Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

though it will be far more successful, and far more skilfully conducted. This future conqueror, when he shall have subdued Egypt, may invade and conquer the western tribes and nations of Africa, which border upon the southern coasts of the Mediterranean. Having succeeded in this enterprise, his ambition may next aspire to the subjugation of the southern nations, as far as Sennaar, or even of the kingdom of Abyssinia. The possibility (and there is no improbability in the idea) of such a series of campaigns against Egyptians, Libyans, and Ethiopians, coupled with the fact that, after the submission of these nations, the conqueror appears to be in no haste to return into Asia, makes it not difficult to believe that even forty-two months may elapse from the wilful king's first entrance into the glorious land to his return from Egypt, and his destruction in Palestine by special divine interposition.

I have said above that the prophets Daniel and Zechariah appear, in their predictions of the great tribulations and deliverance of the last days, to teach us plainly that Jerusalem, and at least the immediately surrounding territory, will be occupied by a Hebrew population. If this be granted, one or two important conclusions will follow.

6

It may, perhaps, be doubted if even the first of the vials will be poured out before the re-establishment of the literal descendants of Abraham in Jerusalem. We may, however, feel almost certain that the effusion of the seventh vial cannot occur until the Holy City shall again belong to the Hebrew race. Such a state of things, so far as we can at present see, cannot be brought about merely by the exertions of the Jews themselves; they will require that some of the great European Powers should mediate between them and the Turkish Sultan, should the latter still continue to be the lord of Palestine. It is, indeed, thoroughly possible that such a political arrangement may have been made, and carried into execution before the year 1864-the year in which a recently deceased writer on prophecy supposed that, almost beyond reasonable doubt, The Time of the End, synchronising with the Seventh Apocalyptic Vial, is to commence.' Yet, when we look at the present state of Europe, and of the Asiatic dominions of the Turkish Sultan, it does not seem probable that the important political arrangement of which we are speaking, will be fully accomplished, even so early as 1866 a. D. And the more unlikely this appears to us, the more shall we be disinclined to agree with the theory, that the (supposed) 1260 years of the apocalyptic visions commenced either in 604 or 606 a. d. They who shall be living in the years 1864, and 1866, will, in the investigation of prophecy, stand upon a vantage-ground which we do not yet possess, but towards which we are fast approaching. And, perhaps, even so

early as 1860, facts may be of such a nature, as to constrain students of the prophetic Scriptures to renounce either 604 or 606 A. D., as the commencement of any apocalyptic period; and the literal interpretation of the 42 months and 1260 days may then be generally, if not universally, received.

It must be confessed that there may be danger in endeavouring to conjecture, from the actual state of the Russo-Turkish contest, what will be its final issue; yet the writer hopes to be forgiven for calling the reader's attention to this point. In the preface to the learned Mr. Faber's tract on the predicted downfall of the Turkish power,' the lamented author thus writes-With our best commentators, I consider the downfall of the Ottoman power to be clearly predicted in Scripture. Hence, whenever the destined time shall arrive, all the complications of modern political diplomacy will be found totally unable to prevent the ruin of that once formidable empire.' It would seem, from this passage, that Mr. F. considered it to be highly probable that the combined fleets and armies of Britain and France would not succeed in preventing Russia from crushing Turkey in the present conflict. Yet, there appears to be very great probability that the Turkish empire is destined, in the divine purpose, to continue a little longer. And while it is, therefore, not unlikely, that Daniel's predicted king of the south may be a Sultan of Turkey, and his king of the north a sovereign of Russia, passing events are also making it apparently possible that the same prophet's wilful king may prove to be a monarch of France.s

* France has already obtained possession of Algiers, and an ambitious French sovereign may yet arise, like the first Napoleon, who may seek to make the Mediterranean 'a French lake.' And, should Turkey again become a formidable power, circumstances may arise to bring about a collision, first with Turkey, and next with Russia. Daniel's wilful king is a warrior who leads his army in person: this consideration alone renders it very improbable that, if a French sovereign is to be the wilful king, the present French emperor is that king, and therefore so far less likely that the seventh angel will sound as early as 1864. The following considerations induced the writer for some time to think that the predicted wilful king would prove to be a sovereign of Russia. If we read, without reference to Dan. xi. 43, the predictions of Ezekiel (xxxviii. 5), that 'Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya (Phut) are to follow together under the banners of the fierce leader who is to perish on the mountains of Israel, we find it difficult to understand how the Ethiopians and Libyans of Southern and Western Africa are to serve with the Persians against Jerusalem. If, however, we suppose that Daniel and Ezekiel (contemporary prophets) are speaking of the same conqueror, the difficulty seems to be removed. For the Gentile chief may advance from the north, with Persians in his army (there is nothing very improbable in the thought that, at the time of the end, the future Russian autocrat may have become master of portions of Persia), against Palestine. He then subdues Egypt, and thus, on his return to Jerusalem, he will have under his command soldiers from Persia, Libya (Phut), and Ethiopia. The two prophets, Daniel and Ezekiel, would have been prepared, by their knowledge of the victorious career of the Scythians, who defeated Cyaxares, and were prevailed upon by the gifts and prayers of Psammiticus not to invade Egypt, to understand how a fierce chief might come from some country

Let me be permitted to allude reverently to a far more solemn and awful subject. On the supposition that those students of prophecy, who expect the premillennial advent of the Lord Jesus, have scriptural warrant for such an expectation, this great and glorious event is not, surely, to take place until the wilful king shall have returned from Egypt into Palestine, and planted his tents between the seas on the glorious Holy Mountain.' May it not, therefore, be considered certain that the prophetic scriptures teach us that two events, at least, are yet to intervene between us and the glorious advent of the King Messiah; viz.-the re-establishment of a Hebrew population in Jerusalem and its immediately surrounding territory, and the subsequent expedition into the glorious land and Egypt, of the wilful king, together with his hurried return into Palestine. If it be objected-how with such a conviction, can we comply with our Lord's command, 'watch, therefore, for ye know not at what hour your Lord doth come?' this objection may be met, to a certain extent, by another question. Our Lord said to Peter, when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee, whither thou wouldest not.' We cannot doubt that at the moment, Peter understood our Lord's words in the sense in which the beloved Disciple and Apostle afterwards explained them-This spake Jesus, signifying by what death Peter should glorify God.' May we not ask, how could Peter, after having been thus taught by Jesus, watch (in the strict sense of the term) in uncertainty as to the nearness either of his Master's advent, or even of his own death? But this is not the place for the discussion of this interesting question.

[ocr errors]

In conclusion, I would once more direct the reader's serious

remote from Assyria and Media, and conquer Egypt in the last days, and then perish upon the mountains of Israel.

[ocr errors]

In Ezekiel, the words (rendered in our version 'Gog the chief prince') occur three times, viz. xxxviii. 2 and 3, and xxxix. 1. In the Septuagint the Hebrew word (W) for chief' is rendered as a proper name by Pas; and therefore, if this version be correct, we should read, 'Gog, prince of Ros, Meshech, and Tubal.' Gesenius, in his larger lexicon, explains (N) in these three passages as a proper name of a northern nation, mentioned with Meshech and Tubal; undoubtedly the Russians, who are mentioned by Byzantine writers of the tenth century under the name of oi Pas, dwelling to the north of Tamur.' Some have compared Meshech and Tubal with Moscow (Muscovy) and Tobolsk.

In Ezek. xxvii. 10 it is said of Tyre, 'They of Persia, and of Lud, and of Phut (Libya) were in thine army.' It was not difficult for the ancient Tyrians to procure Libyan mercenaries through their Carthaginian colonists.

6

It is plain also from Luke xxi. that, between the ascension and the second advent of Jesus, Jerusalem was to be encompassed by armies, and the Jews led captive into all nations, and the city be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.'

attention to the language of the oath" of the mighty angel, viz. 'that there should be no more delay; but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he should sound, the mystery of God should be finished.' The greater part of what has been advanced in this essay falls to the ground, if the following be the legitimate and correct interpretation of the angel's oath-The time is not yet come, that the mystery of God should be finished. Almost thirteen centuries are yet to elapse before the arrival of that period. Nevertheless, long as is the delay, God is faithful. The voice of the seventh angel will assuredly sound, at the appointed, though far distant, time. Then the wicked shall be cast down, and the kingdom of God be established over the earth.' If, however, as the writer thinks, a directly opposite interpretation should be given to the oath in question; then, if we grant that the events of the 11th and following chapters are (in the chronology of the vision) subsequent to that oath, it would seem of necessity to follow that the forty-two months of the Holy City's oppression by the Gentiles, are to be understood of literal months, and the Holy City of the literal Jerusalem. The Apostle also may thus be considered as speaking literally of Gentiles, as opposed to Jews; and his words as implying, that, at the commencement of the brief period of 42 months, the Holy City (Jerusalem) is to be inhabited chiefly by a Hebrew population. In this view, it also becomes probable that forty-two literal months are the measure of the period which elapses from the entrance of the wilful king into the glorious land (Dan. xi. 41) and his fearful sack of Jerusalem (Zech. xiv. 1-2), to his return into Palestine, to be there finally crushed by the Lord.

G.

"Bloomfield remarks on this passage—I cannot but entirely agree with Professor Scholefield, that neither the common translation, nor another which has been proposed, gives a satisfactory sense, and that the words ought to be rendered, “that there should be no more delay;" the scope of the passage being that, without any further delay, upon the sounding of the seventh_angel “ the mystery of God should be finished." It may perhaps be the meaning of Dr. Bloomfield's words, that after the sounding of the seventh angel there shall be no delay. The writer, however, thinks that the language of the oath signifies that thenceforward nothing that deserves the name of delay is to occur, and that little more than forty-two months will elapse before the voice of the seventh angel shall sound.

INSPIRATION AND INFALLIBILITY.

IN one of the Nos. of the Journal for last year appeared proposals from some foreign committee for a Prize Essay on the following subjects:

I. Have we grounds for regarding the books of the New Testament as inspired, in the sense which involves the infallibility of the writers, and does inspiration imply infallibility?

II. What does history teach both regarding the doctrine of the inspiration of the New Testament, and the modifications which have been made in that doctrine, and what inferences touching the essence and importance of that doctrine may be thence deduced?

III. Does Christian faith stand in indissoluble connection with the belief of the infallibility of the Apostles; or have we other and sufficient proofs of the authority of the New Testament on which that faith is safely grounded?

These proposals reached us too late to allow of our preparing any thing by way of competition even had we been so inclined; but we could not help thinking the proposed discussion seasonable, and that the first and last inquiries especially were among the most pressing of the age. Opinion in this country seems now to be oscillating between the rigid theory of Gaussen and others, and the lax notions of German divines; and it would doubtless be most acceptable to thousands, if some hypothesis could be struck out, which, without blinking any evidence on either side of the question, should reconcile the demands of reason and of faith.

It is from no English prejudice, or disposition to be captious, that we pause for one moment to call attention to the very loose wording of the third query. One instance of this is the writer's mention, without explanation, of the authority of the New Testament.' Now this might mean no more than the New Testament's authenticity; but the scope of the queries seems to forbid our lowering the phrase to this level. Probably the writer was thinking of the authority which attaches to an absolutely binding rule, and authority would be thus, in a practical aspect, what infallibility is in a theoretical. Again, we desiderate more light on the idea which the writer wished to convey of the nature of Christian faith,' which he distinguishes from a belief in the infallibility of the Apostles.' His mention of the Apostles, however, when viewed in connection with his first query, is the most glaring proof of inexactness of all. No doubt he uses the word 'Apostles' as a synonym for the writers of the books of the New Testament (1-2);

« ForrigeFortsett »