the dominion of the beast of the thirteenth chapter, was to be extended over all the nations which had been subject to any of these four monarchies; over the castern, as well as the western world. But this extent of dominion is not assigned to the beast who bears the harlot. His rule seems to be confined to the fourth monarchy; to the Roman empire, and to those ten kings or kingdoms into which that empire has been divided; those ten tocs, with which the kingdom, described by Daniel, ended; and upon which it is to receive the blow of the stone. These are the western and European kingdoms; even to the exclusion of ancient Greece, modern Turkey, of that part of the Macedonian monarchy which was seated in Europe. So, after the destruction of the fourth beast of Daniel, it is said, that the dominion of the three first is removed or chan

"As the four kingdoms of Daniel, considered in succession to "each other, form a prophetic chronology; (Mede, p. 712.) so in an"other view they form a prophetic geography, being considered in the eye of prophecy as co-existent, as still alive and subsisting together, when the dominion of all but the last was taken away. In con

66

66

sequence of this idea, which Daniel gives us of his four kingdoms, "so much only is to be reckoned into the description of each king"dom, as is peculiar to each; the remainder being part of some "other kingdom, still supposed to be in being, to which it properly "belongs. Thus the second, or Persian, kingdom does not take in "the nations of Chaldæa and Assyria, which made the body of the "first kingdom; nor the third, or Græcian kingdom, the countries of "Media and Persia, being the body of the second. In like manner,

"the fourth, or Roman, kingdom does not, in the contemplation of "the Prophet, comprehend those provinces, which made the body of "the third or Grecian kingdom, but such only as constitute its own body, that is, the provinces on this side of Greece." Bp. Hurd's Sermons on Prophecy, p. 348. See also Sir Isaac Newton on Daniel, ch. iv. p. 31, 32.

ged,

ged, but that length of life is permitted to them for a season. Upon this change, the empire devolved to the fourth, or Roman, monarchy; which, in process of time, with its triumphant harlot and ten kings, is to give place to the reign of Christ. But the three other monarchies remain for a time. Though they lose their power, they remain, as we see them at this day, beastly, marked with ignorance, superstition, tyranny, cruelty, and injustice, until the stroke of the stone having first broken the legs of Daniel's image, of the Roman or fourth beast, the other parts of the image will also fall; and the stone, or fifth kingdom, the kingdom of the Messiah, shall fill the whole earth.

The beast, therefore, carrying the harlot, seems in most points like the former beast of the xiiith chapter, but not in the extent of his dominion. That of the former beast comprehended the eastern, and now Mahometan, provinces, of the four great monarchies; while the latter is confined to the western kingdoms only. He is indeed the same beast ;-but when carrying the harlot, he is exhibited only in reference to one of the horns of Antichrist, that horn which the harlot will be found to represent. The eastern or Mahometan horn, and consequently the eastern or Mahometan world, does not enter into this description.

There is another peculiarity in the beast carrying the harlot, which was not seen in the beast of the thirteenth chapter;-he is of a scarlet colour. He seems to have obtained this tinge, by his connection with his scarlet mistress. This was not noted before, and there are some other minute marks of description, attributed only to the beast of the xviith chap

* Dan. vii. 12.

ter,

ter, which belong to him peculiarly when he carries the harlot, as a branch and horn of Antichrist; and which could not so justly be ascribed to him in the xiiith chapter, where the representation would be such as to agree with the extension of the four monarchies; the eastern as well as the western horn. These shall be considered in their place: but, first in order, let us attend to that ænigmatical description of the beast, by which it is said that, "he was, and (yet is present*. "is not, although he is." The form of speech is highly ænigmatical. He hath existed; doth not exist;

There are, I believe, but two passages in the text of the Apocalypse, in which I have not submitted to the authority of Griesbach, and adopted his readings. I do not possess the Biblical knowledge and means of consulting authorities which may give me a right to contend such points. But in the passage now before us, I have been inclined to preserve the commonly received text, amig is, as appear. ing to contain an appropriate meaning, which I in vain look for in

και πάξεσιν

the reading preferred by Griesbach. The three readings are giv

και πάξεται

as written in ancient MSS., would have a near resemblance to each other: but if any change has been made by transcribers, it is more likely that the difficult and ænigmatical expression has been rejected by them for the more easy and plain one, than that the easy and plain expression should be changed for the difficult and ænigmatical. But whatever might be the practice of transcribers, we must in such difficulties pursue a canon of criticism, laid down by the best critics; and especially in respect to the readings of the Apocalypse. It is among the rules adopted by Griesbach himself; "Preferatur lectio "brevior, obscurior, durior, sensum paradoxum, ant apparenter fal"sum fundens," &c. (Pref. ad Nov. Test.) Irenæus, who informs us that he possessed, in his times (so near to the publication of the Apocalypse) the σπεδαια και αρχαια αντιγραφα, seems to have followed this reading; or, in describing this beast, he would not have used the expression, which appears in the Latin translation, "quasi qui "non sit." Iren. lib. v. c. 35.

yet

yet doth exist. These two last terms in their literal acceptation are in direct contradiction to each other; and therefore, literally taken, cannot be true. Yet many passages of Scripture have this character, and yet are found to contain true and important doctrine. Thus, a good Christian is said to be dead, though he liveth *. His life is hid with Christ in God †. This expression, literally interpreted, cannot be true: but if one of the terms be taken in its spiritual sense, the meaning becomes plain, and most important. The life of the beast is thus figuratively dead; his life is hid, he is not seen and acknowledged by the world as being alive; although in fact he lives and rules with the same tyrannical oppression as before. In the description of the beast in the xiiith chapter, there is a similar ænigmatical representation, which, as it seems. to allude to the same history, may be usefully compared §.

The fourth beast of Daniel, the Roman tyranny, by the ecclesiastical revolution under Constantine, appeared to be deprived of his savage ferocity; to have no more existence as a wild-beast, as the oppressor of true Religion. He seemed then to have received his deadly wound: "He was, and is not:"-but "his deadly wound was healed ." Though "he was, "and is not, yet he is ¶." Unobserved to be the same beast, the same persecuting, oppressive power, he re-ascends from the great abyss, the same in the Spirit, even as Joan Baptist was said to be Elijah, and

Thus also in Saint John's writings, i uv, àλa' ux i§ huwv. 1 John ii. 19.

See them exhibited in comparison, in note, ch. xiii. 3.

Christ to be David; because they came in the same "power," and fulfilled the offices assigned by prophecy to their respective prototypes. By the scarlet splendour of the harlot, who is seated upon the beast and directs his steps, he is so covered and disguised ; by her abominable cup the kings and nations of the earth, who should oppose his reign, are so intoxicated; that he is suffered to come up unknown, unacknowledged; and, directed and abetted by the harlot, to exercise all his former oppression. He is the same, though he does not appear such: "He was, and is "not, though he is." Yet, the admiration and worship with which the beast is honoured in this his disguise, though general, is not universal. The sealed Christians, whose names are written in the book of Life, though few in number, are awake to their duty; discover the deceit; reject the cup of the har

✦ These words of the angel, describing the beast, "He was, and is not," &c. appear to me in no wise applicable to the tyranny seated at Rome at the time of the vision, when the angel spake them. This was the time of the Emperor Domitian, when a cruel persecution raged against the Church, when Saint John himself was actually suffering banishment in Patmos, " for the word of God and the testi"mony of Jesus." Such a time can in no wise agree with the representation, that the beast "was, and is not." It is therefore probable that the time in which the beast is said to have been, and not to be, &c., is the time when he ariseth again after his wound, to exercise dominion under the direction of the barlot. This time was not arrived when Saint John saw the vision in Patmos: but though future in this sense, it was present in another, as belonging to the vision then under exhibition: for, the beast was then present in exhibition before Saint John, and in the act of re-ascending to power. This will appear more probable to those who read forward from this passage to the end of the 8th verse, where the admiration of the inhabitants of the earth is spoken of as future; and yet this admiration is fixed upon the same object, the beast which was, and is not, &c.

in