Chrift to the day of judgment, he adds, "Such appears to be this general outline of the Chriftian hiftory. Many important intervals yet remain to be filled up under the feventh feal, which will be found to contain all the prophecies remaining; and, by tracing the hiftory over again, to fupply many events which were only touched upon before. This method of divine prediction, presenting at firft a general sketch or outline, and afterwards a more complete and finished colouring of events, is not peculiar to this prophetical book. It is the juft obfervation of Sir Ifaac Newton, that the prophecies of Daniel are all of them related to each other ; and that every following prophecy adds fomething new to the former. We may add to this obfervation, that the fame empires in Daniel are reprefented by various types and fymbols. The four parts of the image, and the four beasts, are varied fymbols of the fame empires. The bear and the he-goat, in different vifions, reprefent the fame original: and fo do the ram and the leopard. We are not therefore to be surprised, when we find the fame hiftory of the Church beginning anew, and appearing under other, yet correfponding, types; thus filling up the outlines which had been traced before."* This analogical argument appears to me to be inconclufive, on account of the defectiveness of parallelifm between the manifeftly diftinct prophecies of Daniel and the only fuppofed diflinet prophecies of St. John. Who for inftance can doubt even momentarily of the complete diftinctness of the two vifions of the image and the four beafts, although they plainly treat of the fame four empires? The one is feen by Nebuchadnezzar; the other, by Daniel himfelf: hence the line of diftinction is fo indelibly drawn between them, that we cannot for a moment fuppofe either that the feet of the image belongs to the prophecy of the four beafts, or that the first beaft belongs to the prophecy of the image. Much the fame remark applies to the three chronological vifions feen all by Daniel. He beheld that of the four beafts in the first year of Belshazzar; that of the ram and the he-goat, in the third year of Belfhazzar, “after that which appeared unto him at the first ;" and that of the things noted in the Scripture of truth, in the third year of Cyrus. Thus it is plain, that we can neither doubt the diflinctness of these visions, nor hefitate where to draw the line of diftinction between them. But will any one fay, that the fame pofitive directions are given us for dividing the Apocalypfe into diftinct prophecies? The whole is evidently revealed to St. John in one fingle vifion, on one fingle Lord's day, and in one and the fame ifle of Patmos. He does not exhibit himfelf, like Daniel, as awaking from one vifion, and afterwards at a confiderable interval of time as beholding another: but he defcribes himself as feeing the whole at once, although the different objects, which paffed in review before him, appeared fometimes to be stationed in heaven, fometimes to emerge out of the fea, fometimes to occupy the land, and fometimes to be placed in the wilderness. Such being the cafe, how can we fairly argue from the diftinct vifions of Daniel, each of which nearly repeats the fame portion of hiftory, that the Apocalypfe ought likewife to be divided into diftinct vifions? And what commentator, who proceeds upon this fyftem, can juftly require us to accept his particular divifion of the book; Rev. i. 9, 10.

* P. 197.

Dan. vii. 1.-viii. 1.—x. 1.

a divifion, which must be altogether arbitrary becaufe unsanctioned by St. John? If the Apocalypfe is to be divided (a point which can never be proved, and which indeed the whole structure of the book feems to me to difprove,) how can the Archdeacon pronounce, with even an appearance of certainty, that he has difcovered the proper mode of dividing it? When I am told, that the firft divifion comprehends the fix first feals; the fecond divifion, the fixth firft trumpets ushered in by the feventh feal; and the third divifion, the feven vials ufhered in by the feventh trumpet: I feel myfelf walking on very unstable ground; for, if the Apocalypfe be divided at all, it feems unnatural to separate one feal and one trumpet from their refpective fellows. But, even granting that the Apocalypfe ought to be divided, and further granting that the Archdeacon's divifion is the right one; it ftill does not follow, that his interpretation ought to be admitted. If the fix first feals conftitute the firft feries, what right have we to say that the fecond feries, introduced by the feventh feal, chronologically commences from the felf fame era as the fift? If St. John himfelf had fpecified the Archdeacon's divifion, and told us that his fecond vifion commenced with the feventh feal as the fecond historical vision recorded by Daniel commences with the winged lion; fhould we on that account have any right to conclude, that St. John's fecond vision ought to be computed from the fame era as his first? Would it not, on the contrary, be more natural to fuppofe, that, fince his firft vifion was that of the fix feals, and fince his fecond vifion was introduced by the seventh feal, the first chronologically fucceeded the fecond, inftead of commencing and running parallel with it? In fact, if we once allow the propriety of dividing the Apocalypfe and of fuppofing that the firft divifion is a fketch of what is more largely predicted under the fecond divifion as the prophecy of the image in Daniel is a sketch of the prophecy of the four beafts, we feem to preclude the poffibility of its ever being fatisfactorily explained by an uninfpired commentator: for, in this cafe, who is to divide it; and where fhall we find any two expofitors, that write upon this plan, who will agree in their mode of divifion? There is, for obvious reafons, no difcrepancy between commentators in determining where each of Daniel's four prophecies both begins and ends: but can we expect the fame freedom from difcrepancy, if they attempt to divide the Apocalypfe into diftinct vifions agreeably to the analogy of Daniel's predictions?

On these grounds I feel myfelf compelled to adhere to the common opinion, that the Apocalypfe, with the already mentioned and univerfally allowed exception of the little book, is one continued vifion: and, if such an opinion be well founded, fince the feptenary of the feals precedes the feptenary of the trumpets, and the feptenary of the trumpets the feptenary of the vials, each of these feptenaries muft, as Bp. Newton argues chronologically precede the other. Whether we fuppofe the laft feal abfolutely to comprehend as well as to introduce the feven trumpets, and the laft trumpet in a fimilar manner the feven vials, is of no great confequence fo far as the chronological arrangement of the Apocalypfe is concerned; though I think there is reafon for admitting, with Bp. Newton, the propriety of fuch a fuppofition. For what does the feventh feal contain, unlefs we conceive it to contain the feven trumpets; and where fhall we find the third wor announced under the feventh trumpet, if we do not find it under the feven

vials, thofe feven la plagues in which is filled up the wrath of God?* But, if once we adopt the belief of the continuity and indivifibility of the Apocalypfe (always excepting the little book), it is plain, that by far the greater part of the Archdeacon's interpretations cannot be admitted, becaufe they are founded upon its non continuity and divifibility.

II. I fhall now proceed to offer a few obfervations on some particular expofitions of the Archdeacon, premising that it is not my intention to notice every little matter in which I happen to diffent from him.

1. His expofition of the firft fix feals I of course cannot admit; because, extending as it does from the afcenfion of our Lord to the day of judg ment, it seems to me to militate against the whole chronology of the Apocalypfe. Yet his principle of expounding the four first feals is so very fatisfactory, that I cannot but think it highly deferving of ferious attention; and, if I mistake not, the Archdeacon himself points out what is proba bly the right interpretation of them. Till now I never met with any thing fatisfactory on the fubject: and I forbore to treat of it in my own Differtation, both on that account, and because it has no connection with the 1260 days to the confideration of which I was peculiarly directing my attention. Hence I merely stated in a note, that I could not believe with Bp. Newton that the rider on the white horfe under the first feal could fymbolize the age of Vefpafian, because the homogeneity of the Apocalypse required us to fuppofe him the fame as the rider on the white horfe defcribed in the 19th chapter. But that rider is plainly the Mehab: whence I inferred with Mede, that the other rider must be the Meffiah likewise; and that his going forth conquering and to conquer denoted the rapid propagation of the Gospel in the pure apoftolical age. Yet, though I approved of Mede's interpretation of the first feal, I could not but fee his inconfiftency in referring the three riders in the three ucceeding feals to claffes of Roman emperors: for homogeneity, as the Archdeacon very juftly and forcibly argues, requires us to fuppofe that there must be fome degree of analogy, fome common bond of connection, between all the four riders and all the four horfes under the four firft feals. Bp. Newton avoids the inconfiftency of Mede, by interpreting the four riders to denote four fucceffive claffes of Roman emperors; but then he equally, though in a different manner, violates homogeneity by teaching us, that the rider on the white horfe in the 19th chapter is Chrift, but that the rider on the white horse of the firft jeal reprefents the age of Vefpafian. I entirely agree with the Archdeacon, that the 19th chapter must be our clue for interpreting the four firft jeals; and confequently, fince the first feal must relate to the fpiritual victories of Chrift in the apoftolical age, the three other feals must depict three fucceffive flates of the Church. Thefe four periods the Archdeacon does not attempt precifely to divide from each other, obferving both truly and beautifully that the progress of corruption was gradual, and that its tints melted into each other like the colours of the rainbow. The first period is that of primitive Chriftianity: the fecond is that of internal diffenfions leading to bloodfbed: the third is that of spiritual bondage and a dearth of religious knowledge: and the fourth is that of perfecution. The Archdeacon thinks, that the vengeful character of the fecond jeal is

* Rev. xv. 1. See Bp. Newton's very able Differt. on Rev. xv.

to be feen diftinctly in the fourth century, though its commencement may be fixed from the end of the fecond century: that the abuses of the third feal did not arrive at their height till the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth centuries, though their origin may be traced fo early as in the fecond century: and that the perfecution of the fourth, though it did not attain its utmost horror till the twelfth century, began in fome measure, under the influence of the fecond feal, with the reign of Conftantine, increased under that of Theodofius, and feems to have been in pofitive existence, at leaft fo far as edicts in favour of perfecution are concerned, under that of Honorius. The cry of the martyrs, described in the fifth feal, he supposes to be the cry of all those who have fuffered in the cause of Chrift, whether by the inftrumentality of pagans or papifts. And their cry is at length heard, and produces the opening of the fixth The Archfeal, which ushers in the awful day of general retribution.

deacon argues, and I think with much appearance of reason, that the rider of the third feal does not carry a pair of balances (as we read in our common tranflation), but a yoke, expreffive of that spiritual bondage, which commenced indeed in the fecond century, but was fully matured by the agents of Popery, and, agreeably to this expofition, he conceives the dearth to be, "not a famine of bread nor a thirst of water, but of hear. ing the words of the Lord."

Let us now fee, whether an interpretation of the feals cannot be given, founded upon the Archdeacon's own principle of homogeneity, and yet according with what I believe to be the right chronological arrangement of the Apocalypse.

I am not aware, that we are necessarily bound to fuppofe that each apocalyptic period terminates precifely when another commences. St. John indeed exprefsly tells us, that the first woe ceafes before the fecond begins, and that the fecond ceafes before the third begins: whence we must conclude, that the three periods of the three laft trumpets are not only fucceffive, but that each entirely expires before the commencement of another. Refpecting the duration of all the other periods he is totally filent : whence, although we are obliged to fuppofe them fucceffive in point of commencement, it is by no means equally clear that we are obliged to look upon one as terminated when another begins. As far as induction goes, we may rather infer the contrary: for it feems needlefs for the Apoftle fo carefully to inform us, that each woe terminates before its fucceffor commences, if fuch were likewife the cafe with every other apocalyptic period. We may conclude then, that the influence both of each feal and of each vial probably extends into the peculiar period of its fucceffor.

On thefe grounds, fuppofe we fay, with the Archdeacon, that the first feal reprefents the age of primitive chriflianity: that the fee nd reprefents that of fiery zeal without knowledge, commencing towards "the end of the fecond century when the western rulers of the Church, and the wife and moderate Irenèus, were feen to interpofe and exhort the furious bishop of Rome to cultivate Chriftian peace," and extending fo far as to inelude the fchifm of the Donatifts and the bitter fruits of the Arian controversy and that the third reprefents that of fpiritual bondage and religious dearth, which began like its predeceffor in the fecond century, but extends through all the worst periods of popery. Suppose we further

VOL. II.

56.

fay, flightly varying from the Archdeacon, that the fourth exhibits to us what may emphatically be termed the age of perfecution, not indeed of perfecution inflicted by the Church, but of perfecution fuffered by the Church. This may be conceived to commence about the year 302 or 304 with the dreadful and general perfecution of Diocletian. Other perfecutions indeed there had been before this; but none either of equal violence or of equal extent, none under which the Church could appear fo emphatically subject to the powers of death and hell, none under which the flaughter was fo great as to cause the fymbolical horfe to affume a hue pale and livid-green like that of a half putrid corpfe.* The confequences both of all the other perfecutions, and we may fuppofe peculiarly of the Diocletian one, are exhibited to us under the fifth feal. St. John beholds the fouls of the martyrs under the altar, and hears them crying with a loud voice for the juft vengeance of heaven against their perfecutors. Their prayer is heard, and is in a measure answered under the fixth feal; though it will not be completely answered until the great day of retribution, " until their fellow-fervants alfo, and their brethren, that should be killed as they were," in fubfequent days of popish bigotry, "should be fulfilled." The fixth feal is opened; and, at the very time when the affairs of the Church appear at the lowest ebb, the reign of perfecuting paganism is fuddenly brought to an end, and chriftianity is publicly embraced and fupported by Conftantine. This great revolution is portrayed indeed under images borrowed from the day of judgment: but, although the Archdeacon applies the fixth feal literally to the day of judgment itself, he is too fkilful a biblical critic not to know that the very images which it exhibits are repeatedly used by the ancient prophets and even by our Lord himself to defcribe the fates of empires. The reafon feems in fome measure at least to be this: the downfall of any falfe religion or of any antichriflian empire may be confidered as an apt type of the last day, when retribution will be fully dealt out to all the enemies of God.+

The firft feal then exhibits the Church of a spotlefs white colour, and under the influence of a heavenly rider. The fecond exhibits her of a red colour, and under the influence of a spirit of fiery zeal and internal dif. cord. The third exhibits her as changed to black, and beginning to be fubjected to a grievous yoke of will-worship and to experience the horror of a spiritual famine. The fourth exhibits her under the laft and moft

* "There were other perfecutions before, but this was by far the most confiderable, the tenth and laft general perfecution, which was begun by Diocletian, and continued by others, and lasted longer and extended farther and was sharper and more bloody than any or all preceding; and therefore this was particularly predicted. Eufebius and Lactantius, who were two eye-witneffes, have written large accounts of it. Orofius afferts, that this perfecution was longer and more cruel than all the paft; for it raged inceffantly for ten years by burning the churches, profcribing the innocent, and flaying the martyrs. Sulpicius Severus too deferibes it as the most bitter perfecution, which for ten years together depopulated the people of God; at which time all the world almost was stained with the facred blood of the martyrs, and was never more exhausted by any wars. So that this became a memorable era to the Christians, under the name of the era of Diocletian, or as it is otherwife called the era of martyrs." Ep. Newton's Differt. on Seal V.

† See Mede, Bp. Newton, and the Archdeacon.