richs' only assigned reason for their non-identity is sufficient to establish it-viz., the difference of place ascribed to the one and the other quaternion.5 Were Virgil's four deities of the winds that are described at one time as confined in Æolus' cave different from the four described elsewhere as blowing each from his quarter on the troubled ocean? A figure this not very dissimilar from what we find used in the poetic language of Holy Scripture.6 Mr. Arnold, himself, adds another reason, founded on the circumstance of the four augels of the Sixth Trumpet being said to be bound and loosed: a figure only applicable, he conceives, to evil angels; and consequently not applicable to the four angels of Apoc. vii., whom he presumes I will admit to have been good angels. But, indeed, I can see no reason, on either supposition as to the nature of the four angels of Apoc. vii., for admitting the validity of his argument. That a divine temporary restraint was imposed on these four selfsame angels of Apoc. vii., is, on the very first mention of them, expressly stated; and if a restraint temporary and short, why might not one be imposed of longer duration? In which case, even supposing them to be good angels, wherefore not designate that restraint under the figurative phrase of being bound, when the figure and phrase is applied at times to the constraint put upon God's servants among men, by his spirit and his law ?8 Moreover, what the necessity of regarding these angels as good angels? The task primarily assigned them of desolating the earth with tempests (such tempests and desolations as we find symbolized almost immediately afterwards in the First Trumpet) was very much the same as that assigned to the inflictors of some of the judgments on Job; and again, on ancient Egypt before Israel's Exodus: which latter, as well as former, (if we understand the passage literally) the sacred writer asscribes to the acting of evil angels. Let me add, that in my view of the identity of the four angels of the Sixth Trumpet with the four angels charged with the tempests in Apoc. vii., I was but following, though at the time quite unconsciously, the earliest patristic expositors of the Apocalypse. It is the view given by Victorinus, the venerable bishop and martyr under Diocletian; and, after him, by both Primasius and Ambrosius Aubertus:10 the ancient gloss on Apoc. ix. 14, of Teσσepas ανεμος, instead of τεσσερας αγγελος, mentioned by Griesbach, as extant 5 "I reminded him of Heinrichs' caution against confounding the two quaternions of angels, quoting both the caution and the reasons on which the propriety of it is founded: Suat illæ (qu. illi?) naturæ bonæ, hæ (qu. hi?) malignæ; illis que locus prorsus diversus à nostro assignatur."-British Magazine, p. 422. 6 Compare Prov. xxx. 4. and Ps. cxxxv. 7. Apoc. vii. 2, 3. Compare Acts, xx. 22: "Behold I go bound (dedeμɛvoc) in (or by) the Spirit unto Jerusalem;" and Rom. vii. 2: "The wife is bound (dederai) by the law to her husband so long as he liveth;" also 1 Cor. vii. 27, 39, to the same effect. The first passage is, however, by many construed as meaning, constrained in his own spirit. See Job, i., and Ps. lxxviii. 49: “He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, &c., by sending evil angels (Sept. ayyɛλëç πovnρeç) among them." Which adjective, however, some learned expositors prefer to understand, of the evil caused by them, rather than of their own evil nature. 10 I have noticed this in the first and third sections of my Sketch of the History of Apocalyptic Interpretation, in a certain codex of the middle age, being the memorial probably of this ancient impression on the minds of some of the early fathers. As to the particular place of restraint ascribed to the four angels of the Sixth Trumpet, Mr. Arnold is aware that I cite in the Hore the case of the plague inflicted on Israel by angelic agency, after David's numbering of the people, in proof that where the plague is stayed there in Scriptural phrase the angelic agency inflicting it may be said to be stayed: inferring, consequently, that if the four angels of Apoc. vii. were the agencies employed generally in the judgments of the Trumpets, then the place figured at the Sixth Trumpet-blast as that where the angels had been last stopped and remained bound, ought to be the place where the preceding, or Fifth Trumpet-plague, might have been stayed and bound. That which is the very case, in my view of the prophecy. And certainly the coincidence on this point, between the Apocalyptic expression and historic fact, and the circumstance that, whereas the former says, "Loose the four angels that are bound by the great River Euphrates," the latter states that it was at Bagdad by the Euphrates that the Saracenic woe was stayed and bound, and yet further, that it was from this same Bagdad by the Euphrates that the new Turkish woe was, as it were, commissioned and let loose on Christendom,—I say this double coincidence does seem to me to be very remarkable; and in itself no trifling evidence in favour of the correctness, both of Victorinus' view of the identity of the two quaternions of angels that have been spoken of, and of Mede's and my own view as to the Saracenic woe being that which they were destined to inflict under the Fifth Trumpet, and the Turkish under the Sixth. 2. The second subject of Mr. Arnold's criticism is my explanation of the Owpakas of the horsemen in the vision, and the colours of red, yellow, and blue, ascribed to them; which I expound, after Daubeny and others, of those selfsame colours that have always, even down to modern times, been so striking and so picturesque, in the Turkish array. And I must confess it much surprises me that my critic should have objected to this, as if aliene from the genius and habits of "inspired Hebrew poetry;" indeed so aliene as absolutely to give him pain, and make him break into tones of lament and sadness at the thing being even mooted for discussion:12 when he had seen in the Hora a direct reference both to Ezekiel's description of Aholah's Assyrian lovers," horsemen riding up on horses clothed with blue, captains and rulers,"13 in illustration of its being the habit of inspired Hebrew poetry to sketch such things in its living pictures; and moreover, to the later Apocalyptic sketch of the woman impersonating Rome, who was depicted, whether after the imperial or the papal living type, as clothed with purple and scarlet.14 "But who," adds Mr. Arnold, "would call a breastplate with a scarlet mantle thrown over it, a scarlet breastplate"? And who, he might as fitly have asked, would 11 2 Sam. xxiv. 15, 16, &c.; 1 Chron. xxi. 15, 16, &c. 12" It is indeed sad work to discuss this Turks' dresses question, in reference to inspired Hebrew poetry......This literal fulfilment......is set down, alas! in our national family Bible."-British Magazine, p. 423. 13 Ezek. xxiii. 6. 14 Apoc. xvii. 4, call tyrants with purple thrown over them purple tyrants? Which latter question would, however, have been stopped ere uttered, by his recollections of classic poetry,15 But indeed it seems to me very possible that these selfsame covering mantles of the Turkish horsemen may have been themselves the Owpakɛs meant in the Apocalyptic vision; for in St. John's own time we find the word thus used by the best writers, for the vestments covering the thorax.16 Such are the objections by which Mr. Arnold considers himself to have "exposed in all its inconsistency and absurdity," the solution of the above-mentioned particular in the vision given, after many other expositors, by myself, and, as he adds, "by our national family Bible;" meaning, I presume, that published by the Christian Knowledge Society. Has he succeeded, let me ask, in proving it to be in any measure, either inconsistent or absurd ? Next comes up for his criticism and his objections, my explanation of the fire, smoke, and sulphur, that seemed to issue from the horses' mouths in the vision; which I expound, after Mede and other interpreters, to be symbolic of the artillery to which, as a principal instrumentality, both modern and earlier historians refer the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, and consequent destruction of the Greek empire. "And the heads of horses were as the heads of lions, and out of their mouths issued fire, and smoke, and sulphur. By these three was the third part of the men killed; by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the sulphur, which issued out of their mouths." On this, observes Mr. Arnold, "We have here three destructive agencies, emphatically distinguished as separate agencies. It is first stated generally that the third of men was destroyed by these three; and then, to prevent, as it were, a mistake, the three are again separately enumerated, each with its own article, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone." Mr. Arnold is anxious, as we have seen, that the Apocalyptic language should be regarded and explained as "inspired Hebrew poetry." And I therefore cannot act more in accordance with his wishes and his judgment than by referring, on the point here mooted by him, to the use of similar constructions of language in the writings of the Old Testament. Take, then, the example in Levit. xiv. 52. I read there: "And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and with hyssop, and with the scarlet."'17 According to the rule laid down by my critic against me, all these ought to be separate and distinct agencies of purification. But what, in fact, was the case? That the blood of the bird killed was to be received in, and mixed with, the running water, and then the cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet, together dipped in it, and the mingled blood and water sprinkled by them on the house; all uniting together to Is "Purpurei metuunt tyranni."-Horace. 16 So, for example, Juvenal, in his Sat. v. 143, "Viridem thoraca jubebit Adferri." Also Suetonius, in Aug. 82: "Hieme quaternis cùm pingui togâ tanicis, et subuculâ, et thorace laneo;" of Augustus' winter clothing. In my pamphlet of reply, I mentioned, the Avec Oopηkaç in Herodotus. 17 The article will be found in the Hebrew as in the English. constitute one single act of purification. Take another example from Gen. xix. 24; which I adduce, though otherwise less appropriate than the former one, because two of the selfsame instrumentalities of destruction are specified, as in the case under discussion. "Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and on Gomorrah brimstone (or sulphur) and fire from the Lord out of heaven; and he overthrew those cities, &c." Was the fire here spoken of one agency of destruction, the sulphur another; the first altogether separate and distinct from the second? By no means. "Quum duo nomina substantiva, vel synonyma vel diversæ significationis, conjungantur, eorum alterum vicem adjectivi cum emphasi sustinet: ut hic, ، Et pluit sulphur et ignem ;' id est, ignem sulphureum." So Robertson, in his Clavis Pentateuchi, ad loc.; and I observe that Rosenmüller compares Gen. iii. 16, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;" in the sense of thy sorrow in, or as connected with, thy conception. Mr. Arnold advances yet another argument against my solution-viz., that it is "the balls of lead propelled by means of an explosive power, of which brimstone is indeed one ingredient," that are the real instruments of destruction in the modern artillery; while " the fire and smoke, by which the explosion is accompanied, are both perfectly innocuous." But are they indeed, if considered causally, innocuous ? It is curious to contrast Chalcondylas' notice of the invention of gunpowder and cannon, and of the Othman Turks' use of them against his country and people, with this statement of Mr. Arnold's: "Omnis potentia in ignem, ut causam, referenda est."18 And on the question, whether an intermediate causal agency may not properly have the final effect predicted of it, let us refer again to examples in the Hebrew Scriptures for information. We there read David's prayer, Ps. li.: "Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean." Was, then, the hyssop by itself in any wise of purifying efficacy? Its only efficacy consisted in applying the blood of purification. Again, to cite another example, we read in Daniel, ix. 27, of the abomination making desolate; and by our Lord's own comment on the phrase, 19 we are led to explain it of the idol-standards that accompanied the Roman army which besieged and destroyed Jerusalem. Were these standards, then, the actual instruments of Jerusalem's destruction ? They were but, we know, that destroying army's innocuous, though significant and necessary accompaniment.20 As to the propriety of the Apocalyptic symbol, in depicting the fire, smoke, and sulphur, as issuing from the horses' mouths, if intended to figure, so as I construe it, the fire, smoke, and sulphur literally combined in the discharges from the Turkish artillery against Greek Christendom, it may, perhaps, be well to suggest in illustration that well-known and awful passage in Isaiah, xxx. 27, 33, where, with reference to the fire and sulphur literally destined to be employed in the final judgment on this our earth, (for, I suppose, it will be allowed 18 I borrow from the Latin translation, which, in the edition I have seen, is published separately. 19 Compare Matt. xxiv. 15, and Luke, xxi. 20. 20 I need hardly suggest the frequency of a similar mode of parlance in classie authors, both ancient and modern. that there is this reference,) they are depicted by an anthropopathic figure, as proceeding from the Almighty's mouth, and kindled by his breath.21 I have now gone through Mr. Arnold's objections on this head; objections, on the strength of which he is pleased to designate this particular, also, of my solution, as "not only very unsatisfactory, but absolutely absurd:" and my appeal is, as before, to the intelligent and candid reader, whether Mr. Arnold has been successful in proving its absurdity at all. I must not pass on without adding, that he has here further favoured us with a detached fragment and specimen of his own counter view of the Apocalyptic symbol; a favour the more to be prized as it is so rare. "The smoke," he remarks, "as itself one of the Tρ Anyaι, must be a thick pestilential vapour emitted by the avenging monsters." But must, as I have had occasion to observe before more than once in this controversy, is a word often used somewhat rashly and inconsiderately by Mr. Arnold. Will he have the goodness to mention where in sacred Scripture the word kavos, or its Hebrew equivalent, is used per se to signify a destructive pestilential vapour. Even the example from Ovid, (and how, with his sensitiveness about treating the Apocalypse otherwise than as inspired Hebrew poetry, could he resort to such an illustration?) even this example of the brazen-footed bulls of Colchos seems ill to support him; as it was not from anything pestilential in the bulls' breath, but from the heat of the fiery blast, that the surrounding herbage is fabled to have been dried up and withered.22 Moreover, by the exegetic law that he has laid down for himself and others, he is bound to explain the sulphur, as well as the smoke and fire, as separately and by itself a distinct agency of destruction. But how such an acting of the pure sulphur, whether explained literally or figuratively? I cannot but think that, if he will be so good as to favour us with his explanation of this particular of the symbol, and also of the "avenging monsters" themselves, of whose description it constitutes a part, Mr. Arnold will find that he has involved himself in difficulties, of which the solution will not be easy.23 4. We now come to the horse-tails. "For the horses' power is in their mouth and in their tails:24 for their tales were like unto serpents, having heads; and with these adikso, they do injury or injustice." 21 "Behold, the name of the Lord cometh from far, burning with his anger: his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue as a devouring fire......For Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared; the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it." I presume Mr. Arnold will not differ from me in supposing an ultimate reference to the great conflagration and judgment. Compare, too, Ps. xviii. 9: "There went out a smoke in his presence, and a consuming fire out of his mouth." 22 44 Tactæque vaporibus herbæ Arent." 23 Mr. Arnold says, that "my solution contains no explanation of the agreement between the fire, smoke, and brimstone, and the OwρaKaç πVρIVEÇ Varivdıç (= nigricantes or ferrugineos), Oɛdetc." He has overlooked my remark in the Horæ (vol. i. p. 476, 2nd Ed.) that these adjectives significative of colour seem to have been chosen with reference to the πυρ, καπιος and θείον, so prominent in the symbol, as symbols were frequently borrowed from anything remarkable in the living type. 24 So the MSS. of best authority. |