REMARKS

ON THE COMMON INTERPRETATION

OF THE

SEVEN HEADS OF THE BEAST.

"The seven heads are seven mountains on which the 66 woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five "are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet -Rev. xvii. 9, 10.

"come.

I was led to make the following remarks on the heads of the beast by the fifth argument of Mede; but I have thrown them into a separate form, because they would have interrupted the course of my reply to that writer's proofs, to which indeed they have no particular application. Whether the sixth head had fallen more than a century ago, is a point which I venture not to decide, when I see such persons as Mr. Mede and Mr. Faber diametrically opposed; but the more I have considered the interpretation which finds in the seven heads of the beast, just seven forms of Roman government, the more I have been dissatisfied with it; and the

grounds of my dissatisfaction I wish to submit to the public. I am induced to do this, because I am convinced that many readers, and some writers, have no idea of the difficulties which exist on points that are very often slightly and cursorily passed over; and which are treated as if they might be taken for granted. I would premise, however, that I object to the common interpretation simply on the ground that it is in itself unsatisfactory; and that I am not trying to get rid of it in order to maintain any scheme of my own; for though I feel very confident that the seven heads are not seven forms of Roman government, as they have hitherto been enumerated, yet I am altogether unable to say what they are. I cannot, however, think that, in such a case, it is our duty to let what is bad stand untouched, until we are prepared to set up something better. The first duty is to pull down what is unsound; and it is better to let the foundation which God has laid lie bare and level with the ground, until, in answer to our prayers and our labours, he shall enable us to build up something solid and substantial, than to heap up hay and stubble, in order that we may seem to have done something. If the current interpretation of the seven heads is well founded, whatever I may say will not much shake it if it is not, the sooner it is disbelieved the better; in

order that we may not be prevented from searching for the truth, or led to reject it, from a mistaken idea that we possess it already.

ઃઃ

Let us, then, see what is the current exposition. Mr. Frere, speaking of the seven heads, says, "the first six of these are, on the most "satisfactory historical evidence, universally ad"mitted to have been Kings, Consuls, Dicta"tors Decemvirs, Military Tribunes, and Emperors." I cannot help wishing that, on points which almost preclude the possibility of certain knowledge, writers would use more measured language. I do not believe that Mr. Frere meant to say what was false; but certainly he stated what it is scarcely possible that he should know to be true. I think I have a list of nearly three hundred works on Daniel and the Revelation, and for any thing that I (or, perhaps, Mr. Frere) can tell, there may be three hundred more; and it would surprise me almost as much to find that Mr. Frere had read them all, as it would to learn that they were unanimous on any one point relating to the

1260 years. I say this with no wish to censure

Mr. Frere; but because I see that one expositor after another copies these broad, unqualified, assertions, without examination; and thus error acquires the stability, from having assumed the

confidence, of truth. I have considerable doubt whether it can be fairly said of any interpretation of any symbol in Daniel or the Apocalypse, that it is universally admitted; certainly it cannot be said of this one.'

I shall not therefore have to bear the charge of disputing what is universally admitted, if I proceed to enquire, how far this opinion is well grounded. Whether the "historical evidence which may be adduced is "most satisfactory," the reader will judge; for my own part, I believe that the interpretation rests on no historical evidence at all; but was merely adopted, at first, to meet the exigency of the case; and to answer this question, "If the Beast is the Roman Empire, what can the seven heads be?"

I have already professed my inability to answer this question; but I must say that the current answer is to me most unsatisfactory; whether it will appear so to the reader, does, I apprehend, depend very much upon the light in which he considers it. If he views it as an exposition of the word of God, and simply confers the facts of history, with the statement of the Revelation, he will, I think, be altogether dis

r

How many expositors may have opposed this interpretation I cannot pretend to say; but I am sure that I might add more names to those of Bullinger, Junius, Langius, Michaelis, Herder, Cocceius, Vitringa, Storr, Eichorn, Grotius, Hammond, Hardy, and Whiston.