v. 24), " God is a Spirit; and
they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in
truth.'''' She had no conception whatever of his meaning. A
similar case occurs a little lower down, viz. in verses
31—35.
Of this sort too is the place, " / am that tread of life.
Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man
may eat, and not die
[John vi. 4. seq.]." Here, be it
observed, the Jews, Romanists, and many others, seeing that
a natural death is intended in the first case, should
conclude that a natural death must also be meant in the
second; which would be manifestly absurd, and at variance
with the fact. The verse next preceding, is moreover
sufficient to determine the spiritual truth intended: but,
should this fail, verse 63, in which the principle
regulating the whole discourse is given, must set all right.
The principle which guides Jews, Romanists, and some
others, in such cases, is indeed a very plausible one; but
it is as false as it is plausible, and is never to be relied
upon. The context alone in all such cases will, if duly
considered, supply the sense intended.
Of this sort again, are all Parables: they put a case as
a fact, just as facts are put and taken in the instances
noticed above. From this some moral or spiritual inference
is then drawn, recommended, and urged, as in the remarkable
example, " Go, and do thou likewise
[Luke x. 37.]."
Parables also are occasionally made predictive, as in Isaiah
(v. 1), as compared with what is given by our blessed Lord
(Matth. xxi. 33): for it can be of little consequence in
what way a truth, prophetical or otherwise, be delivered,
provided the means used be clear and precise. The Fables of
Aesop, the Hitopadesa of the Hindoos with its various
versions, are all of this sort, except that they rise no
higher than moral lessons, and can make no pretence whatever
to prediction properly so called. All these several modes of
stating truths have these advantages, that they embody them
as it were, that is, they present them under visible and
tangible forms; hence they are readily comprehended, and
easily remembered. They are moreover, never put forth
without exciting, at the same time, all the interest
peculiar to valuable historical relation.
In all such instances, the case so put, or the event,
person, place, or circumstance so stated, prophetically or
otherwise, may be considered as the theme, or substratum, of
such discourse, and as introduced, not indeed to claim our
principal or main attention, but rather, to direct us to
some other thing, so intended to be taught and urged. The
predicted fall of Babylon was a circumstance of interest and
importance to the Jews, as it implied their deliverance from
that power. It likewise afforded an incontestible proof,
that the hand of God was to be so put forth. But the main
thing intended was, the intimation to believers of the fall
of the mystical Babylon, the source and mother of idolatry
and of sin; and, at the same time, of the establishment by
Divine Power of the Church of the New Covenant. In this way
it was, that the Prophets of those days ministered " not to
themselves, but unto us, the things which are reported unto
you by them that have preached the Gospel unto you with the
Holy Ghost sent down from heaven" (1 Pet. i. 12.) The same
may be said of the fall of Egypt, Assyria, Moab, Amman,
Idumea, and other places. The main thing intended was, the
Divine institution of the Christian Church: and of this, the
actual and literal fall of these Powers and Places, was
given as a voucher. So likewise, in the fall of the king of
Babylon, assuming as he did the attributes of Deity, and
prefiguring in these respects the Antichrist, the main and
principal thing intended was, the power of Christ to be put
forth in the fulness of time for his destruction: where, as
before, these facts subserve the purpose of evidence for the
confirmation of our faith, while faith itself is more
particularly exerted and enjoyed, in dwelling on the Power,
the Faithfulness, the Love, the Mercy, and Grace of the
Saviour, so revealed, and made available to all believers.
In like manner too, the Jerusalem and Zion of old,
established, defended, supported, made to triumph, by the
immediate power of God during its times, serves to assure
us, as evidence, that none but the Almighty could have been
its founder and king; while the glories and consummate grace
of the universal and never-ending empire of the New
Jerusalem, and Zion, under the Son of Man, was intended to
be the great object put forth; the unspeakably glorious
consummation, under which Jew and Gentile, Barbarian,
Scythian, bond and free, should be made the sons and
daughters of the Lord Almighty; the waste howling wilderness
of the world, then filled with the habitations of cruelty,
should not only be made to blossom as the rose, but also
thus to represent—as far as this could be done,—an
inheritance, and mansions, even in the heaven of heavens,
such as ear had not heard of, nor eye seen, neither hath it
entered into the heart of man to conceive; of an immortality
as glorious as it should be enduring, and as happy and
blessed as it should be glorious and eternal
[Hence those highly
spiritual descriptions of the Church, as given in the
Psalms, Prophets, and in the book of the Revelation in
particular, afford to us the only intimations of the state
of glorified spirits in heaven, of which we can have any
adequate conception. The Christian Church, considered in the
abstract, is hence termed "The kingdom of heaven" and often
" heaven itself," in the New Testament; because it is the
beginning of that glorious state: and, because, when carried
out to its highest point, affords a full assurance of hope,
that it shall be consummated there; of which indeed the
imperfect nature of man is incapable here.]
Sect. 2.—On the purely religious nature of Revelation,
and its necessary requirements of real religion in those
professing to receive it. Prophecy and its necessary
character and requirements.
The same considerations may also be extended to other
things contained in our Revelation or Covenants : for,
inasmuch as their objects are purely religious, i. e. the
inculcation of true Spiritual religion, the events of its
history, whether of creation, time, persons, or place, are
in truth but subordinate to others of far greater moment,
and of infinitely greater extent and value: namely, the
means of salvation as thus afforded to every soul of man,
through the amazing condescension, humiliation, suffering,
and triumphs of the Redeemer. This is the one thing needful
to all : all can understand it: all stand equally in need of
it; and all are capable of being made partakers of its
riches and its glories. The things subordinate to this, and
on which it is necessarily suspended, are valuable, nay
indeed absolutely necessary, as affording the information
that our God is the world's Creator and its Governour, and
that He is also our Redeemer
[John i. 1.],
our Elder Brother, Prophet, Priest, and King. The knowledge
of the former here, subserves the purposes of faith as to
the latter, and affords a ground, visible and firm as
creation itself, on which this faith can stand. But then, as
to the knowledge of this only—like all other mere
knowledge—the head only will be informed, the heart not
improved : it will carry a man to the New Jerusalem, but it
will neither admit him there, nor give him the garment white
and clean, which alone can make him an acceptable guest at
the supper there prepared. The same may be said of its
chronology, topography, its Canaan
[It is worthy of the
remark,—particularly as opinions must in ancient times have
greatly influenced language,—that the Hebrew knows of no
such expression as holy land, holy city, &c., because
things, places, and the like, could not, by a people
abhorring idolatry, be called holy. Hence, land of holiness,
city of holiness, $c. are the usages adopted by them: and
this necessarily implied the presence of holiness, either
in God, or His peculiar people, But take these away, —as it
is the case with everything Jewish,—and Jerusalem is no city
of holiness: Canaan, no land of holiness. It is a gross
misnomer therefore, to style Jerusalem the holy city now, as
it is Canaan the holy land, in any exclusive sense: and in
no other are they so called. It is equally erroneous to
consider the Jews a holy people, the holy people, or the
like: both because Isaiah has plainly declared, as also has
Saint Peter, that another is the holy people; and because
Divine authority has also affirmed that they have ceased to
be a people. How the Bishop of London could then, in his
Sermon (p. 9), as cited above, say that the Jews should as a
nation, " be principal agents in its (i. e. Christianity's)
closing, as they were in its opening scenes," let the candid
reader judge.], its theocratical rites
and ceremonies, the miracles attending these; the Jews its
once favoured people, and all its other shadowy
circumstances and particulars. Everything, going no farther
than its letter, constitutes not its great object: while
everything connected with this has also its use, and that
such as cannot be dispensed with. To talk now therefore, of
Jews, or of the land once known as that of holiness
[45 See p. 16, note.],
as if connected in any way with the essentials of the New
Covenant, and as if this were to be influenced, in any
degree, by things never rising in their best times higher
than things subordinate, is to mistake the instruments for
the things to be effected by their use; the shadows for the
substance; the times, persons, and things, of an elementary
dispensation, for those to which they were intended to lead
as schoolmasters, and as ministering servants only.
When therefore, we say that predictions,—whether given by
symbols, as in the sacrifices and the like of the Theocracy;
or in parables, as noticed above,—may be taken as
foretelling certain events, adumbrating under these
mystically certain moral or spiritual truths; we do not
inculcate a double, triple, &c. interpretation of prophecy,
in the true sense of those terms: and by which is usually
meant, that any prediction may at one time receive a partial
fulfilment; at another, another; and, at last, its complete
literal one [See
Bishop Horsley's Sermons, passim,].
For if events as such, are thus to be dealt with, it will be
impossible for any one to say, before the final day of
judgment, at what time any event whatsoever has received its
last and complete fulfilment: which, to my apprehension, is
to make prophecy,— the more sure word in the days of St.
Peter [2 Ep. i.
19.],—the most unsure one that can be
imagined; and virtually to commit all prophecy to the fancy
of every individual interpreter; and hence again,—as the
fact has proved,—to render prophecy a thing rather to be
dreaded than loved; to be avoided than had recourse to in
any case.
To come more particularly then, to the consideration of
Prophecy, as to its several bearings. Prophecy, properly so
called, must be precise: it must mean some one Event or
Thing, of which its reader can seize, and of which it must
be in his power to obtain the assurance, that he is not
mistaken: Isaiah, for example, foretells the fall of
Babylon, and so does Jeremiah. Believers living at that time
must, I say, have seen and felt, that the Event so foretold,
would at some future time come to pass. The same may be said
of the fall of Egypt, Assyria, Idumea, and other places so
denounced. And the fact is, all these events did once take
place. It was in like manner foretold, that our Lord should
be born in Bethlehem; should be of the house and lineage of
David, and this, at the time when the sceptre should depart
from Judaea. And again, that at a certain period He should
be cut off; that after this, the people of the Prince who
should come, should destroy the Temple and the Sanctuary;
and finally, that this Prince,—here kingly Rule—and people,
should themselves, as Desolators in this case, also fall
[Dan. ix. 27. See
the margin.]. Now, I say, all this has
once taken place to the very letter: the Events had in view
have been completely fulfilled: and, I will affirm, they
never will, and never can, be fulfilled again. This is, in
the nature of things, impossible, and it is wholly repugnant
to the word of prophecy. But if the system, under which
these predictions were made, was itself typical and shadowy,
and had the property of pointing to another which should be
considered as its antitype, or fulfilment in a mystical
sense that is, as to the things spiritually had in view
under it; then the fall of a mystical Babylon would be no
second fulfilment of the predictions made, as to the first
and literal one: it would be the first, and only, fulfilment
of the thing thus mystically intended; and which may, in
that acceptation, be considered as a distinct and different
prediction, having, indeed, an analogy with the first; but
no more constituting the same thing, than the sacrifice of
Christ did, the sacrifices which typified it. We have only
that which is necessary in such a case, viz. the type
looking onward to its antitype.
In Prophecy however, improperly so called (that is,
preaching [And
hence preaching is occasionally styled prophesying in the
New Testament. Rom, xii. 6, &c.]), the
case is wholly different: for here, the declarations made,
sometimes perhaps involving predictions, are of general and
perpetual application. "All the wicked shall be turned into
hell, and all the people that forget God
[Ps. ix. 17.]"
is at once a doctrine and a prediction of this sort. " We
shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ
[Rom. xiv. 10.]"
is another, equally general in its applications, but limited
in the Event had in view, which can take place but once. But
the Event here, is not sufficient to bring this declaration
under the denomination of prophecy, properly so called. As a
prediction, indeed, we are taught of its occurring only
once : but of the period, or of any thing indirectly bearing
on this,—as usually given in the case of real Prophecy—we
have not so much as a syllable in Revelation. This is
therefore, more properly doctrine.
It is incumbent on us then, as Interpreters of the terms
of our Covenants, carefully to bear these things in mind, as
elements of primary importance: otherwise we shall be apt—
as many have been, and still are—occasionally to substitute
doctrine for prophecy, and prophecy for doctrine; and
indeed, so to mix these up together, as not only to perplex
ourselves, but all others with whom we may have to do; not
to insist on the consideration, that the Bible so confused
and obscured, may be made subservient to any, and every,
purpose that interpreters may wish; and hence again, in the
estimation of the many, be wholly deprived of its authority,
if not made an object for ridicule and contempt.
We have seen, that the great object of our Revelation is
to inculcate true spiritual religion
[It is greatly to travel
out of the record here to imagine, as some have done, that
the Bible was intended to teach the sciences, physical or
otherwise, chronology, political economy, the mere
destinies of the Jews, or the political events of the world
to the period of its dissolution, or even any thing whatever
of this dissolution. Its business, and its only business,
is, to inculcate true religion: much valuable information as
to history, chronology, and some other things, may indeed be
collected from it; but then, these have been given in
subordination to its other greater objects.].
Its encouragements are therefore, necessarily held out to
those only, who receive and apply it as such; its
denunciations, made against those who do otherwise. And in
all this, its primary object is, to infuse good principles:
its ultimate one, to insure virtuous practice. And here
again, it admits of nothing short of an entire reception,
and faithful carrying out, of these. In its precepts it
extends to the thoughts and intents of the heart: and then
demands an entire devotion, attachment, and obedience to
them all: affirming at the same time, that man has fallen
from original righteousness, and that in his natural state
he knows not, either what he himself is in the sight of his
Maker, or his Maker is with respect to him, and as
sustaining the character of Judge both of the quick and the
dead. And here, what man cannot, from his ignorance and
weakness, do for himself, it graciously promises, and
actually presents, the means of his effectually bringing
about. It provides therefore, not only instruction, but
power; not merely morality in its highest degree, and its
most vigorous exercise ; but also a faith, such as will
enable its recipient to overcome the world, and a hope that
is full of immortality: and these, again, even to the extent
of a full assurance.
In principle therefore, the system proposed is complete
and perfect. As such it necessarily describes itself, its
provisions, and powers: keeping these distinct—as it ought
to do—from the very imperfect character of those on whom it
is intended to act. If, indeed, we could suppose a perfect
state of society to exist,—a thing necessarily unknown among
men, and which nothing short of compulsion on the part of
God could make them;—then would the description of the
Church be an exact counterpart of that of professing
Christians, and the saints on earth would fully exhibit the
character of those in heaven. But this is a consummation
rather to be aimed at, than expected: for, considering what
man is, perfection is unattainable; still, the higher the
measure of his requirements is fixed, the higher the
character of his calling is raised; the greater must be his
efforts, and the more earnestly the divine aid sought, for
the attainment of its great and inestimable ends. To
estimate Christianity, therefore, as some do, by the
general character of individuals professing it, is to
reason in a wrong direction; it is to view the object from
the wrong end of the perspective, and then to pronounce that
small, inconsiderable, and unequal to the end for which it
has been given, which we have had the misfortune to
misunderstand and misapply: but which, when rightly viewed
and applied, is found to possess at once both the magnitude,
and the power, to which it has laid claim.
This being the state of the case then, as to the
character of our Revelation and its appointments, it will
follow, that some would be found in every age so far beneath
its requirements, as to be altogether aliens to the
privileges which it proposes to confer: others, on the
contrary, such as to receive, and fully to enjoy them. And
hence it is, that we find one family only in the Patriarchal
times—that of Noah in his days; that of Abraham, in his
[It is a pleasing
consideration however, that, even in these times, God had
not left himself without witness in the world, but that a
true spiritual Church always existed. It is evident, I
think,—in opposition to the commonly received opinion,—that,
neither was Abraham, nor were indeed some of his lineal
predecessors, ever involved in the sin of idolatry. The
contrary opinion has resulted in a mistaken view of Josh.
xxiv. 2, where the versions generally have, "Your fathers
dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah
the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor; and they
served other gods." Now, Who are meant when it is said, they
served other gods? I answer, neither the language here
used, nor the circumstances of the case, require us to
believe, that Terah, Abraham, &c. are meant. For I., the
verb, they served, Heb. !fQJ^, cannot be referred to Terah
as the nominative: and the other names are not in a
situation to act as nominatives. And ii., if the preceding,
"your fathers," is to be so taken; then, Terah, &c. will not
be necessarily included with these as idolaters: but in.,
it is not necessary to take any terms found here for the
nominative at all. Nothing is more common in the Hebrew
Bible, than to take such constructions as this impersonally,
or rather, as indefinitely referring to persons implied in
the context: e. g. Gen. xv. IS...Thy seed shall be a
stranger in a land...not theirs, and shall serve them; and
they shall afflict them, &c. Now the " they" here, must
mean the inabitants of such land; and accordingly, the first
and second " them" must signify different people. The
context here sufficiently determines this. And as " the
land" here supplies a nominative, in its inhabitants
understood, to the verb, " they shall afflict;" so also
does, "the other side of the flood" in Joshua, in its
inhabitants so understood. Of these it is then said, " they
served other gods:" Terah therefore, is not the nominative
here, nor necessarily is " Your fathers." And this, I say,
the circumstances of the case absolutely require. For i.,
there is no reason whatever for supposing that Abram's
call,—and in which Terah and Lot, concurred,—is to be
understood as implying his conversion from idolatry. St.
Paul speaks of it certainly, as a proof of the strength of
his faith; and this implies a previous conversion. The same
may be said of both Terah and Lot. Again, n. The family of
Bethuel, from whom Abraham obtained a wife for his son, were
clearly true believers (Gen. xxiv. xxviii.) Nor, hence, was
Laban an idolater,—his gods, or Teraphim, might have been
nothing more than statues of his ancestry, but which in the
house of a heathen, would be worshipped as gods; for
heathenism had no gods beyond deified ancestors. So David
had Teraphim in his house (1 Sam. xix. 13). Again, in. Job,
and his friends, as far as we can ascertain their
genealogies, were all true believers. Most of these were of
the family of which Terah was (see my Introduction to the
Book of Job); and, what is most remarkable, they speak of
their ancestry, up to the very times of Adam, as all being
of the true faith. And iv. Shem, in whose tents God promised
that He would dwell, (Gen. ix. 27,) must have lived till
within a few years of the death of Abraham: and was, in all
probability, Melchisedeek—as head of the family of the
faithful,— who met and blessed him. There never could have
been therefore, a period, from the flood to the times of
Abraham, in which true religion was not preserved.]
—at all in a situation to be partakers in
these blessings. When we come down to those of the
Theocracy, the same also is generally the case. It is the
few, and the few only—often termed a Remnant—who are
considered the true seed, and children of God; and to these
accordingly, are the promises exclusively and universally
given [54 Under the
New Testament the same is, on principle, necessarily the
case, and to this allusion is made (John x. 4, &c.) '''When
He putteth forth His own sheep, He goeth before them, and
the sheep follow Him : for they know His voice." Much the
same is meant by theologians, when they speak of the
Invisible Church.]: while the
multitude is denounced as " Rulers of Sodom, People of
Gomorrah," and the like. The whole nation of the Jews was
indeed, considered and called holy in a general sense: that
is, as generally chosen and admitted to certain privileges;
but the fact is, a few only were found willing to accept,
and faithfully to apply these : and the consequence was, the
nation, so characterized, was continually upbraided with its
disobedience; and for this it was finally cast out.
The same has been the case under the New Covenant. Paul
styles all the Corinthian converts (1 Cor. i. 2) saints, and
speaks of them as separated from the world, and gathered
into the Church. This was their general character: but then,
there were among them those, who were guilty of practices
unknown even among the heathen, and were therefore such, as
should justly be delivered up to Satan: that is, be
denounced as under his influence
[See my Letter to Dr.
Pusey On the Keys, p. 65 seq.], and
consigned to his condemnation, unless they should repent
and. do the first works. The same is of necessity the case
still; and, according to the predictions of the prophets,
as explained by St. John in the Revelation, for ever shall
be, even within the territories of the New Jerusalem; many
may be within its literal inheritance, but few be partakers
of its spiritual privileges.
Sect. 3.—On the means provided under the first Covenant,
for the establishment of the last.
But to come more particularly to the Theocracy, and the
means by which it became merged in the Church of the New
Covenant. The nature of the case then, would seem to
require,—under the guidance and control of an all-wise,
faithful, and powerful God
[The Bishop of London
however, speaking of the mysterious providence of God in his
dealings with the unbelieving Jews, talks as if the
judgments under which they are deservedly suffering for
their sins, were eventually intended to bring about some
hitherto unseen state of glory in the Church. " His
providence" (p. 6.) "may mysteriously interrupt the course
of events which seems to be leading to their fulfilment, but
it is only to render that fulfilment more conspicuous and
complete." This is certainly a most extraordinary passage.
Surely, if His providence interrupts such course, that
providence must be right, and the course seeming to lead to
the fulfilment of some events be a figment. But the truth
is, this is not a subject for Christians to dilate upon,
except only as God's revealed Will shall enable them: and
this Will has plainly declared, that unbelieving Jews are
under the curse, and are not the objects of promise: which
indeed S. Paul has affirmed too plainly to be misunderstood,
as will be shewn hereafter. Of the imagined restoration of
the Jews to Palestine,—the events here had in view probably
by the Bishop,—more presently.],—that
those who constituted the true seed and holy family under
the first of these, would primarily be those also who should
under the second; and this we shall find was the case. First
then, as to God's peculiar people under the Theocracy. The
scriptural distinction ever is, " Between him who serveth
God, and him who serveth him not" (Mal. iii. 18). It must be
evident therefore, from the nature of the case, that, in any
covenant delivered by God to man as an accountable being, by
means of which salvation was to be obtained, conditions,
such as man could and should comply with, would be laid
down: and in the case of his refusal to obey these, he would
fail to obtain the salvation so proposed. Now it is evident
from the terms of the first Covenant, that, upon obedience
to its conditions alone, all the privileges both temporal
and spiritual of the Theocracy were to be expected and
enjoyed: and, also that upon the contrary, all such
privileges would be withholden; and that those, before whom
these had been placed, would cease to be the objects of
God's favour. From the nature of the case therefore, from
the terms of this Covenant, and from the events which have
happened to the Jews, not only was all this likely to take
place, but it positively has taken place. Let us now see how
all this stands in the declarations of the Law and the
Prophets.
The first place we shall consider occurs in Dent, xxxii.,
where we have a brief, but very strong prophetical, outline
of the character and fate of the Jewish nation. And first,
as to the disobedient portion of it (ver. 5): " They have
corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his
children: they are a perverse and crooked generation.'' We
then have a recital of the favours conferred on them
generally, as chosen to be the people of God (6—15). "But"
it is added, " Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked" &c. In verse
21, the calling in of the Gentiles, "to move them to
jealousy" is brought before us (comp. Rom. x. 19, Sec.), as
noticed by St. Paul. We then have (ver. 22) the fire
predicted which should " burn to the lowest hell, consume
the earth (land ?), and set on fire the foundations of the
mountains [This is
the first place in which this destruction by fire is
mentioned : we shall hereafter find it frequently repeated
in similar terms; which some hare imprudently imagined
foretells a conflagration of the physical world. Hence, no
doubt, the notions of the Stoics, that the world should be
destroyed by fire.] " Not, be it
observed, so to consume the physical world, and set on fire
the foundations of its mountains,—which is perhaps
impossible,—but to destroy that disobedient people by fire,
sword, pestilence, and famine, and to scatter them
throughout the whole earth, as the following verses
expressly tell us (25—27).
Here again (ver. 31, seq.), Moses makes the necessary
distinction between those who should then serve God, and who
should not serve him. " Their rock," says he, " is not as
our Rock;"..." their mne is of the vine of Sodom''' (so John
"Sodom, where our Lord was crucified;" and so Isaiah, as
cited above); while that of which I (i. e. Moses), and those
who are really God's children and bear His mark are, is that
true vine of Sorek, of which God Himself is the husbandman,
and the Man Christ Jesus is the spiritual representative.
Again, (ver. 36), " For the lord shall judge His people"
(i.e. those who are truly his) "and repent himself for His
(true) servants, when He seeth that their power is gone" (i.
e. that they are under the tyranny of their sinful and
oppressing brethren, as a poor and afflicted people), " and
it is not, (i. e. their power has ceased, and they are) shut
up and forsaken, and one shall say, Where is their God
[This place has
been misunderstood, from the circumstance that no
distinction has been made between those who served God, and
those who served him not. Heb. DSW T r6tiO3. That the hand
(i. e. power) hath departed, and is not. It is under these
circumstances that" the lord shall judge His people, and
repent Himself for His (true) "servants" (v. 37.) And one
(not "He") "shall say" (i.e. their enemies generally)
"where is their God, the rock in whom they trusted?" (Comp.
Ps. xliii. 3, 10; ixxix. 10 ; cxv. 2, &c., where, of
necessity, the true Church is suffering oppression from its
heathenish enemies.) The Translators, not understanding the
place, have given, "where are their gods?" &c.]
Then follows a denunciation of the judgments
to fall upon both wicked Jew and Gentile, i. e. from the
beginning of these judgments, even to their end. It is added
(ver. 43), foreseeing the calling and gathering in of the
Gentiles : " Rejoice, 0 ye nations, with His (i. e. true)
people: for He will avenge the Hood of His (i. e. true)
servants," (which the Prophets, with St. John, reecho again
and again), " and will render vengeance to His adversaries,
and will le merciful unto His land, and to His people." That
is, as before, He will heap mischiefs upon the disobedient
Jews [And let it be
observed here once for all, that, as prophecy has denounced
the unbelieving Jews generally, e. g. " God shall slay thee"
(i. e. pronounce thee spiritually dead), " and call His
servants by another name" (Is. lxv. 15); prophecy cannot,
in direct opposition to this, also foretell their
restoration, as life from the dead. Prophecy,— to use a
familiar expression,—cannot blow hot and cold out of the
same mouth. It is the word of that God, with whom there is
neither variableness nor shadow of turning, and whose gifts
and callings are without repentance. Denunciations of this
sort are very numerous in the Old Testament, and they have,
alas! taken abundant effect. Still, the word of Doctrine has
not been rendered ineffectual by this. If they will return,
then will the Lord their God return to them: this the
writers of both Testaments dwell upon perpetually, as we
shall see abundantly hereafter.],
while to His people, now joined together with the nations,
He mil shew mercy: and not to them only, but to their land:
which must of necessity now comprehend the heritage of the
Gentiles; for this was given to Abraham by Covenant; and
here, the establishment of that Covenant must have been had
in view by Moses.
We have before us therefore, the line distinctly and
strongly drawn, even from the very first, between the true
and the false Jews ; and the promises directly and
exclusively given to the former, while threats and judgments
fearful in the extreme are dealt out against the latter: and
this, as we shall find, is constantly and consistently done
by all the sacred writers. It would be endless to point out
all the places. I will supply a few of the most remarkable.
Isaiah, chap. i. 2, seq. " / have nourished and brought
up children, and they have rebelled against me
[To an attentive reader,
the Psalms will be found to present innumerable instances
of this sort: e. g. Ps. i. 1. seq. "Blessed is the man" &c.
(v. 4.) " The ungodly are not so," &c. On Ps. ii. 1. seq.
See Acts iv. 25—28. Ps. iii... ."How are they increased that
trouble me" (i. e. Christ, and His poor but faithful
people). In ver. 7, we have a prediction, as in Deut. above,
of God's avenging these. Ps. iv. 3, " The lord hath set
apart him that is godly for Himself:" i. e. He has made this
distinction: and, that these were but few, and as a remnant,
is obvious from (v. 6), "There be many that say" &c. i. e.
the multitude, (for by this term the reprobates are
designated in the Prophets), " Who will shew us any good?"
The same is discernible in perhaps every Psalm: and in many
of these, where the times of the New Covenant are had in
view, this chosen party are those termed by Sts. Paul and
Peter, " the Election" and " Elect," as we shall see
presently.]." And so on down to verse
8, foretelling their destruction. We then have the better
party noticed thus : " The daughter of Zion is left as a
cottage (lit. a tent), as a lodge (rather a lodging) in a
garden of cucumbers, as a besieged" (rather, a preserved
[Heb. n"VCEJ- I*
will be seen, after a little inquiry, that " besieged" is
perhaps never the sense of this word.])
" city," Which is explained by " Except the lord of hosts
had left us a very small remnant, we should have been as
Sodom" (i. e. all destroyed), "we should have been like
unto Gomorrah'1'' (i. e. entirely overthrown). The heads of
the Jewish nation are then addressed as " the Rulers of
Sodom," and the people generally as those " of Gomorrah."
(That is, perfectly in the spirit of Moses, and the
Apocalypse, ch. xi. 8.) Whence it should seem, that this
real and true Israel was a very small and uninfluential
party. It is added nevertheless, and with the foresight just
now noticed of Moses (ver. 26), " / will restore thy judges
as at the first,...afterward thou" (now a mere tent, and
temporary lodging) " shalt be called" (i. e. shalt be) " the
City of righteousness, the faithful City" " Zion," the
Prophet adds, " shall be redeemed with judgment, and her
converts" (i. e. both of Jews and Gentiles) " with
righteousness. And the destruction of the transgressors and
of the sinners shall be together, and they that forsake the
Lord shall be consumed." That is as by fire, just as Moses
had also foretold, keeping up strongly the same figure and
distinction.
We shall likewise find this distinction kept up, as we
proceed, and often connected with the coming of the
Messiah. It was then to become visible in its effects,
namely, in the glories to be realized by this remnant or
better party, and in the judgments to be inflicted on their
enemies, the worse. In Isaiah ch. iv. 2, it is accordingly
said : " In that day (necessarily the day of Christ) shall
the branch of the. lord be beautiful and glorious, and the
fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them
that are escaped of Israel." Now, if judgments, dreadful in
the extreme, were to be poured out on the wicked, and from
which they should not escape,—and this is particularly
foretold of the rebellious Jews ; then must the " escaped "
here mean the better party, to which all the promises
extended, and as spoken of above in the terms of " a
preserved city:" and this is the case.
Our blessed Lord Himself moreover, warning His disciples
of the very judgments so to be poured out soon after His
decease, counselled them to escape to the mountains
[ Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib.
m.c. v. Where we are told that Believers, being admonished
from above, left Jerusalem for Pella before the war broke
out. The remark of Eusebius on this is valuable, as bearing
on the matter of our note p. 16: viz. [GREEK] Ita et regia urbe, quse totius gentis caput
est, et universa Judsea vlris sanctis destitute, &c. i. e.
its holy people having left it, it was no longer holy in the
estimation of God, but a place for His vengeance, which was
accordingly poured out upon it.]: and
the fact is, they did so escape, and that not one of them
suffered in the fall of Jerusalem. In Chapter Lxvi. 19, of
the same Prophet, we are also expressly told, that the work
of calling in the Gentiles to " rejoice with God's people"
should be effected by the persons so designated. " And I
will set a sign among them" (i. e. both Jews and Gentiles,
Matth. xxiv. 3, 1C), "and I will send those that escape of
them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw
the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that
have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory ; and
they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles. And they
shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the Lord
out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in
litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy
mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord, as the children of
Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of
the Lord," &c. We have here therefore, of necessity, the
Apostles of our blessed Lord sent forth as the escaped from
the judgments of Jerusalem,—then a spiritual Sodom,—and
going far and wide on the great errand of mercy proposed in
the New Covenant, and for the purpose of blessing the
nations in the promised seed of Abraham. And we shall
presently see, that the Apostle Paul has identified
himself, and the believers of his day, with this party.
It is to be observed here moreover, that some are to be
brought as the brethren of this holy party, for an offering
upon horses, mules, chariots, and the like, to God's holy
mountain Jerusalem. Now, it may be asked, Did the Apostles
or their coadjutors, or Could they, bring all these out of
all nations upon horses, and the like, to the Jerusalem of
Judaism ? It does not any where appear that they ever
entertained any such notion, nor could they with any
propriety : no; the Jerusalem to which these should come,
was to be a new Jerusalem, situate in a new earth, both of
which should be created for this very purpose: and so our
Prophet expressly tells us (chap. lxv. 17, 18): "Behold, I
create new heavens, and a new earth" (i. e. not physically,
but morally and religiously, new): "and the former" (i e.
heaven and earth) "shall not be remembered...But be ye
glad" (i.e. this holy party or remnant) " and rejoice for
ever in that which I create; for behold, I create" (my true)
" Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy." And so again
(chap. Lxvi. 22): "For as the new heavens and the new earth,
which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord,
so shall your seed" (i. e. of the spiritual family then in
Jewry) " and your name remain"
Let us now see how St. Paul deals with this question,
with regard to the converted Jews of his day, men
necessarily interested in this question (Hebr. xii. 22).
Contrasting the character of the New, with that of the Old
Covenant, he says, " But ye are come unto mount Sion, and
unto the City of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem"
Sec. And (Gal. iv. 25), "Jerusalem which now is,...is in
bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is
free, which is the mother of us all." This Jerusalem or Zion
moreover, to which all nations were to flow, was, according
to Isaiah (ch. ii. 2), to be established in the top of the
mountains (i. e. of many mountains), and to be " exalted
above the hills" This could not be, therefore, either
confined to the earthly Canaan, or be the Jerusalem which
then was ; but should be within that new earth of which
Abraham was, by covenant, made the spiritual heir (Rom. iv.
13), and which his spiritual seed should possess throughout
the heritage of the Gentiles. This new Jerusalem, or
Mountain of the Lord's house moreover, this Zion and City of
the living God, was to be so created and established on the
tops of many mountains, that all nations might flow to it:
but this could not take place within the limits of Canaan:
nor did the Apostles of our Lord ever say, either directly
or indirectly, that it should; on the contrary, they taught
that in Christ Jesus there was no difference: Jew, Gentile, Bond and Free, being all (as) one; and that in every nation
those who truly served God were accepted
[Col. iii. 11; Acts x. 35.
But the Bishop of London (Serm. p. 12) has found a place
which foretells the restoration of the Jews, and also of
Jerusalem to its imperial state : " and this," continues he,
" by the concurrent testimony of Prophet and Apostle, is
connected with their acknowledgment, as a nation, of Jesus
Christ, as their promised Messiah." The places cited here
are Zech. xii. 10, and Rom. xi. 25. As to the first: Are we
to understand by " the house of David," and "the inhabitants
of Jerusalem," those properly so called, i. e. in a
spiritual sense, or those who are not so ? For it is
certain, that two such parties were continually had in view
by the Prophets. We shall presently see, that Ezekiel
designates the better party by the title of "all the house
of Israel wholly" to the exclusion of the other. The nature
of the case, too, makes it impossible, that both these can
be addressed ^indiscriminately. In dealing with the promises
and threats of God in His word, we must "discern between the
righteous and the wicked; between him who serveth God, and
him who serveth Him not." But we hare promise here, not
threats. "Righteous judgment" therefore, requires that it
be applied to the holy party. And accordingly, verse 8 here
tells us that this "house of David shall be, in that day,
the angel of God." And (ver. 14), this party is
designated by the terms, "all the families that remain"
([HEBREW]. lit., who have become a Remnant) : which is
perfectly equivalent to the Remnant of the Prophets, and
the apostle Paul. And, once more, the terms " in that day,"
as already cited, must of necessity refer to the same
period, that they do in the beginning of the next chapter
(xiii.) : "In that day there shall be a, fountain opened to
the House of David" (i. e. to the Believers, for none else
would approach it), " and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem"
(here necessarily the same party), "for sin and for
uncleanness." Which must mean the fountain opened by the
shedding of the blood of Christ. And this, the 7th verse
here proves beyond all doubt: "Awake, 0 sword, &c." It is
added, "/ will turn my hands upon the little ones :" i. e.
here, of necessity, the same house of David, termed "feeble"
(ver. 8. ch. xii). This holy party is again (xiii. 8, 9)
made "the third part'' which should be saved, and become
God's people" (i. e. which He foreknew): while the other
two-thirds should be cut off, and die. The period and people
therefore, here had in view, must be those of the Apostles
of our Blessed Lord, and of their converts who then received
Christ as their Messiah. And this period has long ago
passed, leaving Jerusalem trodden down of the Gentiles, not
restored to imperial power and dignity. The Bishop is here
therefore, manifestly wrong. That he is equally so on Rom.
xi. 25, his other citation, will presently appear.].
Let us now examine a few more places in Isaiah, in which
mention is made of this holy Remnant or party. We have, then
(ch. x. 20, seq.), " It shall come to pass in that day, that
the remnant of Israel, and such as are escaped of the house
of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them"
(i. e. the Assyrian); " but shall stay upon the loud, the
Holy One of Israel, in truth.''' It is added, " The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the
mighty god. For though thy people Israel be as the sand of
the sea, a remnant" (i. e. only)" of them shall return : the
consumption?" (i. e. consummation) "decreed" (i.e. in this)
"shall overthrow with righteousness.''' Where, be it
observed, by the escaped, and the remnant, must be meant the
same party; and these were to stay themselves upon the holy
One of Israel in truth. It must also be clear, that by that
day must be meant the period in which this should come to
pass ; and this, we shall see, can be no other than that of
the Apostles. The fate of the multitude, or unholy party, is
plainly foretold in the beginning of this Chapter.
Now, "the mighty God" to whom it is here said the remnant
and the escaped of Israel should return, can be no other
than the person so named (i. e. liSJl 7N ch. ix. 6, seq.), where He is also styled The Father of an age, or
dispensation [See
my Heb. Lex. under ;jtf.], a Wonder,
Counsellor, and the Prince of Peace, as promised in the
birth of the Child there mentioned, and of whom, as we are
further told, "of the increase of his government and
peace, upon the throne of David, there should be no end
henceforth and even for ever." " The mighty God," here
spoken of, must necessarily be the Person there so named :
and the same must also be the Person who should sit upon
David's throne, even for ever: and he must as necessarily be
the Messiah, or Child, also promised to Mary by the Angel
Gabriel. (Luke i. 32, seq.) His words are: " He shall be
great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the
Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David:
and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of
His kingdom there shall be no end." It is impossible to
doubt here, I say, that the Prophet and the Angel have the
same Child in view, and that He should be the Messiah, the
Mighty God, and the Prince of Peace. And if this is certain,
it also is, that to Him should the remnant, and the escaped
of Jacob, at "that day" return. This, I say, must be
inevitable, if any reliance can be placed on language. This
foretells therefore, no return of Jews to Canaan; and of no
return but this, have we any prediction whatever.
If we now turn to the New Testament, we shall find this
very place of Isaiah interpreted by St. Paul, in exact
conformity with what has now been said. " Esaias" says he
(Rom. ix. 27, seq.), " also crieth concerning Israel, Though
the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the
sea, a remnant shall be saved: for He will finish the work"
(i. e. consummate it), "and cut it short in
righteousness."..." And as Esaias said before, Except the
Lord of Sabaoth had left ^ls a seed, we had been as Sodoma,
and been made like unto Gomorrha."
Now, How does the Apostle apply this (ver. 23, ib.) ? "
And that He" (God) " might make known'' (i. e. by the
Scriptures of the Prophets) " the riches of His glory on
the vessels of mercy" (i.e. those whom He had foretold
should be such), " which He had afore prepared unto glory"
(i. e. had said by the same Prophets that they should be
so). He adds, " Even us, whom He hath called, not of the
Jews only" (for of them only could this remnant come, and of
them the Apostles were), " but also of the Gentiles." He
then cites Hosea to shew that it had been foretold of the
Gentiles, that God would "call them His people" (i.e. make
them really so) " which were not (once) a people; and her
beloved, which was (then) not beloved." That is, he would
call and save those of the Jews, whom Isaiah names a
remnant, and likewise those of the Nations, who had
hitherto been aliens. And Paul speaks of these as being, in
his days, both called and saved. The Remnant had therefore,
now actually returned to " the. Mighty God, the Prince of
Peace:" and numbers out of the nations had become a
constituent part of that Zion, whom God Himself had now
established in conformity with the requirements of the
everlasting Covenant made with Abraham. It will also follow
from this place, that the days of the Apostles, must be
identical with "that day" cited above from Isaiah (ch. x.
20, seq.): but more on this presently.
But the Apostle does not forget to remind us of the
other, and sinful party of the Jews, which may, as we have
seen, properly be termed " the multitude,''' in opposition
to that termed " a very small remnant:" for indeed the
multitude refused to accept this call, as it had been
foretold they would. Paul's words are (v. 31) : "But Israel"
(i. e. generally) " which followed after the law of
righteousness, hath not attained to the law of
righteousness. Wherefore ? Because they sought it not by
faith, but as it were by the works of the law.'1'1 (Comp.
ch. x. 10, seq.) That is, by imagining that a mere outward
obedience to the things commanded, was all that could be
required. They washed cups and platters; they kept the
sabbaths ; they paid tithe scrupulously ; and they
circumcised as the letter of the commandment required; but
the hidden man of the heart remained unclean: no
circumcision reached it
[Acts vii. 61.];
their sabbaths too afforded them nothing beyond a cessation
from secular labour; the repose and rest of the spirit, its
acquiescence and peace in the faith of an atoning Redeemer,
they never sought, felt, or enjoyed: and, while they tithed
their mint and cummin, they utterly disregarded the
weightier matters of their law, justice, mercy, and faith ;
as indeed their own historian Josephus most abundantly
testifies [Jewish
War, Book v. et passim.].
There is another place also in the writings of St. Paul,
which bears very fully on this subject. The words are (ch.
xi. 1, seq.): " / say then, Hath God cast away His people?
[The Bishop of
London (in his Sermon) so far misunderstands this place, as
to apply it to the unbelieving Jews of our times; the very
class whom St. Paul in this chapter marks as directly
opposed to God's people, and as branches broken of, people
blind, fatten, and cast away! Is not this marvellous ? Paul
makes himself hero ore of the people so foreknown, and one
of that Remnant so frequently spoken of in the Old
Testament, as those who should make God known among the
Gentiles; and hence they are styled the Election, the Elect,
and the like, obtaining that which Israel generally did not.
And yet the Bishop casts all this to the winds, as matter of
no moment! " The supposition," says he, " of their entire
and final rejection .. . was too dreadful for him (Paul) to
contemplate with patience." He then cites this verse. I
might ask, Are the Jews generally here meant? or only a
portion of them, usually termed the Remnant (see ver. 5
here) ? Surely, no one can for a moment doubt, that the
Remnant only is here had in view; or, that if the Bishop had
given himself the trouble to consider the context, he would
have seen this. But, when he says (ib. p. 6), "He foresaw,"
i.e. St. Paul, "the seeming abrogation of that Covenant
which had yet been declared again and again to be an
everlasting covenant," &c., he says that which is
groundless; for, neither was the covenant, here had in view,
everlasting in the sense intended by him, nor has it ever
been said that it was so by any sacred writer whatsoever!
But more on this presently.]
God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of
Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin:" virtually affirming that
God, as a God of faithfulness and truth, could never cast
away those who were really His. The question will now be,
Who were these ? Some of the seed of Abraham are cast off,
others are not. Who then are both these I The answer is too
plain to be misunderstood, viz. " God hath not cast away His
people which ke foreknew" (i. e. has in prediction
acknowledged as His. Comp. Ps. xciv. 14). " Wot ye not"
continues St. Paul, "what the Scripture saith of Elias? how
he maketh intercession against Israel" (i. e. generally), "
saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets,...and I am left
alone, and they seek my life." " But what saith the answer
of God to him f It is this : " / have reserved
[We have notices of this
holy portion of Israel in the following places: Luke i. 6.
Speaking of Zacharias and his wife Elizabeth, They were both
righteous," &c. Comp. verr. 13, 17. " to make ready a
people prepared for the Lord," i. e. as it would seem,
really waiting for him. So of Mary (ver. 28), Thou art
highly favoured, the Lord is with thee. (Comp. ver. 41, 42,
45). In ver. 67, Zacharias is filled with the Holy Ghost,
and prophesies. In ch. ii. 25, Simeon is said to have been
"just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel; and
the Holy Ghost was upon him." Ib. ver. 36, 37. "Anna, a
prophetess, departed not from the temple, but served God
with fastings and prayers night and day." " She," it is
added,..." spake of him" (i. e. the infant Jesus) " to all
them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem." Whence it
would seem, that there was a considerable number of such
there. Of this party too, was Joseph of Arimathea, Mark xv.
43; John xix. 38: as was Nicodemus, John iii. 1; xix. 39 :
but both these were secretly so. Again, Acts i. 15 gives 120
of such assembled with the Apostles in an upper room; and
again, Acts ii. 5, " there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews,
devout men, out of every nation under heaven" i. e. of " the
dispersed of Israel and Judah." And upon this occasion,
3000 souls were added to the Church by Peter's preaching to
them. Surely many of these must have been before "prepared
of the Lord:" which will perhaps be the best comment on ver.
47, here. Again, Ch. iv. 4. gives the number of 5000 so
saved. And, on the other hand, ver. 5. seq. affords a good
specimen of the "Rulers of Sodom and people of Gomorrah,"
reprobated in the times of Isaiah, ch. i. 10, &c]
to myself seven thousand men" (i. e. an
indefinite number), "who have not bowed the knee to the
image of Baal." There was therefore, in the days of Elijah,
just as in those of Moses and Isaiah, a remnant, an
invisible Church, unknown even to Elijah, but constituting
God's true Zion, and holy family. The Apostle adds, " Even
so then at this present time also there is a remnant
according to the election of grace; and, if by grace, then
it is no more of works," Sec.; as it had been vainly
supposed and sought by the Jews generally.
St. Paul moreover, makes himself here (ver. 1) one of
this remnant and people, whom God had so foreknown (i. e.
foretold) and preserved, as he also does of the seed of
Abraham : and hence he styles himself,—what indeed he was,—"
an Israelite," in the proper sense of that term. A little
lower down too (ver. 7), he contrasts the party of which he
was one, both as a true Israelite, and as of the remnant to
be saved and which he terms the Election, with that other
rejected party, whom he declares were blind, just as it had
been foretold they would be. " What then ?" says he, "
Israel" (i. e. generally) " hath not obtained that which he
seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest
were blinded" (i. c. foretold as such), (according as it is
written, " God hath given them" (i.e. ascribed to them
[69 In all such
expressions as these, e. g. " The lord hath put a, lying
spirit in the mouth of all...thy prophets," (1 Kings xxii.
23). "God hardened the heart," "closed the eyes," "has
deceived" and the like, are to be understood, as implying
nothing more than the ascribing of these properties to any
given people, person, &c. See my Heb. Gram. Art. 154, 8:
157, 6 ; and Heb. Lex. under JJ10, QW, JTBJ-])
" the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and
ears that they should not hear, unto this day."" We have
also the places quoted, in which these predictions are
found. We are next reminded of the fact, that they had
actually stumbled and fallen (vv. 11, 12), though not beyond
recovery; that they had been now cast away (ver. 15), and
broken off, from the true stock (ver. 17), as abominable
branches [Comp. Isa. xviii. 5,. seq.; xxvii. 10,11. Jer. xi. 16.].
All of which had likewise been made matter of prediction. We
have
here then as events fulfilled, the holy
remnant, or Election, of which this Apostle and his
associates formed the one part, and those who had been
called in from among the Gentiles, the other: and these,
forming one true and spiritual Zion, Jerusalem, and City of
the Living God, as opposed to that other sinful party " the
multitude," who sought salvation in an unacceptable way, and
were therefore now a fallen and castaway race ; branches
broken off from the true vine; and therefore, aliens to the
covenant of promise, and to the commonwealth of Israel, in
the true acceptation of these terms.
The Apostle asks, however (ver. 11), " Have they stumbled
that they should fall? God forbid,'''' He declares
nevertheless, in this very verse, that they had now fallen.
His words are : " but rather through their fall salvation is
come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them" (i. e. the
Jews) " to jealousy." This latter member too, has respect
to prediction [Deut. xxxii. 21.]. How then is this to
be understood ? I answer, from the nature of the following
context, which goes to shew that, although the Jews had
fallen from grace, and lost its privileges, still they had
not so far fallen, as to be utterly ineligible to these in
future. But this rested on the condition, that they acceded
to its terms. We have here therefore, no finally and fatally
predestinated fall, in the Calvinistic sense of those terms.
Prophecy had indeed foretold it, but had foretold it as a
fact, and as a consequence of a deliberate choice of the
ways of sin in the Jews. This foretelling had nothing to do
with their conduct, so as to remove their responsibility:
their obduracy had indeed been foreseen, and the legitimate
end of this foretold: but then, this involved no fatality in
the case, either as to their conduct at that time, or as to
that of times to come: and the same is necessarily true of
the whole of this argument and context.
But, to put this matter out of all reasonable doubt, St.
Paul adds (ib. ver. 23, seq.) : " And they also, 'if they
abide not in unbelief, shall be graffed in" (i. e. again be
inserted in the true stock of Israel). We now have a
succession of parentheses, all bearing upon the previous
reasoning of the Apostle, as to the grafting in, and the
possibility of the casting out again, of the Gentiles;
shewing as plainly as words can shew, that we have nothing
here at all allied to Calvinistic predestination. Each of
these parentheses commences in our authorized version with
" For:" and then at the end of these comes the conclusion
(or airo^oais) to the words given above: " And so (lit. and
thus, in this way, [GREEK] ; that is, " if they abide
not in unbelief," but receive the Gospel, then) " all Israel
shall be saved [72 The
Bishop of London, however (Sermon, p. 8), comes to this
consummation in a very different way. His words are: " In
the fifteenth verse of this chapter, he," i. e. Paul, "
speaks of the rejection of the Jews as temporary: If the,
casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what
shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead ?" I
must confess I can find no such thing said here: i.e. that
the rejection of the Jews is temporary. Paul argues indeed,
that their return is not impossible, and that " if they
abide not in unbelief they shall be grafed in again:" but
this is a very different thing from saying, that their
rejection is temporary. If then, they abide not in unbelief,
the Church will receive them: but this involves a condition;
it is no prophecy ; for prophecy knows of no condition.
And, if the Church should so receive them—they having
obtained mercy at its hands (Ib. ver. 3l)—to whom would life
from the dead now accrue? To the Church, or to the converted
Jews? It has been thought by many, that, because " the
reconciling of the world," occurs in the first member here,
the world so reconciled must likewise be meant. I remark: No
reliance can be placed on reasoning of this sort. It might
equally well be argued from John vi. 58, that, any one
eating the bread of which our Lord there speaks, could never
die a natural death, because the preceding member requires
this : which however, would be absurd. The Church is not
therefore, necessarily meant here. Nor can it be, from the
nature of the case. It was already " complete" in Christ
Jesus (Col. ii. 10). Its ministrations were conducted under
the guidance and power of the Holy Ghost. Could then the
accession of myriads—it may be—of Jews, add in any way to
the power or excellency of this ? It might administer great
joy to it, and much strength as a Church. It had already
received the Holy Remnant; they were its first
master-builders, and its firstfruits to God and the Lamb.
Can the influx now of those, who have remained without for
ages, confer some great spiritual benefit on this Zion,
which these master-builders have not, and could not?
Impossible, surely. But to the Jews themselves, as returning
prodigals, life from the dead would really and truly be
administered. And this is, most likely, what the Apostle
intended.]: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the
Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob." But
the place quoted (Isa. lix. 20) stands thus: "The Redeemer
shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from
transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord." That is, The
Redeemer shall surely come to them, who shall constitute the
converts of the true Zion among the Jews
[Isa. i. 27.];
to that remnant which should turn to the mighty God; and, by
implication, to as many also as should ever after turn from
transgression in Jacob. The declaration here (viz. " There
shall come," &c.) is Prophecy properly so called, and it has
been literally fulfilled: and which, mystically applied, may
be fulfilled again and again, even to the end of time. The
Jews are not here therefore, fatally excluded from the
covenants of promise : faith will again reinstate them, i.
e. upon the condition that they receive it. They have not
therefore, either so stumbled or fallen, as to be
irrecoverably lost. The gates of our spiritual Jerusalem
and Zion are ever open
[Rev. xxi. 25.];
and the Election gathered in long ago, from both the Jews
and Gentiles, are ready to receive them, and to impart to
them those spiritual provisions, of which they alone have
been made both the Preservers and Ministers (ib. v. 31).
If it be said,—as it is indeed by some,—that the
conclusion just noticed (ver. 26), is really a prophecy in
the strict sense of that term; and that reference is made
not to verse 23 above, as I have said, but to ver. 25
immediately preceding it; I answer, we shall now therefore,
have, "Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall
be saved."
We have now to infer then, by virtue of the particle "
until,'''' that, when the fulness of the Gentiles shall have
come in, then shall all Israel be saved: and, we are to take
it for granted, that such fulness has not yet come in. Let
us for a moment allow this latter point, and then ask the
question, Can we reasonably rely on the supposition, that by
this particle (until), something future to take place must
have been implied! If so, the same must be the case in all
such places. It is said of Abraham (Gen. xxviii. 15): "
Behold, I am with thee...for I will not leave thee, until I
have done that which I have spoken to thee of." I ask, Are
we to infer from this, that when God should have done that
of which he had spoken to the Patriarch, he would leave him
? Again (Isa. xxii. 14), " This iniquity shall not be
purged from you till ye die, saith the Lord of hosts." Will
this imply, that " this iniquity" should be purged away from
the Jews after they should have died ? If it does, then have
we as good a support for the doctrine of purgatory here, as
any sophist can desire. The truth is however, on no such
inference, drawn from the use of this particle, can one
moment's reliance be placed, as every one but moderately
acquainted with holy Writ must know: and this Jerome has shewn long ago. Instances do occur, I very willingly allow,
in which such inference may be made; but then, the context,
and the general analogy of the Bible, must not be against
it; which is manifestly not the case here : it being
certain, as we shall shew hereafter, that the period
assigned by prophecy for the coming in of the Gentiles, has
long ago passed away
[See on Dan. ix. 26, 27, below. Yet we find the Bishop of
London saying upon the place (Luke xxi. 24), " Jerusalem
shall be trodden down ... until the times of the Gentiles be
fulfilled," &c. "from which words it is a necessary
inference, that when the times of the Gentiles shall be
fulfilled, Jerusalem shall cease to be trodden down, and
shall be restored to her ancient state. As the city of
Jerusalem was trodden down, so the city of Jerusalem shall
be built up." I remark, One would hardly have expected from
the use of so small a word as " until," consequences so
truly great as these. No prudent Divine would, perhaps, have
ventured to prophesy of such events as these from the mere
occurrence of a particle! The truth however, is, the
Bishop's prediction here, rests on the most hollow grounds
imaginable. I have no hesitation in pronouncing it utterly
groundless a proof will be given hereafter.].
It is too much therefore, to deduce from the use of this
vocable an event of prophecy, when the whole positive voice
of prophecy is clearly to the contrary: and this, we shall
presently shew, is the fact.
There is nevertheless, a very important consideration
connected here with the term " until" [GREEK] : this vocable has its importance, and this is such as ought not to
be passed over. It had been foretold positively, that the
Jews should at some time be rejected; and this when the
Gentiles should. This is given in the language of prophecy
properly so called. It was also foretold in the same
prophetic language, that Christ's kingdom among the
Gentiles should never end, but should be as the days of
heaven, and as the sun, moon, and faithful witness in heaven
(the rainbow), ever before God. These terms will of
necessity, admit of no limitation, short of that of the
existence of the present state of things : they imply the
continuance of a state then to be set up, and to continue.
Shall the Jews then, continue to be rejected, in the
Scriptural sense and extent of these terms, and Jerusalem be
trodden down for ever in this abstract sense ? Or in some
other, had in view by both the Evangelist and Apostle, in
the term "until" ? I answer, In some other, and that marked
by Daniel and others, as the period, during which the
Gentiles should be so called in: and this, as we shall see
hereafter, must close of necessity at the end of Daniel's
seventieth week, when kings and their queens should become
the nursing fathers and nursing mothers of the Church. To
this point, and no farther, as we shall see, does prophecy properly so called extend; and, until this should have
arrived, it was the intention of the Apostle to inculcate
here, that blindness in part should attach itself to Israel.
But, how far beyond this it should continue, Prophecy is
altogether silent. And once more, If prophecy properly so
called, has no such limiting period as this; then, of
necessity, must the Jews be, or ever excluded by virtue of
the predictions just now cited; and, in the language of the
Psalmist, their backs must always, and for ever, be bowed
down. (See Ps. Ixix. 22—29; cix. 8—21, &c.) This must also
suffice for the Bishop of London's appeal, noticed above, to
Rom. xi. 25.
We have here therefore, no prophecy: we
have nothing more than argument in the words of St. Paul. We
clearly have a condition laid down, and the consequence of
complying with
it declared, viz. " And they", i. e. " if" Israel
generally, " abide not in unbelief, (then) so, thus, or in
this way, all Israel shall be saved,"..." for there shall
come out of Zion the Deliverer, unto them that turn from
transgression in Jacob." It is added, in order to shew that
we have no exception here from God's constant dealings with
the Jews, and, that all this is in strict accordance with
the terms of the Covenant; " For this is my covenant unto
them, when I shall take away their sins;" namely, that they
abide not in unbelief, but, on the contrary, that they
believe and repent. To this fully respond all the Law and
the Prophets. The Law (Lev. xxvi. 40, seq.) : " if they
shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their
fathers...and that I have brought them into the land of
their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be
humbled... Then will 1 remember my covenant with Jacob,"
Sic. And again (Deut. xxx. 1, seq.) : " It shall come to
pass, when all these things" (i. e. so predicted) " are come
upon thee,...and thou shalt call them to mind among all the
nations whither the lord thy God hath driven thee, and shalt
return unto the lord thy God, and shalt obey his voice
according to all that I command thee" (i.e. as doctrine)
"this day,...with all thine heart, and with all thy soul;
that then the lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have
compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from
all the nations whither the lord thy God hath scattered
thee," &c. And again, that no fallacious use may be made of
the vocable " when" here, it is added (v. 10), " if thou
shalt hearken unto the voice of the lord thy God, to keep
his commandments and his statutes...and if thou turn unto
the lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy
soul" &c. Now, that all this is not Prophecy, but Doctrine,
it, must surely be too plain to admit of doubt.
[The Bishop of London says
however, on this subject, (p. 7. Sermon,) " It is obvious
that while the curses have been fulfilled to the very
letter, in the fortunes of that wonderful people, the
blessings can hardly be said to have received their full
accomplishment." The Bishop here refers us to Deut. xxviii.
and the two following chapters. Now, let it be asked, Have
we prophecies, properly so called, in any one of these
places, with regard to this point ? or, Have we doctrines
only? Let the Header judge, Deut. xxviii. 1. "If thou shalt
hearken diligently, &c. the lord thy God -will set thee on
high above all nations of the earth : and all these
blessings shall come on thee," &c. i. e. " if thou shalt
diligently hearken, &c." But they have not diligently
hearkened; they have done directly the reverse of this. The
curses following have therefore, justly fallen upon them to
the very letter. This is what the doctrine so delivered
requires. And, part ratione, when they shall have diligently
hearkened, &c. then, and in like manner, will the blessings
come on them also to the very letter: but with this
difference; When they do this, then will they cease to be
Jews. They will now have embraced the New Covenant; and
under this, there is no difference, the Jew, Greek,
Barbarian, &c. are all one people, in the Scriptural sense
of that term; and the blessings to he received will be
spiritual, and far greater and more enduring than Canaan
could ever give, even to the very letter. All the other
places referred to by the Bishop are equally unpropitious to
his theory. But the strangest and most inconsiderate of all,
is this (ib.): " The thread of their," i. e. the Jews', "
destiny is interwoven with the history of the world, from
the moment when it first fell under the captivity of sin;"
i.e. of course, in the garden of Eden. I should be glad to
know where his Lordship finds any thing about the " thread
of Jewish destiny" in these times ? that is, nearly two
thousand years before the calling of Abraham: The Bishop
also favours us with some other very curious matter in the
said Sermon, (pp. 12, 13), which I shall now notice. "
Whether the conversion of the Jewish people... shall
precede, or follow, their restoration to the inheritance of
Abraham and his seed, is not, I think, distinctly foretold
in Holy Scripture." I remark, " the inheritance of
Abraham," as given by the everlasting covenant, is that of
the whole heathen. To this the Jewish people can succeed
only, "if they abide not in unbelief." Canaan is out of the
question now. They must be converted therefore, before any
restoration can take place; and the New Covenant, which is
everlasting, knows of none to Canaan. This must suffice on
this point. The Bishop next speaks of the Gentiles having "
dominion over God's ancient people," and holding "
Jerusalem in bondage." My remark is here : The Jews are now
" no people," in the scriptural sense of that term. The
Covenant under which they profess to live, has long ago
passed away. Nor do the Gentiles hold Jerusalem in bondage:
it is Satan who does this: and this bondage is sin. The
Bishop next tells us, that " two things appear to be plainly
revealed in Scripture; that the Jews, towards the close of
the Christian dispensation, are to be brought as a people
into the Church of Christ; and that they are to be
reinstated in... their ancient patrimony.'' I answer, that
none of these things is either plainly, or obscurely,
revealed in Holy Writ; but directly the contrary : 1st, That
the Jews shall never be reinstated, either converted, or
otherwise, in the land of Canaan. 2ndly, That the Christian
dispensation shall never close. Of all which abundant proof
will be found in these pages. The truth is, the Bishop has
wholly lost sight of the nature of the great Covenant made
with Abraham, and established in Christ; as he also has of
the everlasting requirements of this Covenant, viz. a
spiritual, not a merely national, people. The consequence
is, this Sermon exhibits one of the most singular instances
of Judaizing, that Christian Bishop ever wrote, preached, or
published! I have now done with it, and should not have
noticed it for its own sake. The authority of its author is
the only consideration that gives it any importance.]
As to the Prophets, their continued expostulations with
the Jews of their day; their threats, their promises, their
rebukes, all tend to the same point. "Turn ye, turn
ye,...for why will ye, die, O house of Israel
[Ezek. xxxiii. 11, &c.]
?" can admit neither of a prophetical,
nor Calvinistical interpretation. They all imply the power
to return, and that there existed no fatal necessity to the
contrary ; they are all addressed to the will but, alas !
that will was corrupt, and refused to hearken ; it chose
and. delighted in ways that were not good : and was
eventually compelled to eat the fruit of its own doings.
This, Moses and all the Prophets positively foretold; and,
in many cases, with much anguish and sorrow of heart. Still,
the foresight of it all, neither could, nor did, influence
the will of that sinful nation. It was the love of self, of
sin, and of the world, encouraged in a heart above all
things deceitful, and desperately wicked
[jer. xvii. 9.],
urged on by the influence of the father of lies, that
originated and kept all this up, while means and powers,
sufficient for their deliverance and salvation, were daily
urged upon them as a gainsaying and disobedient people. And
hence it is, that Moses lays down both the threats and
promises of the Law, always conditionally. In the Chapter
before us (ver. 17), " But if thine heart turn away, so that
thou wilt not hear...I denounce... that ye shall surely
perish." And (ib. 10), "If thou shalt hearken" &c. "then the
lord will turn thy captivity," &c. And so in every other
place touching on this subject. To the same effect also St.
Paul (2 Cor. iii. 14, 15): " But their minds were blinded."
" But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is
upon their heart. Nevertheless, when it" (their heart) "shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.''Where this " when" of the Apostle must have the same meaning
as it has in Moses, and imply a condition, but not declare
prophetically. We have therefore, in all this, no prophecy
of any conversion whatsoever of the Jewish people: we have
nothing more than the doctrine, that If they abide not in
unbelief, they shall all be saved.
Sect. IV.—On the Question,
whether any return of the Jews to Canaan is to be expected.
But it may still be said, as it often is, that in the
very places here referred to in the Law, as also in many in
the Prophets, direct and positive predictions are made of
the return of the Jews to their own land, and this to come
to pass after their last and general dispersion ; which must
also imply their conversion. Some indeed, have gone so far
as to affirm, that there is no allowed principle of
interpretation which can justify any other conclusion. In
Lev. xxvi. 42, it is said, e. g. " I will remember the
land." And more particularly in Deut. xxx. 5 : "The lord
thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers
possessed, and thou shalt possess it." And to the same
effect, the Prophets are full and frequent. But some of
these do also declare positively, that to this land of
Canaan, the Jews should, after this last dispersion, never
return. How then, are we now to deal with this question? Let
us first see, what is said on this last point.
Ezekiel (chap. vii. 7, seq.) delivers himself in these
words : "The morning is come, O thou that dwellest in the
land; the time is come, the day of trouble" (i. e. the great
day of the Lord. Comp. Dan. xii. 1.) "is near, and not the
sounding again" (i. e. never again, as in the gathering in
of the vintage) " of the mountains...And mine eye shall not
spare, neither will I have pity
[ This expression is taken
from the Law. See Deut. xiii. 8. as also is the matter. See
Lev. xxvi. 14, seq. Deut. xxviii. 16, seq.];
...The time is come, the day draweth near; let not the buyer
rejoice, nor the seller mourn: for wrath is upon all the
multitude thereof. For the seller shall not return to that
which is sold, although they were yet alive: for the
vision," adds the Prophet, " is touching the whole multitude
thereof, which shall not return
[There can be no doubt, I
think, that the term " multitude," introduced here and in
some other places, is intended to suggest the distinction to
be made between the Jews generally, and that small party
termed the "Remnant" &c. Isaiah (v. 14), to the same effect:
" Hell hath enlarged herself,. . . and their glory, and
their multitude, and their pomp,. .. shall descend into it."
Again, (xxix. 5.) " The mulititude of thy strangers... and
the multitude of the terrible ones shall be as chaff that
passeth away: yea, it shall lie at an instant, suddenly."
The next verse repeats the judgments generally denounced
against the great body of the Jewish nation, as in Lev. and
Deut. just cited. Isa. xxiv. presents the same judgments on
the same party: and, be it observed, all this is prophecy
properly so called; and cannot, in the nature of the case,
be opposed by prophecy to the contrary. See also Zeph. i. I,
seq. where, ver. 8, " clothed with, strange apparel," will
afford a good key to the meaning of " thy strangers" in
Isaiah. And here all this was to take place in the great day
of the Lord, (ver. 8, &c.) Ib. (Ch. ii. 3.) We have the
better party styled, the "meek of the earth," (read land).]."..."The
sword" adds he, "is without, and the pestilence and the
famine within: he that is in the field shall die with the
sword; and he that is in the city, famine and pestilence
shall devour him." Which last portion is only an echo of the
words of Moses : and all is prophecy properly so called.
Now, I may perhaps say, we have quite enough given here
to enable us to arrive at certainty, as to the drift of this
prediction. There can be no doubt, in the first place, that
the prophecy of Moses (Dent, xxxii. 25, &c.) is imitated
here: and, in the second, there can be none, that it refers
to the period in which " the nations should rejoice with
God's people" (ver. 43); that is, the period commonly
designated their " latter end" (ver. 29), and " the great
day of the Lord" of which more presently. It is obvious
moreover, that we have here in Ezekiel this latter end of
the Jewish polity—-for no other end concerns them—and this
is particularly urged in this Chapter, and repeated again
and again (ib. ver. 2, 3, 6).
If we now turn to Deuteronomy (chap, xxviii. 21), we
shall find another prediction of Moses answering exactly to
this of Ezekiel. " The lord," it is said, " shall make the
pestilence cleave unto thee, until He have consumed thee"
(i. e. completely) "from off the land, whither thou goest
to possess it." And, again (ver. 49—58), we have the siege
of Jerusalem by the Romans
[Ezekiel too (Ch. vii.
24), quite in the spirit of Moses, predicting the fall of
Jerusalem by the Romans, (Deut. xviii. 49—58) says, "
Wherefore I will bring the worst of the heathen" (i. e. as
pourtrayed in Daniel's Little Horn, of which more when we
come to the place), " and they shall possess their houses: I
will make the pomp of the strong to cease; and their holy
places shall be defiled." That is, both their city and
sanctuary shall be for ever profaned (comp. Isa. xxiv. 5,
seq.) where the same events are obviously had in view, and
where it is accordingly declared, that "the land should
fall, and not rise again." i. e. any more at all, (ver. 20).
We have again in Amos ii. 4,6, some similar denunciations,
which our translators have not understood, viz. "I will not
turn away the punishment thereof:" which should have been, I
will surely not bring him back; i.e. restore him (Heb.)
To the same effect, ib. ver. 2. " The Virgin of Israel is
fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her
land; there is none to raise her up." The next verse
provides for the preservation of the holy seed or remnant,
in these words: " The city that went out by a thousand shall
leave an hundred, and that which went forth by an hundred,
shall leave ten, to the house of Israel." Isaiah, too, makes
this party a tithe or tenth (Ch. vi. 12, 13): " There be a
great forsaking in the midst of the land. But yet in it
shall be a tenth, and it shall return." Which is much the
same thing as saying, that no other portion shall: and this
is really the drift of the places from Amos.]
, with all its horrors, too graphically depicted to be
misunderstood. Much to the same effect our blessed Lord
alluding to this event (Matth. xxiv. 17, 18) says, "Let him
which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out
of his house: neither let him which is in the field return
back to take his clothes." And again (ib. 16): "Let them
which be in Judea flee" (i.e. escape) "into the
mountains.'' Again (Luke xxi. 21, 22), " Let them which
are in Judea flee to the mountains... and let not them that
are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days
of vengeance'' (i. e. so frequently predicted by Moses
and others), " that all things which are written may be
fulfilled.'' These, we shall presently see, are the times
of the end predicted by Moses and the Prophets, and
explained as such by the Apostles themselves. And certainly,
during these, the Jews were not restored to Canaan, but were
expelled from it; nor, as to " the multitude thereof," did
they turn, nor have they yet turned, to the Lord.
There is another particular in the prediction just cited,
which cannot fail to suggest to us its real drift and
object; it is this: It is said that the multitude shall not
return : that is, the Jewish people generally, as opposed to
that small party, styled " a very small remnant,'''' and of
which Ezekiel makes specific mention here also (ver. 16),
and even places them on the mountains, whither our Lord
Himself directed his disciples to flee, as just noticed.
Ezekiel's words are: " But they that escape of them" (i. e.
out of the multitude), " shall escape, and shall be on the
mountains like doves of the valleys, all of them mourning,
every one for his iniquity." It is not therefore, the holy
seed or Remnant that is denounced in this place: it is the
sinful multitude, which constituted the bulk of the Jewish
nation : it is the multitude who never yet did mourn as
doves for their sins.
Let us see, in the next place, whether Ezekiel so
describes the captivity from which this multitude should not
return, as to exclude the Babylonian, in which he was then a
partaker. His words are (ver. 12, seq.): " Let not the
buyer rejoice, nor the seller mourn...for the seller shall
not return to that which is sold," &c. Now, let it be
observed, Jeremiah buys a piece of land in Anathoth (chap,
xxxii. 7, &c.), for the purpose of assuring the Jews, that
they should return from the Babylonian captivity, and
possess both houses and fields in that land (ib. ver. 15).
This again, is further and more particularly urged, from
verse 36 to the end of the Chapter. It must be obvious
therefore, that Ezekiel had in view a captivity, altogether
different from that foretold by Jeremjah : and history
recognizes none, but that effected by the Romans in the fall
of Jerusalem, and which continues to this day. According to
Ezekiel therefore, from this captivity the Jews never shall
return to the land of Canaan: neither land bought, nor land
sold there, shall any more afford grounds either for
rejoicing in the Buyer, or of mourning in the Seller.
We have here therefore, a positive prediction that the
multitude, or whole body of the Jews, shall never return to
Canaan: that is, within the space of time assigned to
prophecy in the Scriptures: and I will affirm, that in
every place, in which the fall and dispersion of the Jews is
foretold, the same thing is virtually predicted : because
prophecy cannot, in the nature of things, be opposed to
prophecy. And in the facts of the case here, it never is. We
shall now proceed to shew that, whenever a promise or
prediction of a return is made to the Jews, it is made to
the holy Remnant alone; and that then, from the nature of
the case, the return cannot be to the land of Canaan.
We must never forget, that when promises are made in the
Bible, these must be understood in its own sense, that is,
as intended for those only who are God's peculiar people.
This again, will introduce another consideration; viz. that
these constitute spiritually the whole of His people: they
cannot but be all Israel, in the true sense of this term:
and in this way the Prophets express themselves when they
speak of them, just as St. Paul does when he says, " They
are not all Israel which are of Israel,"..." the children of
the flesh, these are not the children of God ; but the
children of the promise are counted for the seed.'' So
Ezekiel, in the true spirit of this (chap. xi. 15, seq.),
"Son of man, thy brethren, even thy brethren, the men of thy
kindred, and all the house op israel wholly, are they unto
whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, Get. you far
from the lord : unto us is this land given in possession."
We have here therefore, the Prophet's brethren, his kindred,
and all the house of Israel wholly, opposed to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem generally ; which latter must
necessarily designate the reprobate part of the Jews: the
former, the Elect: and observe, these are styled here, " all
the house of Israel wholly:" virtually proscribing the rest,
as not being of this house at all.
We have also in Isaiah (chap. Ixvi. 5, Sec.), a place
perfectly in unison with this. " Hear" says the Prophet, "
the word of the lord, ye that tremble at His word (comp. ver. 2); your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for
my Name's sake, said, Let the lord be glorified; but He
shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.'1'' It
is impossible, I say, not to be struck with resemblance of
these two passages, and the pointed distinction made in them
between Israel after the spirit, and Israel after the flesh:
i. e. in the hypocritical profession and tyranny of the one,
and in the trembling and suffering as Outcasts of the other.
Not less remarkable moreover, are the threats here denounced
against the former, than are the glorious promises made to
the latter. (See especially verr. 1.9—24.) Quite of a piece
with this is a passage in the Acts (chap. xiii. 26, seq.):
"Men and brethren, children" (truly) "of the stock of
Abraham, and whosoever among you feaheth god" (i. e. tremble
at His word), " to you is this salvation sent. For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because
they knew Him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which
are read every sabbath-day, they have fulfilled them in
condemning Him." We have here, I say, " the inhabitants of
Jerusalem" of Ezekiel's days, quite of a piece with the
dwellers at Jerusalem of those 'of Paul; or, in the terms of
Isaiah, with the rulers of Sodom, and people of Gomorrah,
(see also Acts xiii. 40, 41; and xxviii. 25, seq., where the
Apostle cites prophecy to shew that this party would not
believe). Parallel again, with these places of Ezekiel and
Isaiah, is the following one of Micah (chap. ii. 12): "I
will surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee; I will surely
gather the Remnant of Israel: I will put them together as
the sheep of Bozrah," &c. Where "Jacob, all of THEE" must
be the same with " the remnant of israel," immediately
following it. Again (chap. iii. 11), we have likewise a
description of the wicked party: "The heads thereof judge
for reward, the priests thereof teach for hire, and the
prophets divine for money: yet they will lean upon the lord,
and say, Is not the lord among us?" i. e. joining again a
hypocritical profession with their base practices !
"To the same effect again, is Isaiah (chap. xlix. 3,
seq.); which, under any other point of view, must be quite
unintelligible. It is said, " Thou art my servant, O
Israel," (i. e. the spiritual Israel) " in whom I will be
glorified. Then I said" (i. e. this same Israel), " / have
laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and
in vain" (i. e. in the language of despondency,—as is too
often the case): " yet surely my judgment is with the lord,
and my work with my God." The Prophet adds: " And now, saith
the lord" (i. e. in answer to the despondency just noticed),
*' that formed me from the womb to be His servant, to bring
Jacob to him" (i.e. some party not then so brought), "though
Israel be not gathered" (i. e. the greater part of the
nation, improperly so called; viz. its multitude), "yet
shall I" (i. e. the true Israel) " be glorious in the eyes
of the lord, and my God shall be my strength. And He said,"
adds the Prophet, "It is a light thing that thou shouldest
be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob" (i.e. as from
the dead [This will
afford a good comment on St. Paul, (Horn. xi. 15), which has
been so often cited, and misunderstood : " What," says the
Apostle, "shall the receiving of them be, but life from the
dead?" It can scarcely be supposed that the Apostle meant to
say, the return of the Jews to the true faith should so act
upon the Church, as to give it a sort of new life, as
remarked above (p. 37.) This figure is also used in Ezek.
xxxvii. where the receiving of the Holy Remnant into the
Church is foretold: and might well be adopted by Paul when
speaking of the Jews generally. They would, in such case, be
like the returning prodigal, and considered as those who had
been lost, and now found; dead, but now alive. The
circumstances of this context (viz. Ezek. xxxvii.) require
this, as we shall presently shew. For, in the first place, a
Remnant only returned after this captivity to the land of
Israel ; and these must have been, on the whole, the more
pious portion of the nation : the rest remained in Chaldea :
and many of them are there still. It is remarkable moreover,
that the return of this Remnant is made by Isaiah (Ch. xi.
11. seq.) a sort of voucher for that of which St. Paul was
one. His words are, " The lord shall set His hand the
second time" (that of Babylon was the first) " to recover
the Remnant of His people . . .from Assyria &c. ; and He,
shall assemble the outcasts of Israel." All of which
clearly refers to the establishment of the New Covenant in
Christ. The same must appear to every one, who carefully
examines this chapter of Ezekiel, particularly from ver. 24
to the end: the following one relates to the same thing.
This return to the land of Israel and subjection to David
their king, must therefore be taken in a spiritual sense :
i. e. as the " return to the Mighty God:" and the land, as
that of promise, given in the first covenant with Abraham,
and shadowed out by the Mosaic. — And, as to this
resurrection, Daniel xii. 2. speaks thus of it: "Many of
them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake" &c. So
also Isa. xxvi. 19 : " Thy dead men" (i. e. O Zion, Those
who are considered as dead in thee : comp. Rev. xi. 9 — 12,
and its Com. below) . . . "my dead body" (Zion says this,
identifying these with herself), " they shall" (surely)
"arise" (Heb.). It is added, "Awake and sing" (i.e.
with the Redeemed Church), "ye that dwell in the dust;" for thy
"dew" (O Christ) "is as the dew of herbs" (i. e. it is
life-giving: Comp, Ps. ex. 3.) It is added as a prediction,
and thou shalt bring down the Rephaim to the earth) i.e.,
Thou, O Zion, shalt bring down tyrants: Heb. The next verse,
20, addresses these. See also Luke ii. 34 : Eph. ii. 6 : v. 14
: Isa. Lii. 2.]), " and to restore the
preserved of Israel"" (i. e. that holy Remnant to whom alone
the promise of restoration had been given): "I will also
give thee for a light to the Gentiles" (i. e. to be the
means, or ministers, of light under Him who is "the true
light [It should be
observed, that it is a very common usage of Holy Scripture
to apply language, properly belonging to Christ alone,—as in
this case,—improperly to His people. The Psalms abound
in this usage, as remarked by St. Augustine long ago.]"),
"that thou mayest be my salvation unto the ends of the
earth." There can be no doubt here, I think, that the Israel
of verses 3 and 6, is neither the Israel of verse 5, nor the
Jacob of verse 6. The one is to bring Jacob back to God, and
(verse 6) to raise up, as from the dead, his tribes: the
other is in a situation to be so brought, and to be so
raised up. It is here therefore, by the context alone that
the party can be determined: and the same is the case in
Ezekiel in the place just noticed: the one party is
moreover, the true and entire Israel; the other is not.
Places similar to these occur in the Psalms : e. g.
(Ixxxvii. 2), " The lord loveth the gates of Zion more than
all the dwellings of Jacob." Where, be it observed, Zion is
opposed, as in Ezekiel, to "all the dwellings of Jacob" The
first verse affords the true key to this: it is because "
His foundation is in the" (truly) "holy mountains." (His,
i.e. of each one composing it, so that this and that man, ver. 5, 6, is said to be born there). Much of the same sort
is Psalm xlviii. throughout: and, most likely, the Ixxixth
and Ixxxth. They evince the language of prayer true and
sincere, and can designate none but God's people who really
prayed. The same might be said of many others. So also (Pss.
xiv. 7; liii. 6): " Oh that the salvation of Israel were
come out of Zion! when the lord," it is added, " bringeth
back the captivity of His people" (i. e. by so giving them
salvation, not in a return from some foreign land, but from
strange servitude), " Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall
be glad."
We may now return to our place in Ezekiel (chap. xi. 16,
seq.). The Prophet proceeds : " Although I have cast them
far off among the heathen, and...have scattered them among
the countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary
in the countries where they shall come." All which is said,
not of "the Inhabitants of Jerusalem," mentioned just
before, but of " all the house of Israel (i. e. properly so
called) wholly." It is added in the next verse, " And I will
.give you the land of Israel." That is, to this Israel
constituting the real, and whole family of Abraham. And
this land of Israel must, of necessity, be that heritage .of
the heathen extending to the uttermost parts of the earth
(Ps. ii. 8, &c.), which the whole series of prophecy assigns
to Abraham's promised seed : i. e. under the typical
system, looking onward to its antitypical one. It is added
(ver. 19), " I will give them one heart, and I will put a
new spirit within you" (i. e. such as the New Covenant alone
could give),..." That they may walk in my statutes" (because
by this power alone could they effectually do so). "And," it
is added, "they shall be my people, and I will be their
God." This is not therefore, the multitude of the Jews that
should not return; it is only that Remnant which should, to
the Mighty God.
We next have (ver. 21, respecting the sinful party who
said above, " Get you far from the Lord"), " But as for them
whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable
things and their abominations, I will recompense their way
upon their own heads, saith the Lord God." Where, in each
case, the spirit of the Law is fully preserved; the promise
of protection by God himself as " a little sanctuary," ever
accompanying His own, and the denunciations of wrath
cleaving to their oppressors, His enemies. The restoration
to the true land of Israel, the " holy Jerusalem," and "
City of the Living God" is here therefore, where it should
be: and so is the judgment denounced. And yet, How often has
this place been made to speak a totally different language !
Sect. V.—On some particular places in Jeremiah and
Ezekiel, which have been supposed to foretell a return of
tlie Jews to Canaan.
As it has been generally imagined, that predictions of
the return of the Jews to Canaan are to be found in the
Prophets, we need not be surprised at certain places being
selected, as the most clear and positive on this point. The
following, taken from Jeremiah and Ezekiel, are places so
singled out. Let us then enquire, how far these Scriptures
will, or will not, bear such an interpretation.
We have then (Jer. xxx. 3, seq.) : " Lo, the days come,
saith the Lord, that I will bring again the captivity of my
people Israel and Judah...and I will cause them to return to
the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall
possess it." It will shorten our work here, not to enter
into any inquiry, as to whether the return from Babylon is
had in view, or not; because it is sufficiently evident from
the context, that it is not, but that some greater and more
important restoration is, which should take place within the
period termed " the latter days" (ver. 24). We shall take it
for granted therefore, that the place before us predicts the
return from some such captivity, both of Israel, and Judah.
Let us now endeavour to ascertain from the context, its
nature, and its period.
We are told (ver. 7) as to the period, that " that day is
great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of
Jacob's trouble" (so Ezek. vii. 7, above); " but" it is
added, "he shall be saved out of it." And again (ver. 9), "
They shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king,
whom I will raise up unto them." At this time therefore, and
in this great and incomparable day (see Dan. xii. 1, and
Matth. xxiv. 21, 22, which will sufficiently determine it),
David was to be raised up, and to receive the homage of
God's people of both Israel and Judah. But we know of no
such David, and can find no such times as these, except in
those of David's lineal descendant and spiritual successor,
Jesus of Nazareth. This return from captivity must
therefore, take place some time after his appearing in the
flesh.-And, if this may be relied on, the period here had in
view must be within that of the New Covenant, and which has
been termed " the fulness of time.
[Gal. iv. 4: Eph. i. 10.]"
It must follow accordingly, that the terms " my people"
here, must apply to those, and to those only, who should
make themselves partakers in this New Covenant, and so be
the subjects of this spiritual David; or, which is the same
thing, those whom the Apostle Paul terms " the Remnant" and
" Election" Peter, " the Elect" And these consisted of
converts from both the houses, and indeed from every tribe
of Israel (see James i. 1). -
We have arrived at the times then, in which the shadowy
observances of the Law have come to an end, and a system
wholly and purely spiritual has been established. And if so,
then must this return from captivity be "viewed in a
spiritual sense likewise. Abraham had now become the heir of
the world in a spiritual sense: and to the same inheritance
had all his spiritual seed of right succeeded, in strict
accordance with the terms of the first and everlasting
Covenant made with him. The return from captivity here
therefore, could not be to the earthly Canaan, but to the
true and spiritual Zion. And this the Apostle Paul expressly
says of the converts of his days (Heb. xii. 18, seq.) : " Ye
are not come unto the mount that might be touched" (i. e.
was tangible), "and that burned with fire."..." But ye are
come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God,
the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of
angels, to the general assembly and Church of the
firstborn...And to Jesus the mediator of the New Covenant,
and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things
than that of Abel." In this case there was, of necessity, no
particular land to which a return could be made : all the
heritage of the heathen, including Canaan, was now the
domain of the Son of Man : and the Sion of this was the new
Jerusalem, the City of the living God, i. e. the Church of
Christ. Let us now see how the rest of the context before us
will agree with this. In the first place then, We hear of no
great day in holy Scripture, and to which none shall be
like, except that in which our blessed Lord was to appear ;
and again, We know of no David, Israel's King, but Him
alone. David had too been consigned to the grave of his
fathers long before the times of Jeremiah. He could not
therefore, possibly be had in view here. It must
necessarily be his spiritual successor that is meant.
Again, the promises made (in verse 10) could not be made to
unbelieving and rejected Jews, who were to be " not a
people;" and much less were they God's people in these
times. The terms therefore, "Fear not, O my servant
Jacob...neither be dismayed, O Israel; for lo, I will save
thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their
captivity; and Jacob shall return, and shall be in rest,"
&c. can apply to none but the children of that Jerusalem
which is the mother of us all.
[Gal. iv. 26. Comp. Ps.
evil. 2. eeq.] Similar declarations
are made again and again by the Prophets, every one of
which is inapplicable to the carnal Israel, and can by no
just principles of interpretation be referred to it. See
Isaiah, chap. xlix. in particular.
The same must be true of (ver. 16, seq.) " Therefore all
they that devour thee shall be devoured
[Comp. Isa. xiax. 26. The
context of which makes the distinction, too strong to be
overlooked, between the good and bad party in Jewry.];
and all thine adversaries, every one of them, shall go into
captivity; and they that spoil thee shall be a spoil, and
all they that prey upon thee will I give to the prey;" which
can hardly be taken literally. Of every one of those going
literally into captivity, the impossibility must appear at
first sight, supposing this to apply to any general
persecution of the Church: but if. the persecuting Jews
themselves are meant,—which is evidently the case,—then the
captivity meant must be their long-continued dispersion; not
their re-assembling in Palestine. In no case therefore, can
these words predict a restoration of Jews to Canaan.
The Prophet goes on (ver. 17): " / will restore health
unto thee, and I will heal thee of thy wounds...because they
called thee an outcast, saying, This is" (the) " Zion, whom
no man seeketh after." Now it is certain, that to no party
is the term " Outcast'1'' so applied in Holy Writ, except
that of " the Remnant," or true Zion: and to this party
expressly does the Prophet bring us in his next chapter,—
which is clearly a continuation of this. " Sing,n it is said
(ver, 7), " with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the
chief of the nations: publish ye, praise ye, and say, &
Lord, save thy people, the remnant of Israel." Where, be it
observed, " thy people" is explained by " the Remnant of
Israel;" and this shouting to take place among the chief of
the nations, must be sufficient to shew, that the times of
the New Covenant are had in view. God's people here
therefore, cannot be the now rejected Jews, but those
accepted in the Apostolical period. (Comp. Ps. cxlvii. 2.)
Again verses 23, 24, declare the vengeance of God to be
executed upon the " head of the wicked" (comp. Ps. ex. 7,
Sic.), together with that general outpouring of wrath to be
inflicted on both the opposing Jews and Gentiles; to which
perpetual reference is made by the Prophets, in their
announcements of the great and dreadful day of the Lord,—as
we shall abundantly see hereafter. We are next informed,
that this should take place in the period termed " the
latter days," which, as we shall presently shew,, can refer
to none but the times in which the Christian Church was to
be universally established: i. e. when the dominion under
the whole heavens should be given to the Son of Man.
The land therefore, given to the fathers (ver. 3) cannot
be confined to that of Canaan, which was, at best, only of a
temporary tenure: it must be that of the whole earth, given
to Abraham under the first and everlasting Covenant; and to
this, as from captivity, should his spiritual seed return
under David their spiritual King; whose service should be
perfect freedom, and whose deliverance should be from the
power of Satan, to the glorious kingdom and liberty of
Christ.
When it is said (ver. 11), "/ will make a full end of all
nations whither I have scattered thee, yet r will not make
a-full end of thee,'" it is obvious, that a strictly literal
sense could not have been intended. " A full end of all
nations" must, in such case, imply a total physical
destruction of these; which would be to rid the world of the
far greater portion of its inhabitants, but which can hardly
appear necessary to the subject, or to the context here.
But, if we understand the place mystically, then the meaning
will be, that a summary destruction of the then moral state
of things should take place: old things should, in this
sense, pass away, and all should become new. And this, we
shall see in the sequel, is the great event continually so
foretold by the Prophets. In like manner, " So shall your
seed and name remain
[This holy party is termed, Isa. xviii. 7, "scattered and
peeled." In ver. 2 here, the whole nation of the Jews
receives this title, as a people to whom the Egyptians sent
ambassadors. The whole nation, seems to have sought this
(Ch. xzx. 2. seq.)- Hence Egypt is said to be " a land"
0^233 ^2t^S i. e. offering the shadow of the wings, as a hen
doth: and hence the Jews are blamed for seeking it. In ver.
3 however, all the inhabitants of the world are called upon
to hear, when God should lift up an ensign on the mountains,
(comp. v. 26,) and when He should blow the trumpet (comp.
Zech. ix. 14. evidently marking the times of the Messiah.
See verr. 9—12). We then have (verr. 5, 6,) the fall of the
wicked Jewish multitude, as branches cut off to be consumed
by the birds and beasts of the mountains. The distinction
between those who served God, and those who served Him not,
being now so made, it is said (ver. 7), "In that time shall
the present be brought unto the lord of hosts of a people
scattered and peeled ... to the place of the name of the
Lord of hosts, the" (true) "mount Zion." Which however is
not a correct rendering: it should be thus:—shall be brought
to Jehovah of hosts a people scattered (i. e. far and wide
as seed sown) and peeled, even out of a people terrible, &c.
This bringing is therefore, out of, or from, such a terrible
people, &c.: and seems clearly to point out the better party
of the Jewish nation, which was then to be gathered in among
the nations. Comp. Ch. 19, 20, &c.]"
must be understood of the spiritual seed, not of that which
is merely carnal; and of this so long as the kingdom of the
Son of man should endure.
This "scattered" people therefore, sometimes styled "the
Outcasts," " the Dispersed,'' and the like, can be no other
than the Dispersed, and Elect, of St.
Peter; and their restoration actually took place within the
period termed here " the latter days," The same must, of
necessity, be true of the twelve tribes of St. James "scattered abroad," and to whom he sends greeting as
brethren in Christ Jesus. And, I ask, In what way did either
of these Apostles appear to believe the captivity of these
was brought back ? Was it in a return to the earthly Canaan,
and to the Jerusalem that then was, and was in bondage with
her children? If so, this would have been only to bring them
from one place of captivity and bondage, to that of another
! But this the Apostles never did. They have only instructed
us, either directly, or indirectly, that these " converts of
Zion" had now returned, and had come to the true "Mount
Zion" and "City of the Living God," "the heavenly
Jerusalem," and spiritual mother of all true believers.
Some of these converts moreover, sold their possessions in
Canaan; and hence they plainly declared, as Abraham had
done before them, that they sought a better, that is, a
heavenly country; a City built upon indestructible
foundations, whose Builder and Maker is God: while
unbelieving Jews and others, who have been carried away with
their dissimulation, would have us believe, even under the
full establishment of the New Covenant, that we must still
look for all the glories of the Church to a land, the
possession of which was only temporary, and the times of
which have long ago passed away !
From verse 12 to the end of verse 17, we are told of the
bruises, wounds, sins, and sufferings, of this portion of
Israel, in such terms as might seem to imply, that the
reprobate part of the nation should rather be understood. I
am induced to think differently, for the following reasons:
It would be out of place to imagine, that even the true Zion
of God would be wholly sinless, and hence exempt from
chastisements. Holy Scripture certainly teaches no such
thing. For scarcely has it a Worthy, of whom it does not
record some grievous lapse. The great difference between the
good and bad, in a scriptural sense, is, that the one, labouring after perfection, even in the way that God himself
has prescribed, Buffers, either from his weakness,
ignorance, or inbred corruption, many falls; while the
faith that be cherishes will powerfully convince him of
this, humble him in the consideration of it, and stir him
up more effectually to repentance, watchfulness, and the use
of every means of grade. In such an one, all things work
together for good; and the consequence is, he proceeds from
strength to strength, from grace to grace, until he is meet
for glory. In the other class, sin is rarely viewed as sin.
The purity of God's law is not felt, and hence it is
disregarded. The habit of impiety extends itself in every
direction, and the world's will and ways finally take
possession of the whole man: the certain consequence of
which is, Pride, Ambition, Avarice, and the like; which will
necessarily produce as their fruits, Cruelty, Oppression,
and indeed, every affection and work that is earthly,
sensual, devilish.
Now it is precisely in this way, that we always find the
good and bad parties of Holy Scripture respectively
described. In the context before us, it is said, " Thy
bruise is incurable, and thy wound is grievous." And, Is
this too much to say even of the best of men, the thoughts
of whose heart naturally are only evil from his youth ? And
not only so, but the evil, whence this has arisen, is, as to
all that man can do as such, utterly incurable, and hence is, indeed,
very grievous. And so it is said (ver. 17),—which can apply
to none but those, who seek by repentance and prayer the
only and necessary remedy,—" I will restore health unto
thee, and I will heal thee of thy wounds." The very nature
of the Scriptures makes it impossible, that this can be said
of those who are incapable of viewing sin as sin, and who
never have therefore, recourse to repentance and prayer for
its cure: and in this predicament were the unbelieving Jews
of the Theocracy, and in the same they still are. Nor can it
apply as prophecy to this unbelieving party, as believers in
time to come; for the period assigned to the fulfilment of
all prophecy has long, ago passed, as we shall presently
shew.
That the people, here had in view, was the Remnant or
Election, may also be gathered from what is said in verse 10 : " Why criest thou for thine affliction ? Is thy sorrow
incurable for the multitude of thine iniquity ? (because)
thy sins have been increased, (and)
I
have done these things
unto thee?" That is, Thou criest out as one whose case is
desperate : but, Is it really so ? As far as man's art or
power can go, it is indeed incurable and desperate; but it
is not so with God's. We have a similar instance in Isaiah
(xlix. 14, seq.): " Zion said, The Lord hath forsaken me,
and my Lord hath forgotten me." (See also ver. 4.) The
answer is, " Yea, they" (i.e. the mothers of infants) " may
forget, yet will I not forget thee. Behold, I have engraven
thee on the palms of my hands; thy walls are ever before
me," &c. The very circumstance of crying out, must imply a
cry for help; and, in the true Zion, a crying to God
[Isa. xix. 20.].
And that this was the case here, is evident enough from the
answer, received,—just as in that now cited from Isaiah. "
Therefore" (i.e. because thou hast so cried out to me), "
all they that devour thee shall be devoured; and all thine
adversaries, every one of them, shall go into captivity.
For I will restore health to thee,'' &c.; which is but an
echo of what is said again and again, with reference to this
Remnant of Israel; and it can be understood of nothing short
of an answer to sincere and effectual prayer.
If then we have God's true Zion here, and the period of "
the latter days,"—that of "the great day"—here spoken of,
then must the following also be understood in a manner
consistent with this: viz. (ver. 18), " And the city shall
be builded upon her own heap" (hill)
[It is remarkable enough that Jerusalem is mystically
styled in Zeph. i. 11. Maktesb, that is, a mortar or bason.
See my Heb. Lex. <Hebrew> p. 359 seq. It is said, "For all
the merchant people are cut down," &e. i. e. its wicked
traders, priests, prophets, and others, who trafficed in the
souls of men, should be cut down, bruised, and broken, as in
a mortar. And in the verse preceding,...", great crashing"
(i. e. breaking to pieces) "from the hills." In this
place, the bason, or mortar-like, figure of Jerusalem seems
to have suggested the term used by the Prophet. It could
hardly be said therefore to be built upon a heap or hill.],
" and the palace shall remain after the manner thereof."
Some have understood this as a prediction of the rebuilding
of the natural Jerusalem, and therefore to be literally
interpreted. But this cannot be true; for Jerusalem was not
generally built upon a hill. The hills, we are taught, were
round about this Jerusalem; and the fact is, they are so
still: but surely this must imply any thing, but that
Jerusalem was built on its hill or heap. If however, we
understand the place of the spiritual, or new Jerusalem, the
description will be quite of a piece with that usually given
of it by the Prophets, e. g. Isa. ii. 2: "In the last days"
(the very period marked here) " the mountain of the lord's
house shall be established in the top of the mountains," &c.
So again Ps. Ixxxvii.: " His foundation is in the holy
mountains. Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of
God." And be it observed, the " Zion" here mentioned is not
the same thing with " the dwellings of Jacob." It is the
city of the Elect only. It should be observed too, that the,
foundation of this Zion is on " the holy mountains:" more
literally and true, on the mountains of holiness: that is,
on every mountain arid hill where the holiness, taught and
required under the New Covenant, is truly known. This place
cannot therefore, be understood of any rebuilding of the
earthly Jerusalem : it clearly refers to the times and
circumstances of the New Covenant; and this knows of no
earthly Jerusalem. A heavenly one alone is the object of
its converts; and a spiritual one they find it, in all its
characters, promises, and blessings.
"There is none to plead thy cause," Sic. (ver. 13), is
no more than what is said of the true Zion by Isaiah (chap.
li. 18, seq.), viz. "There is none to guide her of all the
sons she hath brought forth: neither is there any that
taketh her by the hand of all the sons that she hath brought
up," &c.; where, as before, we have in the sequel promises
that she shall be fully delivered, and her enemies
recompensed. In the Apostolic times, i. e. "the latter
days," all this was indeed fully realized. The foundations
of the Church of the firstborn, were laid upon the
mountains of holiness, primarily on Him who is emphatically
and truly styled " the Rock of ages:" and secondarily, on
those his Apostles who were indeed pillars and grounds of
the truth [1 Tim.
iii. 15.] ; and who, as precious
stones, formed its foundations
[Rev. xxi. 14.]
; while they also laid these far and wide
[ Rom. x. 18.].
At the same time too, the nominal Zion and Jerusalem,—sons
in some sense, whom the true Zion had brought forth and
brought up,—instead of taking her by the hand to console and
help her, became her fiercest enemies and persecutors ; and
consequently, they received the full cup of trembling, were
fed with their own flesh, and made drunken with their own
blood! Which is but a repetition of what we have here (Jer.
chap. xxx. verr. 23, 24), and which, it is said, should come
to pass in " the latter days," as already remarked.
Again verses 19, 22, bring us to the blessings everywhere
promised to this Elect and holy Remnant. " Out of them,''''
it is said, "shall proceed thanksgiving and the voice of
them that make merry: and I will multiply them... I will
also glorify them."..." And ye shall be my people, and I
will be your God." So St. Peter (1 Ep. ii. 9), " Ye are a
chosen (elect) generation, a royal priesthood, an holy
nation, a peculiar people." And as these blessings were,
according to our Prophet, to be known and considered in the
period termed " the latter days;" they cannot be extended
beyond these: and these comprehend the period assigned to
the establishment (de facto) of the New Covenant: they
cannot therefore, possibly refer to any rebuilding of
Jerusalem, or restoration of the Jews, hereafter to take
place; and of this the context of the following Chapter,
connected as it is with ' this, will afford us ample proof.
"At the same time, saith the lord, will I be the God of
all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people? Now
it must be evident from this, that, at whatever period " the
latter days? with which the preceding Chapter ends, should
be,—for to these must reference here be had,—at the same
should " the lord lie the God of all the families of
Israel." This, I say, the terms used absolutely require. We
shall presently shew, that this can be no other than the
period, commencing with the resurrection of our blessed
Lord, and ending with the universal establishment of his
Church.
We have moreover, matter identical with this in object in
Isaiah xi. 10, seq.: "In that day," it is said, '•'•there
shall be a" (rather the) " root of Jesse, which shall stand
for an ensign to the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek;
and His rest shall be glorious.'1'' It is added (ver 11): "
It shall come to pass in that day, that the lord shall set
his hand again the second time to recover the Remnant of his
people...from Assyria, and
from Egypt" (the first time, as already remarked, being that
in which a Remnant only was recovered from Babylon). " And
He shall set up an ensign for the nations" &c. That all this
has reference to the times in which Christ's kingdom should
be set up, there can be no doubt; and for this, those of
"the latter days" have, as we shall presently see, been
especially marked out by the sacred writers. And if this be
the case, then can " all the families of Israel"" in
Jeremiah, mean nothing more than " the Remnant of His
people," as mentioned by Isaiah. And, in the strict purport
of those terms, can none other possibly be meant; and so
Ezekiel (chap. xi. 15) as noticed above: "Son of man, thy
brethren, even thy brethren, the men of thy kindred" (i. e.
of the same spiritual family with him), "and"" (read even)
"all the house of Israel wholly, are they to whom the
inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, Get you far from the
Lord; unto us is this land
given in possession" Where it must be obvious, as already
shewn, that "all the family of Israel wholly" are those,
and those only, against whom the wicked inhabitants of
Jerusalem acted as enemies: and the same is true of these
places of Jeremiah, Isaiah, and others noticed above.
Again, that these are God's Elect and holy Remnant, is
evident from what immediately follows (Ezek. xi. 16): "
Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord god ; Although I have
cast them far off among the heathen, and although I have
scattered them among the countries, yet will I be unto them
as a little sanctuary in the countries where they shall
come;''' as already noticed. Of the other party (ib. ver.
21) : " But as for them whose heart walketh after their
detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense
their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord god." That
there is a palpable distinction made here, no one can for a
moment doubt. The promises are made to the good, the threats
denounced against the bad, i. e. " the inhabitants of
Jerusalem" generally. The promises are (ib. ver. 17) : "
Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord god ;
I
will even gather
you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries
where ye have been scattered, and I will bring you into the
land of Israel.'''' That is, I will gather you who are
really my people, and all the house of the spiritual Israel
wholly: while I will execute my fierce judgments upon the
heads of those, who call themselves Israel but are really
not so. This holy family of Israel was therefore, to be
gathered, while the curse of dispersion should, with all its
accompanying evils, rest upon the unholy one. It is added of
the holy party (ib. ver. 19, seq.), "I will give them one
heart, and I will put a new spirit within you... and they
shall be my people, and I will be their God." And that the
other party should not be so gathered, the same Prophet thus
fully asserts (chap. vii. 13), " The vision is touching the
whole multitude thereof, which shall not return" (ver.
14)..."for my wrath is upon all the multitude thereof" i. e.
of the transgressors. That this holy Remnant, scattered as
they were— or abiding, as the case might be, in Canaan,—were
not, within the period termed " the latter days," gathered
in to the earthly Jerusalem, we shall see hereafter: and
Prophecy assigns no other period, for the gathering in of
the Jews in any place whatsoever, or in any sense.
But to return to our Prophet (Jer. xxxi.) If we now pass
on to verse 7, we shall find this holy Remnant expressly
mentioned; and this must consist of those called " all the
families of Israel" in the first verse. The words are : "
Thus saith the lord ; Sing with gladness for Jacob, and
shout among the chief of the nations," (i. e. just as in
Isaiah) : "publish ye, praise ye, and say, O lord, save thy
people, the remnant of Israel." Where the Remnant of Israel
are clearly designated as God's people, and they must have
comprehended all His truly spiritual people; and, from what
we have seen of their opponents, it must be evident that, in
truth, they were not God's people.
Again (ver. 8), "Behold, I will bring them from the north
country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth...a
great company shall return thither." Whither ? Of necessity,
to the land and privileges of Israel as granted by Covenant
to Abraham, when he became the spiritual father of many
nations : and in this, as Isaiah said in his days (chap. x.
21), ".The Remnant should return, even the Remnant of Jacob,
unto the Mighty God;" i. e. to Him who should (chap. ix. 6,
seq.) be born as a child, and thence sit on the throne of
David, to exercise a rule as the Prince of Peace, which
should know no end. Jeremiah proceeds (ver. 10) : "He that
scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him as a shepherd
doth his flock." By which must necessarily be meant " all
Israel:" no faithful shepherd ever neglecting a part of his
flock. But all were not Israel, who were of Israel
[Rom. ix. 6.];
and this distinction must, of necessity, be kept up here.
The promises of God are in this place the subject-matter of
our context, and these cannot be applied to those on whom
vengeance is so constantly denounced, and is to this very
day executed ; unless we choose to set all discrimination at nought, and to make the word of God say that, to which his
holy Law is in principle altogether opposed.
We have too in the next verse (11), " The lord hath
redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that
was stronger than he" Isaiah, speaking on the same subject,
asks (chap. xlix. 24, seq.), " Shall the prey be taken from
the mighty, or the lawful captive delivered ?" The answer is
full, and to the point: " Thus saith the lord, Even the
captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and tlie prey of
the terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him
that contendeth with," (i. e. the true Zion) " and I will
save thy children?" And what does He here say of those who
were His Zion's oppressors? " I will feed them that oppress
thee with their own, flesh, and they shall be drunken with
their own blood...and all flesh shall know'''' (i. e. at
that time) " that I the lord am thy Saviour, and thy
Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.'''All of which
literally took place within the period so often styled " the
latter days." The conclusion of our Prophet (Jer. ib. ver.
12) is, " Therefore they shall come and sing in the height
of Zion, and shall flow together to the goodness of the
lord, for wheat, and for wine, and for oil, and for the
young of the flock and of the herd; and their soul shall be
as a watered garden; and they snail not sorrow''"' (i. e.
spiritually) " any more at all?' Which must apply to " all
the families of" (the true) " Israel:" while it is obvious
from the whole context, that the holy seed and Remnant of
Israel alone must be meant, to the exclusion of " the
multitude?
If we now pass on to verse 15 here, we shall find a
circumstance well suited to determine the period had in
view by our Prophet: viz. "A voice was heard in Ramah,
lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her
children refused to be comforted,...because they were
not."1"1 Of this the Evangelist St. Matthew (chap. ii.
17,18) gives the following interpretation : " Then teas
fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet,
saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and
weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for Tier
children, and would not be comforted, because they are not."
The occasion of this was, the slaughter of the infants of
Bethlehem, and its object was, the destruction of our
blessed Lord, because He, as it was feared, would occupy the
throne of David, and so set aside this murderous heathenish
King. That St. Matthew's interpretation is the true one
here, there can be no doubt entertained by believers in the
New Testament.
"Refrain" continues Jeremiah, addressing the true Zion
(ver. 16), "thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from
tears; for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the lord ; and
they" (i. e. thy children) ''shall come again from the
land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the
lord, that thy children shall come again to their own
border." By " thy end," must necessarily be meant here the
end of Judaism, as a peculiar and exclusive system: and, in
this sense, it will be equivalent to the usage, " the latter
days" presently to be noticed : and to this very period St.
Matthew, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, refers this
prophecy for its fulfilment. By " thy work shall be
rewarded," and " they" (thy children) "shall come again from
the land of the enemy," must be meant, as it should seem,
the same that is both by Isaiah and Jeremiah as cited above,
when it is said, " Even the captives of the mighty shall be
taken away" &c...." and I will save thy children :" and
again, " The lord hath redeemed Jacob from the hand of him
that was stronger than he" &c. The coming again therefore,
of Zion's children (ver. 17, ib.) "to their own lorder"
must signify their coming again, not to the temporal
Jerusalem which then was, and still is, in bondage with her
children, but to that Jerusalem and holy City, to which, as
St. Paul informs us, the converts of Zion of his days
actually did come (Heb. xii. 22).
We have again, a little lower down (Jer. chap. xxxi. 22),
express reference to the miraculous birth of Christ. " The
lord," it is said, " hath created a new thing in the earth,
A woman shall compass a man" (more literally surround,
comprehend, inclose, i. e. within her, a great or eminent
man [Heb. <Hebrew>
It is well known that the term <Hebrew> differs greatly from
<Hebrew> and <Hebrew>. It may here be considered perhaps, as
intended to suggest to us <Hebrew> of Isa. ix. 6, and
<Hebrew> of Ps. xlv. 4. Its being mentioned here as a new
thing in the earth, cannot but remind us of the
extraordinary declaration, that the seed of the woman
(alone) should bruise the serpents head ; and also of
Isaiah's, " Behold, the Virgin shall conceive, and bear a
son, and shall call his name Immanuel." We hare a similar
intimation of this new thing in the earth in Prov. xxx. 19.
Auth. Vers. "The way of a man with a maid" which is without
point or meaning here : but is quite of a piece with Jewish
grossness; and from the Jews has it been taken. Better thus,
The way (manner, now) of a (mighty) man within a virgin. We
have in this place moreover, the very word (HD^V virgin) of
Isa. vii. 14. It has already been remarked, that this
extraordinary occurrence was to attend the birth of the
Redeemer. Nothing can be more likely therefore, than that it
would be thus adverted to.]). And
again (ver. 31, seq.), we are also brought to the times of
the New Covenant in these words : " Behold, the days come,
saith the lord, that I will make a new covenant with the
house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.,.1 will put my
law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts ;
and will be their God, and they shall be my people" Which is
just what Ezekiel has said of the same people, as cited
above, viz. " / mil give them one heart, and I will put a
new spirit within them... and they shall be my people, and I
will be their God" But we have an authoritative
interpretation of this place (Heb. viii. 13, and x. 16,
seq.). The Apostle's words are: "In that he saith, A new
covenant, He hath made" (i.e. declared) " the first old. Now
that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish
away:" and again, " Now where remission of these is, there
is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren"
(i. e. of this whole house of Israel), " boldness to enter
into the holiest by the blood of Jesus...let us draw near
with faith" &c. From which, as well as from the context of
this whole Epistle, it is evident St. Paul held, and here
labored to have it believed, that the days of the New
Covenant had arrived: and that he, and his believing
brethren of the whole house of the true Israel, the Remnant
that had escaped, had been brought back from the land of the
enemy, had been redeemed and delivered fully, from the hand
of him that had been stronger than they; and that they had
actually returned to the heavenly Jerusalem, and real
spiritual City, of the Living God.
After declaring in the sequel here, that no more should
the seed of Israel, that is, the seed of all the true
Israel, fail from being a nation (and the Jews, merely as
such, are now no nation, no people) before Him for ever,
than should the ordinances of the heavens, the sun, moon,
and stars; it is added (ver. 38), "Behold, the days come,
saith the lord, that the city shall be built to the lord/tom
the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner;" which
is best explained by the new city described by Ezekiel in
his forty-eighth chapter, and thence taken and shewn by John
in the Revelation, to be that new Jerusalem and City of the
Living God, in the light of which the nations of them that
should be saved should walk, and into which their kings
should bring their wealth and glory; that is,—as we shall
hereafter shew,—it is none other than the Christian Church.
There is not therefore, in any part of this whole context,
so much as one syllable promising a general return of the
Jews to Palestine: on the contrary, the whole is strictly
conversant about Christ's Kingdom to be established by His
Apostles: in this point of view, the whole is in perfect
harmony with the declarations of all the Prophets, and in
exact accordance with the requirements of the case, as
brought before us in both Covenants.
On Ezekiel, Chapters xxxvi, xxxvii.
We now come to Chapters xxxvi. and xxxvii. of Ezekiel:
and, it must be confessed, the context of these is by no
means so precise and clear, as of those which we have been
considering. Still, I think we shall find, that to the same
conclusion we must come, namely, that in these no return of
the Jews to Palestine is to be found. The address of the
Prophet is .directed, in the first part of Chapter xxxvi.,
to the mountains of Israel: " Also, thou son of man? it is
said, "prophesy unto the mountains of Israel, and say, Ye
mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord.'''' Let us
endeavor, in the first place, to ascertain what is meant by
" the mountains of Israel."
Nothing is more common in holy Scripture than to speak of
a land, when its inhabitants are really meant. If it be
supposed that a personification is intended, the result will
be much the same; for then we shall have a land personified,
and this for the purpose of representing the character of
its inhabitants. In any case therefore, people must be
meant: but whether the better or the worse party, or both,
the context alone can determine. In the context before us,
these mountains, or people, of Israel are represented as
beloved of God, and their enemies as hated; and, whether we
here consider these Israelites beloved, as constituting the
people of God generally, or only the better part of them,
our result will be the same. For first, this whole nation
was preserved, and maintained as such, for the purposes of
mercy to the whole world: for salvation was, generally
speaking, to be of the Jews. And in this sense they may have
been generally addressed. And secondly, supposing the better
party only to be meant, then the address must be considered
as particular. It will be upon the particular application
which we here make in each case, that our result will
depend.
The Prophet proceeds then (ver. 2), " Thus saith the Lord
god ; Because the enemy hath said against you, Aha, even the
ancient high places are ours in possession;
Therefore...thus saith the Lord god; Because they have made
you desolate, and swallowed you up on every side, that ye
might be a possession unto the residue of the heathen."...
From which it is evident, that this discourse is directed
against those, whose object it was to destroy the Church of
God, then in Judea. The claim made to " the ancient high
places" here, shews plainly, I think, that the contest is
between heathenism and revealed religion. A little lower
down (ver. 5), Idumea and the residue of the heathen are
mentioned as the enemies had in view. And, according to the
Scriptures generally, these were Moab, Ammon, Gebal, the
Hagarenes, Tyre, Zidon, Philistia, Egypt, Syria, Assyria,
Babylon, Gog and Magog. And in all these, the enmity was
against the Church in Jewry generally.
The declaration of the Prophet against these is (ver. 7),
" Thus saith the Lord god, I have lifted up my hand" (i. e.
in making oath), " Surely the heathen that are about you,
they shall bear their shame." But this overthrow of the
heathen, is always limited to the time of the New Covenant.
Then comes the promise, that the Church shall prevail and
prosper (ver. 8), which must necessarily refer to the same
period: " But ye, O mountains of Israel, ye shall shoot
forth your branches, and yield your fruit to my people of
Israel; for they are at hand to come" (in). By "my people
Israel" here, must be meant those of the New Covenant; for
whom indeed, the ministrations under the Old were all
continued; and for this purpose was that polity supported
until the set time should come. Nor is it easy to see in
what other sense, the place " they are at hand to come"
(in), can be understood.
Verses 12—16, here have been misunderstood by the
Translators. They should have been rendered to this effect:
" / have even caused men to walk upon you, (O) my people
Israel, and they have possessed thee, and thou hast been to
them for an inheritance: but thou shalt no more (be) a
bereavement for them
[I.e. bo so bereaved by them.].
Thus hath the Lord Jehovah'
said; Because (men) say of you, Thou
art a devourer of men, and hast been a bereave of thy
nations. Therefore thou shalt devour men no more, nor shalt
thou bereave [See
Num. xiii. 32]. thy nations any more,
is the word of the Lord Jehovah. Nor will I cause (or allow
any) to hear against thee more a reproach of the nations,
nor shalt thou bear any more the contempt of the heathen;
nor shalt thou bereave
[Lev. xyiii. 28: xx. 22.]thy
nations any more, is the word of the Lord Jehovah."
The reproach here had in view, can be no other than that
urged against the true Church in the times of the Prophet,
and to be urged against it, in the view of prophecy, up to
the times in which its redemption and universal
establishment should take place. The answers of God too are
quite sufficient to shew, that this true Church is meant,
and that its controversy should be happily terminated. The
corrupt part of the Jewish nation can therefore, have
neither part nor lot in this matter: the question is purely
between the high places of heathenism and the mountains,
valleys, rivers, and the like, of God's spiritual Zion.
(Comp. verr. 8—12.) To this, accordingly, must these
promises belong.
From verse 16 to 21, we have the final dispersion of the
disobedient Jews foretold, and the cause of this assigned:
namely, the shedding of innocent blood and idolatry. And, be
it observed, as this sin was national, so was its
punishment. The multitude sinned, and the multitude
suffered. The land entirely spued them out, just as the
terms of the Covenant required: and here good and bad were
necessarily included. Still it would not follow, that to the
true Church no means of grace should be left, no source of
deliverance, especially as it had been promised again and
again, that the (true) seed of Israel should never fail
before the Lord. So far therefore, the land of Canaan would
be wholly lost, while means of salvation would still remain
to the Church. Let us see how this was provided for here.
"But" it is said ver. 21, seq., "/ had pity for mine holy
name, which the house of Israel" (generally) " had profaned
among the heathen, whither they went."..," And I will
sanctify my great name...which ye have profaned... and the
heathen shall know that I am the Lord God, when, I shall be
sanctified in you before their eyes." That is, although
Israel generally is cast out as an abominable branch, yet
God's holy name is at this time among them, and among them
alone. With them remains the holy seed, and these constitute
God's Church and people. From them is to go forth the voice
of thanksgiving and making merry: this is God's purpose, and
this shall not be annulled: this is the great object and end
of His Covenant sworn, and this shall be accomplished in
them: this too the heathen, who now despise them, shall see
and know; for to them shall these be as showers upon the
grass [Mic. v. 7.],
even to all nations. Comp. chap. xx. 41, seq. It is added,
ver. 24—
" For I will take you" (i. e. my Church) "from among the
heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring
you into your own land." Now that this cannot apply to the
whole multitude of the Jews, must be evident from these
considerations. I. It is only to the true seed, or holy
Remnant, that promises such as these are made by the sacred
writers, as the nature of the case indeed requires. II. The
Covenant made with Abraham, and fulfilled in ' Christ Jesus,
absolutely requires this. The privilege of so returning and
coming back to the true Zion, has been laid open to all; and
those who have accepted it, have so returned : the Election
hath found it [Rom. xi. 7.], while the rest are
blinded, and hence they remain in captivity: which those,
who were heathen in the days of the Prophet, have long ago
seen and known. III. The time has long been fulfilled; the
New Covenant has been miraculously established, just as the
Old was: and it declares, that " If they abide not in
unbelief, they shall be grafted in...and thus shall all
Israel be saved [Ib. 23—27.].'1'' But, if they believe
not, and be not baptized, they must be damned
[Mark xvi. 16.].
No prediction can override this, nor has any been made, at
variance with it, in any respect whatsoever.
When it is said therefore, verr. 25—38: " Then will I
sprinkle clean water upon you" (I will baptize you with
water, and with the Spirit), " and ye shall be clean: from
all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse
you. A new heart [see Jer. xxxii. 39.] also will I give
you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take
away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you
a heart of flesh," &c. The privileges of the New Covenant
must be here meant, for the times of the New Covenant are
had in view : besides, in no case are promises made but to
faith: and in this was the New Covenant to be established.
This again will enable us fully to understand the following (ver. 34, seq.), "And the desolate land" (i.e. the once
desolate heritage of the heathen, now the spiritual
possession of abraham), "shall be tilled, whereas it lay
desolate in the sight of all that passed by. And they shall
say, This land that was desolate is become like the garden
of Eden" (comp. Rev. xxii. 2), " and the waste and desolate
and ruined cities" (i.e. every where,) "are become fenced,
and are inhabited" (i.e. by true Israelites). It is added,
perhaps to prevent all mistake, and to bring the reader back
to the covenanted mercies of God to His Church (ver. 37): "/
will yet for this" (i. e. cause) " be enquired of by the
house of Israel" (necessarily here the true Israel), " to do
it for them: I ivill increase them with men like a flock. As
thy holy flock, as the flock of Jerusalem in her solemn
feasts ; so shall the waste cities" (i. e. every where) " be
filled with flocks of men: and they shall know that I am the
Lord." In other words, Zion should now have so lengthened
her cords and strengthened her stakes, that the whole
heritage of the heathen should have become the empire of the
Son of man.
We must bear in mind, that the times of the New Covenant
are now before us; that Zion has so lengthened her cords and
strengthened her stakes
[Isa. LIV. 2.],
and has taken into her ample fold, as a holy flock, the
countless myriads of the Gentiles. This land of promise
then, this Canaan given by oath to Abraham, and so
constituting him its spiritual heir^ i. e. in his seed, is
necessarily that referred to by the Prophet here. In his
forty-seventh and forty-eighth chapters he speaks of this as
of a new grant of land,—of which more hereafter, —these both
the prince and the stranger should have a share, the city of
God should be built, and the river of God should abundantly
heal, and irrigate it. This, once presenting a desert and
waste howling wilderness, was now, according to Isaiah, to
abound with rivers and pools of water, and to rejoice and
blossom like the rose: this, I say, once the habitation of
dragons, and of every hurtful and unclean thing, was now so
to be restored, that no ravenous beast should be found
there, nothing that should hurt or destroy; the redeemed
alone should walk there, refresh themselves by still waters,
and lie down in pastures of comfort. But, if we carry all
this back and place it within the times of the Old Covenant,
which would be to close our eyes against light bright as
that of the mid-day sun, we might perhaps imagine, that the
Jewish multitude of unbelievers,— which indeed the Old
Covenant would not bear,—were thus to be restored, and the
literal mountains, valleys, rivers, and desolate wastes of
Palestine, to be made thus flourishing, prosperous, and
permanently happy. But the circumstances of the context
clearly forbid it. The true Church is here brought before
us, and this must imply the true and spiritual Israel; which
the unbelieving Jews are not, view them under which Covenant
you will. But, with the Old and temporary Covenant and
Canaan, we clearly have here nothing to do : nor
consequently, have we with Jewish notions. Let us now see
what the next Chapter says on this subject.
Ezekiel, Chapter xxxvii.
It must be obvious, I think, to every considerate reader that this Chapter has two specific objects before it, as
indeed it is the case with prophecy generally. One, which is
temporal, and may be considered as a sort of theme, or
groundwork, of The other, which is purely spiritual. The
first of these is a prediction, that the Jews generally
should be released from the Babylonian captivity: the
second, that in them, as a spiritual people, should an
universal release from spiritual captivity and bondage, be
granted to all intelligent creation, in strict conformity
with the Covenant renewed in David, but originally made with
Abraham.
As to the first of these, the Prophet is commissioned to
go and address the Jews then in captivity, as a people
desponding, sorrowing, and looking upon themselves as
politically dead, and as exhibiting to the view nothing
better than mere skeletons. His discourse to them begins
with (ver. 4, seq.), " O ye dry bones, hear the word of the
Lord, ... Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and
ye shall live...and ye shall know that I am the Lord." Then
(ver. 10, seq.), "So I prophesied as He commanded me, and
the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon
their feet, an exceeding great army." We then have their
desponding state, just now noticed, in these words (ver.
11): " Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are
cut off from, our parts" (i. e. from our inheritance). The
answer is (ver. 12, seq.), "O my people, I will open your
graves" (i.e. as here exhibited in the vision), " and cause
you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the
land of Israel" (i. e. the lot of your inheritance, in a
literal sense), " then shall ye know that I the Lord have
spoken it, and performed it."
The context then goes on to tell us, that now should the
divided houses of Israel and Judah be for ever united; and
that now also, idolatry should no more prevail among them
(verr. 15—21). The promise is then repeated (ver. 21, seq.),
"Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the
heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every
side, and bring them into their own land... And I will make
them one nation...neither shall they defile themselves any
more with idols" All this, I say, was intended to have, in
the first instance, a literal fulfilment; in this
acceptation it was to take place under the temporary
covenant then existing; and it did so take place.
It is certain in the first instance, that this was
addressed to all the literal house of Israel (verr. 16, 22,
24); and that freedom was proclaimed to them all by Cyrus;
as it also is, that all the Jews did not avail themselves of
this. It was only a Remnant that preferred Canaan to
Chaldea: but it was a remnant of them all. And hence we are
told [Ezra vi.
17.], that after they had rebuilt the
temple at Jerusalem, " the priests and Levites offered for a
sin offering, for all Israel, twelve he-goats, according to
the number of the tribes of Israel" It must be evident
therefore, that some of every tribe were present; it being
contrary to the Law to offer by proxy. The chief of each
tribe must have been present, and have laid his hands upon
the head of his victim respectively. A Remnant of all did
therefore return; and consequently, the notion, that ten of
these tribes have been lost, is a mere figment, St. Paul
moreover, speaks familiarly in his times
[Acts xxvi. 7.],
of the. twelve tribes as then known to exist; and St. James
[Epist. i.:1.] actually
addresses his Epistle to converts from them all: neither of
which could have been done, had ten out of the twelve tribes
then been lost. So far this notion is to be cast to the
winds, and this portion of our Prophet to be taken
literally, and viewed as literally fulfilled.
It has been remarked that this prophecy has, like many
others of a similar character, also a spiritual sense,
couched under the literal one. It is said (ver. 24, seq.), "David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall
have one shepherd: they also shall walk in my judgments, and
observe my statutes, and do them.""..." and my servant David
shall be their prince for ever. Moreover, I will make a,
covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting
covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply
them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for
evermore [So Ezek.
xlviii. 8, 10, 21; as we shall see hereafter on Rev. xxi.].
And the heathen shall know that I the lord do sanctify
Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for
evermore.''
We have here certain particulars, incapable of a literal
interpretation, given perhaps for the purpose of suggesting
to us the all-important testimony of Jesus, as the spirit of
prophecy. "David my servant" it is said, "shall be king over
them." But the literal David, as remarked above, had long
ago been laid in the sepulchre with his fathers. Some other
David must therefore now be meant; and this can be no other
than David's spiritual son and successor. Whether therefore,
the Jews were now to look by faith for His coming, or are
to be considered as obeying after He should have appeared in
the flesh, it is clear that the place must be spiritually
understood and received. But there are terms occurring here,
which evidently carry the times of this prediction into
those of the New Covenant. It is said, "I will make my
covenant of peace with them:" which must imply the making of
some covenant not then made: and we know of none, except
that New Covenant which was ratified by the blood of the
Prince of peace.
The prophet Micah (chap. v. 5) has a similar passage,
clearly referring to the same person and period; namely, to
Christ and his times: "This man," it is said, " shall be the
peace, when the Assyrian shall come forth into our land,''
(i. e. here, the Power that should succeed to Assyria).
There can be no doubt, that the man so mentioned is the
person here foretold as the Leader of Israel, who should
come forth from Bethlehem Ephratah: and of him inspired
authority has declared, that He was the Lord Jesus
[Matt. ii. 6.].
The third verse further informs us, that " then" i. e. "at
that time" according to Jeremiah as quoted above, " the
Remnant of his" (Christ's) " brethren" (i. e. the holy
Remnant, comp. verr. 7, 8) ''shall return unto the" (true)
" children of Israel" (i. e. to the Apostles and their
coadjutors, not to the temporal Canaan). Micah adds, " And
he shall stand and feed" (i. e. as a shepherd) " in the
strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord
his God" (i. e. as vested with this divine majesty in his
own person); "and," it is added, " they shall abide" (i. e.
for ever as "his flock "); ''for now shall He be great
unto the ends of the earth." (Comp. Ps. Ixxii.) We have here
therefore, both the King, and the one Shepherd, of Ezekiel
in this Leader of Judah, and also this man and author of the
Covenant of peace. This context therefore, brings us
directly to the times of the New Covenant, and particularly
informs us, that now, i.e. in the period wherein Christ
should so appear, and so extend His empire to the
extremities of the earth, the Remnant,—and the Remnant only
of His brethren, i. e. the " Election" of St. Paul, and
"Elect" of St. Peter, should return as from captivity to the
children of Israel; or, to use the words of Isaiah, " to the
mighty God."
And once more, "an everlasting covenant" was now to be
made with the united houses of Israel and Judah, i. e. not
like the covenant made with their fathers when they came out
of Egypt, every particular of which was to be in force
"during their generations'' only, and not to extend to
that which should follow; but an everlasting covenant, which
should abide even as the ordinances of heaven before the
Lord; and should extend, great in its authority and power,
''unto the ends of the earth" This, I say, cannot be
confined to the times and country of Jewry. It stretches out
far beyond them, and must therefore be taken in the sense
required by the New Covenant.
We have now to notice the places in which it is said,
that they shall be brought to their own land, and the like.
We have then (ver. 22), " / will make them one nation in the
land on the/mountains of Israel." We have seen, that this
context is to be taken in a spiritual sense, and, that by "
the mountains, valleys, rivers," &c. of Israel, we are not
to understand the mountains, &c. of Judea, but rather the
true Church of (rod, as addressed under these terms. By "
The land of Israel"" therefore, must be meant, that land
given by Covenant to the true spiritual Israel, to be
possessed and enjoyed by them under the rule of David, their
spiritual King. And this land again, must include the land
of Canaan; which will now have lost its peculiarity, and be
merged in that of the universal empire of the Son of man.
And the same must be true of ver. 25, for in this land
the spiritual David is to reign for ever and ever. In these
cases therefore, the first and great Covenant, made with
Abraham, will be complied with in the amplitude both of its
terms and its blessings: the heavenly Jerusalem will have
wholly superseded every peculiarity of the earthly one :
because now, all things will "have become new." We have
consequently, in these portions of holy Scripture, precisely
what we have in all its predictions, the return of the holy
Remnant of Jacob to the Mighty God, and to all the
privileges of His New Jerusalem: but, of the multitude of
the unbelieving Jews generally, not a word about a return
is to be found here: the curses of the Law resting upon
them, as the blessings do on the faithful seed. It is said
nevertheless, " If they abide not in unbelief, they shall
(all) be graffed in and be saved: if they turn to the Lord
their gob, He will turn to them" will accept and bless them:
but these blessings must of necessity be those of the New
Covenant; and this acknowledges neither Canaan, Jew, Greek,
Scythian, Barbarian, Bond, nor Free, as peculiar; but in
Christ Jesus all, both in the aggregate, and severally, as
one [111 Col. iii.
11.].
Sect. VI.—On the Causes of the Dispersion of the Remnant,
or holy party among the Jews, and of its return from this.
As mention is made, in some of the quotations above, of
gathering in the Israelites who had been dispersed, and in
some cases before the Babylonian captivity, it may be
desirable to inquire, how such dispersion appears to have
happened. In Jer. xxiii. 3, it is said, as in some
instances above, " / will gather the remnant of my flock out
of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring
them again to their folds,'1'1 &c. From the terms "the
Remnant of my flock? it must be evident that the whole body
of the Jews could not be meant: and, from what follows here,
it also must, that this gathering is to be referred to the
Apostolic times. We have a similar prediction in Ezek.
xxxiv. 13, seq., " / will bring them out from the people,
and gatlier them from the countries, and will bring them to
their own land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel
by tlie rivers'''' (comp. Is. xxx. 25 ; xli. 18)..."/ will
seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was
driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and
will strengthen that which was sick." It is added of the
opposing party, " But I will destroy the fat and the strong:
I will feed them with judgment."..."Behold, I, even / will
judge between the fat cattle, and between the lean
cattle...Therefore will I save my flock, and they shall be
no more a prey...And I will set up one shepherd over them,
and He shall feed them, even my servant David: He shall feed
them, and He shall be their shepherd," &c. See the following
context; where, it will be observed, this Remnant are said
to be driven out, preyed upon, thrust, pushed, and the
like: while their oppressors are the temporizing Jews of
those times. In Jeremiah (chap, xxxiii. 9) it is declared,
that this holy Remnant should be to God a name, a praise,
and an honour, before all the nations of the earth (comp.
Zeph. iii. 19). And a little lower down (ver. 14, seq.), we
have the promise of the coming of Christ, in the Branch of
righteousness which should grow up to David (i. e. as his
spiritual successor), whose name should be " the lord our
righteousness." And here again (ver. 24), we have the
infidel and impious opinions and sayings of the opposing
sinful party. Respect is here had therefore, of necessity,
to the times of Christ, in which this Good Shepherd should
be raised up, this Remnant restored, and this impious party
judged. And, be it observed, all this is prophecy properly
so called; and it has been fulfilled to the very letter.
How far the cruelty of the impious Jews might have caused
this dispersion, driving out, and casting out, of their
poorer and better brethren, it may be impossible now to say:
that it did to a considerable extent, is highly probable
from the following places. In Amos (chap. ii. 6) they are
directly charged with this: " Thus saith the lord, For three
transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not turn
away the punishment thereof': because they sold the
righteous for silver, and the poor for a pair of shoes ;
that pant after the dust of the earth on the head of the
poor, and turn aside the way of the meek," &c. Again (chap.
viii. 5, seq.), " When will the new moon be gone,... that we
may buy the poor for silver, and the needy for a pair of
shoes?" &c. Where, let it be observed, that by " the poor
and needy,'''1 must be meant this holy party; but, whether
they were sold by their richer brethren to each other as
slaves, or to the heathen in their neighbourhood, we are not
informed here. It is probable they were both : for, without
the latter, it will be difficult to understand the
following from Joel (chap. iii. 2, seq.), addressed perhaps
to Tyre, Zidon, and the coasts of Palestine generally:..."/
will gather all nations...and will plead with them...for my
people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered
among the nations.,, and they have cast lots for my people;
and have .given a boy for an harlot, and sold a girl for
wine, that they might drink." (ver 6, seq.) " The children of
Judah and the children of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the
Grecians, that ye might remove them far from their border.
Behold, I will raise them out of the place whither ye have
sold them, and will return your recompense upon your own
head." Edom is also charged (Obad. ver. 11) with taking a
part in this sort of casting lots, and injuring Jerusalem;
and against him also a similar judgment is denounced. In
Joel (1. c. ver. 1) it is said, " In those days, and in that
time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and
Jerusalem, I will also gather" &c. as above. In Obadiah
(ver. 17), " But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance"
(comp. Joel ii. 32), "and there shall be holiness; and the
house of Jacob shall possess their" (i. e. Edom's)
"possessions,."...(ver. 20), " And the captivity of this
host of the children of Israel'1'' (i. e. its holy party) "
shall possess that of the Canaanites,,..and the captivity of
Jerusalem...the cities of the south" (comp. Jer. xxiii. 8.
Isa. xliii. 5—22; xlix. 9—13, 24—26 iDclus.). Nineveh again
(Nahum iii. 4), is likewise charged with selling nations
through her whoredoms, and families through her
witchcrafts: which must of necessity have affected the Jews,
otherwise it will be difficult to account for its mention
here. Much the same is said of Babylon (Rev. xviii. 13),
for to-Nineveh it succeeded as the metropolis of the
Assyrian empire. And again, it may be difficult to conceive
how Nineveh, as also the Powers bordering on Judea, could
have carried on this traffic, unless assisted in it by the
Jews themselves, who may hence be fairly said to have driven
and cast them out.—It is to be observed here moreover, that
at the time when the Nations should be so gathered together,
at the same, should the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem be
brought back. And this time the context of Joel puts out of
all possible doubt (chap. ii. 28, seq.), as interpreted by
St. Peter (Acts ii. 17). And it must also follow, that the
land here had in view (Joel ii. 19—28), as also that in
Ezekiel, could not be. that of the literal Canaan.
In Zechariah (chap. ix. 13, seq.) we have again, the
raising up of the sons of Zion against those of Greece in
these words: " When I have bent Judah for me, and filled the
bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, 0 Zion, against
thy sons, 0 Greece, and made thee as a sword of a mighty
man, ...they shall devour, and subdue with sling stones'1''
(i. e. as David subdued Goliath). " And the lord their God
shall save them in that day as the flock of his people" (i.
e. the once poor and lean flock): "for they shall" (now) "
be" (rich and precious) " as the stones of a crown lifted up
as an ensign upon His land" (i. e. they shall hence ever be
so, even in Greece itself, thus subdued, taken in
possession, and consecrated to the Lord, and so made His
land). Again, Micah (v. 7, seq.), " the remnant of Jacob
shall be in the midst of many people as a dew from the lord"
(i. e. reflecting His light like the dew-drops upon the
earth), "as showers upon the grass, that tarrieth not for
man, nor waitethfor the sons of men." (i. e. but comes in
its determined season: so should this remnant come, and so
should it perpetually beautify, irrigate, and make to spring
up, that which truly gladdens the heart of man). To the same
effect Isaiah (chap. xxxv. 6, 7), "In the wilderness shall
waters break out, and streams in the desert. And the parched
ground" (i.e. of the heathen world) "shall become a pool,
and the thirsty land springs of water?''... (ver. 10,) "And
the ransomed" (not the unransomed) " o/" the lord shall
return'''' (i. e. from captivity), " and come to Zion with
songs and everlasting joy upon their heads,'''1 he..." and
sorrow and sighing" (i. e. such as they experienced in this
captivity) " shall flee away." And, as to the precious
stones, said to represent the light and beauty of this
conquering party, they are made by Isaiah (chap. uv. 11) and
John. (Rev. xxi. 19), the general foundation-stones of Zion,
the New Jerusalem, which descendeth out of heaven from God;
and in this last place, these are affirmed to be the
Apostles of the Lamb. This return therefore, from captivity,
so often spoken of by the Prophets, is not a mere
restoration from one locality to another; it is, when taking
place beyond the times of the theocracy, much more ; it is
the deliverance of God's true Church from the oppressions of
the heathen, and of heathenish men; of sin, and of Satan, in
every case; it marks moreover, the establishment of the
great Covenant made with Abraham in every land, and to all
generations.
There is again a passage in Zephaniah to this effect, so
strong and plain, that it can scarcely be misunderstood.
After a most fearful denunciation of wrath against the
wicked in Jewry (chap. i. 12, &c.), it is said (chap. ii. 3,
seq.), " Seek ye the lord, all ye meek op the earth which
have wrought His judgments.""..." For Gaza shall be
forsaken"..." And the coast shall be for the remnant of the
house of Judah ; they shall feed thereupon :.. .for the lord
their God shall visit them, and turn away their
captivity."..." Moab shall be as Sodom, and the children of
Ammon as Gomorrah...the residue'''' (i. e.
Remnant) " of my people shall spoil them, even the remnant
of my people shall possess them...because they
have...magnified themselves against the Lord of hosts. The
Lord will be terrible unto them: for He will famish all the
gods of the earth; and men shall worship him, every one from
his place, even all the isles of the heathen." Now, let it
be observed here, this Remnant of which traffic had been
made by Tyre, Zidon, Philistia, Edom, and others, on the
coasts of Palestine, are now to be the possessors of these
very lands: which must now be therefore, "the land of
Israel"
We have here therefore, an invaluable comment on the
returning of Judah's captivity. It is clear that this return
is promised to the Remnant only. It is then said, that "the
Remnant of the house of Judah...the residue of my people ...
the Remnant of my people, shall spoil and possess them," i.
e. Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, the sea-coasts, Canaan,
Moab, and Ammon, (but the whole heathen world must be added
to these). It is said moreover (ver. 7), " The Lord their
God shall visit them" (i. e. this holy Remnant), " and turn
away their captivity:" that is here, by giving them the
heritage of these heathen nations in a spiritual sense, and
with these that of all the heathen. And hence it is also
said (Isa. xiv. 2, seq.) : "The house of" (the true) "
Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord for
servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives,
whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their
oppressors." The context here again, is sufficient to
determine to what party of the Jews this is directed, and
that it is to the holy Remnant, which indeed constituted" all the "real" house of Israel wholly:" and to these (ver.
1), were the strangers to join themselves. Again, this was
to take place " in the land of the Lord." The thing
mystically here had in view is, the fall of Babylon, the
mother of harlots ': and consequently, the establishment of
the empire of the Son of Man: and hence it is said (ver. 7),
" The whole earth is at rest...they break forth into
singing:" i. e. as consisting of this House of Israel,
augmented by the countless multitudes of the strangers
joined to them. So also in Zeph. chap. ii. (Comp. Obad.
verr. 17—21 inclus.). To turn this captivity therefore, is
not to bring the Jews again into Canaan, but to give to the
Remnant the heritage of the heathen: and so it is said (ver.
11), " The lord will be terrible unto them: for he will
famish all the gods of the earth; and men shall worship Him,
every one from his place, even all the isles of the
heathen.'' " The land of the Lord'' therefore, must now
mean, of necessity, the entire heritage of the heathen; for
throughout this was every man to worship him, from his (own
several) place.
To the same effect is Zephaniah Chap. iii. After
denouncing the wicked Jews generally, it is said (ver. 8,
seq.), " Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the lord, until
the day that I rise up unto the prey: for my determination
is to gather the nations" (i. e. as in Joel above), " to
pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger ;
for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my
jealousy" (i. e. in the great judgment to be so inflicted
upon the heathen, because they would assemble themselves
together against the Lord, and against His Christ, Ps. ii.
1, seq., of which more hereafter.) When this shall be done
(ver. 9, seq.), "then will I turn to the people" (i. e.
the nations) " a pure language, that they may all call upon
the name of the lord, to serve Him with one consent" (i,
e. through the instrumentality of this holy Remnant). "
From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia,"" it is added, " my
suppliants, even the daughter" (i. e. the true Zion) "of my
dispersed" (and outcast), "shall bring mine offering;"...
"for then I will take away out of the midst of thee them
that rejoice in thy pride" (i. e. the sinful party). " /
will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor
people, and they shall trust in the name of the lord. The
remnant of Israel" (it is added) " shall not do iniquity,
nor speak lies., .for they shall feed and lie down, and none
shall make them afraid. Sing, O daughter of Zion," it is
added..." the lord hath taken away thy judgments, he hath
cast out thine enemy."..."Behold, at that time, I will undo
all that afflict thee: and I will save her that halteth, and
gather her that was driven out ; and I will get them praise
and fame in every land" (i. e. within the heritage of the
heathen) " where they have been put to shame" (i. e. as
slaves). It is repeated: " At that time I will bring you
again, even in the time that I gather you; for I will make
you a name and a praise among all people of the earth, when
I turn back your captivity before your eyes" The gathering
and turning back of captivity, of this holy
Remnant therefore,—and to no other persons does this
belong,—is not to be from every land to Canaan, but in every
land, wherein they shall have obtained a complete spiritual
victory : there shall their heritage be, and there shall
their fame (i. e. in every nation
[113 It should be observed
moreover, that, to bring back a captivity, bring back,
restore, and tbe like, does not necessarily imply, in
Scriptural language, a bringing back from one country to
another. Tinder the law indeed, this would imply literally
the bringing back locally from captivity, if captivity had
been denounced: but even there, not always necessarily. In
such cases, the verb ^uy in one form or other, is generally
used. So Ps. lxxxv. 5. !|2i!|t£J Turn us, &c. Ib. lxxx. 4.
SOl^n- " Turn us," &c. Ib. cxxvi. 4. iOJTltif. . . nilty, 0
turn . . .
our captivity, &c. In Zech. x. 9. seq. we have, " / will
sow them among the people" (nations): " and they shall
remember me in far countries ; and they shall live with
their children " (i. e. in those countries) "and turn again"
(iQtth) : i. e. of necessity to the Lord their God: not to Canaan, for that cannot be here. It is added, "/
will bring them again (D^rTi^t^m) also" (as) "out of the
land of Egypt, and gather them" (as) "out of Assyria" (i. e.
the Babylonian captivity) : "and I will bring them" (as)
"into the land of Gilead... and he" (i. e. Israel) "shall
pass" (as once he did) "through the sea" &c.: nothing being
more common in the Shemitic dialects than the omission of
this particle: e. g. " This is (as) my body" &c. (see my
Visitation Sermon, notes): besides, this great restoration
of the true Israel was to be after the manner of Egypt. See
Micah vii. 15—20. And again, the nature of the New Covenant
requires a Spiritual interpretation of all such places.—Amos
i. 2. presents several instances of this usage.— On the fate
of the unbelieving Jews, as to their captivity, see Amos ix.
4 seq. But (ver, 12. here) we have a reading which requires
particular notice. Heb. IJl QHS; JTnNttPJIN WT11 }yd?- "
That they may possess the remnant of Edom," &c. Auth. Vers.
There can be no doubt here, that the reign of the spiritual
David (Christ) is had in view, and under Him the restoration
of the true Israel, in Israel's Remnant. A remnant of Edom
is a thing unknown to Holy Writ. If then we reject the
particle Jltf, which some of the MSS. do, as does the Septuagint, the Arabic, and Syriac, versions, we
shall have all plain and obvious, thus : That the remnant
may possess Edom, and all the heathen upon whom my name is
called: i. e. the heathen who shall have received the New
Covenant. In ver. 14. here, this is, as before, made the
bringing again of the captivity of God's (true) people
Israel. And (ver. 15.) it is styled the planting of them
upon their own (i. e. covenanted) land. In this are they to
remain, and are to build up the waste cities: i. e. to fill
the face of the world with cities. This makes the whole easy
and consistent.]) be and continue.
It must be evident therefore, both from the nature of the
case, and from the usage of the Prophets, that, whenever
the promise of a restoration, or, which is the same thing,
of a return from captivity, is made, it is, in the first
place, made to them who truly believed, arid hence really
constituted the true Zion; not to unbelievers: this the
nature of the case makes impossible, and the declarations of
the Prophets plainly contradict. In the next place, should
such promise fall within the periods of the Theocracy, then
generally would a literal fulfilment take place, and a local
restoration or return be necessarily meant,—if the context
implied locality: but, if such prediction extend into times
beyond these, then must such promise be interpreted as the
nature of the New Covenant,—which will then be in force,
—shall require. The Typical and shadowy times, under which
such promise was given, will now have passed away; and the
substantial and antitypical ones have taken their place. The
shadows and types can now therefore, no longer be looked
for, but the things only so shadowed out and typified.
Jerusalem, Zion, Israel, and the like, will no longer be
confined to Canaan
[114 Mal. i. 11.], or Jewry : but
will, in strict accordance with the everlasting Covenant
made with Abraham (i. e. as the father of many nations'),
comprehend every place, people, family, and individual,
where the faith of Abraham is found to exist. Under this
view, the words of Moses are appropriate and forcible: "
Rejoice ye nations with His people:" i. e. in every part of
the world : and so the Psalmist (Ps. cii. 15, seq.), " The
heathen shall fear the name of the lord, and all the kings
of the earth thy glory. When the Lord shall build up" (His
universal) " Zion, he shall appear in his glory. He will
regard the prayer of the destitute" (i. e. of His now poor
and afflicted people, His Remnant), ..." To declare the name
of the lord in Zion, and His praise in Jerusalem : when the
people are gathered together, and the kingdoms, to serve the
Lord.'1'' All which can have no meaning under any
supposition, except that alone which views God's people in
every land, His Zion and Jerusalem in every kingdom of the
earth. To such Jerusalem then, must every return from
captivity now be: it must necessarily be from the power of
Satan to God: from heathen, slavery, to the glorious liberty
of Christ's kingdom.
This should bring especially to our minds, the manner in
which the Prophets often speak of this promised return from
captivity; for, although they generally use the terms proper
only for the system under which they lived, yet they do
occasionally so word themselves as to shew, that it was
rather the spirit of that system, than the letter of it, to
which they had respect. Isaiah, for example (chap. x. 21,
seq.), " The Remnant shall return, even the Remnant of
Jacob, unto the mighty god"..." the consumption decreed
shall overflow with righteousness." And in this spiritual
sense is the place taken by St. Paul (Rom. ix. 27, seq.). To
the same effect (Isa. vi. 13), " But yet in it shall be a
tenth, and it shall return...so the holy seed shall be the
substance" (i.e. the stock, comp. Rom. xi. 17, seq.): " If
some of the branches were broken off...boast not thyself
against the branches... And they.. .if they abide not in
unbelief, shall be grafted in ...and so all Israel shall be
saved.'' So also Moses (Deut. iv. 30, seq.), "In the
latter days, if thou turn to the lord thy God ...he will not
forsake thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which
he sware, unto them.'' But in these latter days, as we
shall presently see, the Mosaic system closed. This turning
must therefore, according to the terms of the New Covenant,
be a spiritual one. So again (ib. chap. xxx. 10, seq.), " If
thou turn unto the lord thy God with all thine heart, and
with all thy soul," &c. (ver. 3, ib.
[But, one word more with the Bishop of London, who says
on this context (verr. 3—10) in his Sermon, (p. 10); "As
there is here no limitation of a certain time, after which
repentance and turning to God would be of no avail, we
might conclude, that it is still open to the Jews, as a
nation, to look for the fulfilment of these promises upon
the conditions prescribed." No doubt: but then, the
"conditions prescribed" are, " When . . . thou shalt return
unto the Lord thy God". . ."if thou hearken," &c. And, What
must all this necessarily mean ? The receiving of Christ:
hence, a life of faith, and the possession, not of the
earthly Canaan exclusively, but of the heritage of all the
heathen. And if so, any other portion of the world will be
just as elegible as Canaan. But we have seen above, that
Ezekiel, speaking of the Jews generally,—and exclusive of
the Escaped or holy Remnant, who constituted all the house
of Israel wholly,—expressly says, that they shall not
return! Isaiah and others, as we have also seen, speak
equally strong, though less directly, to the same effect.
This will probably suffice here. The Bishop adds (ib. p.
11): " This is, of necessity, connected with a
reinstatement of the holy city of Jerusalem in splendour
and strength." We then have Zechariah xiv. 10,11, given in
support of this. According to St. Paul however, Jerusalem
that now is, is so far from being a holy city, that it
actually is in bondage to sin (Gal. iv. 25), and is, as a
bond-servant, cast out. But, if Jerusalem is to be so
reinstated in its splendour, the Temple must surely form a
part of it (see verr. 16, seq.). But Christianity knows of
no sacrifices, such as the feast of tabernacles required; of
no temple on earth, except that of the Holy Ghost. This, the
Bishop also tells us, is " their ancient and covenanted
inheritance." Very true: but then, that Covenant has past
away: they have been ejected, spued out, because of their
transgressions: and, under the New Covenant Canaan is
unknown. On "What grounds then, consistent with
Christianity, can this take place ? It is incumbent, I
think, on this Christian Bishop to tell us. But he cites
Zechariah: let us see with what propriety: the prophet tells
us (verr. 8, seq.) that in that day living waters shall go
out from Jerusalem;.. . and the lord shall be king over all
the eaeth." Now I would ask, Has this, or Has it not,
already taken place in the establishment of the Christian
Covenant ? The Gospel did go forth from Jerusalem; and St.
Paul assures me, that it had been preached to every creature
under heaven in his days: and also, that the " heavenly
Jerusalem" (the mother of us all) the (true) mount Sion, and
city of the living God, as opposed to the splendid figments
here held out, had been set up, and was then frequented by
the Believers. The Apostle also warns us against receiving
any Gospel, even though preached by an angel, if in any way
opposed to this: and, be it observed, this was directed
against Judaizers of all times.])
"then the lord thy God will turn thy captivity... and gather
thee, &c. and... will bring thee into the land which thy
fathers possessed... And the Lord will circumcise thine
heart ...And thou shalt return and obey," &c. Now, as this
was given very early, and long before the Babylonian
captivity, it would apply as much to that, as it would to
any other: and this, falling within the times of the
Theocracy, would require a literal fulfilment, as to the
land mentioned: and such it received. But, as it is spoken
generally, it would also apply to any other captivity, and
must be interpreted in conformity with the system which
should then prevail. And St. Paul has (Rom. x. 6, seq.) so
interpreted the place generally, thus: " The righteousness
which is of faith speaketh on this wise (Deut. xxx. 12, 13),
Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven ? (that
is, to bring Christ down) &c. But what saith it? The word
is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thine heart: that
is, the word of faith which we preach." So again, speaking
of the Jews (2 Cor. iii. 16), " When it" (i. e. the Jewish
heart) "shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away
:" i. e. so that they shall see to the end of those merely
shadowy observances, then existing only as temporary ones.
It would be almost endless to point out all the places,
more or less direct on this subject, occurring in the Old
Testament : enough perhaps has been given to shew, that
Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalmist, are as consistent,
full, and explicit upon it, as the nature of the case can
require. It is perhaps necessary to add however, that the
holy party had in view above, are named not only the
Remnant, Residue, Outcasts, Dispersed, Poor and afflicted
people, Her that halteth, The Elect, Election, All the whole
house of Israel wholly, The Lean Cattle, Poor of the flock,
The Meek, Zion, Jacob, The Daughter of Zion, Scattered and
peeled, The Righteous, Seed of the Righteous, Perfect,
Children of God, of the Most High, Children of Israel,
Judah, and the like, but by many other equivalent
expressions; all of which will appear evident enough, from
the several contexts in which they are found.
It should also be especially noticed, that generally,—
some few places we have noticed,—when the Messiah is
promised, the promise also is that Israel, i.e. as limited
above, should at the same time be restored: e. g. (Jer.
xxiii. 5, seq. and xxxiii. 15, 16), " Behold the days come,
saith the lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous
branch, and a, King shall reign and prosper, and shall
execute judgment and justice in the earth" It is added, "
in His days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall divell
safely'' (i. e. in Ezekiel's words, " all the house of
Israel wholly") ; " and this is His name whereby He shall be
called, the lord our righteousness." So also Moses (Deut.
xxxiii. 28), "Israel then shall dwell safely."" Again, Jer.
xxxi. 1, seq. The preceding Chapter here ends with, " In the
latter days ye shall consider it:" (on this usage " the
latter days," we shall presently have something to offer).
The Prophet continues, "AT that time.. will I be the God of
all the families of Israel" (i. e. truly so called), " and
they shall be my people." (See verr. 7, 8—15, which
brings us to " A voice was heard in Ramah," Matth. ii. 17,
18, and necessarily to the times of our Lord.) See also
Ezekiel xxxvii. 21—28 inclus., chap. xxxix. 21—29 : where
God's glory should be so set among the heathen, that they
should see His judgments upon Israel, and acknowledge the
righteousness of them. At that time (ver. 25) mercy is to be
extended to the whole house of Israel; and at the same time
(ver. 29), is the Spirit to be poured out from on high on
them (comp. Joel ii. 28. Acts ii. 17- James i. 1, seq.).
Once more, Upon the whole house of the true Israel (" the
Election") was the Spirit poured in the days of the
Apostles. To every tribe of them did St. James address his
Epistle, as the "Converts of Zion" and as those who had
been "scattered abroad," as noticed above. To the same did
St. Peter address his Epistles (1 Ep. i. 1, seq.), as to "the strangers scattered " abroad, " the elect according to
the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification
of the Spirit," poured out as the Prophets had foretold :
and "unto whom" (i.e. the Prophets) " it was revealed, that
not unto themselves, but unto'' these, and their
successors, " did they minister the things which were then
preached;" and this again, "with the Holy Ghost sent down
from heaven." At that time therefore, mercy was shewn to "
all the house of Israel wholly," and specifically to those
of every tribe of it: and this again, throughout the
extended heritage of the Gentiles, among whom they were to
be, and actually were, the greatest of blessings.
CHAPTER II.
Sect. I.—On the Duration of the Theocracy, and the Times
of its dose.
It will be necessary to a full understanding of these
questions, to review the places in which the making of the
Covenants with Abraham is recorded. It is said then, in the
first of these (Gen. xii. 2, seq.), " I will make of thee a
great nation: and I will bless thee, and make thy name
great; and thou shalt be a blessing." It is added (ver. 3),
" And in thee shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed." All of which is purely religious, and is of an
universal and permanent character: it clearly has no sort of
reference either to Canaan, or to its grant, whatsoever.
This then, is the first Covenant made with Abram; and it is
universal and everlasting both in its nature and
applicability. Let this be carefully borne in mind.
This Covenant was moreover, made in Ur of the Chaldees
(ib. ver. 1). But when Abram had arrived in Canaan, which
was a considerable time afterwards, we are told (ib. ver. 7)
that " The lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed
will I give this land." This is therefore, a second Covenant
made with Abram; made at a time, and in a place, far distant
from those of the first: and on a subject of a totally
different description. Its very terms limit its operation as
to space, which extends no farther than the land mentioned.
Let us now see, whether any limit is given as to the time of
its duration.
In Chap. xiii. 14—38 then, we are told, that it was given
to Abram's " seed for ever" (Heb. tD/iy?)
[This word (see my Hebrew Lexicon under it,) signifies
nothing more than any continuous indefinite period, to be
limited, of necessity, by the context. And yet the Bishop of
London tells us in his Sermon, that this Covenant,
constituting the Theocracy, has "been declared again and
again to be an everlasting covenant."..." St. Paul," he
adds, " knew that all the promises of God are sure."—But
this " everlasting" rests solely upon the assumption, that
the Hebrew term necessarily has this signification; which is
groundless: besides St. Paul has shewn positively, that this
very Covenant had become old and had passed away. There are
some places occurring in Ps. Lxxxix. admirably calculated to
mark the duration of the first Covenant made with Abraham:
In verse 4, it is said to be "for ever"..."to all
generations :" in ver. 29, " His," i. e. the spiritual
David's, seed also will I make to endure for ever, and His
throne as the days of heaven." Where the term "for ever"
necessarily implies all time, so long as the world shall
exist: verse 34. "My covenant will I not break". . . 36. "
His seed shall endure for ever, and His throne as the sun
before me." 37 ... "for ever as the moon, and as" {the, not
"a", the article being most frequently omitted in
composition of this sort;) "faithful witness in heaven;" i.
e. the rain-bow as mentioned Gen. ix. 12. seq., where it is
declared to be " a token of the covenant" . .. "for
perpetual generations." " I do set my bow in the cloud,"
&c. Now these "perpetual generations" must include a period
very different from that meant by "your generations" as used
in the law. This was indeed no temporary Covenant; while
that establishing the Theocracy was. This " token"
accordingly remains: so also do the sun and moon: so also
does Christianity; because an everlasting covenant, in the
full sense of those terms, has decreed that it should. And,
I ask, Who can doubt that the terms so used in this Psalm,
were intended to be opposed, in their bearing, to the
temporary provisions of the Mosaic Law? See also Ps. cii.
25—28, as explained by St. Paul, Heb. i. 10—13. This again,
will throw considerable light on a place generally
misunderstood, viz. Ps. cv. 8. seq. : " He hath remembered
His covenant for ever, the word which He commanded to a
thousand generations," (not "for your generations.") It is
added, " And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to
Israel for an everlasting covenant: Saying, Unto thee will I
give the land of Canaan." &c. Here—be it carefully
observed,—"a Covenant for a thousand generations" is made
with Abraham, &c. and this is confirmed by another, giving
them the land of Canaan for their generations : which
clearly gives one Covenant, which is everlasting in the true
sense of that term; and this must necessarily be the first
in the order, with regard to that which confirmed it: while
the last is, as before, in every point of view, a temporary
one.]. Again in chap. xv. 1, eeq.,
after the promise given of a son, a particular and formal
covenant is made purely with regard to this grant of Canaan
[It should be
observed, that the making of this Covenant was accompanied
by miraculous occurrences, granted, of necessity, for the
purpose of assuring Abram that it was God himself who made
it. "Whereby," asks Abram, (ver. 8.) "shall I know that I
shall inherit it?" The vision following was given to assure
him of this, together with the declaration, that until 400
years should have elapsed, their inheritance should not
take place. Till that period should have arrived, therefore,
this vision was to serve as a voucher, that the land should
be theirs : and afterwards apparently, that this possession
was also to act as a voucher, as to the further blessing to
all nations. Comp. Ps. cv. 1, seq.: where, verr. 1—9.
evidently belong to Christian times, while verr. 10, 11.
make the grant of Canaan a confirmation of this better
Covenant.] (verr. 8—1.9 inclus.): and
here its boundaries are determined to be ''from the river
of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates." The
extent of its authority is therefore limited.
Again, chap. xvii. we have both these Covenants referred
to, in the order just noticed. In verses 2—7, the first and
religious Covenant is solely had in view; and, as such, it
is referred to by St. Paul (Rom. iv. 17). We next have
(verr. 7—15) an express reference to the second, with the
rite of circumcision commanded, as properly belonging to it.
Under the mention of the first however (ver. 5), Abram
receives the mystical name of Abraham, prophetically
constituting him the father of many nations, and serving, in
its spiritual application, for ever to mark him as the
father of the faithful, and as the spiritual heir of the
world (Rom. iv. 13). In this sense, the generations of
Abraham's seed, now necessarily a spiritual seed,—would be
truly everlasting, being, of necessity, commensurate with
the duration of this Covenant
[3 This Covenant is referred
to again, Ch. xvii. 15, 16, in the promise made to Sarah of
a Son, and in the change of her name: again in Ch. xviii.
10, seq. : again, ib. ver. 18: and again, Cb. xxii. 17—19,
on the occasion of Abraham's offering up his Son.].
But, when we come to our temporary Covenant, the case is
quite different; for here, the period of its duration cannot
possibly be extended beyond that assigned to its
appointments ; nor could these, nor did they, as to place,
extend beyond the limits assigned to this land. The express
terms used here are (ver. 8, seq.), " I will give unto thee,
and unto thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a
stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting
possession." (i. e. of a continuous indefinite period)...It
is added (ver. 9), " Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore,
thou, and thy seed after thee, in their generations" (i. e.
within this land). "Every man child among you shall be
circumcised...it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt
me and you...he that is eight days old... among you, every
man child in your generations, he that is born in the house,
or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy
seed...and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an
everlasting covenant.'' That circumcision had, in every
case, particular reference to religion, and was intended to
have ultimately a spiritual application, there can be no
doubt: still, from its applicable extent, i. e. generally,
to the descendants of Abraham, and within Canaan only,—for
no farther does this covenant extend,—it could not be
universal as to place; and, from the limiting terms, "your
generations" during which only its observance is here
commanded; it is evident, that it was not, intended to be
perpetual. And hence, the term "everlasting" used above,
must be limited likewise to the same extent.
The duration therefore, as well as the extent, locally
considered, of Circumcision, was limited. But we find, that
in the several appointments of the Law,—which must all
necessarily be temporary, because made to precede the
blessings of Abraham to be conferred upon all nations,—this
usage, viz. "your generations," is constantly had recourse
to, for the purpose, as it should seem, of marking their
temporary character likewise. In the appointment of the
Passover, for example (Exod. xii. 14, seq.), " This day"
(i.e. of the pass-over) " shall be unto you for a memorial;
and ye shall keep it unto the lord throughout your
generations ; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for
ever [Where "for
ever" would be better rendered by continually, i.
e. during the whole of its period, but no longer.]."
So also in verses 17, 24. In verse 25, it is especially
commanded, that this service be kept in the land of Canaan.
Again, verse 42, " This is that night of the lord to be
observed of all the children of Israel in their
generations."
Again (chap. xvi. 32), speaking of the manna it is said :
"Fill an omer of it to be kept for your generations : that
they may see," &c. And here, the fact of the case must
attest to both Jew and Gentile, that, as beyond the times of
the Theocracy no such vessel of manna was kept, or could be
seen, no perpetual use of this observance was intended. So
also ver. 33. The same is said of the pure oil that was to
be burnt in the lamp of the tabernacle: viz. " It shall be a
statute for ever unto their generations" (i.e. of Aaron and
his sons, to be unknown under the New Covenant, chap, xxvii.
21), " on behalf of the children of Israel." In chap. xxx.
21, the washing of the priests' hands and feet is also made
a statute to continue in like manner. The peace-offering, i. e. of a goat, is likewise a perpetual statute, for the
generations of the Jews (Lev. iii. 17). So also is the
meatoffering (ib. vi. 18): the anointing of Aaron and his
sons (ib. vii. 36) : and (ib. 37) the same is " the law of
the burnt-offering, of the meat-offering, the sin-offering,
the trespass-offering, the consecration, and of the
sacrifice of the peace-offering." And again, that God
Himself has determined the period during which these should
not exist, and consequently the duration of that in which
they should, is evident enough from the words of Daniel
(chap. ix. 27), viz. " In the midst of the week he" (i.e.
God) "shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease:"
that is, as we shall shew, when we come to this place, after
the cutting off of the Messiah, and when Jerusalem and the
Temple should fall. And, it may be shewn, in like manner,
that the Sabbaths, and indeed, every peculiar service of the
Law, was enjoined upon the generations of the Jews only,
and upon them, as possessors of the land of Canaan. To all
lands they could not, in many cases, possibly apply: and in
none can they accurately, under the first, the universal and
better Covenant made with Abraham: for this obvious reason,
viz. Canaan has under this, necessarily lost its
peculiarity, and has been absorbed in that greater
possession, of which Abraham, as the father of many nations,
was to be the spiritual heir. Under this Covenant Canaan is
therefore unknown, just as is circumcision, the priesthood
of Aaron, and indeed every other shadowy rite and ceremony
of the law; or, to use the words of inspiration, these can
be no more remembered, or come into mind
[Isa. lxv. 17: Jer. iii.
16: See also Jer. xxiii. 7, 8.]: they
are antiquated, worn out, and superseded by better things;
and these things are enduring; they are purely spiritual;
and, as such, they can be applied by faith only.
It appears then, that by the terms "your generations,"
and the like, is meant the period of the Theocracy, or
Mosaic Dispensation only. It will also appear, that the term
''generation," is used to imply, in a more extended
sense, both the persons and times of the New Covenant, i. e.
of that first Covenant made with Abraham. So in Ps. xxii.
SO, speaking of the consequences of the cutting off of the
Messiah, the Psalmist says, " A seed shall serve him; it
shall be accounted to the lord for a generation." (Comp. Isa. uii. 10, and Ps. Lxxxvii. 6). Again, Ps.
Lxxviii. 5, 6, we also have this distinction specifically
made. " He established a testimony," it is said, " in
Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which He commanded our
fathers... should... make known to their children" (i.
e. in " their generations",) " That the generation to come"
(literally, after, or latter, generation, or
dispensation,) " might know them, even the children which
should be born; who should arise and declare them to their
children." In Ps. cii. 18, this is made still more
specific: " This shall be written for the generation to
come" (as before: and we know that " it was not to
themselves, but to us, that holy men did minister," &c. 1
Pet. i. 12); " and the people which shall be created shall
praise the Lord." Where we have those, who should constitute
a " New creation," made the constituents of this "after
generation." This term therefore, so qualified and used, may
be considered as antithetical, and pointing out
respectively, the periods or persons of these two Covenants.
But we have other means of judging, as to when the period
designated by "your generations," should come to its close.
And consequently, whether it has, or has not, now passed
away. This usage then, applied of necessity to the Jews, as
a people and nation, and exclusively to them, as the natural
descendants of Abraham. This, I think, cannot be disputed.
But it is plainly foretold by the Prophets, that a time
should come, when they should be no longer a people : should
no more be beloved as such: that those too, who had not been
a people, should be a people: those who had not been
beloved, should be beloved; that God's people should be
called " by a new name," and that this should be that of "
the holy people." All which was to take place, when the
myriads from among the Gentiles should be called in. If
then, we can determine when this last event took place, we
also can, when the period above mentioned must have come to
its close. And, to effect this, we have only to turn to
those places of the New Testament, in which this question is
either directly, or indirectly, discussed.
St. Paul then (Rom. ix. 25, seq.) proceeds thus: "As he
saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were
not my people; and her beloved which was not beloved. And it
shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto
them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the
children of the living God." But Hosea does more than this :
he also says (chap. i. 6), " / will no more have mercy upon
the house of Israel" (i. e. generally, and as a peculiar
people); " but I will utterly take them away." And again
(ib. ver. 9), " Ye are not my people, and I will not be your
God" Then follows the place cited by the Apostle. And, be
it observed, he applies the promised blessing here to his
own times, and to those Jews and Gentiles who had then
received the New Covenant. " Even us," are his words, " whom
he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the
Gentiles." He then cites Isaiah (chap. x. 22, 23), " Though
the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the
sea, a remnant shall be saved." And of this Remnant, he
elsewhere tells us, he was one, as already remarked. Isaiah
also says more (chap. Lxii. 2 ; lxv. 15) ; he assures us,
that God's people should be called by a new, and another,
name: while St. Peter positively declares, that the
Christian Church constitutes the holy, and the peculiar
people of God (1 Ep. ii. 9, 10); where he also cites the
very place of Hosea quoted by St. Paul. The Jews, as such,
had now therefore, utterly ceased to be a people, in the
Scriptural acceptation of that term : and if so, "their
generations" as those of a people, must have come to an end;
as must that, termed the after generation,
have taken its beginning. The Covenant too, which had
enacted certain observances to be followed during that
period, must also have come to its end: and this, St. Paul
affirms, had actually taken place in his days.
It should seem therefore, that the grant of the land of
Canaan to the Jews "for their generations," with all the
peculiarities of the Law of Moses, formed no part whatsoever
of that everlasting Covenant, which was primarily made with
Abraham in Chaldea, and under which all nations were to be
blessed. It was of a mere temporary character, shadowing
out perhaps, that wider
[And hence it is said, that
" Zion should lengthen her cords," &c. that is, should
stretch herself out to the uttermost parts of the earth, so
that her possessions would now be an extended spiritual
Canaan. See Ezek. xLvii, xLviii. on Rev. xxi. below.]
and better inheritance, and given, as in other instances,
as a voucher for this. It has accordingly long ago passed
away, together with every thing else of a temporary
[The Bishop of London
however, says on this subject in his Sermon, (p. 6): " He" i. e. Paul, "foresaw... the seeming abrogation" (the Italics
are mine) " of that Covenant which had been declared... to
be everlasting." I remark; Paul certainly never foresaw any
seeming abrogation of that Corenant which God made with
Abraham, and in which all the nations of the earth should be
blessed: on the contrary, Paul preached its full
establishment and duration under the title of the "New
Covenant," Heb. viii. 6—13. exclus. And here, (ver. 13.) he
declares, that God had made the other to decay, wax old, and
ready to vanish away. And again, 2 Cor. v. 17: "Old things
are passed away; behold, all things are become new." We
have, I say, no "seeming abrogation" here, of the Covenant
establishing the Theocracy, but a positive and actual one:
and nowhere have we any but positive affirmations that the
Covenant made with Abraham,—which was really the everlasting
one,—should never be abrogated. The Bishop labours here
therefore, under the most palpable confusion as to these two
Covenants; or else he supposes,—which is equally distant
from the truth—that they both may exist together.]
nature. " The fulness of time " has arrived, and in this the
establishment of that new system, to which none other was to
succeed on earth, has taken place. And again, the
peculiarity granted to Canaan by this temporary Covenant,
was in its nature altogether incompatible with the
universal requirements of the inheritance, given to Abraham
by the first and better one; so much so, that they can by no
possibility exist together. The earthly and shadowy
inheritance of Canaan, and the universal and spiritual
inheritance given to Abraham, as heir of the world, can no
more be united, than can Christ with Belial, or light with
darkness. The thing is impossible, unless indeed we profess
on principle, to mix up and confound Judaism with
Christianity: which, pleasing as it may seem to some, is
utterly at variance with the authoritative doctrines of St.
Paul, and is among those things upon
which he denounces a most fearful curse
[Gal. i. 8, 9.].
And, as to the facts of this case, neither the Apostles, nor
their converts, ever attached any peculiarity whatever to
Canaan. Some sold their possessions within it; and others
declared that, in every nation, every real servant of God
would be accepted ; and that there was now no difference
[Rom. iii. 22: x.
12.]. And again, had the Jews,
generally received Christ, the same must have been the
result. The middle wall of partition was now broken down;
the boundaries of the Zion of God were extended even to the
uttermost parts of the earth, making every land in which it
was really found, a land of holiness: i. e. a holy land in
true scripture-phrase, and every Christian, or member of it,
a descendant of abraham, in the true intent of this his new
name, and of this his everlasting Covenant. These were now
counted to the Lord for a generation ; and this again, by
the instrumentality of the faith which constituted Abraham a
just and acceptable man in the sight of God: as also, by the
preaching of his spiritual seed,—the Elect, Election, the
Remnant, and, in Ezekiel's phrase, "all the house of Israel
wholly,"—all had become one household, under one God and
Father of all.
We have arrived therefore at this point, viz. that the
things of the temporary Covenant can now be remembered no
more. Canaan has lost its privilege of exclusiveness : the
people of God have long ago been called by a new name, and
the face of the world has been made to exhibit that of a new
Creation, under a system, to which all that has gone before
gives its fullest testimony. To this likewise all the
Prophets administered in their days. We can have now
therefore, in genuine scriptural usage, no Jews, and no
Canaan: we can have only those spiritually and truly
circumcised Jews, which are the predestined people of God,
and bear "a new name:" and this again, with that far wider
and better inheritance, shadowed out by the Canaan that once
was, and was to cease as such, by virtue of the first
Covenant, constituting Abraham the spiritual heir of the
world. If then, there is to be a return to Canaan, When can
this possibly take place ? And Where are we to find the
Jews who shall undertake it? And again, Where is the Canaan
to which, should such be found, they are to return? The
Christian Covenant knows of no such people, and of no such
place. This Covenant, as made and ratified with Abraham,
acknowledges neither his seed " in their generations? nor
yet Canaan in any exclusive sense whatsoever: it
acknowledges and comprehends, on the contrary, within its
ample scope all believers, whether descended from Jews,
Greeks, Barbarians, Scythians, Bond, or Free ; for all these
are one in Christ; and with these, Christ, as Abraham's
seed, is in a peculiar sense,, all and in all
[Col. iii. 11.].
Jews, calling themselves so in despite of this Covenant, and
in positive rebellion against its provisions, may, in their
blindness, expect some such return and restoration, and so
may Judaizers: but no matter how great, how many, or how
popular, these and their notions may be, the thing is at
once grossly absurd and impious; and is, besides this,
under the government of a powerful and faithful God,
utterly impossible.
Sect. II.—On such places of the Old Testament as speak of
the period appointed for the close of the Theocracy, and for
the establishment of a New Covenant, under the terms, the
latter day or days, the last days, end or ends of the world,
the day or the-great day of the Lord, and the like.
We have seen that the generations of Israel after the
flesh, were to be succeeded by another, and "after
generation? to which no limit or close should be known,
because in ,it an everlasting and universal Covenant,
ordered in all things and sure, should be established. We
now come to the investigation of those Scriptures which
especially inform us of this, under the terms, the last
days, latter day, or days, or other equivalent ones.
The first occasion, on which the term
"the last day” occurs, is that of Jacob's blessing his
children (Gen. xlix. 1, seq.). " Gather yourselves together?
says the Patriarch, " that I may tell you that which shall
befall you in the last days". A little lower down (ver. 10) it is foretold,
as an event to occur at this period, that, " The sceptre
shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his
feet" (i. e. from among his sons), "until Shiloh
[It is plainly an error,
as shewn in my Hebrew Lexicon under the word if '^i{y to
take this as a proper name. I take it so here, merely in
compliance with general usage. An exact interpretation of
this word, and of the sense of the place is given in Ezekiel
xxi. 27, in the terms, " until he come whose right' (i. e. "
the crown," ib. ver. 26 implying the Rule.) In Gen. xiix.
10, J-ftiJt;, should be read rt;>tt>', and is perfectly
equivalent to the lV"lt£>N, of Ezekiel here: i. e. whose it
is: viz. the Sceptre.] come; and,''''
it it is added, "unto him shall the gathering of the people"
(nations) " be." In this case, we clearly have the period of
our Lord’s manifestation in the flesh, designated as " the
last days."
Numbers, chap. xxiv. 14, seems to be the next place
particularly touching on this period; the words are these:
"I will advertise thee what this people shall do to thy
people in the latter days." We then have (ver. 17), " There
shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Scepter shall rise out
of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab," &c., which
may be considered as a continuation of the prophecy of Jacob
just quoted, and as the first enouncement of those in Isa.
xi. 14; xv. 1; xvi. 13. Jer. xlviii. &c. In ver. 24, we
have, " Ships shall come from the coast of Chittim" &c.
which can, as we shall shew hereafter (Dan. xi. 30), be
applied to none but this period. The smiting of Moab here
therefore, must be understood in a spiritual sense, as we
shall have further occasion to shew. These " latter days"
must therefore be those of Christ.
Deut. iv. 30, seq. is the next-place in which this usage
is found: viz. " When thou art in tribulation, and all these
things are come upon thee, even in the latter days" (Heb.
D^P'n JTnnNll. Gr. LXX. ctt' eo-^aVy twv ^nepwv),"ifthou
turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his
voice...He will not forsake thee" Where, as already
remarked, we have no prophecy that they should return, but
only the condition laid down, viz. " if they shall turn,"
then will the Lord their God not forsake them. That this
context refers to this same period, is evident from what
occurs in ver. 26. " I call heaven and earth to
witness...that ye .shall... utterly perish from off the land
whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it...ye...shall
utterly be destroyed, and" it is added, " the lord shall
scatter you among the nations" &c., which is positive
prophecy; all of which actually took place during the period
so termed.
Again, chap. xxxi. 29 (which however, more properly
belongs to the next chapter), it is said, " Evil will befall
you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight
of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger," &c. (Heb. p^DTt
,TV~]nN3,-Gr. LXX. ea-^aTov twv ritiepwv), which must also
refer to this period; and it distinctly marks the end (de
facto) of the Jewish polity.
The next intimation we have of this period is Deut.
xxxii. 29, where it is said, " O that they were wise...that
they would consider their latter end" (Heb. DJTHns* Gr. LXX.
tov eiriovra -^povov). It should be observed that, in this
context, the overthrow of the Jewish polity is particularly
and positively predicted (ver. 20, seq.): " I will see what
their end shall be" (Heb. DJTnnN nDPIt"*-), where the LXX.
Gr. have read ntf"itf, / will shew, &c. Sei^u> t'l serai
avrois eV ea^ariav. And so the Arabic of Saadias Haggaon as
in the London Polyglott, and so that of Erpenius). We also
have here (ver. 22, seq.) the destruction of the earth, i.
e. of the land, by fire, &c.; ~fver. 26) their scattering
abroad into corners; and (ver. 43) the calling in of the
Gentiles, and the rejoicing of these with His people, i. e.
with the holy Remnant of them. (Comp. chap, xxxiii. 19,
26—29, where the same period is evidently had in view.)
This period again, appears thus marked in Job xix. 25,
" / know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at
the latter day upon the earth" (Heb. pinxi. See my
translation, with the notes). I am well aware, that other
views have been entertained of this place, while I feel
assured that none will so simply and so fully answer its
terms as this does. The usage in the original is not indeed
identical here with the preceding; while it is with that
applied to our "generation following" or "after-generation,'' as noticed above. The things meant
therefore, are the same, viz. the manifestation of Christ,
and the period in which this should take place.
We may now pass on to Isa. ii. 2, where it is said, " It
shall come to pass in the last days" (Heb. DVpVT LXX. ec
TaTs cancerous tjnepats), "that the mountain of the lord's
house shall be established," &c. Which, from the nature of
the context, can refer to none but those in which the
nations should receive the Gospel. In verse 12 here, this
period is termed " the day op the lord." Let this be borne
in mind.
Jeremiah (chap, xxtii.) presents us with the same things,
and these to take place within the same period. In ver. 3, "
the Remnant" is to be gathered : ver. 5, The righteous
branch is to be raised up to David. In " His days" Judah is
to be saved (i. e. the holy " Remnant" noticed above), and
His name is to be called " the lord our righteousness :" &c.
to the end of ver. 8. The theme then taken up, is on the
fall of the unbelieving Jews. Then follows (ver. 19, seq.),
"Behold, a whirlwind of the lord is gone forth in fury...
it shall fall grievously upon the head of the wicked.. in
the latter days" (Heb. as before) " ye shall consider it
perfectly.'''' And again (verr. 39, 40), " Therefore,
behold, I, even I, will utterly forget you, and I will
forsake you, and the city that I gave you and your fathers,
and cast you out of my presence : and I will bring an
everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame, which
shall not be forgotten
[I. e. A reproach and
shame, which, in the language of prophecy, shall never be
taken from you, or be lost sight of. This—be it
remembered,—is prophecy properly so called, and, if taken
absolutely, for ever excludes the Jews from mercy: it will
nevertheless, extend no farther than the period assigned for
the sealing of vision and prophecy, (Dan. ix. 24) as
already remarked. It should be observed here, that, unless
we take care duly to divide the word of truth, one part of
it may be brought into positive contradiction to another.]."
By "ye shall consider it perfectly" is probably meant ye
shall be made fully to feel all this.
[But, if the better party
is here addressed, which is not impossible, the meaning
will be, ye shall perfectly understand and know, why all
this comes to pass. It is of little consequence here, to
which of the parties this is addressed.]
That the whole, here had in view, came to pass within the
period before us, there can be no doubt. We have too, a
parallel to this place in chap. xxx. 23, 24. And in verses
17 — 23, are given the consolations of the outcasts, i. e.
of the true Zion, with
the fall of their oppressors. In the
next Chapter, xxxi. 1, seq., it is said, " At the same
time...will I be the God of all the families of Israel,"
that is, as already noticed, of those who are truly so
called, viz. the Outcasts or Remnant. (See ver. 17 of chap,
xxx., and also chap. xxxi. ver. 7, seq., as already shewn,
and Ezek. xi. 15, seq.)
But this context (chap. xxx. 7, seq.) carries on the
events, so foretold, to the times of our Lord; and here,
these are those of Israel's restoration. We have here
therefore, these latter days made to synchronize with those
of all Israel's restoration. (See also xxxi. 31, seq. with
the parallels) : and this is the case everywhere, as
already remarked.
When we come to Ezekiel, we find this period styled the
end (Heb. yp, the term used also in Dan. viii. 17, 19 ; ix.
26; xi. 27, &c.). In Chapter vi. we have, immediately after
the severest denunciations (ver. 8), " Yet will I leave A
remnant, that ye may have some that shall escape the sword
among the nations," Sic. These are of necessity that holy
Remnant, or Escaped party, which should declare the glory of
God among the Gentiles (Isa. rxvi. 19); " and," it is added,
" they shall know that I am the Lord, and that / have not
said in vain that I would do this evil unto them." Then
again, Chap. vii. 2, seq., " An end, the end is come upon
the four corners of the land. Now," it is added, " is the
end come upon thee, and I will send mine anger upon thee."
And (ver. 6), " An end is come, the end is come... behold it
is come. The morning
[I.e. the latter portion of Daniel's vision of the
Evening and Morning, Oh. viii. 26, as will be shewn
hereafter.] is come unto thee...the
time is come, the day of trouble is near." (ver. 10) "
Behold the day, behold, it is come: the morning" (i.e. the
latter half of this day as before) " is gone forth." (ver
13.) " For the seller shall not return to that which is
sold...for the vision is touching the whole multitude
thereof, which shall not return."
That this end presents us with the period styled also "
the last days," is sufficiently evident from the nature of
the denunciations made. They tell us, that the Seller, as in
the case of Jeremiah
[15 In Jer. xxxii. 7, as noticed above, we have the place to
which allusion is made. In Isa. xxiv. 20, we have similar
denunciations. Then follows, (verr. 21—23 inclus.) the fall
of the heathen nations. Precisely to the same effect Ezekiel
again, Ch. xxi. 27, " I will overturn, overturn, overturn
it: and it shall be no more, until He come whose right it
is; and I will give it Him;" i. e. the diadem and crown,
mentioned in the verse next preceding; viz. to Christ, or
the Shiloh of Jacob, Gen. xlix. 10: which was, as we have
seen, to come to pass in the latter dats, (more literally,
An overturning, an overturning, an overturning, will I
constitute it. Moreover, this shall not come to pass, until
He shall come whose is the judgment: and I will give, or
constitute Him," i. e. the Prince of Israel, as mentioned
in ver. 25, preceding,) ... which, as just now remarked, is
a perfect echo of Jacob's, " The Sceptre," &c. Gen. xiix.
10. The same subject is had in view, Ezek. xxxv. and Isa.
xxxiv, as we shall shew hereafter.],
shall not return as he would after the
Babylonian captivity; and further,
that the whole multitude shall not so return at this time.
In this context moreover, this whole period is termed "the
day [I. e. another
mode of expressing the period termed " the latter-day," &c.
sometimes, the day of the Lord, the great and dreadful day,
&c. the day, or days of vengeance, &c.]:"
and must, as it should seem, be that part of it in which
these judgments should take place, viz. " the morning." The
Evening? as already remarked, is the beginning of the day in
the East. The Morning must be here therefore, the
commencement of its second half. We shall shew hereafter,
that the latter portion of this period was to be that,
which should commence with the fall of Jerusalem. The
judgments therefore, thus to fall upon the wicked multitude,
according to Ezekiel, were to take their rise at this
particular point of time. And the fact is, at this they did
take their rise, as it will presently be shewn.
It must be obvious from the next verse (Ezek. vii. 15),
that the threats delivered by Moses were in the mind of the
Prophet (Deut. xxviii. 21, seq.; xxxii. 25, &c.). We then
have in due order (ver. 16), the escape of the pious
Remnant, hence occasionally termed, " the escaped of
Israel," as remarked above: " But they that escape
[These "escaped" (Heb.
Q^Q^S) are those had in view in Isa. iv. 2: x. 20: xlv. 20:
Lxvi. 19. &c., which must necessarily mean our Lord's
followers.] of them shall escape, and
shall be on the mountains like doves of the valleys, all
of them mourning every one for his
iniquity." Which cannot be said of the unbelieving and
impenitent Jews; for such never mourn for their sins. To the
mountains moreover, were the believers warned to escape by
our Lord himself, as already noticed, while the harmlessness
of the dove, which cannot be said of the Jews of our Lord's
times, was to distinguish their character. It is added of
the sinful party (ver. 18), " They shall also gird
themselves with sackcloth, and horror shall cover them : and
shame shall be upon all faces, and baldness upon all heads.
They shall cast their silver in the streets...their silver
and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day
of the wrath of the Lord...because it is" (was, or had been,
Heb. (Til) " the stumblingblock of their iniquity.'' The
transition from the holy, to the unholy, party here, may
seem abrupt, and indeed it is so: but this is no uncommon
thing with the Prophets. The mention of their silver and
gold not being able to deliver them, must imply, that this
party habitually trusted in these : while their not
obtaining deliverance in this great and dreadful day, is
only what literally took place in the period so named. It
must be evident therefore, that this party is had in view in
this place. It must also be to this End, and to this Day,
and Time, that Ezekiel has respect in this chapter.
The next place we shall notice, as applying the term, "
the last days" to this period, is Micah iv. 1, 2, &c., in
words identically the same with those of Isaiah quoted
above. That this refers to the Apostolic period, must be
evident from what was shewn on this place of Isaiah. It is
further said here (ver. 6, seq.), " In that DAY
[It would swell our work
indefinitely, to notice every passage in which reference to
this period is, one way or other, made: the following places
may suffice for the present: Isa. ii. 11: xxvi. 1: xxix. 18:
Lii. 6: Ezek. xLviii. 35: Joel iii. 18: Zeph. i. 15: Zech.
ii. 11: ix. 16: xii. 8: xiii. 1: xiv. 9: Mal. iii. 17. &c.]
..will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather her
that is driven out," (i. e. outcast) " and her that I have
afflicted; and I will make her that halted a REMNANT
[19 A very good parallel to
this will be found in Zeph. iii. 13, to the end.],
and her that was cast far off a strong nation" (i. e. as
promised to Abraham): " and," it is added, " the Lord shall
reign over them in mount Zion henceforth, even for ever."
This everlasting reign can be none, but that assigned to the
spiritual David, and the Son of Man, both by Isaiah and
Daniel, respectively. " That day" moreover, mentioned here,
can be no other than the period symbolized by the
seventieth week of Daniel (chap, ix. 27, presently to be
considered); for, during this, every thing relating to the
Holy people, and Holy city, was to be accomplished. During
this day therefore of Micah, the poor and afflicted Remnant
were to be constituted a strong nation: and this actually
took place within it, in their taking spiritual possession
of the heritage of the heathen, as will be more particularly shewn hereafter. And to this effect, is the remainder of
this context (which see).
The next chapter (ver. 2, seq.) particularly foretells
the birth of the Redeemer, as also the return of the Remnant
unto the children of Israel; here necessarily to the
Apostles and their coadjutors (comp. Heb. xii. 22, seq.),
Ezekiel's "all the house of Israel wholly;" not to Canaan:
this was now merged in Abraham's greater and better portion,
the heritage of the Gentiles. It also predicts the fall of
the cities and strongholds of Judah (ver. 11).
Sect. III.—On Places in the New Testament referring to
the last days, the end, or ends of the world, and the like.
It would be endless to notice every place in the Old
Testament, in which this period is referred to in one way
or other: of some of these notice will be taken hereafter.
We shall now therefore, pass on to the New, and endeavour to
ascertain how it is spoken of there. Our first place shall
be Luke xxii. 37..." The things concerning me have an end:"
that is, as the context here requires, the things which have
been written concerning me, shall have a complete fulfilment
and end. Which must mean, not that the things written
concerning Christ should not be accomplished until the end
of time;—which however, can have nothing to do with His
kingdom : for, in the language of prophecy, this has no end
: but there was a period to arrive, in which they should all
be accomplished. Let us now enquire, how far our Lord
himself has elsewhere restricted them to this sense.
We find then (ib. chap. xxi. 22), " These be the days of
vengeance, that all things which are written may lie
fulfilled." The days here referred to, are necessarily
those spoken of in the context immediately preceding it,
viz. (ver. 20, seq.), " When ye shall see Jerusalem
compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof
is nigh:" which brings us to the period appropriated to this
in Daniel (ix. 26, 27), as we shall shew hereafter. For,
according to him, the people of the Prince who should come,
should destroy the City and the Sanctuary, some time after
the cutting off of the Messiah. This then, must necessarily
be in the midst of his seventieth week, when God should
cause both sacrifice and oblation to cease. Our Lord's words
here therefore, have respect generally to this period; and
the same is true of the whole Chapter, as we shall presently
see. The same general period is, therefore, had in view
throughout it; and, at the close of this, the End adverted
to above by our Lord, must of necessity come.—But more on
this, when we come to Daniel.
Let us now examine a few other places, which appear to
teach the same thing. We have then (ver. 32) of this same
chapter, " Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not
pass away, till all be fulfilled " (rather, till all be. Gr.
yevrj-toi. The Authorized Version overstates this in
"fulfilled"). That "this generation" must mean the
generation then existing, it would be a work of
supererogation to shew
[And yet, as already
cited, there are those who tell us that, by generation here,
is meant, not a generation implying the lifetime of persons
then living, but the duration of a class of men: and here,
the
disciples and their successors: according to others, the
whole of the Jewish people. Surely all this is very
far-fetched! But it is fully refuted by our parallel
places.]. But let us see, whether
there are not other places which will make any such proof
unnecessary. We have then (Matth. xvi. 28), " Verily I say
unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste
of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in power" We
now have the coming of the Son of Man therefore, in power
(Dan. vii. 13, seq.), limited to the life-time of some of
the persons then present: and this coming to be evinced by
the performance of some great acts on His part; not
necessarily by an appearance of His person: and so says St. Matthew in the place parallel to
this: viz. (ver. SO), " Then shall appear the sign of the
Son of man in heaven, coming in the clouds of heaven with
power and great glory."
Now, that this should not be delayed to the end, or even
the latter portion, of this period (of which more
hereafter), is evident from the context immediately
following: viz. (ver. 81), " And He shall send His angels"
(Messengers, i. e. Apostles) " with a great sound of a
trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the
four winds."...(ver. 34), " Verily I say unto you, This
generation shall not pass, till all these things be" (as
before). The fact then of this case is, He did so send His
angels, or Apostles (in Isaiah's terms, His Escaped), with a
great sound of a trumpet (mystically so speaking), and they
did gather together His elect (or Remnant) from the four
winds: to these both St. James and St. Peter addressed their
Epistles: and these again, St. Peter and St. Paul actually
term the "Elect" or "Election
[James i. 1: 1 Pet. i. 1,
2 : Rom. xi. 5, 7, seq: 2 Tim. ii. 10.]."
To the same period also, and its events, is necessarily
to be referred the passage (Acts i. 11), viz. " This same
Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come
in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven.'' that
is, in the clouds of heaven, with signs of power, and in
great glory [There
is a tradition to be found in Lactantius, in which it is
said, that the ascent of our Lord was like that of Elijah,
i. e. in a chariot of fire, and in a great tempest.]:
for this is the manner in which He then ascended. Besides,
He Himself says, evidently for the purpose of doing away
every expectation of a personal revelation of himself (John
xiv. 19), "Yet a little while, and the world seeth me: no
more." But if " every eye" should sensibly see Him (Rev. i.
7), then the whole world should. And again, which is perhaps
more to our purpose, as it has in view the very period now
referred to, Matth. xxiv. 23, &c. " Then if any man shall
say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not"
And again (ib. ver. 26), " Wherefore, if they shall say unto
you, Behold, he is in the desert, go not forth; behold, he
is in the secret chamber; believe it not. for as the
lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even to the
west, so shall also the coming of the
Son of man be;" i. e. in power, not visibly and personally,
but as in the clouds of heaven. (Comp. Zech. ix. 14—17,
inclus.) To take refuge therefore, in a strictly literal
interpretation of this place, and so to extract a personal
appearance of Christ, is contrary to the manifest intention
of Scripture, and to every fact of these times, and deserves
not a moment's further consideration.
There are also other places, in which our Lord speaks of
the End, or general consummation to take place in these last
days, when, as it should seem, all things written concerning
Him should be accomplished: these we may now consider. Two
of them occur in His very remarkable prophecy (Matth. xxiv.
&c.). At ver. 6, it is said, " Ye shall hear of wars and
rumours of wars...but the end is not yet." (ver. 8.) "All
these are the beginning of sorrows
[We have here therefore,
the Beginning of the judgments so foretold by our Lord, as
we also have, in this same context, the end of them: which
must, from the nature of the case, comprehend some definite
period; the extent of this we shall determine hereafter.]."
(ver. 14.) "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached
in all the world for a witness unto all nations" (i. e. of
Christ's power), " and then" (i. e. after this) " shall the
end come [This End
is also brought before us in ver. 13 here, where it is said,
" He that shall endure to the end, the same shall be saved,"
that is, every one who shall not fall away, on account of
the trials to be undergone during the continuance of this
period, shall be saved: Comp. Ch.x. 22, and its parallels.
The same End is also had in view, Rev. ii. 25, 26. seq., as
we shall see hereafter, where the coming of the Son of man
in power is combined with it. But we have, as the great
testimony to the truth of all this, the fact of the
Gospel's being fully preached in all nations. This, I say,
is given as a testimony, at once, to all nations, and to all
times. This preaching was moreover carried on by miracle.
The Covenant was magnified ("confirmed") among the many
during this very period, and then, as we shall see, the end
came. On this period of the End, see also Dissertation II.
prefixed to my Theophania of Eusebius.]."
Now I say, if this be not the end predicted by Ezekiel, as
noticed above, it will be difficult to say what end it can
be. Our Lord places the beginning of the things, which were
to lead to it, within the life-time of those then present,
and to the investing of Jerusalem by the Roman army, as
predicted by Daniel. Its end He then assigns to some certain
point of time, which should occur after the Gospel had ben
preached in all the world: and this should seem to be the
point of time, in which all things then foretold by Him
should be accomplished. He further terms this period, " the
days of vengeance [Comp. Isa. xxxiv. 8, with its context.],
that all things which were written should be fulfilled.''
(i. e. within them). They must of necessity therefore,
comprehend the last days, end, &c., spoken of by the
Prophets, as noticed above.
Our Lord speaks likewise of this period, as of "a day"
that should come unawares, and as a snare on all who should
then be dwelling on the face of the whole earth (Luke xxi.
34, 35). From this, as well as from the terms applied to it
above, viz. "the days of vengeance," we can have no
reasonable doubt, that it is the period elsewhere styled, "
The day of the Lord," and the like. And accordingly, St.
Peter tells the believers of his day (2 Ep. iii. 10), that "
the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night." In
ver. 12 ib., it is styled " the day of God" All which
evidently rests on the enouncement made in Matth. xxiv. 43,
viz. the coming of which should be attended by " the
beginning of sorrows,"" and within that generation: and its
end arrive after the Gospel had been preached in all
nations. Again, the same Apostle assures us (ib. ver. 13)
that, after its judgments should have taken place, " new
heavens and a new earth" awaited the believers: that is, the
universal Kingdom of the Son of Man, in which all things
should be " made new," i. e. constituting a New Creation,
spiritually considered
[And here St. Peter tells
us, just as Isaiah does (ib. ver. 4.) that the heavens and
earth should pass away, but adds, that they should be
replaced by new heavens and earth: i. e. religiously
speaking.].
St. Peter informs us moreover, in this place (ver. 8,
seq.), "That one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,
and a thousand years as one day." By which we are perhaps to
understand, that, when such expressions as the day of the
Lord occur, we are not to suppose that a natural day is
meant, but that both a day, and a thousand years, are to be
taken in all such contexts, as intimating some indefinite
period. That St. Peter here refers to his own times, must be
evident from the context. "The Lord" says he (ver. 9),
"is not slack concerning his promise, as some" (now) "
count slackness; but is long-suffering to us-ward" That is,
If the promise of Christ's coming appears to some unlikely
to be fulfilled, let not such deceive themselves: the
apparent delay is for our sakes. He adds (ver. 10), " But
the day of the Lord" ("of God," ver. 12) "will come as a
thief in the night.'' We have already seen, that it is to
the period in which St. Peter lived, that this name is given
in the Scriptures, as we also have, that the generation
then existing should witness its beginning. Its close we
shall determine hereafter.
The Apostle Peter also tells us here, that St. Paul had,
in all his Epistles to the Churches, spoken of these things
(ib. verr. 15, 16). We shall presently see what he has said
of them, and, that his words must as necessarily refer to
these particular times, as must those of St. Peter. It is
true St. Peter tells us here of a dissolution of the
heavens, and of the elements, by fire; which, if taken
literally, received not their accomplishment in his days.
But it may be asked, Is it absolutely necessary they should
be so taken ? If we examine the numerous prophecies
relating to this particular period, we shall find, 'I think,
that they cannot be taken literally. See, for example, Deut.
xxxii. 22, as already noticed, " For a fire is kindled in
mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell,'' &c.;
after which we find (ver. 43), the nations should rejoice
with his people. The physical world could not therefore, be
so consumed. The same is the case here in St. Peter "(ver.
13), "Nevertheless we, according to His promise,"" (i. e. as
given in the Scriptures of the Prophets), " look for new
heavens and a new earth," &c. : that is, a new creation,
mystically speaking. • On this subject see too, Isa. i. 7;
xiii. 13; xxiv. 6; xxxiv. 4, seq., with the parallel places,
which must be quite sufficient to remove every doubt, as to
the true drift of all such places.
St. Peter again, to the same effect (1 Ep. iv. 17, seq.),
"The time is come that judgment must begin at the house of
God [I.e. as
predicted by Ezekiel, ix. 6, as we shall see more at length
hereafter.]:" the terms of which
manifestly refer to this period, and to a judgment now to be
executed [So also
St. Paul, Phil. iv. 5 : The Lord is at hand: which we .shall shew must likewise apply to this period.].
To this judgment reference is also made (2 Ep. chap. ii. 3)
in the words, " whose judgment now of a long time linger eth
not" (i. e. shall shortly be executed), " and their
damnation slumber-eth not." In verse 12, these are spoken of
as then existing: " But these,"" it is said, "as natural
brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed," (now) "speak
evil of the things that they understand not,"" &c. And again
(ver. 17), " These are wells without water... to whom the
mist of darkness is reserved for ever." (See the following
verses.) And, be it observed, that, although a judgment was
then to be openly executed, the Apostle does also intimate
under this, a future and final judgment, in which the mist
of darkness should for ever rest upon the damnation of these
sinners; and that both of these should be a judgment by
fire. That such a primary judgment should rest upon the
Jews, we have already seen in the words of Moses, Isaiah,
and others: that a similar one should destroy the heathen
powers, who should persecute the saints of the Most High,
and resist the empire of the Son of Man, we shall presently
see from Daniel [Dan. vii. 9—12, 22, 26, 28 inclus.].
We need not therefore, be surprised in finding the
writers of the New Testament, speaking of a judgment to
take place within the times in which they lived, or of a
revelation to be made by fire, or of new heavens and a new
earth, when it had also been announced, that a new creation
should take place within that very period, not indeed in a
physical, but in a moral and religious, sense. The system of
literal interpretation, which has usually been followed,
would naturally enough refer all this to the final day of
judgment: but how new heavens and a new earth could await
believers after this, could be explained on no supposition,
but that of a Jewish Millennium: with what propriety, let
the reader judge.
We have again (1 Pet. i. 5), (You) " Who are kept by the
power of God through faith unto salvation, ready to be
revealed in the last time." It is not to be supposed
however, that this salvation had not been already revealed
in some sense: this was certain. The Apostle must therefore,
have meant, that a fuller revelation of this was now about
to be made, within the period named the last time: and this
could have been nothing but the complete revelation and
recognition of the power of Christ throughout the world,
foretold by Daniel where he says, The kingdom under the
whole heaven shall be given to the saints of the Most High;
when the putting forth of Divine power should cast down all
opposing Jewish and heathen power. This exertion of the
Divine power is termed (ib. ver. 7), "the appearing" (more
properly, the Revelation, Gr. dironaXv^is) " of Jesus
Christ,'1'' where the term used, as well as the thing had in
view, is precisely the same with those brought before us in
the " Revelation of Jesus Christ." as taught by St. John:
of which more hereafter.
Again (ib. ver. 10, seq.), the same Apostle tells us,
that " the Prophets who prophesied of the grace that should
come unto you, searched diligently...what, or what manner op
time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify"..."
unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but
unto us" (i. e. the Apostles, &c.) "they did minister the
things, which are now reported unto you by them that have
preached the Gospel" &c. It was to these very times
therefore, according to St. Peter, that all the Prophets did
in their several ministrations refer. Again (ib. ver. 20), "
Who" (i.e. Christ) "verily was foreordained before the
foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last
times for you." The period therefore, termed " the day of
the Lord" and the like, so had in view by the Prophets, must
have been "these last times" of St. Peter: and these again,
must have been those in which he lived (comp. Acts iii. 18,
24, 25). We shall see hereafter, how far these can be
extended.
St. Peter again, gives us a most valuable comment on a
prediction of Joel, to the same effect (Acts ii. 17), viz. "
And it shall come to pass in thb last days, saith God, I
will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and
your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men, shall
see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams." A little
above it is said (ver. 4), " And they were all filled with
the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with tongues, as the
Spirit gave them utterance" &c. Upon this occasion, some "
mocking said, These men are full of new wine." St. Peter
answers : " These are not drunken, as ye suppose...But this
is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel" (ii. 28). He
then gives the place as now quoted. That Peter meant to
apply this to the times in which he uttered it, there can
surely be no doubt: and if so, these must have been " the
last days'' of prophecy, in his estimation. He is
therefore consistent, and in perfect unison, with the rest
of the sacred writers on this point.
We have again (1 Pet. iv. 7), "the end of all things is
at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer" That
this has reference to our Lord's prophecy, Matth. xxiv. 42—
45, Sec., there can be no doubt: " Watch therefore" said our
blessed Lord, "for ye know not at what hour your Lord doth
come."..." Therefore be ye also ready." And Mark xiii. 33, "
Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time
is" And Luke xxi. 36, " Watch ye, therefore, and pray
always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these
things, and to stand before the Son of Man." All of which,
as we have seen, was to commence at least within that
generation, and to end when the Gospel should have been
fully preached. In verse 12 of this place in St. Peter,
mention is made of the fiery trial which was to try the
Believers,— as foretold both by our Lord and Daniel,—within
this very period. A little lower down (ver. 17), this is
styled a judgment, which was then to begin at the house of
God [Comp. Rev. i.
3: iii. 11: xxii. 7,12,20: James v. 8 : Phil. iv. 6. All of
which must belong to this period.—The sneer of Gibbon on
this must recur to every one, as if the Apostle meant the
end of the physical world! Oh no: it was only Gibbon's
ignorance that suggested this!]; and
which, as we have also seen, was likewise to take place
within these times. This is therefore here termed " the End
of all things" but is not to be mistaken for the dissolution
of the physical world; Peter had nothing to do with this
question; and it is, of necessity, to be understood of the
time then at hand, the general period of which had actually
commenced, and, during which, a new moral and religious
creation was to take place.
And again (2 Ep. iii. 2, 3), "That ye may be mindful of
the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets...
knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days
scoffers, walking after their own lusts." He adds, "For this
they willingly are ignorant of" &c. Manifestly identifying
these scoffers with those of his own times, and
consequently, his own times with "the last days," just
mentioned. St. Jude too, says to the same effect, and nearly
in the same words (ver. 18), "How they'' (i.e. the
Apostles) " told you there should be mockers in the last
time, who should walk after their own lusts." He adds in the
next verse, " these be they who separate themselves,
sensual, having not the Spirit." He tells us also (ver. 14),
that Enoch had prophesied of these, as he also had of the
judgment to lie inflicted on them at the coming of the Lord,
with ten thousand of his saints : which must be the judgment
had in view by St. Peter; and, as we have already seen, by
Daniel, chap. vii. 10, seq.
The Apostles alluded to here by Jude (ver. 17) must have
comprehended St. Paul, who says (2 Tim. iii. 1, seq.), "
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall
come. For men shall be lovers of their own seines... having
the form of godliness," &c. He adds, " Of this sort are
they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly
women.... Now as Jannes and Jamores," continues he, "
withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth... But
their folly shall be made manifest." From which it is
evident, that this mystery of iniquity had begun, at least,
to work in St. Paul's days; and so far, this will identify
these his days, with those which he terms " the last." Their
perils too, should seem to be those foretold by Daniel, when
he said that war should be made upon the saints, "to try
them...even to the time of the end" (chap. xi. 35, &c.). We
have too (1 Tim. iv. 1, seq.) very much in unison with this
of St. Peter, and relating to the events of these times : "
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly" says the Apostle, "that
in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving
heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils." Now there
can be no doubt, that this mystery of iniquity had begun so
to work. The falling away of many (tj awocrTCKria), the
Apostasy foretold by our Lord (Matth. xxiv. 10, &c.), and
alluded to in 2 Thess. ii. 3, of which more hereafter, and
dwelt upon by both St. Peter and St. Jude, as just now
noticed, must be here had in view. The latter times
moreover, as now mentioned, cannot but refer to the period
which should precede the end: i. e. the close of Daniel’s
seventieth week. For now the New Covenant should be fully,
and for ever, established. We shall see more on these
doctrines of devils when we come to Rev. chap. xvi. 13, 14.
Let us now consider some of the doctrines of these
Apostates.
"Forbidding to marry" continues St. Paul, "and
commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to
be received with thanksgiving.'' The Apostle adds (ver.
6), " If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these
things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ,""
&c.: implying, beyond all doubt, that, in the days of
Timothy, this putting in remembrance would be peculiarly
necessary to meet and oppose the rising heresy. Did then,
any such persons exist in these, and the immediately
subsequent, times, generally inculcating these abominable
doctrines? I answer, Every one in the least acquainted with
Church history, very well knows that there did. The Encratites
[See Ireneeus, Ed. Grabe, Lib. r. cap. xxx. with Grabe's note 4.
Irenreus here derives these from Simon Magus, and expressly
terms their doctrines the venom of the serpent-prince of
apostates. See also Cave's Historia Literaria, sub voce
Tatianus, &c.], and indeed the
Gnostics generally, taught that marriage was of the devil:
and in the place of it, they substituted a community of
women, according to the recommendation of Plato in his
Republics: and this was, in all probability, the doctrine of
the Nicolaitans. In the next place, believing as they did in
the transmigration of souls, they held it a gross
abomination to eat the flesh of animals, just as the Hindoos
now do; and hence, both these doctrines were fully and
universally urged upon all their followers. The followers
of the Pontificate have, to some extent, recommended these
things; but not to such as will satisfy these unlimited
statements of the Apostle. Besides, the period here styled
the latter times, &c., can by no means apply to those of
Popery, no more than those can, to the particularly
seasonable duty here urged upon Timothy.
One can scarcely imagine, and certainly no one can prove,
that St. Paul had in view, in either of these places, any
persons or times different from those then existing, or
immediately to follow. In these, some were to apostatize
from the faith: (verr. 3, 4) they were to forbid to marry,
and to command an entire abstinence from meats, &c.; which,
it is too well known to admit of a doubt, was fulfilled to
the very letter by the heretics, who were then growing up
within the Church. There is therefore, good reason for
believing, that all this referred to things then in
existence: and likely to increase,—and actually did increase
to an alarming extent.
St. Paul again, as to this period (Heb. i. 1, seq.), "
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spaJce in
time past unto the fathers by the Prophets, hath in these
last days spoken unto us by his Son" &e. Where, if language
has any meaning, " thesb last days" must signify those in
which he lived. It was, of necessity during these, that
Christ had "spoken'' to the Apostles: before these, God
had spoken by the Prophets. This distinction was therefore,
made for the purpose of preventing mistake in this
particular: and certainly, language cannot be, on this
point, more precise and definite. If so, " the last days"
must include those of the Apostolical ministrations, just
as we have seen in the places quoted from St. Peter and St.
Jude.
To the same effect also is 1 Cor. x. 11, "Now all these
things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are
written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world
are come" (Gr. ei? ows to Te\rj tu>v aiwvcov Kav, lit. to whom haw arrived the ends of the
ages, or dispensations : that is, both of the Patriarchal
and Mosaic). That the physical world could not be meant, is
evident enough from the facts of the case. The Apostle tells
us moreover, that these ends or times had now arrived with
them: that is, within their days. These " ends of the
world,'1'' must therefore imply the same times, as those
termed " the last days" " these last days," and the like.
They must accordingly, mean some period which had then
begun, and was in progress towards its close
[Comp. Phil. iv. 5: Heb.
x. 25.]:
In Ephes. ii. 7, we have ev rots al&ai rots
firepxofifvois, rendered by, " in the ages to come;" the
ages (now) coming on, would have been closer. If this had
been given, in the worlds to come, in any sense, the
absurdity would have been too apparent to be tolerated. Why
then have the translators given "world" in the place above?
Clearly because they did not understand it. But, on the
precise use of the term ala>v, alaves, we shall have
something presently to offer otherwise the term ends, must
be a misnomer. That it can not apply to the system then
commencing, and involving a kingdom that should have no end,
must be equally certain: the difference of the cases here
being utterly irreconcileable, viz. that, a thing now coming
to its end, can be made to signify the same with that, to
which there should be no end. The same is true of the
expression " last days,'' and the like: that which should
have no end, being utterly incapable (in prophetical
diction) of containing any "last days." No period
therefore, after Christianity had received its
establishment as a kingdom,—and such establishment it has
received, —could possibly be meant by any one of these
terms.
The Apostle also tells us (ib.), that " all these things
happened unto them for ensamples" (Gr. tuttoi avvef, i. e. as typical of something then to come; so in
St. Peter, as noticed above, they ministered not to
themselves, but to us) ; "and they are written for our
admonition," &c.; i. e. the Gospel so preached under types
to them, is now fully set forth for our instruction, as the
rest of this context clearly shews. Both St. Peter and St.
Paul had before them therefore, not only the same times, but
also the same persons, and the same things.
Again Heb. ix. 26, " But now once in the end op the world
(i. e. of the ages, or dispensations} hath he appeared to
put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself' (Gr, vvv §e aira^
etrl awreXeiq. twv aiwvwv, &o.). Where this end must
necessarily synchronize with the " now"" (vvv) of the
Apostle, and which must have been intended to mark the
period generally then existing. This end must also imply the
termination, or fulfilment, of some previously known period;
and cannot be extended into that, of which it is repeatedly
and emphatically said, that it should have no end. That the
end of the physical world did not then arrive, need not be
proved. This period is again referred to in chap, viii. 8,
10, 13, where it is said, " The days come...when I will make
a new covenant," &c. In the last verse of which, the Apostle
speaks of the Old Covenant as then ready to vanish away.
This was therefore the period of its end, and of the
establishment of the New, both de jure, and de facto. (See
chap. x. 20.) Again, ib. ver. 37, " Yet a little while, and
He that shall come will come, and will not tarry;" in the
terms of St. Peter, not linger : i. e. will come shortly,
and within the period here had in view. But, according to
Daniel, it was at the close of his seventieth week, that
vision and prophecy should be sealed, reconciliation be made
for iniquity, everlasting righteousness be brought in, and
the most holy (place) be anointed : in other words, when the
Son of Man should have in possession the dominion under the
whole heavens, and which should constitute " the End of the
matter,'' as we shall see more particularly hereafter.
St. Paul speaks here therefore, just as St. Peter did, of
the times and circumstances then present, and immediately to
succeed.
There are moreover, other places occurring in the
Epistles, marking this period in words and phrases a little
different from those already noticed, some of which we may
now consider. In Gal. iv. 4, it is said, " When the fulness
op time was come, God sent forth His Son" Sic. In Ephes. i.
10, we have, " That in the dispensation of the fulness of
times He might gather together in one all things in
Christ.'' By " the fulness of time,'' in the first
quotation must be meant, the fulfilment of the time
appointed for our Lord's appearance, which must be identical
with Jacob's "last days," in which Shiloh should come. The
other place reads a little differently. The original has,
For the dispensation, or economy (Gr. elmiav) : and
so the Syriac and some other ancient versions render it.
This however, is of no importance to us here. The
dispensation, or economy, of the fulness of time, must
necessarily comprehend the ministration of Christ and his
Apostles [34 Col. i.
25.], and also that, in which it was
to be the good pleasure of the Father to give the kingdom to
them (Luke xii. 32). And, although it was then to take its
rise, i. e. within the period termed the fulness of time,
and beyond which, it should not be delayed; still, as a
dispensation, its times of endurance must be commensurate
with those of Christ's Kingdom: that is, they must be
without end. Let it be borne in mind moreover, that the
fulness of time, which had now arrived, must necessarily
imply the fulfilment, or end, of some previous time, and is
not to be confounded with that which it so succeeded, and
was only temporary. The period here termed the fulness of
time, appointed, as it had been, for the rise and
establishment of this final dispensation, is also a thing
widely different from that, during which this dispensation
was to continue.
To the same effect St. John (1 Ep. ii. 18), " it is the
last time : and as ye have heard that Antichrist
[We shall, when we come to
Daniel, ascertain the particular period, and person, of the
Persecutor of the Saints so named here. It will then be seen
that, on this point, the Scripture is most full and precise.
That the early Fathers, as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Lactantius, Jerome, and some others, should have
entertained such wild notions upon it,—though some
understood it well,—is not to be wondered at, as they were
generally any thing but mighty in the Scriptures: that the
moderns have, is due to the faulty principles of Mead; of
which more hereafter.] shall come,
even now are there many Antichrists''' (i. e. people of his
sort); " whereby ice know that it is the last time" (for in
this he was to appear). " They went out" (i. e. apostatized)
"from us, but they were not of us ; for if they had been of
us, they would no doubt have continued with us; but they
went out," &c. In St. Paul's time (about a.d. 54) it is
said, "The mystery of iniquity doth already work," &c. That
is, its beginnings were sufficiently apparent. But St. Paul
does not appear to have survived the fall of the Temple and
City of Jerusalem. St. John certainly did: for, if he wrote
this Epistle about a.d. 90, as generally believed, he must
have survived the fall of the city, and the judgment poured
out upon the Jews, not much less than twenty years: and this
must, according to the visions of Daniel,—presently to be
considered,—have placed him within the latter period of his
seventieth week, during which war was to be made upon the
saints by the little horn, and they were to be given into
his hand during the period of a time, times, and the
dividing of time : but, at the end of which, his destruction
was to take place. St. John therefore, truly designated this
as the last time. The Apostasy moreover, which had not fully
taken place in the times of St. Paul, now had.
It would be almost endless to notice all the places of
Scripture, in which reference is made, either directly or
indirectly to this period, and to the marvelous events
which were to take place within it. Some of these will be
adduced in the sequel. It will be sufficient for the
present, to touch upon those portions of our Lord's
remarkable prophecy (Matth. xxiv. &c.), which bear
particularly upon it. Some of these have come before us
already; but, as it will be more satisfactory to view them
in their several connexions, we shall now proceed to do so.
And here we shall bring the several parallel places
together, as they occur in the Gospels of Sts. Matthew,
Mark, and Luke.
In St. Matthew then (chap. xxiv. 1, seq.) we are told,
that when the disciples had shewn the buildings of the
Temple to our Lord, He said, " Verily I say unto you, There
shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not
be thrown down," i. e. of these buildings. The same is said
both in Mark (chap. xiii. 1, 2) and in Luke (chap. xxi. 5,
6). We are next told (ib. Luke), that the disciples asked
Him, " When shall these things be, and what sign...when
these things shall come to pass ?" Which should seem to
imply something more than the fall of the Temple. The other
Gospels inform us, that this question was proposed, " as He
sat upon the mount of Olives'" (over against the temple). In
St. Mark it stands thus: " What shall be the sign when all
these things shall be fulfilled?" In St. Matthew, " When
shall these things be ? and, What shall be the sign of thy
coming, and of the end of the world"
Gibbon indulges in sneering at this, in the severest
manner of which he is capable. " It was universally
believed," says he, " that the end of the world, and the
kingdom of heaven, were at hand." Milman tells us in a note
on this place, that " This was ... an integral part of the
Jewish notion of the Messiah, from which the minds of the
Apostles themselves were but gradually detached." He then
refers us to the vile Neologian work of Bertholdt, entitled
Christologia Judseorum, (see my review of this in my " Six
Sermons," &c. Lond. 1830). But, Were the Apostles ever
detached from this notion? Gibbon has no doubt here, that
St. Paul taught it in his first Epist. to the Thess. and
also our Lord Himself in Matt. xxiv. And Gibbon is right;
but this was taught in the sense of neither Gibbon, Milman,
nor Bertholdt. And the fact is, the kingdom of heaven did so
come, as also did the end of the world, in the sense they
intended. Gibbon adds, " The revolution of seventeen
centuries has instructed us not to press too closely the
mysterious language of prophecy and revelation." Which is a
master-piece in his way. The truth however, is, all its
point consists only in the consummate ignorance of its
author. (Decline and Fall, &c. Ed. Milman, 1838, Vol. 11. p.
299.) ov a'uovos). From this last place it should seem, that
the disciples had already heard something on this subject,
which led them to these additional particulars ; and we find
(Matth. xvi. 4, &c.) that this is the case. " There shall no
sign be given unto it" (i.e. this generation), "but the sign
of the prophet Jonas," &c. (Comp. chap. xii. 3.9—43, and
Mark viii. 38, where a judgment is denounced). And again
(ib. 21, seq.), our Lord foretells his own death and
resurrection [In
Luke xviii. 31, seq., to the same effect: " Behold, we go up
to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the
Prophets concerning the Son of Man shall be accomplished"
(comp. xxi. 22, which must necessarily refer to the same
things). " For He shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and
shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on.
And they shall...put Him to death: and the third day He
shall rise again." And again (Luke xix. 41, seq.) ..." He
beheld the city and wept over it saying, If thou hadst
known. . . in this thy day, the things which belong to thy
peace!. . . For the days shall come upon thee, that thine
enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee
round, and keep thee in on every side.. . and shall not
leave in thee one stone upon another" &c. To which many
similar places might be added, were it necessary. All of
which must necessarily be confined to the general period now
before us, and could not have been forgotten by the
Disciples on the occasion in question.];
and again (ver. 27), it is said, " for the Son of man shall
come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then He
shall reward every man according to his works." The next
verse adds, " Verily I say unto you, There be some standing
here" (as already noticed), " which shall not taste of death
till they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom." That
the former place here relates to the final judgment, there
can, I think, be no doubt. This was a doctrine well known to
the Jews generally; but, this leading as a theme, our Lord
speaks of another judgment to take place, even within the
limits of that generation. And here, the kingdom to be given
to the Son of Man, as foretold by Daniel (chap. vii. 14,
Sic.), with its accompanying judgments, must necessarily
have been intended. The disciples had therefore, some
reasons for introducing these other particulars. They knew
full well, that the Jews would not receive their Lord, but
would put him to death. It was reasonable enough therefore,
in them to suppose, that His coming in power and glory would
be to reward them, even in that generation
[Mr. Milman (ib.) gives us
the following abstract of the modern commentators on this
passage..." An error... subsists in our versions of... Matt.
xxiv. 29, 34 ... In ver. 29,. .. the Greek word (v6eu>s,
signifies... suddenly, not immediately... it signifies only
the sudden appearance of the signs ... not the shortness of
the interval which was to separate them from the days of
tribulation." Whatever might be said of the suddenness of
these tribulations, certain it is that some then living were
to witness them. Again, ver. 34: "These words yevth avrtj..
. the translators have rendered by ' this generation,' but
which means the race ... of my disciples:... he speaks of a
class of men, not of a generation." But, who can adopt such
a gloss as this, when he has considered the place with its
parallels ? Besides, yevrjrai does not signify fulfilled, as
already noticed. In this the translators were wrong: in the
other instances now noticed, they were not so.],
according to their works. See also Matth. chap. xxi. 41—46,
where the destruction of Christ's murderers is indirectly
foretold, and it is declared both that the kingdom should
be taken from them, and that the effect of His judgments
should grind them to powder. The same is said in other words
in chap. xxii. 7, seq. We need not be surprised therefore,
at these additional particulars introduced by the disciples.
Again, Christ's coming in power may be considered as
equivalent to the declaration, that His Kingdom should now
be established de facto; and consequently, that the previous
temporary dispensation should have wholly passed away. His
coming thus therefore, was to accomplish all this, and
thence to constitute a sign of the entire end of that moral
state of things [Luke xxi. 22. " These be the days of vengeance, that all
things that are written may be fulfilled." Comp. Isa. xxxiv.
8.] (rfjs <rvvTe\e'ta rov aioicos).
This consideration would naturally have the effect, in our
Lord's subsequent answers, of introducing many particulars
connected with this great question: and this it actually
had. He now therefore traverses the whole period termed
above " the last days," "last times," and the like, and
concludes with the events which should establish His
Kingdom, de facto, in every nation under heaven. It is
plain, I say, that the questions of the disciples involve
all this: and to all this, it is but reasonable to believe,
He would give full and adequate answers.
The first warning He gives to His disciples is, to take
heed that no man deceive them (Matth. xxiv. 4), because, as
He declares, many should come and lay claim both to His
office, and dignity. From this place (ver. 5) to verse 15,
He gives a general outline of the events of this whole
period; " and then," adds he, " shall the end come." That
the things here foretold, actually took place within the
period now had in view, we shall shew more particularly when
we come to the Revelation, where they are taken up by St.
John. It will suffice here to remark, that it is
sufficiently well known, that they did take place. In Mark
(chap. xiii. 5—14, exclus.) we have the parallel to this: as
we also have in Luke xxi, 8—20.
In the remaining context, in each of these Gospels, the
same events are more particularly, as it is usual, dwelt
upon: e.g. in Matthew (ver. 15), " When ye therefore shall
see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the
prophet, stand in the holy place, whoso readeth let him
understand [See
below on Dan. ix. 27: xii. 11.];" viz.
that this is both the period, and the thing, had in view by
Daniel. " Then," it is added, i. e. at that time, " let them
which be in Judea flee to the mountains...For" (ver. 21) "
then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the
beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be"
(comp. Dan. ix. 26; xii. 1. Joel ii. 2). And again, "For the
Elects* sake:" (Rom. xi. 7, " the Election," and 1 Pet. i.
2, " Elect," Isa. Ixv. 9, 22, " mine Elect," not any
Calvinistic Elect), "those days shall be shortened." In
Mark (xiii. 14—21), the same things are said, and nearly in
the same words. But in Luke (xxi. 20, seq.), the terms used
are more specific: e. g. " And when ye shall see Jerusalem
compassed with armies, then" (i. e. at that time) "know that
the desolation thereof is nigh:" (which brings us to the
prediction of Daniel, chap. ix. 26, viz. " The people of
the prince that shall come, shall destroy the City and the
Sanctuary," Sec.). The disciples are now instructed to flee
to the mountains, and then follows the important
declaration: " These be the days of vengeance," or, as in
Isaiah, chap, xxxiv. 8. "It is the day of the lord's
vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy
of" (the true) " Zion
[(Comp. Deut. xxviii. 49, seq.: xxix. 23: xxxii. 22,
seq.: Joel i. 2, 3, 6, 7,15. " The day of the lord is at
hand;" i. e. in the eye of the prophet: Ch. ii. 2, seq. ;
ver. 11. " The day of the lord is great and very terrible;
and who can abide it ?" In ver. 18, we have, the pity to be
shewn to His people, cited from Deut. xxxii. 36, &c., and
here ver. 32, this is determined to be His Elect, or holy
Remnant. Joel follows this out with the return of Judah's
captivity, i. e. in this Hemnant, the calling in of the
Gentiles, the mountains dropping down with new wine, Ch.
iii. 18, &c., and the waters of Judah irrigating even the
valley of Shittim, &c.]." Our Lord
adds, " that all things which are written may be fulfilled."
Where, be it observed, He comes to the fulfilment of all
that had been written: that is, to take place within the
period here had in view: and prophecy knows nothing beyond
this:—and this must be, as we shall see hereafter, Daniel's
seventieth mystical week: for at its conclusion, vision and
prophecy was to be sealed, i. e. fulfilled.
St. Luke adds (ver. 23), " For there shall be great
distress in the land, and wrath upon this people." That is,
upon the land and people of the Jews, of necessity. " And,"
he goes on, " they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and
shall be led away captive into all nations : and Jerusalem
shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of
the Gentiles be fulfilled." That this distress took place in
the fall of Jerusalem, and the dispersion of the Jews, it is
impossible to doubt. If now we turn to Daniel (chap. ix.
27), we shall see what is meant by " until the times," &c.
His words are: " In the midst of the week," that is, of
necessity, of the last, and one, week there named, " He
shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease:" that is,
as it should seem, by making circumstances such, that the
obdurate Jews should be no longer able to continue them: and
this must have been by the fall of the Temple. But here, the
Temple fell at the same time with Jerusalem: our " until the
times," &c., may therefore be applied to both here, because
the same point of time must be meant in each.
Daniel continues, "And for the overspreading of
abominations He" (God) "shall make it" (Jerusalem with its
temple) "desolate, even until the consummation" (i. e. full
and complete end), " and that determined"1"1 (here to be
within the period of these seventy weeks) " shall be poured
upon the Desolator [On this, more when we come to the place.]."
Now this seventy weeks'1 period of Daniel was—as we shall
shew hereafter,—given as that, in which everlasting
righteousness should be brought in, for the establishment
of the everlasting Covenant with Abraham, to both Jew and
Gentile; and within which, Vision and Prophecy should be
sealed: i. e. so finished and fulfilled, that time might be
said, with respect to it, to be no longer (Rev. x. 6). This
consummation determined therefore, must necessarily arrive
at the end of this period; and consequently, no prophecy can
go beyond it. "Hitherto," in Daniel's own words, "is the end
of the matter [43 Ch.
vii. 28.];" which brings us to the
kingdom taken into possession de facto, by the Son of Man.
(See also Dan. xii. 7.) Our blessed Lord here therefore,
carries us to this point of time, and no farther; and He
tells us, that up to this Jerusalem shall be trodden down of
the Gentiles : here is the end of its metropolitical
character, as also of the Theocracy which supplied its
importance. The New Covenant, after this, knows it not as
such, nor indeed any other such metropolis.
But, if we suppose this treading down to cease at this
period, What then ? Can Jerusalem again take the place which
it did under the Old Covenant, now that this covenant has
wholly passed away? And, if it cannot do this, it can only
do that which any other city may. The heavenly Jerusalem
that now is, is from above; and it is the mother-city, or
metropolis, of us all: it is that " City of the Living God"
which is co-extensive with the New Canaan, land, or earth,
the limits of which are those of the Universe. With this, in
what way soever resuscitated, the Jerusalem of Palestine
can hold no competition. The New Covenant acknowledges it
not: and this Covenant is both everlasting and unchangeable.
To imagine therefore, that the terms " until the times," &e.
imply any thing like what some are disposed to make them, is
to give in to an assumption destitute of every thing like
reason, and manifestly opposed to the requirements of this
Covenant.
Our Lord again, after admonishing his disciples that
false Christ’s should appear (Matth. ib. verr. 5, 23—27.
Mark ib. verr. 6, 21—24. Luke ib. ver. 8), gives them a sure
mark whereby His coming should be known: "For," says he, "
as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even
unto the west, so also" (i. e. of that sort) "shall the
coming of the Son of Man be:" i. e. not as an individual on
earth, whether in the desert, the secret chamber, or
elsewhere, but in power, as in the clouds of heaven,
discernible far and wide, in proof of His Divinity, and as
foretold by the Prophets ; and, at the same time, striking
through His enemies, and shattering, as with the lightning,
those who might seem as deeply rooted, and as permanent in
their possessions, as the cedars of Libanus
[Zech. ix. 14: Ps. sly. 6,
seq.: ex. 6: xxix. 5, seq.]. In this
manner He came, and as in the clouds of heaven, and
destroyed Jerusalem with its temple. In like manner was He
also to come, and pour out His desolating flames of fire
upon the head of the Desolator; and all this He actually
did, as we shall see fully in the sequel.
From this place then (ver. 29, ib. Matth.), down to verse
32, is this second coming of our Lord in judgment, thus
foretold : " Immediately," it is said, " after the
tribulation of those days" (i. e. of the fall of Jerusalem)
" shall the sun be darkened...And then" (i; e. again) "shall
appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven" (not His
person, but the testimony of his power): " and then shall
all the tribes of the earth mourn'''' (not of the Jews only,
but of the Gentiles also, who should oppose themselves to
Him), " and they" (i.e. all) "shall see" (i. e. perceive in
this way; and in no other was He to be seen) " the Son of
man coming in the clouds of heaven" (i. e.) " with power and
great glory." It is added (ib. ver. 31), "And He shall send
His angels" (Apostles) " with a great sound of a trumpet
[As foretold in the
places just referred to in the text, and as shadowed out in
the priests blowing the trumpets about Jericho (Josh. vi. 4,
seq.)], and they shall gather together
His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the
other."
In Zech. ix. 13, seq., this is plainly foretold: " When I
have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and
raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and
made thee" (i. e. God's true Zion) " as the sword of a
mighty man. And the Lord shall be seen over them" (i. e. as
in the clouds), " and His arrow shall go forth as the
lightning; and the Lord God shall blow the trumpet" (in
these His ministers), "and shall go forth" (as) " with the
whirlwinds of the south ;" i. e. with great fury to cast
down, tear up, and destroy, His foes. Which will supply the
best comment on Acts i. 11, viz. "This same Jesus, which is
taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like
manner'1'' (i. e. in the clouds of heaven in power), " as
ye have seen Him go into heaven." Our Lord adds, in order to
fix the commencement of the period, within which all this
should take place (ver. 34), " Verily I say unto you, this
geneation shall not pass till all these things be." The
signs of their taking place He also gives: and the fact that
they did so take place, is too well known to need urging
here.
If we now turn to Mark (xiii. 24, seq.), we shall find
this second coming of our Lord foretold much in the same
way. The principal difference is this: " When ye shall see
these things come to pass, know that it is nigh'1'' (i. e.
the coining of the Son of man against the Jews), " even at
the doors." This is then, as before, limited to that
generation. In Luke (xxi. 25), " There shall be signs in the
sun...upon the earth distress of nations;" all of which, as
we shall see hereafter, literally took place within the
period here had in view, and beginning with events of that
very generation (ib. ver. 32). Our Lord adds a particular
here (ver. 31) of great moment: viz. " When ye see these
things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God'" (i.
e. to be established under the everlasting Covenant made
with Abraham) " is nigh at hand." That is, to be now
established by the display of a power, which none should be
able to resist.
It should seem moreover, from the questions of the
disciples, viz. "What shall be the sign," &c. (Matth. xxiv.
3, &c.), and from our Lord's answers, which specify the
signs of that particular period, as also from His
declaration (ib. ver. 36), viz. " But of that day and hour"
(i.e. the general period often so specified by these terms),
" knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my
Father only." That is to say, Holy Writ has given no
chronological intimations whatever by which its approach
could be known, except only certain signs connected with
other events, the period of which could not be known, until
these events should have taken place: e. g. The Sceptre's
not departing from Judah until Shiloh (lit. He whose, it
was) should come : that is, until the event of His
mysterious birth should have taken place. In two cases
indeed, viz. I. The deliverance of Israel from Egypt, the
period was fixed, i. e. to be after the lapse of 430 years :
II. That from Babylon after that of 70. But, if the seventy
weeks of Daniel had contained a similar chronological
period, then would it have been exactly known when the
period, nay, the year of Christ's appearing, of His
crucifixion, and of the fall of Jerusalem, should be: but
this last, our Lord has positively declared, none but the
Father knew. That period could not therefore, have been
given as chronological, in any sense.
We have arrived therefore, at the period in which the
everlasting Covenant made with Abraham, was to be
established; and, de facto, was established fatty and
completely. To talk of an imperfect establishment of this,
would be to talk absurdly, and in direct contradiction both
to the terms, and the spirit, of Revelation. In the
Apostle's times believers were complete in Christ
[As cited above.]
: and to this completeness, the nature of the case is
sufficient to shew, nothing can be added. According to the
same Apostle, moreover, the Gospel had in his days gone
forth into all lands; it had been made known to all nations
for the obedience of faith; it had gone forth into all the
world, and had been preached to every creature under heaven
[Col. i. 6, 23.]."
According to all Ecclesiastical history, it was received in
all nations before the times of Const antine
[See Lux Evang. Fabricii.];
and in all nations have after-times found it. It is not
pretended however, that every individual person, or every
particular spot, received and adopted it. This neither the
nature of these terms, nor the provisions of holy Scripture,
require. It was universally established and received; while
the brightest predictions of its glories, not only tell us
of those who should always oppose it, but also of the
possibility of its candlesticks being, under certain
circumstances, removed, and itself extinguished. If then,
all this has been effected,—and this is the case,—What
further have we to expect from the predictions of the
Prophets ? If they indeed ministered to the things preached
in the Apostolic and all subsequent times, and this even for
us ; then it should seem to be superfluous to expect any
thing further. When we come to the Revelation (chap. x. 7)
we shall shew, that Holy Scripture itself repeatedly
declares this to be the fact.
If any reliance can be placed upon what has now been
adduced from the Prophets, the Psalmist, the Apostles, and
the teaching of our Lord Himself, the period for the
establishment of His kingdom de facto, (for, de jure, it
was established at His resurrection) must have commenced
within the generation in which He lived and spake, and must
also have ended some time after the fall of Jerusalem, and
at the close of Daniel's seventieth mystical week ; for then
the consummation (i. e. completion of all), and that
determined, was to be effected: and this again, Daniel
affirms also by the fact, of desolation to be poured upon
the Desolator,—for this was the thing determined, as the
final one,— that is, upon the very Power which should
destroy both the City and the Sanctuary. That this was the
Roman power, as every one knows, which, as we shall
presently see, was to make war against the saints, and so to
prevail that many of them should fall, during the space of a
time, times, and a half; which can only be another way of
naming the latter half (i. e. 3½ days, &c.) of Daniel's
seventieth week.—But more on this hereafter.
When therefore, this period had arrived at its close,
Abraham had become the spiritual Father of many nations: the
privileges of a mere carnal descent now ceased to be of any
value whatsoever; the system securing these having entirely
passed away. And, as the Jews refused to become parties in
the New Covenant, they were justly considered as branches
broken off from the true Vine; they were pronounced blind,
in bondage, and under the curse of the Law to all intents
and purposes; and, from that day to this, they have suffered
its penalties in every point of view, and in every nation of
the world ! Still, as they are not, and never were,
judicially and fatally cast off, they are invited by the
universal Zion of this New Covenant, no longer to abide in
unbelief, but to return, and to look on Him whom they have
pierced; and thus, through the means appointed for the
salvation of all, to come in, in order that ''all Israel
may be saved:" because it has been promised,—and cannot fail
to be accomplished, —that " the Redeemer shall come out of
Zion TO THEM THAT TURN PROM TRANSGRESSION in Jacob
[Isa. Lix. 20.]
As we have already had occasion to refer to
this prophecy respecting our Lord, we shall consider it no
farther now.
Our conclusion is therefore, upon the whole of this, that
the Covenant of promise,—first made in the garden of Eden
[Gen. iii. 15.],
renewed with Noah [Gen. is. 9, seq.], and particularly so
with Abraham, and as a voucher for the fulfilment of which
many signs and wonders were given, and particularly the
temporary right to the land of Canaan, with the whole polity
of the Mosaic Law, —I say, that this Covenant of promise has
been completely fulfilled, in the establishment of the
Church of the New Testament, rather that of the New
Covenant.
We have seen so far moreover, that this Covenant is
precise, definite, everlasting, universal, and altogether
exclusive. It will admit of neither addition nor diminution.
The scope and limit of the Apostolic preaching, and of the
Church's receiving in their days, contain the full and whole
amount of its precepts, privileges, character, and duration.
To the tradition of men it pays no regard : to the temporary
observances of the Law, it is a perfect stranger: to Jews,
as such, it holds out no blessings; and even to Jews
receiving it, it offers nothing peculiar. All believers are,
in its wide and universal scope and benevolence, one holy
family, one body, one Church : the great object and end of
which is, the high mark of their calling in Christ Jesus,
their becoming meet for heaven here, and their admission to
it hereafter: although all its members well know, that to
perfection they can never come on this side of the grave;
still, as a perfect obedience has been rendered in their
behalf, and a perfect atonement made for their
transgressions, they are, by the exercise of a true faith,
invested with such a state of righteousness, both imputed
and actual, as will insure acceptance with their God and
Judge, so that He will see in them neither spot, wrinkle,
blemish, nor any such thing. Under this too, they will be
led, strengthened, taught, brought up, even to the perfect man in Christ, by the influence of
that Holy Spirit, under whose ministration they live ; which
moved holy men of old, when they foretold these things, and
by the power of the same faith, realized them. Under such
therefore, no Jewish, no Gnostic, Millennium is wanted: no
restoration of Jews to temporary privileges only, is either
taught or known. The great things prefigured under the
temporary Covenant, are now for ever established ; and
cannot but remain under Him who has established them, and
has declared, that they shall continue as the days of heaven
before Him.
THE END OF THE FIRST BOOK.
APPENDIX.
On the Scriptural usage of the terms, aion, in the sense of Age, Dispensation,
&c.
As the precise import of this usage is, perhaps, not very
commonly known, it will be but right here to endeavour to
ascertain it. From both its etymology and use, it should
seem to signify some indefinite portion of time, and thence,
by a metonymy, either persons or things connected with this.
The word appears to be a compound, formed of del and wvlwv; and hence taking the circumflex (for aeiiov). We
have a similar compound in aeiearw, sempiternitas, and
detecttos, sempiterna substantia, where the latter part of
the compound is derived from iarriui It may be said indeed,
that in this case the genitive should be aioi/ros, not
aJwo?. I should doubt however, whether this deserves much
regard : the word now being the name of a single idea, may
fairly take the liberty of so far shortening itself for
convenience sake. On its classical use, Stephanus (Thesaur.
p. 1694. d.) may be consulted.
In the Scriptures it has two applications. I.
Designating some indefinite period, as to the present state
of things. II. Eternity, as distinguishing that which is to
come. Hence we have (Matth. xii. 32), oure ei» tovtu> t$
a'iwi/T(. Again (chap. xiii. 40),
oiovtou. In the
first instance here, we have this present a.iu>», and also
that which is to come. In the second, we have the close of
this, previous to the commencement of that future one: which
is sufficient perhaps to establish this our first, and more
extended, acceptation of this term. And here, be it
observed, it is not the matter or the like, of the physical
world that is meant, but the time, or things of time,
connected with it.
In Mark x. 30, the opposition is thus made: eia,...Kaltp, &C. So also
in Luke xviii, 30, where xaipy stands in each case, as
parallel to aiiavi, and takes the place of it: while (chap.
xx. 34) we have aiwvos in each place: oloutov... ol y atwiioy exeivov, &c.
whence it must be evident, that Kaipos and cua are, to
some extent, synonymous; as also, that altov itself has this
extended and twofold application.
In the next place, as this term is found in the plural
number, it must of necessity imply periods, &c. less
extensive, apparently, than those just now mentioned: e. g.
1 Cor. ii. 7, Tvwv. ib. x. 11, ek oys (i. e.
j/jmas) Taiaev. Comp. Eph.
iii. 9, 11. Heb. i. 2 ; ix. 26, where we have the terms of
St. Matthew (xxiv. 3. Comp. Dan. ix. 27, in the Septuag.)
quoted, and applied to the period in which the Apostle
lived: the words are, vvv $e ewv: that is, at the end of some former periods, each of
which would be an aitov; but in St. Mark x. 30, in our more
extended sense, and in the singular number: while in each
case, the end (ffweia), must necessarily signify the same
end: and, from the nature of the case, this could not
signify the end of the world in a physical sense. So 1 Cor.
x. 11 above. In these places, the plural form is applied in
a retrospective sense: in the following, in a prospective
one. Luke i. 33, e« tow alwva^. Rom. i. 25 ; ix. 5 ; and
Gal. i. 5, aiov aiwvwv. Eph. ii. 7, ev Tojievoi's (comp. iii. 21), i. e. in this state
of being: to these other instances may be added.
That this term cannot apply to the world in a physical
sense, must be clear from the following places: Eph* ii. 2,
tov ov: i. e. period, or rather, mode
of living in it, of this world. In Heb. i. 2, torev: "made the worlds." Auth. Vers. i. e. in a
physical sense. But the Scripture tells us of the making, or
creating, of one only. Of this, the sun, moon, stars, and
visible heavens, form constituent parts, not separate
worlds, as the philosophy of the case may seem to require :
which however, the Bible never professes to teach. And to
imagine that the heaven of disembodied spirits and of
angels, &c. could be meant here, would be absurd in the
extreme : of the creation of this we know nothing.
Here (Heb.) in chap. xi. 3, we have Ks, " the worlds were framed." Auth. Vers.: which is open
to the same objections. If however, we take aioiras here in
the sense given above, we shall have, made or framed, rather constituted, adapted, or the like, the several
periods; (meton.) the moral or religious appointments of
these: i. e. the Dispensations: and these are the things
here known by faith through the word: these too are the
things seen, which did not originate in things visible: but
in the appointments of him who is invisible: which indeed
may be true of the physical world; but it is not the matter
in question with the sacred writer, in any one of these
places. The Heb. D and n, are used in the same
way. See Schleusner.
We may now notice a few other usages of this term (alwv).
In Rom. xii. 2, we have Ttp aiwvi
tovtm. " Be not conformed to this world:" i. e. to the moral
or religious usages of this period, or season of being:
where Kaipio may be substituted for aiwvi. Comp. Eph. v. 16.
Col. iv. 5. 1 Thes. v. 1, &c. Again, 1 Cor. i. 20, irovrov tovtov ; where the parallel has tyjv
<rovtov : and gives koov in the same
moral or religious bearing with aiaJiw: while Ephes. ii, 2,
gives a usage which shews, that aiwv and kooos cannot
signify the same thing: viz. koto. tov alwva tov : aliov being here some adjunct or characteristic of
koios : i. e. the moral state or period of the then
existing world. The text ad caret to v ap^ovv aepos, tov irvv evepyol? Ttjs direideias:
where v apypvTa is the
parallel of Kara tov alwva, and is evidently given for the
purpose of marking strongly the moral state of this period,
or a\wv; not its physical character. The Syriac renders the
place thus, poi feaX^j cL ^u|, i. e. according to
the worldliness of this world: it adds, and according to the
will of the prince of the power of the air; i. e.
characterizing in like manner, the aiwv or period in
question. To the same effect many other instances might be
cited : but it would be unnecessary. From all which it must
appear^ that a'uov, .or alioves, must be regulated, both in
extent, and period of being, by the circumstances of the
context, as must also the consideration whether time, or the
things of time past, present, or future, be meant: and, in
the latter case, when the plural form is used, emphasis only
is in some places apparently intended; as in eis toi)?
aitova?, Rom. i. 25 ; and eav<av,
Gal. i. 5, &c.; while, on the other hand, when we have such
places as rwi'wv, 1 Cor. x. 11 ; avv, Matth.
xiii. 39, 40; and xxiv. 3, the end, or close, of some
preceding periods must be meant; but what these are, the
context must, as before, determine: e. g. in Matth. xiii. it
is evident the end of this world's times must be meant, for
things to take place after the resurrection are clearly
presented to us: but in Matth xxiv.,—which we shall
presently see, has reference to the prophecies of Daniel,
which must "fail," or end at a certain period,—the meaning
cannot be extended to that of these former places : and,
what is still more conclusive, St. Paul actually applies
this usage to his own times (Heb. ix. 26). It must therefore
refer to the close of periods running out up to that
particular time, and then still to run out for some time to
come; for he says (Heb. ii. 8), " We see not yet alt things
put under him:" the kingdom being not yet given to the Son
of Man de facto: the Antichrist had not yet been revealed,
and therefore had not yet fallen: and hence, he speaks (ib.
ver. 5) of " the world " then " to come." Troucrav which, iii its moral and religious
application, would be equivalent to tov au.evoi':
but, in that of Daniel's fifth Empire, to To, &c., as put under the rule of the Son of
man. We must therefore, in interpreting these terms, be
careful to note the circumstances of the context, otherwise
confusion and error must be the result.
It is curious enough to observe, that the Mohammedans
have the usage ie. Lord of the worlds, as
applying to God. The first Chapter of the Koran will afford
an example, where its commentators are tedious and
particular in telling us, that it means God, as the Creator
of the worlds: which was evidently adopted by Mohammed from
the Christian heretics of his times. It is therefore,
entitled to no authority whatever, in the question before
us. Our conclusion is therefore, that the terms aiwv,
a'iwves ta'ua, and the like, do primarily and
properly denote some indefinite part, portion, or portions,
of time, and may, by a metonymy, signify certain things
connected with one or other of these, but that in no case is
the physical world meant: while the period of occurrence, or
of duration, of any of these portions, &c. must be
ascertained from the circumstances of the context.
|